|
Post by 1dave on Jun 1, 2017 8:49:26 GMT -5
Why are prongs always on top? I think they would be less detracting on the bottom. Make the bezel to fit the stone with the prongs on the bottom. Drop the stone in place, bend the prongs over and voila!
|
|
|
Post by Pat on Jun 1, 2017 9:55:13 GMT -5
Bezels don't have prongs!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 10:48:14 GMT -5
I had some stamped, pre-made settings that had hollow backs with bendable tabs back there to hold the stone tight against the bezel in front. I think they were mostly intended for transparent or translucent stones (I've seen some similar ring castings, too). The problem I recall is that the stone had to be a very close fit (in dome curvature and outline), or it would slip and/or have gaps and often looked sloppy, whereas a thinner, custom-made bezel could be molded to the stone, and front prongs without a bezel would also have looked better because there was no glaring difference between the stone and the stamped opening. I think those settings still would work with some flat or shallow-dome stones that were tight fits.
For most custom-made pieces, it's usually easier just to cut a hole in the backing sheet and then just bend over the bezel to hold the stone in front. Prongs or tabs in back might make it easier to switch stones, though.
|
|
|
Post by opalpyrexia on Jun 1, 2017 11:53:30 GMT -5
How do you envision doing that so that prongs wouldn't catch on clothing for pendants or rub on skin?
|
|
|
Post by 1dave on Jun 1, 2017 13:14:40 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 14:26:27 GMT -5
How do you envision doing that so that prongs wouldn't catch on clothing for pendants or rub on skin? Probably wouldn't entirely eliminate snagging (prongs on front snag, too), but the collet-set pieces I have seen with prongs/tabs on the back have the tabs recessed a bit from the back of the piece, so the prongs/tabs never directly touch the skin or most clothing unless you press down hard. My primitive cross-section drawing below might show that better than trying to explain. An advantage of having the prongs/tabs on the back is that you needn't worry too much about them being perfectly soldered and polished (or marring them if you have to remove and reset the stone). If you didn't want the stone pushed up and held against a front collet/rim, there are other setting methods besides back prongs/tabs, too. Everything from the side grooves for cabs to invisibly set faceted stones (notched or grooved around or just below the girdle) to side-pinch settings. Opaque stones are sometimes partially drilled to invisibly hold them by snapping them onto pins, too. Most are more complicated to do than prongs or tabs, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by opalpyrexia on Jun 1, 2017 14:50:00 GMT -5
The diagram helps to understand what you were referring to, thanks. I thought that you might have something in mind that would not provide standoff clearance for the prongs.
|
|
gemfeller
Cave Dweller
Member since June 2011
Posts: 3,797
|
Post by gemfeller on Jun 1, 2017 15:50:18 GMT -5
No photographs, but I've made several pieces that way. One was for a large opal an acquaintance brought back from Oz. It had an uneven girdle that was a challenge to bezel. I made a gold pendant and built a large enough ridge around the bottom so there were no snags or other problems. It was a lost wax cast piece and it turned out very well. I've also made a few fire agate pendants in that fashion.
|
|