My Experience with Lockes

[Demelza]

Date: 10/21/2006 1:20:23 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
No, they told Sunkist at the time she had the discussion with them on setting her diamond that they wanted to move toward only setting their own stones in their signature setting (as does Tiffany) and for the time being they''d set stones that were a certain color or above.

I asked my original sales rep (not Maria) about this back in August and she said it''s not true that they''re moving towards only setting their own stones, only that they want to maintain a certain level of quality and stick with setting stones above an H. I guess you get a different story depending on who you ask.

 

[genette]

The email Perri sent me this week was in response to an email I sent to Maria prior to knowing of her departure. In it Perri said that they would be happy to set my stone in a setting other than their Signature Setting because now they are only setting their in house diamonds. In the email she was pushing me towards other setting options and mentioned taking a look at the ones they have on their website. Perri also suggested that they can do custom designs also. Perri was really making an effort to steer me away from the Signature Setting. Its okay though because I am getting it done elsewhere. I am looking at seeing if either Maytal Hoftman or Mark Morrell can do the setting. Originally I was contacting Maytal about it and then I remembered that Mark also does some nice work too. So, I contacted Mark and they have all my info and I''m just waiting for a quote first. I''m so glad in reading this post about Lockes. I am so weary of their quality and how the ring would hold up in the long run. I would be sketchy on any company that can''t stick to one policy and have different managers giving out bogus info. How are consumers supposed to know what the real deal is. Bottom line people Lockes is not the only one who can do this setting. I''ll let you all know how it goes.

 

[VINA]

Sorry to hear about your experience with Lockes. Unfortunately, this is some of the thing we PScopers have to live with when we pick a diamond and have it set instead of going to the store and buy a finish ring. Once in a while we hear someone spend a lot more and get a finish ring from Tiffany or one of those designer shops and are happy even though they pay a lot more than what we can get the diamonds here and have it set. They pay a lot more but they don't have this kind of headache that some of us have to go through.

I am Canadian and I understand the trouble of having to mail the stone back and forth. If I were you I would accept the free setting and labour. It's not a cheap setting and they bend over backward to make it right for you. That's what you get for a $1700 setting. They can afford to do that. If they damage your stone, I think they can also afford to replace it. Maybe ask that another setter work on your setting.

You are not alone. I see setting problems all the time when people post their rings/wax here. Even when I point it out, some people don't even see it. The prongs not touching the diamonds, the diamonds not seating properly on bearings are very common setting problem. Most of the time you can't really see these problem without a loupe.

Here are some of the common setting problems as described by Professional Jewelers:

 

[VINA]

This is similar to your case

 

[VINA]

No bearing

 

[VINA]

Prongs cut with a saw.

 

[VINA]

Perfectly done.

 

[VINA]

Tiffany claims that they set perfectly like this... But I have not seen one done well like this in real life.

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 10/21/2006 6:35:24 PM
Author: fashionsweetie
The email Perri sent me this week was in response to an email I sent to Maria prior to knowing of her departure. In it Perri said that they would be happy to set my stone in a setting other than their Signature Setting because now they are only setting their in house diamonds. In the email she was pushing me towards other setting options and mentioned taking a look at the ones they have on their website. Perri also suggested that they can do custom designs also. Perri was really making an effort to steer me away from the Signature Setting. Its okay though because I am getting it done elsewhere. I am looking at seeing if either Maytal Hoftman or Mark Morrell can do the setting. Originally I was contacting Maytal about it and then I remembered that Mark also does some nice work too. So, I contacted Mark and they have all my info and I''m just waiting for a quote first. I''m so glad in reading this post about Lockes. I am so weary of their quality and how the ring would hold up in the long run. I would be sketchy on any company that can''t stick to one policy and have different managers giving out bogus info. How are consumers supposed to know what the real deal is. Bottom line people Lockes is not the only one who can do this setting. I''ll let you all know how it goes.

