Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your help!

[john_john]

Hi everyone,

I asked for an exact reproduction of this setting and the resulting work had an entirely different prong (comparison photos below). They explained that the master jeweler said the prongs in the original setting would have looked like they do in the reproduction when the ring was brand new, but over time the prongs took a beating and they bent and shaped into the tab (ribbon-like) look they have in the photos. I have a hard time believing this explanation, so I'd like to ask the PS community for help in fact checking this.

Was their prong explanation correct, or was it completely wrong as I suspect?

Here's some comparison photos of the original setting and the reproduction:

 

[MissGotRocks]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

Would find it very hard to believe that all four prongs would wear and bend exactly the same way. Sounds to me like they didn't know how to create them so they came up with this story. I'd need more proof of that if I were you!

 

[kenny]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

+1

I'd demand a refund.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

That is bull in my opinion.
I have seen them much finer in that type of setting brand new as well as little worn antique and well worn antique pieces.
There is a balance between making them too thin and durability but they look to me like they could be made much smaller

 

[Niel]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

I've commented in you're other thread about how I think they just didn't produce them well, but I was to say your replicated photos are very good. They illustrate perfectly the slight but noticeable differences between the two rings.

Id show them to the vendor. Each photo shows at least one minor thing that is different than the original

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

I also like how the head is much more compact on the original much better.
Did they show you a wax before it was cast?

 

[john_john]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

I also like how the head is much more compact on the original much better.
Did they show you a wax before it was cast?

Agreed. No CAD or wax, just provided those five original photos and was assured it would be reproduced exactly as shown in the photos. I actually have several issues with the reproduction, but wanted to focus on questioning the correctness of their prong explanation in this topic. I outlined all my issues with this reproduction here: https://www.pricescope.com/communit...or-needed-for-1925-tiffany-asscher-er.200882/

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

I also like how the head is much more compact on the original much better.
Did they show you a wax before it was cast?

Agreed. No CAD or wax, just provided those five original photos and was assured it would be reproduced exactly as shown in the photos. I actually have several issues with the reproduction, but wanted to focus on questioning the correctness of their prong explanation in this topic. I outlined all my issues with this reproduction here: https://www.pricescope.com/communit...or-needed-for-1925-tiffany-asscher-er.200882/

It looks cast so if it was spose to be fabricated that might be the first huge issue right there.
An in person professional opinion would be a good idea on that.

 

[john_john]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

I also like how the head is much more compact on the original much better.
Did they show you a wax before it was cast?

Agreed. No CAD or wax, just provided those five original photos and was assured it would be reproduced exactly as shown in the photos. I actually have several issues with the reproduction, but wanted to focus on questioning the correctness of their prong explanation in this topic. I outlined all my issues with this reproduction here: https://www.pricescope.com/communit...or-needed-for-1925-tiffany-asscher-er.200882/

It looks cast so if it was spose to be fabricated that might be the first huge issue right there.
An in person professional opinion would be a good idea on that.

Just curious, how can someone tell if a ring was cast or hand fabricated when they see it in person? Any recommendations of jewelers to visit in San Francisco for this inspection? I had the reproduction done at Joe Escobar.

 

[tyty333]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

They look so different that I though your stone was kite set. I would say fix it or I want my
money back. You did not get an exact replica and if the prongs were going to look different
"New" then they should have told you in advance.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

I also like how the head is much more compact on the original much better.
Did they show you a wax before it was cast?

Agreed. No CAD or wax, just provided those five original photos and was assured it would be reproduced exactly as shown in the photos. I actually have several issues with the reproduction, but wanted to focus on questioning the correctness of their prong explanation in this topic. I outlined all my issues with this reproduction here: https://www.pricescope.com/communit...or-needed-for-1925-tiffany-asscher-er.200882/

It looks cast so if it was spose to be fabricated that might be the first huge issue right there.
An in person professional opinion would be a good idea on that.

Just curious, how can someone tell if a ring was cast or hand fabricated when they see it in person? Any recommendations of jewelers to visit in San Francisco for this inspection? I had the reproduction done at Joe Escobar.

its obvious in person that any professional should be able to tell exactly how it was made.
The reason I cant say for sure from the pics is it may have been assembled from cast parts but I see several signs that scream cast to me but I don't want to make a 100% claim that it is cast just from the pics.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

I don't know that an exact reproduction is possible without having the original in hand, especially on a ring like this one. I think it looks better in the profile view, but the top view of the prongs is not what I would want. I would have wanted them a little wider (I thought that was called ribbon prongs) but not sticking out as far on the diamond. I think I'd probably first have them shave down those prongs just a bit before asking for a remake. They are a little bulky and might look a lot better shaved down a little.

