24K Gold Wedding Band?
bob...@sonic.net
Can I get help from this newsgroup regarding my wedding band?
My fiance has given me the choice of either a 18K gold band or a 24K
gold band, both by the manufacturer Christian Bauer. I can select a
band with all else being identical. I'm concerned about the relative
hardness and how each will wear over time.
The sales woman at the store selling this line says the 24k band has
been hardened by "compression" and is will wear comparable to the 18K
band. I read a 1996 message in this newsgroup that some 24k gold
bands are actually a alloy of 99% gold and titanium.
I like the weight of the 24k band and, I suppose, the novelty of 24k.
I like the thought that the ring has more actual gold in its
construction. I don't want it if it will appear worn considerably
sooner than the 18k. The price difference is $225. v. $840. from the
local store.
What is the thoughts of this newsgroup?
-Bob
--
= Bob Waltenspiel =
bob...@sonic.net web page: http://www.sonic.net/~bobino
NE333RO
>gold band, both by the manufacturer Christian Bauer. I can select a
>band with all else being identical. I'm concerned about the relative
>hardness and how each will wear over time.
The design has some impact on how well it will wear. Personally, I would go
with 14K in a ring you will be wearing all day every day.
ted.f...@virgin.net
ring wear is a function of what you do and for how long. If you dont fix
your car, dont do gardening dont do diy etc, then most soft metals like
24ct gold will be ok. Ive worked a lot of 24ct gold and can say avoid it
if you can. the price difference you quote is not worth it. 18ct is much
harder on account of the alloys used. Suggest you try finding a working
goldsmith who would make up by hand your wedding band your dealing with
the man who made it , a lot more personal for such a special item.. Most
high st store wedding bands are mass produced from gold strip blanked
into washers and upset in a ring maker. Ive seen them working in our
jewellery quarter in Birmingham.
Ted Frater Dorset UK now a titanium smith and minter.
Daniel Conlin
price differential. Wow. Still, it is a once in a lifetime purchase. From my
experience, the 18k will keep its shape much better than the 24k. I don't
know about commercially fabricated 24k (?) rings with unknown metals alloyed
in them, but I have experience with true 24k. I made bands for my wife and
myself by forging rectangular wire out of a .999 fine gold coin, fusing it
closed and stretching it to size. I can tell you that fine gold does work
harden considerably, but even at its hardest it is much less scratch
resistant than 18k.
Jewellery can be like marriage. At first when my ring started to show signs
of wear I would get out my burnisher and polish it up, I hated to see it
change in appearance. Being a blacksmith / welder I had to do a lot of
polishing to keep it looking new. The last few years I have accepted that it
will change and just let it wear. To my surprise, it has become even more
beautiful with a smooth, waxy, really GOLD look to it. Think of the
difference between jewellery store bands and Celtic museum pieces. I
wouldn't trade my ring for anything. It will change as I do and become even
more meaningful to me. I also like the pure gold appeal. Get yourself a gold
coin, a plumber's torch, a hammer, and an anvil, and you can make your own
with a bit left over. Otherwise, buy the 24k ring from your local shop, you
won't regret it.
"hardened by compression" does sound like a bit of old bolocks to me, but
I'd like to know what they are really doing. My guess would be a steel shot
tumbler followed by hand burnishing. I've hammered pure gold to its limit,
and it still is nowhere near as hard as 18k.
<bob...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:mvimntkg2uajjmq0b...@4ax.com...
MellowYellow
I'm getting a chain shortened, and I want to have some control over
a process I know nothing about!!!
Abrasha
Nonsense! I have been wearing a 24K Gold band for over 12 years. I work with
tools and abrasives 6 days a
week. The band will outlive me by many years.
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com
Abrasha
Nonsense. I have been doing all of the above with my 24K Gold band, and it will
be around a lot longer than
I will!
>Ive worked a lot of 24ct gold and can say avoid it
> if you can.
24K Gold is truly one of the most wonderful metals to work with ... given of
course that you know what you
are doing and how to do it.
>the price difference you quote is not worth it.
I agree. I could make a heavy 24K Gold band for a lot less than the poster was
quoted.
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com
Peter W. Rowe
wrote:
>>
>>I like the weight of the 24k band and, I suppose, the novelty of 24k.