Good luck, I do love the look of this setting. You''ll have to make a few tweaks to the design to make it legal, but that shouldn''t be hard to do. Keep us posted!!!

 

[VINA]

Good luck with the new setter. With the money you pay. You can expect perfection! I only use White Gold and pay $30 for setting labour, totalling no more than $300 and I expect more than that.

This also taught us that paying more doesn''t neccessary better. We pay for the name and the "YES, YES, SURE, SURE" customer service. The setter is not any better than a local master setter.

 

[VINA]

Lynn -- I never saw the second mounting since it went directly to Rich for appraisal. I do have the photos he took. Apparently, it''s dangerous to have the pavilion of the diamond resting on the prongs the way it is in the pics below. I think it leaves the stone vulnerable in case there is a blow in that direction. The second head appears slightly less tilted than the first one, but it''s still not totally straight. I could live with a rough finish in the scalloped areas at the base of the head, but I am really picky when it comes to asymmetry of any kind. That''s really my pet peeve. Oh, and, of course, it''s always good to feel that the stone is safe in the setting!

Rich,

Can you explain why it''s dangerous for the pav to rest on the prongs. I heard someone said this but never got an explaination. A diamond sits on its bearing below the girdle anyway... when the pavillion sits on the prongs doesn''t that provide more support?

Please explain. I am sure other people are just as curious as I am.

Thanks.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Date: 10/21/2006 10:16:39 PM
Author: VINA

Apparently, it's dangerous to have the pavilion of the diamond resting on the prongs the way it is in the pics below. I think it leaves the stone vulnerable in case there is a blow in that direction.

Rich,

Can you explain why it's dangerous for the pav to rest on the prongs. I heard someone said this but never got an explaination. A diamond sits on its bearing below the girdle anyway... when the pavillion sits on the prongs doesn't that provide more support?

Please explain. I am sure other people are just as curious as I am.

Thanks.

Hi Vina. Nice diagrams. The one of the perfect setting job does indeed illustrate how it should be done.

In Demleza's case the head used was too small for the diamond. Consequently they had to spread the prongs in order to allow the diamond to fit. This caused the pavilion of the diamond to rest on the prongs much further down than the perfect fit illustrated in your (1-2-3-4) diagram. Take a second look at the photo Demelza posted.

A correct notching job fits the diamond like a glove, and any impact force is absorbed better and distributed more evenly. The girdle is allowed to do it's job of being the diamond's primary guardian, with the immediate upper and lower girdle areas assisting in repelling any "attack".

In the case of a diamond which has its pavilion resting lower down on the prong, impact force delivered to the prong will not distribute as well. Since you don't have that "glove" fit right at the girdle and area directly above and below the prong, impact trauma is usually directed to the top portion of the prong right above the girdle and then travels down to where the pavilion of the diamond is resting further down the prong than it should.

This unabsorbed and misdirected force then creates a source of pressure between those two areas, sometimes resulting in a shallow chip running from the top of the girdle to where the pavilion rests on the prong. Sometimes it continues to go all the way down to the culet. Setters call this a "run".

 

[Richard Sherwood]

I would like to comment that the rings I have seen made by Lockes have always been of excellent manufacture and workmanship. That''s why I was so surprised to see the sub-par workmanship on Demelza''s ring. Perhaps it was just an anomaly for one reason or another.

 

[pyramid]

Date: 10/21/2006 9:50:45 PM
Author: VINA
Tiffany claims that they set perfectly like this... But I have not seen one done well like this in real life.

Do you mean in real life with Tiffany''s rings?

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Thanks for the kind words by the way, Demelza.

 

[widget]

I just wanted to jump in here and thank VINA for the prong diagrams.

Very interesting and educational!!

widget

 

[VINA]

Richard,

Thank you. What if the setting is like a "V" and the stone is purposely set low. Is this a good idea? I actually prefer the look of the stone set very low and the pavillion of the stone hugging the prongs as with Mara''s ring. I love the way stones are set low and when you have a "V" head, you can''t really avoid having the stone pavillion touching the prongs. I was going to instruct my jeweler to fabicate/set the stone similar to these ladies'' ring. I think the Tiffany setting is set low like that too.