 

[Niel]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

I do think they could have done a better reproduction without the ring in hand. You can tell in the second pic that the area where the side stones are in the original is more bulbus and tapers off more quickly. And in the fourth picture there is not concavity to the cathedral in the replica. And its obvious there's that sweeping curved cathedral look in the original.
Now the high of the stone is different too. You can tell from the fourth pic that in the replica, ad soon as the 3 lines form to create the prong, the prong bends toward the stone. In the original those three pieces meet the. Go together a little before bending at the stone.

Now these may be because he didn't think you meant EXACT EXACT TO THE VERY LAST BIT REPLICA, but the prongs are just a lack of workmanship, not communication.

This isn't to say its not a beautiful ring because it is . Just that your concerns are valid .

 

[klokkeblomst]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

I'm guessing the ring to the right of this post, labeled "diamond eye candy" was more what you were looking for? Apparently it can be done. I don't think the ring you got reflects the original and I wouldn't accept it.

 

[john_john]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

I also like how the head is much more compact on the original much better.
Did they show you a wax before it was cast?

Agreed. No CAD or wax, just provided those five original photos and was assured it would be reproduced exactly as shown in the photos. I actually have several issues with the reproduction, but wanted to focus on questioning the correctness of their prong explanation in this topic. I outlined all my issues with this reproduction here: https://www.pricescope.com/communit...or-needed-for-1925-tiffany-asscher-er.200882/

It looks cast so if it was spose to be fabricated that might be the first huge issue right there.
An in person professional opinion would be a good idea on that.

Just curious, how can someone tell if a ring was cast or hand fabricated when they see it in person? Any recommendations of jewelers to visit in San Francisco for this inspection? I had the reproduction done at Joe Escobar.

its obvious in person that any professional should be able to tell exactly how it was made.
The reason I cant say for sure from the pics is it may have been assembled from cast parts but I see several signs that scream cast to me but I don't want to make a 100% claim that it is cast just from the pics.

I took it to two different jewelers close to my work. The first jeweler felt the crown/head was possibly cast and the shank was hand fabricated. The other jeweler felt the whole ring was cast and wasn't able to see soldering on the joints. The second jeweler also felt the head/crown was done in CAD and cast given the precision/perfection.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

Here's my take:
1) to answer the question in the title of the thread- yes, I agree that's an incorrect explanation.
It's most likely that the person giving that explanation is not the person who made the ring.

2) Cast versus hand fabricated:
There are certain details- such as true claw prongs- associated with hand forged rings.
Such details can't be duplicated using other methods.
However there's plenty of really nice detail work that may be done either with a hand carved wax- or possibly die struck parts with are then altered.
The ring that was copied appears to be a genuine antique.
The specific detail of the prong design on the antique ring is one of those things , like claw prongs, that require a special type of production technique.
There's makers who are associated with producing such details correctly on ring made today.
So that detail does look incorrect- but not poorly done.
In fact the entire ring seems nicely done very clean work on the details.
Different than the old ring, for sure, but still, based on a simple photo, the finish looks very nice in some areas I routinely see messy results- such as the inside "V" of the cathedral shank side view. The scroll work looks quite clean too.

I can't say what the right answer of how to proceed- but it does not look like shoddy product.
Even though the person who told you you'd need to wear the ring for 50 years to get the prongs to look correct was peeing on your leg and telling you it was raining, I don't think you got a bad ring.
Whatever methods they used, it seems they took a lot of care, and got what looks to be really nice ( although not what you had in mind) results.
I hope this helps.

BTW- I don't know who the vendor is- if it's mentioned, please remove my post so I'm not commenting on a specific vendors wares.
.

 

[denverappraiser]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

Because of the way the forum rules work, I’m pretty much the only professional who’s allowed to comment here. That’s tricky because I haven’t seen the piece in person but I’ll try to toss in a few things that may be helpful.

To answer the question in the headline, I agree with the folks above, that explanation is incorrect.

Exact reproduction is ALWAYS a problem and I have to say that this doesn't look like a bad job. Actually it looks like pretty darned good workmanship. The issue is more that it’s not what you ordered. That is to say, your expectations don’t jive with the jewelers plan or at least their execution. This could have, should have, been addressed far earlier than this in the process. Is that a deal killer? Possibly, but that’s not exactly the same as a craftsmanship issue or even specifically a design problem. This is a good old fashioned communications breakdown.

Did they have the original to work from or just those pictures?

