Octahedron with "star" inclusion

[freddyboston]

?

Rare Vintage Tiffany & Co. 18K Yellow Gold Octahedron Diamond With 16 Inch Chain | eBay

The piece exudes elegance and sophistication, perfect for any formal occasion. 18K @ 4grams(gross). There is a discoloration at the clasp & at the bail. There is No cut ( rough diamond). Looks like G/H color, about SI2 in clarity.

www.ebay.com

 

[lovedogs]

?

Rare Vintage Tiffany & Co. 18K Yellow Gold Octahedron Diamond With 16 Inch Chain | eBay

The piece exudes elegance and sophistication, perfect for any formal occasion. 18K @ 4grams(gross). There is a discoloration at the clasp & at the bail. There is No cut ( rough diamond). Looks like G/H color, about SI2 in clarity.

www.ebay.com

This was actually one of David's ideas for how to set it--he sent me the same link haha. I guess I'm super hesitant to drill the stone, which is why i initially said no to this.

 

[lovedogs]

I'm worried the cage will obscure the star, or at the least take the focus off it.

ETA: What about a setting that holds it from the sides, kind of like a tension setting. Or, could the @RMOO one be used without the band across the middle, maybe with a teensy prong or "cup" where the points meet?

Can you draw what you mean? Sorry, my visualization skills are almost comically poor so I can imagine the prong/cup you're describing

 

[RMOO]

I'm worried the cage will obscure the star, or at the least take the focus off it.

This is my concern as well.

 

[RMOO]

You would have to ask DK if this is secure and structurally sound, but what about something like this? It would give a clear view of the center of the stone, but the caps could still allow the stone to spin, and the bar above would keep the arms from spreading.

 

[RMOO]

I'm worried the cage will obscure the star, or at the least take the focus off it.

ETA: What about a setting that holds it from the sides, kind of like a tension setting. Or, could the @RMOO one be used without the band across the middle, maybe with a teensy prong or "cup" where the points meet?

@ShinyPink this is where I was going too. I did a little mock up.

 

[molecule]

This was actually one of David's ideas for how to set it--he sent me the same link haha. I guess I'm super hesitant to drill the stone, which is why i initially said no to this.

I think you would be able to drill just a little bit into each side rather than all the way through the diamond.

 

[lovedogs]

@ShinyPink this is where I was going too. I did a little mock up.

oooo that's great. Thanks for helping me figure out what that would look like!

 

[RMOO]

oooo that's great. Thanks for helping me figure out what that would look like!

Which orientation shows the inclusion the best, and makes it the most visible in person, north/south or east/west?

 

[lovedogs]

Which orientation shows the inclusion the best, and makes it the most visible in person, north/south or east/west?

North/South for sure.

 

[RMOO]

North/South for sure.

Ok, so on my first mock up, will the full bezel get in the way? If so, then maybe semi bezels that wrap just barely around the corners would work, exposing the front and back of the stone. This might need some sort of bar above like the other(E/W) design, to keep the arms from spreading.

 

[Starstruck8]

Some thoughts:

A 'cage' seems feasible. The illustrated one looks a bit unrefined. Maybe some clever design could yield a cage that works to enhance the stone. A possible issue: The stone is not perfectly octahedral. I can't make out its exact shape from the video, but at a minimum, some edges are sharp, some rounded. Any cage would have to accommodate this.

The best view of the star is looking square-on to a face. IMO, the next best view is square-on to an edge, which shows two (apparent) stars. A spinning 'half-cage' could show both views without any obstruction by metal. Here is a sketch:


The metal is shown in gold for clarity, but you can use any metal you like. You can also remove the lower half of the frame, if you are not obsessed by symmetry. (This would be like the original 'calipers' concept.) Note that the half-cage is a weird 3D shape and will look odd in some orientations.

If you want to spin the stone without a cage, you will have to think about how it is held. I think this would require 'caps with axles' and some sort of bearings in the frame to keep them in place and aligned. This can be done:
https://www.jewelry-tutorials.com/make-spinning-ring.html
https://www.atelier-berger.de/
But you may have to find the right jeweller...

 

[lovedogs]

Other ideas

 

[lovedogs]

Some thoughts:

A 'cage' seems feasible. The illustrated one looks a bit unrefined. Maybe some clever design could yield a cage that works to enhance the stone. A possible issue: The stone is not perfectly octahedral. I can't make out its exact shape from the video, but at a minimum, some edges are sharp, some rounded. Any cage would have to accommodate this.