 

[VINA]

Date: 10/22/2006 11:43:10 AM
Author: Pyramid

Date: 10/21/2006 9:50:45 PM
Author: VINA
Tiffany claims that they set perfectly like this... But I have not seen one done well like this in real life.

Do you mean in real life with Tiffany''s rings?

No, I meant others jewelers.

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 10/22/2006 9:25:49 PM
Author: VINA
Richard,

Thank you. What if the setting is like a ''V'' and the stone is purposely set low. Is this a good idea? I actually prefer the look of the stone set very low and the pavillion of the stone hugging the prongs as with Mara''s ring. I love the way stones are set low and when you have a ''V'' head, you can''t really avoid having the stone pavillion touching the prongs. I was going to instruct my jeweler to fabicate/set the stone similar to these ladies'' ring. I think the Tiffany setting is set low like that too.

Rich,
Yes, thank you for the information! As always, it''s so nice to hear from you. Hope all is well with you and your family.

Vina,
Thank you so much for the compliment on my diamond. Perhaps I have misunderstood your post, but I wanted to note that the pavilion of my diamond does not rest on/touch the prong shafts (as in Dem''s second Lockes setting photos). Although it sits very low and "squatty" (my request) there is a perfectly symmetrical "air space" all around the diamond, between the pav and the prong shafts.

 

[VINA]

Date: 10/23/2006 9:03:11 AM
Author: Lynn B

Vina,

Thank you so much for the compliment on my diamond. Perhaps I have misunderstood your post, but I wanted to note that the pavilion of my diamond does not rest on/touch the prong shafts (as in Dem''s second Lockes setting photos). Although it sits very low and ''squatty'' (my request) there is a perfectly symmetrical ''air space'' all around the diamond, between the pav and the prong shafts.

LynnB - Beautifully set... This is the look I am after.

But from Rich posts it seems like a diamond should only touch the prongs at the girdle, and little bit on the pavillion. I think that is only possible with the "U type" heads and not "V type" heads. I printed your ring pictures and ask my jeweler to create a similar low and ''squatty'' look and he said it''s not a good idea but he could not explain why...

I don''t like the stones to float high in the air.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Date: 10/22/2006 9:25:49 PM
Author: VINA

What if the setting is like a ''V'' and the stone is purposely set low. Is this a good idea?

As long as the prong is correctly set at the girdle area and that is the main contact area, it doesn''t matter if the pavilion rests against the prong lower down. The impact trauma will still be correctly absorbed in the notch area.

It''s when you have the main points of contact in the upper girdle area and lower pavilion that you have a problem. Impact trauma is improperly absorbed and distributed. That sets up the scenario for a run.

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 10/24/2006 10:25:38 AM
Author: VINA

LynnB - Beautifully set... This is the look I am after.

But from Rich posts it seems like a diamond should only touch the prongs at the girdle, and little bit on the pavillion. I think that is only possible with the ''U type'' heads and not ''V type'' heads. I printed your ring pictures and ask my jeweler to create a similar low and ''squatty'' look and he said it''s not a good idea but he could not explain why...

I don''t like the stones to float high in the air.

Awwww, thank you, Vina. I think you will be pleased with this "look".

I''m still not sure why your jeweler said that, though (about it not being a "good idea".) But hopefully Rich''s response will put your mind at ease.

Keep us posted. I can''t wait for pictures!!!

Lynn

 

[Mara]

my stone is set low in the squatty setting as well but it does not touch on the sides, the side view looks much like lynns there but maybe with a tiny bit less space between prongs and pav. i can''t really see it right now but i don''t think the culet rests on the metal at all either. i love the low-set V prongs much better than high as well. it''s a total mental thing and i think that it makes the stone look bigger in a side view on the setting.