Much of what I’m seeing has to do with different proportions on your center stone. That affects both the way the prongs look but also probably is the reason for the difference in the height of the setting. This also affects the shape of the curves on the wires in the gallery. The base of the head looks to be quite a bit narrower. It looks like your stone is a touch smaller. No? It’s hard to tell because we’ve got no scale on either of the pictures.

The shape of the shoulders on the tops of the cathedral is decidedly different. The field of stones is longer and narrower, the ‘v’ cutout goes farther down the shank and there’s a fair amount more metal. The curves of the cathedral go out instead of in. All of that is why it looks overall less petite. These aren’t what I would call defects but I agree it’s not what the original looks like. The general thickness can be dealt with in part by simply thinning things down but the size of the pave fields would require replacing the shank.

I’m guessing the original was fabricated and the reproduction was cast. That doesn’t seem to be disputed and yes, it causes some important differences. We’re back to that issue of expectations. They should have discussed this topic with you at the time you started the project. True fabrication is quite a bit more money by the way, and it’s entirely possible that this was a budget issue.

Have you spoken with the jeweler about this (not the sales person, I’m talking about the person who did the work)? Did you have the opportunity to speak with them at the beginning about your expectations?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

Neil-I believe that any professional is allowed to comment on this thread- as I already have. Since we don't know who the seller is we are not commenting on a specific vendor's products.
If the sellers name had been revealed, I do not believe that even appraisers would be allowed to comment on specifics.

 

[John P]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

David, I saw a seller mentioned above.

Even so, I think Forum Policies permit appropriate comments. The rules were established to prevent (potentially biased) promotion or condemnation of one seller by another. But the policies permit trade members to correct misinformation given to a consumer.

Forum Policy (Trade) 2 g.
"Please refrain from commenting on other vendor products unless there is obvious misinformation."

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

Thanks John, I stand corrected, I see the name now.
Admin, please remove my post if it breaks any rules- and john-john best of luck.

 

[denverappraiser]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

As with David, if my post violates any of the rules, feel free to delete it. In the meantime, I'll stay out of it.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

Hopefully it's cool.
After all, we're all doing our best to assist the OP

 

[john_john]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

Thank you everyone for responding. Its good to know there is consensus that the prong explanation is incorrect. I also appreciate the comments regarding the quality and differences in the reproduction.

I don't like the idea that casting may have been done in this reproduction. I asked for and I paid more for the ring to be completely hand fabricated. It is a sensitive subject, but I may ask the vendor about it today in discussing the remake vs refund options.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

john_john- I'll make some general comments and maybe others an comment given that my comments are general in nature, yet relevant to your situation.
What constitutes a "hand fabricated" ring?
I think that the question itself is open to interpretation.
For example, it's not completely outrageous to claim that a ring cast from a hand carved, one of a kind wax might be considered " hand fabricated".
Other may disagree- and generally speaking I'm pretty tough on claims jewelry sellers make. There can certainly be wax molds for mass produced stuff that are not of the same caliber, or that I'd consider hand fabricated. Not all cast part are designed, manufactured and implemented equally, by any means.

Even hand forged jewelry is made using tools- they may be hand operated- but the hands themselves are not literally fabricating the parts.

Again- I'm raising an academic point and I'd really like to know how others feel.
I don't believe there's a "rulebook" anywhere regarding this type of claim- but maybe someone else knows of one.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

here is what the ftc has to say:
link: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=d721e82c13768a90bb243bf3ca5107b0&ty=HTML&h=L&r=PART&n=16y1.0.1.2.13#16:1.0.1.2.13.0.5.4
The ftc is working on revisions to these rules but right now this is the law.

§23.3 Misuse of the terms “hand-made,” “hand-polished,” etc.

(a) It is unfair or deceptive to represent, directly or by implication, that any industry product is hand-made or hand-wrought unless the entire shaping and forming of such product from raw materials and its finishing and decoration were accomplished by hand labor and manually-controlled methods which permit the maker to control and vary the construction, shape, design, and finish of each part of each individual product.

Note to paragraph (a): As used herein, “raw materials” include bulk sheet, strip, wire, and similar items that have not been cut, shaped, or formed into jewelry parts, semi-finished parts, or blanks.

(b) It is unfair or deceptive to represent, directly or by implication, that any industry product is hand-forged, hand-engraved, hand-finished, or hand-polished, or has been otherwise hand-processed, unless the operation described was accomplished by hand labor and manually-controlled methods which permit the maker to control and vary the type, amount, and effect of such operation on each part of each individual product.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

john_john- I'll make some general comments and maybe others an comment given that my comments are general in nature, yet relevant to your situation.
What constitutes a "hand fabricated" ring?
I think that the question itself is open to interpretation.
For example, it's not completely outrageous to claim that a ring cast from a hand carved, one of a kind wax might be considered " hand fabricated".