>>I like the thought that the ring has more actual gold in its
>>construction. I don't want it if it will appear worn considerably
>>sooner than the 18k. The price difference is $225. v. $840. from the
>>local store.
>>
>>What is the thoughts of this newsgroup?
Well, several readers now have echoed the conventional trade wisdoms that 14K is
harder than 18K, and 18K is harder than 24K. But I'll have to agree with
Abrasha, who's opinion is that 24K is quite hard enough. Here's why...
While 24K is indeed easier to dent and scratch and bend than are 18K or the
harder still 14K, hardness is not always the same as toughness. The obvious
example in jewelry is platinum, well known for being softer than any of the gold
alloys, yet also known for being far more durable over time. It's density and
toughness mean that though easy to scratch, it does not wear down as quickly as
gold does. While 24K gold is not by any means as durable as platinum, any
goldsmith can quickly demonstrate that it is tougher than it seems, by trying to
polish the stuff. Like platinum, it buffs only slowly, compared to the ease
with which it can be scratched or bent. It wears away more slowly than one
would expect, and I'd expect it to last easily as long as the harder 18K and 14K
alloys.
Regarding the claim that the 24K band has been compression hardened, some have
expressed doubt about this. Pure (24K) gold, like platinum, work hardens more
slowly than do alloyed metals, and it is never either as hard as 18K, nor does
it increase in hardness as much, though work hardening, as do 18K or other karat
golds. But it does indeed work harden quite substantially, enough so that it's
no longer limply soft, but has at least a little bit of spring to it.
Compression, such as shrinking an overside band in a standard wedding band
stretching/shrinking type ring sizing machine, would be quite effective at
giving a 24K band considerably greater hardness than it's fully annealed state.
Do note that 24K will indeed show scratches and dents more quickly than will
18K. But 18K, or even 14K, will both also show such wear and tear, though
somewhat more slowly. With 14K, it won't be as noticable, since it's wearing
away more at the same time. 18K wears away slightly more slowly, and shows
dents and scratches a bit more. 24K, shows yet more scratches and dents, and in
normal wear will not retain a bright polish for very long at all before becoming
quickly covered with small marks and scratches. But THIS IS GOOD. this patina
of fine scratches and dents is really the end, stable, finish of most types of
jewelry in any case, and with 24K, gives a surface best able to show off the
wonderful rich color of the pure gold.
If the price doesn't stop you, I'd suggest the 24K gold. But you certainly are
paying a substantial premium in price for the 24K. As Abrasha and others note,
I'd bet you could get such a band for less, perhaps made by a newsgroup reader
like Abrasha or others. About the only real aspect to consider is being sure
that whomever makes it is able to create the band without needing to resort to
solder seams, which will almost always have a visible color and hardness
difference with 24K gold. 24K can be welded without solder, or cast as a
continuous band without a seam. If of a good weight, and properly worked to
harden it up a bit, it would be a wonderful thing you might have the rest of
your life.
Peter Rowe
Wooding
titanium, but I have worked pure gold many times. Pure (ie. true 24K)
gold is extremely soft (rather similar to lead) and doesn't
appreciably work harden at all - a good example of this is that gold
leaf is (was?) made by beating thin sheets of pure gold with a mallet.
When it spreads to 4 x the original area it is cut into 4 smaller
sheets which are stacked between sheets of vellum and the process
repeated. The gold is never annealed, and the process can be continued
until the gold leaf is so thin that you can see light through it.
If you drop an 18K ring onto a hard surface it will bounce and emitt a
ringing sound. A pure gold ring will not bounce, and will emitt a dull
thud. It will also, as likely as not, deform.
In the UK, the traditional alloy for the very best wedding bands was
always 22K. This has a very good colour (even better than 18K) and is
much tougher than pure gold. It is still available, but not used very
often.
All gold, whatever its purity, will lose its shine when worn every
day. The tiny abrasive particles that cause this are so much harder
than any gold that it really doesn't matter what carat you use.
In my opinion, the price differential you have been quoted is quite
incommensurate with the intrinsic value of the gold. My recommendation
would be to go with 22K if you can get it - it has the toughness to
resist bending and has the colour of pure gold. If 22K is not
available to you, you should be aware that there is also a very tough
18K that is mixed with platinum. This is usually used to make clasps
and springs, but I have made wedding bands from it that are very tough
indeed.
