With some regularity, I get requests for ring size recommendations for Full Persian. We don't yet have a kit in the works for that and, because it's not one of my favorite weaves, I haven't played with it enough to have worked out all the best ring sizes. So if you don't mind, I thought I'd ask you all for some help. If you've made Full Persian with our rings, would you please add a comment to this post with the ring size(s) you've used, in which metals you've made it and the characteristics of the resulting chain with regard to flexibility and appearance? And if you happen to know the number of rings per inch, that would be great, too. This post will substitute for a weave gallery page until I have a chance to make one. Thanks so much for anything you can add. *s*

Here's a little something from the mailbag I thought I'd share. Lately there seems to be a rash of tutorials that call for peculiar ring sizes. Without speculating on why that's happening, I'll just explain what you can do about it. *s*

Dear Aislyn, I'm looking at a pattern for japanese lace and am struggling with the gauge sizes and inner diameters. Do I go up or down to even numbers? 21g/2.38mm, 19g/3.57, 3.97, 4.37 mm. Also thank you for your quick tutorial on the vertabrae weave, I can understand it better now. Many thanks, enjoy your holiday break. Trudi.

Trudi, I wish I could make this dead easy but with odd gauges and odd millimeter measurements, the only thing you can do to give yourself true comparisons is take it all down to aspect ratio. It's really not difficult, it just seems like it's going to be which is kind of daunting. So I'm going to walk you through one of them so you'll know how and then you'll just have to get some scratch paper and a calculator and make the conversions for all the rest.

First, you need to get all those odd wire gauges converted to millimeter measurements. That isn't hard. Just look on this chart:

http://www.vandenhul.com/artpap/awg.htm

...at the first and third columns. See where it says 18g is 1.02mm? Those are the correct columns to use. So make notes for all the gauges you're referencing: 19g is .912mm, etc.

Once you have all those converted to mm, you can calculate the aspect ratios. To do that, for each ring size you're referencing, divide the inner diameter of the ring by the width of the wire, all in millimeters. So for that 19g/3.57mm ring you mentioned, divide 3.57 by .912 to get 3.914. That's the aspect ratio. Do that for all the ring sizes and make notes of the aspect ratio of each ring size you're referencing.

Now you have a system independent number to represent each ring size. There's one more thing you have to pay attention to since you're working on patterns that call for multiple ring sizes. If the pattern you're referencing calls for 17g and 19g rings, for example, you'll need to decide if you want to go a little more delicate than the example, to 18g and 20g rings, or a little heavier than the example, to 16g and 18g rings. Either way, though, keep the spread the same number of gauges apart; 17 and 19 are two sizes apart, 18 and 20 are two sizes apart, etc.

Let's say you want to convert the 19g a bit smaller to 20g. Take the aspect ratio you calculated before, 3.914, and multiply it by the width of 20g wire, which is .812 to get 3.178. That's the desired inside diameter in 20g. The closest smaller ring size is 20g/3.0mm and that will probably be fine because springback will make the finished ring a wee bit larger than the 3.0mm mandrel size anyway. If you're using two ring sizes and you round the other one up, though, you might be safer also rounding this one up to 20g/3.25mm. Even with all this math, there is still some estimation and a little guessing involved. It's never going to be an exact translation when you're dealing with different systems of measurement and different degrees of springback. The math just gets you close... educated guessing has to take you the rest of the way.

I'm working on a very involved set of charts specific to our rings that will do a lot of this work for you but it's a very time consuming project. For now, though, I hope this helps. *s*

-- Aislyn

 

I've been bombarded with questions lately about how to do this variation of Euro4n1 and what ring sizes to use. I didn't recognize the name but someone sent me a picture that I believe is a single row of KingScale with small rings to anchor the sides in place of additional rows. I made some test pieces to work out the ring sizes and then did a few quickie renders to explain.

I used 16g/8.0mm (about 5rpi - rings per inch)
16g/5.5mm (about 5rpi)
and 16g/4.0mm rings (8 to 10rpi).
(16g/7.5mm, 16g/5.0mm and 16g/4.0mm also work but the chain isn't very flexible) I didn't count the rings per inch but 1ozt of each will make quite a lot of chain.

1. Close a bunch of 16g/8.0mm rings and 16g/5.5mm rings and lay them out like this, one inside the other, on your work surface. We'll call these rings 'sets'. 2. Stack two sets as shown and link them together using two of the 16g/4.0mm (hereafter referred to as 'small') rings. 3. Separate the two small rings and slide them down to the sides. 4. Use your non-dominant thumb to push the set in front up as far as it will go. 5. Stack another set on the one you just pushed up and link those two sets with a pair of small rings. (Shown a bit from the side so you can better see what you're doing.) 6. Again, part the two small rings and slide them down to the sides while pushing the front set up with your thumb. Repeat steps 5 & 6 for the length of the chain and it should look something like this.

I didn't have time to make really crisp renders so the edges are a bit fuzzy but hopefully it's good enough to clear up the confusion that's going around. *s*

In response to several requests, I made a real life version of my wallpaper flower so I could share the specs with you. I hope you like the name I gave it. *g* Getting the right size balance between the center ring and its spokes turned out to be surprisingly fiddly; too loose and it was floppy and didn't hold its shape, too tight and the whole flower would torque in peculiar ways. This version, though, is just right. It's tight enough to maintain its shape perfectly even when suspended but not so tight that it torques under its own tension.