See above, claiming a wax then cast setting is hand fabricated would be a ftc violation and illegal.

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

They look so different that I though your stone was kite set. I would say fix it or I want my
money back. You did not get an exact replica and if the prongs were going to look different
"New" then they should have told you in advance.

I agree with the kite set comment you made. When I look at the first set of pics the ring on the right looks like the diamond is set totally different than the last picture on the right.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

here is what the ftc has to say:
link: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=d721e82c13768a90bb243bf3ca5107b0&ty=HTML&h=L&r=PART&n=16y1.0.1.2.13#16:1.0.1.2.13.0.5.4
The ftc is working on revisions to these rules but right now this is the law.

§23.3 Misuse of the terms “hand-made,” “hand-polished,” etc.

(a) It is unfair or deceptive to represent, directly or by implication, that any industry product is hand-made or hand-wrought unless the entire shaping and forming of such product from raw materials and its finishing and decoration were accomplished by hand labor and manually-controlled methods which permit the maker to control and vary the construction, shape, design, and finish of each part of each individual product.

Note to paragraph (a): As used herein, “raw materials” include bulk sheet, strip, wire, and similar items that have not been cut, shaped, or formed into jewelry parts, semi-finished parts, or blanks.

(b) It is unfair or deceptive to represent, directly or by implication, that any industry product is hand-forged, hand-engraved, hand-finished, or hand-polished, or has been otherwise hand-processed, unless the operation described was accomplished by hand labor and manually-controlled methods which permit the maker to control and vary the type, amount, and effect of such operation on each part of each individual product.

Thanks for finding that Karl!
It's a really interesting discussion.
A few points
about the bold part
A case could be made that the act of finishing the casting- done by hand could be considering "forming"- and clearly- the finishing ( polishing) which can be done by hand on cast piece has a huge impact on the "Shape , design, and finish, of the final product- how it looks and feels.
I'm not saying that such a case is correct or not- but I don't see it as clear cut

Which brings me to my second point- a fine point- but:
Is this guide "law" or a guide?
Or, is this type of regulation a law?
If a seller was found to be in violation, are there penalties stipulated?

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

Thanks for finding that Karl!
It's a really interesting discussion.
A few points
about the bold part
A case could be made that the act of finishing the casting- done by hand could be considering "forming"- and clearly- the finishing ( polishing) which can be done by hand on cast piece has a huge impact on the "Shape , design, and finish, of the final product- how it looks and feels.
I'm not saying that such a case is correct or not- but I don't see it as clear cut
that is covered in the next part:
"Note to paragraph (a): As used herein, “raw materials” include bulk sheet, strip, wire, and similar items that have not been cut, shaped, or formed into jewelry parts, semi-finished parts, or blanks."

Which brings me to my second point- a fine point- but:
Is this guide "law" or a guide?
Or, is this type of regulation a law?
If a seller was found to be in violation, are there penalties stipulated?

It is a regulation, It is my understanding that ftc violations can be dealt with in criminal court or civil.
In a criminal case the charge I believe is usually fraud.
http://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
It is one of those should be unconstitutional things that the government has grown fond of doing and the courts let them get by with it, enforcing regulations as laws.
Basically a law is passed that says FTC make some rules in this area and punish those that don't follow them.
From the standpoint of having to follow them they are defacto laws.

 

[denverappraiser]

Re: Vendor's prong explanation sounds incorrect, need your h

Hand-made, hand wrought, hand crafted and so on are vague terms that are almost as abused in this industry as ‘ideal’. People think they know what they mean but even well intentioned speakers can mean very different things. If it matters, it is always important when someone uses a term like this to understand what THEY mean by it. FWIW, I very rarely use the term, for exactly these sorts of reasons.

Karl. Under the above ftc description, forming and finishing by ‘hand labor’ is a requirement for a hand-made item. Wouldn’t this rule out the use of power equipment like buffers and drills? Obviously that would rule out nearly the entire industry, even the purest of traditional jewelry craftspeople. That’s possibly a legitimate interpretation but it leaves a nearly useless term. Nothing in this category is handmade other than perhaps some things better described as folk art (and not even most of those).

In practice, assembly using some cast and/or die struck parts along with other components is regularly described this way and I can't recall hearing of a single court case opposing it.