If you are dead set on the 24K then you should ensure that it comes
with a cast-iron (lifetime) guarantee that it will wear at least as
well as the 18K.
I hope this helps,
Gary Wooding.
bob...@sonic.net wrote in message
news:<mvimntkg2uajjmq0b...@4ax.com>...
ted.f...@virgin.net
Ive had a look at your web site and read the info there.A Nice setup.
But your not what I call a real smith ie handling rough metal in a forge
with industrial scale equipment so I agree that in your situation your
24ct ring should last all your life.. However I wouldnt be so bold to
advise a customer to buy a 24ct gold ring with out seriously questioning
their life style.
Ill outline my experience. many years ago I made for a lady customer a
titanium ring, coloured a lovely sky blue( not anodised I might add but
a much more durable way of colouring). She came back 3 months later and
complained that the colour was wearing off. I looked at the ring and was
surprised to see it looked as if it had been used to dress a grinding
wheel. On questioning the lady she admitted she had been building a
ironstone rockery without gloves for about a month!!
I asked her if she took off her diamond rings to do this she said no. So
I had to repeat what I told her when she bought it, ie they are a dress
ring and needed to be treated as such.
Always check on the life style and if in doubt put it in writing to
cover yourself. Otherwise you could come unstuck with this type of
customer.
Ted Frater Working now on a much bigger scale. Dorset UK.
Jeffery Sheer
solder will work. In either case the chain will need to be re-plated after
soldering. Usually with plated goods worn often the plating wears off.
--
Jeffrey A. Sheer
"MellowYellow" <mp...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9clpnt87s6nullalc...@4ax.com...
Daniel Conlin
"Wooding" <bins...@iname.com> wrote in message
Pure (ie. true 24K)
> gold is extremely soft (rather similar to lead) and doesn't
> appreciably work harden at all - a good example of this is that gold
This simply isn't true. Pure gold does work harden very appreciably. If I
were to anneal my 24k ring it would become (as you say) extremely soft, like
lead, and be no good for a ring.
> If you drop an 18K ring onto a hard surface it will bounce and emitt a
> ringing sound. A pure gold ring will not bounce, and will emitt a dull
> thud. It will also, as likely as not, deform.
Nope, I just removed my ring (wasn't easy either) and dropped it onto a tile
floor from about 25cm. It bounced and I was unable to discern where it had
connected with the floor by any mark on the ring. If it were still highly
polished I would have seen the mark, but there was cetainly no deformation
of the band. If it were still soft it would react as you say and there would
be no bounce.
Leave aside the gold leaf. If you want to get a feel for how much pure gold
work hardens you really should play with some.
Peter W. Rowe
<d.co...@iolfree.ie-not.this.bit> wrote:
>>> gold is extremely soft (rather similar to lead) and doesn't
>>> appreciably work harden at all - a good example of this is that gold
>>
>>This simply isn't true. Pure gold does work harden very appreciably. If I
>>were to anneal my 24k ring it would become (as you say) extremely soft, like
>>lead, and be no good for a ring.
I have to agree with Daniel here. Pure gold does indeed work harden. It does
it about like pure platinum, ie rather slowly. But it does harden up. If you
don't believe this, cast a small "wire" ingot, and roll it through your square
wire mill, to it's smallest size, without annealing. You'll find by the time
you've done that, the wire, though still able to bend as a 'dead" metal, is
stiffer by far than when annealed. You can hold a foot long piece of such a
wire out horizontally by just one end without it sagging. Now anneal the thing,
and try to hold it out the same way. It won't support it's own weight, and the
wire will sag quickly.
And yet the observation that gold can be beaten, without annealing, to leaf thin
enough to be semitranslucent is still true.
The explanation of this is that malleability, the ability of a metal to be
hammered/compressed etc, without cracking or failing, is not related to it's
hardness, but to a combination of several things, including hardness and tensile
strength. Though it hardens up, it reaches a point where it's at it's maximum
work hardened state, which is still not all THAT hard, and in this state, it's
tensile strength is high enough that it can still be stretched without breaking.