The best view of the star is looking square-on to a face. IMO, the next best view is square-on to an edge, which shows two (apparent) stars. A spinning 'half-cage' could show both views without any obstruction by metal. Here is a sketch:


The metal is shown in gold for clarity, but you can use any metal you like. You can also remove the lower half of the frame, if you are not obsessed by symmetry. (This would be like the original 'calipers' concept.) Note that the half-cage is a weird 3D shape and will look odd in some orientations.

If you want to spin the stone without a cage, you will have to think about how it is held. I think this would require 'caps with axles' and some sort of bearings in the frame to keep them in place and aligned. This can be done:
https://www.jewelry-tutorials.com/make-spinning-ring.html
https://www.atelier-berger.de/
But you may have to find the right jeweller...

This is where I'm getting kind of stuck. Having the star showing is my #1 priority above anything else. So I want to be totally sure that happens

 

[Artemisia]

Some thoughts:

A 'cage' seems feasible. The illustrated one looks a bit unrefined. Maybe some clever design could yield a cage that works to enhance the stone. A possible issue: The stone is not perfectly octahedral. I can't make out its exact shape from the video, but at a minimum, some edges are sharp, some rounded. Any cage would have to accommodate this.

The best view of the star is looking square-on to a face. IMO, the next best view is square-on to an edge, which shows two (apparent) stars. A spinning 'half-cage' could show both views without any obstruction by metal. Here is a sketch:


The metal is shown in gold for clarity, but you can use any metal you like. You can also remove the lower half of the frame, if you are not obsessed by symmetry. (This would be like the original 'calipers' concept.) Note that the half-cage is a weird 3D shape and will look odd in some orientations.

If you want to spin the stone without a cage, you will have to think about how it is held. I think this would require 'caps with axles' and some sort of bearings in the frame to keep them in place and aligned. This can be done:
https://www.jewelry-tutorials.com/make-spinning-ring.html
https://www.atelier-berger.de/
But you may have to find the right jeweller...

Your diamond is totally remarkable! I don't post often, but dropping out of obscurity to say I had a spinel octahedron set like this structurally, but instead of a full frame, it had the points of a crescent moon at each end. I loved it, but it somehow got lost in 2020 during COVID relocation. Not sure if you'd like the celestial aspect, but you could have the frame engraved and a crescent as a frame if you want to preserve your original star concept.

 

[Ally T]

OMG, why have I never heard of these diamonds before?!!!

I have never seen anything like it & i am mesmerised!

Also, I am sorry you had such a had time with your little one. I also have PTSD from my 2nd daughter’s birth, but I am always thankful we both made it ok. I definitely had something in my eye reading about you singing the stars. Beautiful. And one day I am sure you will pass this to her & she will cherish it forever.

 

[lulu_ma]

So glad that you and your baby are thriving now! That diamond is SO cool. I can't wait to see the finished necklace!

 

[vitona526]

Beautiful story! I love that you jumped ship and got something more ‘you’.

 

[Starstruck8]

Any advance, @lovedogs?

Here is a non-spinning concept, designed to show one face:


It's not meant to be taken literally, just another idea.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I’d just drilled that puppy. I will give you the most unfettered view of the diamond. All the other options are gonna block it somehow I really like that Tiffany one.

 

[lovedogs]

@Starstruck8 @Dreamer_D DK got my stone, yay! It's going to GIA first and then he will create the necklace.

Still trying to figure out the design. DK does NOT recommend drilling now that he's seen it. 1. It devalues the stone, and 2. Apparently it voids the GIA cert bc you drilled into it.

So I'm kind of stuck again trying to figure it out. I really like the idea you drew @Starstruck8

 

[lovedogs]

Update! DK sent to GIA, so waiting on that info (which honestly won't change anything--I just want it for my records). But in the meantime, here are some potential designs to use/change

1. An idea that could "spin", but requires a semi-bezel around the stone.
Pros: More open to light, able to spin, able to see all sides of the stone
Cons: I'm nervous that with the orientation of the star itself and placement of the bezel, the star might not be visible at all, which would break my heart.



2. Semi "cage" style, but would show the whole "face" of the star from the front.
Pros: I like how visible the star would be.
Cons: I don't like that you could only see the star from the front, and don't like that it couldn't spin. Also I feel like it wouldn't have as much light entering in, so the star might be harder to see.