Thus continued hammering makes it thinner and thinner, without the edges
cracking or breaking, even though it's work hardened.
Remember that metals work harden due to several mechanisms. One is that in
deforming a metal crystal, atoms reorient themselves along slip planes in the
crystal. As this occurs, the orderly arrangement of the crystal lessens some
(due to defects, among other things) and though continued deformation is
possible, the metal gets harder. In alloys, another important mechanism is that
the boundaries between crystals are not as deformable as the crystals
themselves. In many alloys, the different deformation rates of the various
cryatls types in the alloy means the crystal boundaries get stretched and
strained, and this strain is often the cause of the very hard and brittle states
reached by some alloys on work hardening. With pure metals, gold, silver,
platinum, etc, the crystal boundaries are always between same type crystals, and
though the boundaries can deform as the two adjoining crystals deform, the
boundary is not asked to do things it cannot, deform at two different rates on
each side. Thus they don't fail as they might do in an alloy of two or more
metals, and they don't make the metal as much harder due to the boundary
stresses.
But with all that said, I'll also second Gary's recommendation of 22K gold
alloys. These don't have the emotional appeal of being nothing but gold, of
course, but can be formulated so that not only is the hardness much greater than
pure gold, but the color can be virtually the same. Not quite, perhaps, if you
hold the two next to each other, but close enough so that without that direct
comparison, you couldn't easily tell the difference. Just as rich a look,
similar feel, etc.
Peter
Wooding
news:<j39untgpggsd5fi3f...@4ax.com>...
> "Wooding" <bins...@iname.com> wrote in message
> Pure (ie. true 24K)
> > gold is extremely soft (rather similar to lead) and doesn't
> > appreciably work harden at all - a good example of this is that gold
>
> This simply isn't true. Pure gold does work harden very appreciably. If I
> were to anneal my 24k ring it would become (as you say) extremely soft, like
> lead, and be no good for a ring.
>
Oh dear, I think we must be talking about different things. In my
book, 24K gold is fine (ie. pure) gold - at least 99.9% pure - and
this is indeed very soft. It can be worked continually without
annealing - it does work harden a bit, but it never even reaches the
hardness of annealed 22K. It also, I am told (by a technical guy at
Cookson Precious Metals), possesses the strange property of self
annealing at room temperature; it takes weeks, or months even, but it
does soften up.
I think you must be thinking of 990 gold, which is a micro-alloy
containg 99% gold plus other metals. Apparently this can be work
hardened considerably (close to an 18K), but, in my book at least,
this is not 24K gold.
Gary Wooding
Daniel Conlin
"Wooding" <bins...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:8p04ot07i90cglo5f...@4ax.com...
> Oh dear, I think we must be talking about different things. In my
> book, 24K gold is fine (ie. pure) gold - at least 99.9% pure - and
Yeah, mine too. Canadian Maple leaves are .999 fine. Relative to its
annealed state is is very hard. Relative to most any other jewellery metal
it is still extremely soft. Still, it works OK for me. One other big
attraction when I was making the band was that I was not VAT registered in
the UK so the price off .999 gold was much less than 22k.
Abrasha
>
> "Daniel Conlin" <d.co...@iolfree.ie-not.this.bit> wrote in message
> news:<j39untgpggsd5fi3f...@4ax.com>...
> > "Wooding" <bins...@iname.com> wrote in message
> > Pure (ie. true 24K)
> > > gold is extremely soft (rather similar to lead) and doesn't
> > > appreciably work harden at all - a good example of this is that gold
> >
> > This simply isn't true. Pure gold does work harden very appreciably. If I
> > were to anneal my 24k ring it would become (as you say) extremely soft, like
> > lead, and be no good for a ring.
> >
>
> Oh dear, I think we must be talking about different things. In my
> book, 24K gold is fine (ie. pure) gold - at least 99.9% pure - and
> this is indeed very soft. It can be worked continually without
> annealing - it does work harden a bit, but it never even reaches the
> hardness of annealed 22K. It also, I am told (by a technical guy at
> Cookson Precious Metals), possesses the strange property of self
> annealing at room temperature; it takes weeks, or months even, but it
> does soften up.
>
Oh shit, here we go again. Peter, please set these errant souls straight.
"Self annealing at room
temperature". You've got to be kidding me. This is patent nonsense.
I have already said it a few times. I have been wearing a 24K Gold wedding band
(3.5 mm wide, 1.5 mm thick)
for 12 years, with no averse effects. I have gardened with it, I have worked on
my car with it. I havndle
sandpaper with it on a daily basis. I have lifted heavy items with it.
And yes it wears, and yes it is softer than 18K and 22K gold. Thanks for
pointing out the obvious. Duh!
> I think you must be thinking of 990 gold, which is a micro-alloy
> containg 99% gold plus other metals.
No we were talking about 24K Gold, a perfectly suitable metal for wedding band,
if you know what you are
doing!
I am beginning to have the feeling that the people who voice opinions against
the suitablility of 24K gold
for wedding band, have no experience working with the metal or actually making a
band out of it, or they
would not have this opinion. All I hear is "hear say" (alloying with titanium,
self annealing form the
"tech guy), but noone seems to be speaking from experience other than Peter and
I.
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com
Peter W. Rowe
<abr...@abrasha.com> wrote:
>>Oh shit, here we go again. Peter, please set these errant souls straight.
>>"Self annealing at room
>>temperature". You've got to be kidding me. This is patent nonsense.
Well, over long periods of time perhaps. But not completely, I don't think.
Some metals, like lead, and tin, have low enough annealing temperatures that
room temperature is enough. this is why Pewter, (mostly tin) can be worked as
long as you like without it ever work hardening. In fact, as you work it, the
grain size becomes smaller, and thus the metal actually softens up with working,
rather than hardening.
Gold, however, is another matter. It's melting and annealing temperatures are
vastly higher than room temperature. Most changes in crystaline structure,
atomic positions, etc, in metals, are related to time as well as temperature.
Annealing progresses faster at higher temps, slower at lower temps. There is,
indeed, some limited ability for atoms to move around in a room temperature gold
or silver alloy. Prove this to yourself by bo putting a thin gold electroplate
on silver, without any underplating, and wait a couple years. The gold
dissipates into the silver over time, so that after a couple years, the gold
color will be either much paler, or indistriguishable on the silver surface.
However, this is still small scale, one atom at a time, movement within the
crystal lattices. I don't think you've actually got recrystalization going on
here.
In a pure metal, like gold or silver, work hardening is less than with alloys,
because crystal boundaries are completely between equal type crystals, so
boundary stresses are equalized enough to not fail or rupture with continued
deformation, or even extensive stretching of the grain boundaries. And in gold
especially, but also silver and pure platinum, the tensile strength of the metal
remains high enough to withstand any stress of deformation from working so
there's little if any practical limit to how far deformation of the crystals can
be taken. It seems likely to me (though this is conjecture only), that with
time, modest atomic mobility might be able to correct those minor slip plane
errors that occur in crystal deformation, and perhaps relieve some of the stress
of work hardening. this is part of what happens during annealing, as the
crystal structure corrects errors. But in true annealing, it also breaks down
the crystal shape too, and atoms reallign themselves enough to recrystalize into
new crystals, with new crystal shapes. Again, these changes in gold, silver,
etc, are time and temperature related. I cannot say for sure that gold might
not, over long periods of time, manage to recrystalize enough to be called
actually annealled. But I'd have to say that the concept of this happening in a
few weeks, months, or even years, doesn't fit my experience or expectations.
Centuries or millenia...? perhaps.
I do seem to recall reading somewhere, that metalurgical examinations of ancient
metal work sometimes could use this type of slow recrystalization or stress
relief to help identify the age, or prove authenticity of an ancient piece. But
like I said, weeks or months? I'd think not.