I'd appreciate thoughts and/or edits to either of these designs.

Someone who can visualize stuff better than me: Would it be possible to "turn" the stone in design 1 so that the part "facing forward" is an entire "face" of the octahedron so that the star would face outwards/forwards?

 

[Starstruck8]

I'm not keen on (1). It doesn't show the star straight on from usual viewing angles, and the 'bezel' will cover part of the star, whichever face you look at.

See these pictures:


Notice that you can cover the corners (e.g. with caps), because the star doesn't reach into the corners, But you don't want to cover the edges, because that will cut off the ends of the arms. Notice that some of the edges are rough/rounded. If there is a rough band right around the stone (don't know), a 'bezel' around them might be acceptable, because the ends of the affected arms are lost anyway. But I would worry that it spoils the symmetry.

On (2), as you say, I'm not sure how much the cage would shade the stone, and how much it would matter. This is why I like to play with stones at home before taking a concept to a jeweller. Note that the bale I drew was only a placeholder - I'm sure a designer could do something more stylish/practical.

Would it be possible to "turn" the stone in design 1 so that the part "facing forward" is an entire "face" of the octahedron so that the star would face outwards/forwards?

Is this what you had in mind? Make the 'bezel' into a ring, so that it holds the stone by the corners but stands off from the edges.


This concept would allow the stone to spin. It would reduce shading and allow a pretty clear view of all the 'front to back' faces. The 'side' faces would be more obstructed, but I think that's unavoidable. You may have trouble making the pendant lie flat - maybe a suitable bale (e,g. 'rabbit ears'?) might help. It looks a bit inelegant as I've drawn it. No doubt an actual designer could come up with a more stylish bale and frame.

 

[lovedogs]

I'm not keen on (1). It doesn't show the star straight on from usual viewing angles, and the 'bezel' will cover part of the star, whichever face you look at.

See these pictures:


Notice that you can cover the corners (e.g. with caps), because the star doesn't reach into the corners, But you don't want to cover the edges, because that will cut off the ends of the arms. Notice that some of the edges are rough/rounded. If there is a rough band right around the stone (don't know), a 'bezel' around them might be acceptable, because the ends of the affected arms are lost anyway. But I would worry that it spoils the symmetry.

On (2), as you say, I'm not sure how much the cage would shade the stone, and how much it would matter. This is why I like to play with stones at home before taking a concept to a jeweller. Note that the bale I drew was only a placeholder - I'm sure a designer could do something more stylish/practical.



Is this what you had in mind? Make the 'bezel' into a ring, so that it holds the stone by the corners but stands off from the edges.


This concept would allow the stone to spin. It would reduce shading and allow a pretty clear view of all the 'front to back' faces. The 'side' faces would be more obstructed, but I think that's unavoidable. You may have trouble making the pendant lie flat - maybe a suitable bale (e,g. 'rabbit ears'?) might help. It looks a bit inelegant as I've drawn it. No doubt an actual designer could come up with a more stylish bale and frame.

This is what I meant by having the stone be "turned". Green = bezel


I'm sure there's a reason it won't work, but wanted to see what folks thought. Ugh this is killing me! I want it to be right soooo bad

 

[lovedogs]

Ok another idea that probebly won't work, but at least it doesn't cover the star so much. Ignore the fact that my dumb drawing makes it look like a spider haha

 

[Dreamer_D]

Ok another idea that probebly won't work, but at least it doesn't cover the star so much. Ignore the fact that my dumb drawing makes it look like a spider haha

If this can be arranged I like it better

 

[Starstruck8]

This is what I meant by having the stone be "turned". Green = bezel

Is this what you mean? Note that I've shown only the spinning 'bezel', not the frame.

This seems feasible to me. But I'm not a jeweller. As with the original bezel, it covers the edges, so it must obstruct a bit of the star. How narrow can you safely make the bezel? That's a question for a jeweller.

Ok another idea that probebly won't work, but at least it doesn't cover the star so much. Ignore the fact that my dumb drawing makes it look like a spider haha

As is, I'd be worried that the 'arms' might spread and drop the stone. I think you would want reinforcing around the 'equator'. Here is a sketch:


As with the simple bezel, the metal will obstruct the star a bit. The question is how narrow you can make the metal and still leave it strong enough to hold the stone. That's a question for jeweller, not for me. You may be able to make the metal higher and narrower (more like 'fins') to give the same strength with less obstruction.