When I first went to work for my current employer, one type of job I was given
soon after starting, was the inlay of pure gold into various areas of some of
our platinum rings. The gold is just a wire which I use like wire solder,
melting it directly into the platinum. I make that wire myself, just melting an
ingot, and rolling it through the square mill to it's smallest size. No
annealing is needed, and when I'm done with it, the wire is still fairly soft
and bendable, but if annealed, it's limp as a wet noodle, vastly softer. I've
still got some of that original coil of pure gold wire I made four and a half
years ago. I compared it today, with a new bit I prepared the same way. Both
pieces of wire are identical in their current state of hardness. No detectable
softening has taken place in the four year old piece. This was made from .999
pure gold casting grain straight from the refiners. And by the way, should you
ever manage to anneal a bit of gold leaf, without melting it, you'll find it
then is so absolutely limp and soft that simple static charges and air currents
make it pretty much crumple up on it's own. The stuff isn't far from behaving
like that anyway, but gold leaf, soft as it seems, is still fully work hardened
gold. Anneal the stuff? You'd never even be able to pick it up on a gilders
brush any more, I'd think.
>>
>>I have already said it a few times. I have been wearing a 24K Gold wedding band
>>(3.5 mm wide, 1.5 mm thick)
>>for 12 years, with no averse effects. I have gardened with it, I have worked on
>>my car with it. I havndle
>>sandpaper with it on a daily basis. I have lifted heavy items with it.
>>
>>And yes it wears, and yes it is softer than 18K and 22K gold. Thanks for
>>pointing out the obvious. Duh!
>>
>>
>>> I think you must be thinking of 990 gold, which is a micro-alloy
>>> containg 99% gold plus other metals.
>>
>>No we were talking about 24K Gold, a perfectly suitable metal for wedding band,
>>if you know what you are
>>doing!
>>
>>I am beginning to have the feeling that the people who voice opinions against
>>the suitablility of 24K gold
>>for wedding band, have no experience working with the metal or actually making a
>>band out of it, or they
>>would not have this opinion. All I hear is "hear say" (alloying with titanium,
>>self annealing form the
>>"tech guy), but noone seems to be speaking from experience other than Peter and
>>I.
Well, I know Abrasha and I aren't the only one's who've worked it. Both Gary
and Daniel also describe working it. Perhaps the differences are not so much in
what the metal does, in what one person versus another person thinks of the
result. One smith might work pure gold to it's full hardness, and then still be
convinced that this admitedly soft metal is indeed too soft for use as is.
Another might look at the exact same degree of hardness, and come to a different
conclusion. It's a question, I think, of expectations, not metalurgy. For some
folks, pure gold will likely seem too easy to dent or bend. I've had some
customers for whom a nice hard 18K nickel white gold was too damn soft, as they
managed to bend (and crack) even this intractable stuff. Some folks find silver
jewelry too soft and quickly worn for practical use, while others find it
acceptable. For my part, I love the color of pure gold enough, as well as
enjoying the emotional notion of a pure metal, that I'm quite willing to use it,
and consider it acceptable for jewelry when properly made and designed for the
intended use.
Peter
NE333RO
>"Self annealing at room
>temperature". You've got to be kidding me. This is patent nonsense.
Nope, not patent nonsense. You are right though in that its not going to
happen in the time frame we are talking about. It's a non-issue.
>I have already said it a few times. I have been wearing a 24K Gold wedding
>band
>(3.5 mm wide, 1.5 mm thick)
>for 12 years, with no averse effects. I have gardened with it, I have worked
>on
>my car with it. I havndle
>sandpaper with it on a daily basis. I have lifted heavy items with it.
But we aren't talking about you. We are talking about someone that didn't
design their ring to take into account a softer metal (or knew what to look
for). We are talking about a ring that you have no idea about what kind of
surface design it may have. We are talking about a person wearing the ring that
you have no idea how they treat their jewelry. We are also talking about
someone who is not a jeweler, and who is not constantly aware (at least
subliminally) of how their ring is being worn. We are also talking about
someone who can't just stop by their buffing wheel or bench to replace a design
or finish.
>And yes it wears, and yes it is softer than 18K and 22K gold. Thanks for
>pointing out the obvious. Duh!
Obvious to you maybe. Not so obvious to the original poster. Would you
suggest anybody, wear any design, made in 24K? Fillagree? Tension mounting?
>I am beginning to have the feeling that the people who voice opinions against
>the suitablility of 24K gold
>for wedding band, have no experience working with the metal or actually
>making a
>band out of it,
And I'm beginning to have the feeling that you have little experience with
the average jewelry buyer.
> but noone seems to be speaking from experience other than Peter
>and
>I.
Typical Abrasha.