As mentioned in the comments on the wallpaper post, it's based on the Parallel Flowers design but with more petals and the addition of a center ring and spokes. I made one change between the virtual design and the real one. In the real design, the spokes are connected to the pairs of sandwich rings rather than to the captive rings, as they are in the virtual flowers. That change makes the design more stable and prevents floppiness in the spokes.

Each flower is 1 inch in diameter and requires:

18 rings, 18g/6.0mm
12 rings, 18g/3.25mm
6 rings, 20g/3.25mm
1 ring, 16g/5.0mm

To connect them together, you'll need 2 more 18g/3.25mm rings between each pair of flowers. (For greater flexibility, as might be needed for a small bracelet, use 18g/3.5mm rings to connect the flowers to each other.) Connect the sandwich rings to each other, rather than the captive rings, for greater stability and balance in the design.

As I mentioned before, this design is extremely particular in regard to ring size, so while it works perfectly in these sizes using our sterling rings, it's untested in argentium and copper. I think it will work in those metals, but I can't promise that it will.

(Edited 6/18 to add: Kate has successfully tested this design in copper which means it will also work in argentium. Yay! See comments for more info.)

I hope you have fun with this and send us some nice pics for the customer gallery. *s*

There's a tutorial for this project in the current issue of Bead & Button. It calls for odd gauge sizes (15g/10mm and 17g/5.5mm) and I've had several requests to translate it to sizes that we make. In the magazine picture, it looks like it could stand to be tightened up a bit, so I sat down to test it using 16g/10mm and 18g/5.5mm rings. When I took a break from that, I happened to luck onto another tutorial for it at MAIL that calls for 14g/10mm and 18g/5.0mm rings. Evidently, this project works in a range of sizes. If you like snug fitting chains, as I do, you should probably go with the 14g/10mm and 18g/5.0mm combination. For a looser fit, try 16g/10mm and 18g/5.5mm. *s*

Note added 5/16:
Before choosing sizes, be sure and read what everyone has to say by clicking on comments below.

Here's a recent email question you might find interesting.

I'm wondering how the romanov without beads holds the curve. I tried it at home and it just hung straight between the larger rings they were connected to at each end. What is the secret?

Each segment of byzantine is bent into a slight C shape because the ends are connected to something curved rather than something straight. Does that make sense? If your segments are lying too straight, you could do various things to exaggerate the curve.

If your connector rings have a really large ID, there might be too much slack there and you could try using some slightly smaller ones. Or you could try using smaller rings on the tips of the byzantine segments in order to hold them closer to the connector rings, encouraging them to conform to its curve. (Fatter connecting rings could also serve that same purpose.) If all else fails, you could put rings of the same gauge but with a larger ID in the center of your byzantine segments, thereby forcing them to curve.

You can also combine some of these techniques to get just the degree of curve you want. Making jewelry is sometimes a lot like engineering, don't you think? *s*

We recently received the following email and I feel that this is an issue that needs addressing here:

"Part of my last order was one ozt of 18g/4.0mm argentium rings for a customer who wanted a box chain bracelet. While I was making it last evening, I noticed the weave seemed tighter than usual, but finished the piece. The bracelet is only marginally flexible, standing away from the wrist in an arc instead of laying against it, and I don't know what the problem is. It is as if the rings are just a tiny bit too small in diameter--large enough to make the weave but too small to have the flexibility. I have made several box chain bracelets and a necklace with your 18g/4.0 mm sterling silver rings, and these pieces were flexible--for example, the bracelets would lay against the customers' wrist in a smooth fashion.
I know the problem has nothing to do with the type of metal the rings are made from. I could use your help as I'm facing the delivery date for the bracelet. I don't want to reorder without mentioning the problem to you first and getting your comments. Thank you for your help."

And this is my answer:

Actually, the problem has everything to do with the type of metal you're using, which is why our ring size recommendations are on our sterling page, but not the copper or argentium pages. I've mentioned this issue on both the Weave Gallery pages but maybe I need to write about it in the News, as well. Here's the bit about it, copied from one of the Weave Gallery pages:

"Please keep in mind that these demonstration pieces were all made with our traditional sterling rings and the recommendations are based on those tests. Argentium sterling wire is slightly softer and copper wire is softer still so due to decreased springback, finished rings in those materials could be the tiniest bit smaller than traditional sterling rings and therefore might not substitute well in the most snug fitting designs described below. I'll add specific information on those materials as I test them but in the meantime test the materials yourself or avoid using them when a chain is indicated as being extremely snug. Gold wire is harder than sterling, making the rings ever so slightly larger so this is not an issue that affects gold."

Box chain in 18g/4.0mm is one of those that's really snug, right at the edge of workability and it has no room to get more snug. If it's just too tight, I would suggest either making it in traditional sterling or going for a looser version of the chain in 18g/4.5mm argentium. I know neither is the perfect solution, but each metal is different and learning the metal is just part of the art. I'm sorry this learning is coming when you have a customer waiting, though, I know how awkward that can be. *hugs*

-- Aislyn

There's tension in metal wire, which is compounded considerably by coiling it. When the wire is cut at the end of a coil, it makes a sound like SPROING! and loosens a tiny bit on the mandrel because of that tension. This is called springback. The greater the springback, the bigger the ring becomes in relation to the mandrel it was wound on. Obviously, very hard metals like steel are affected by springback to a much greater degree than softer precious metals, but the issue exists to some degree with all metals.

Springback can be pretty well eliminated by using dead soft metals to make the rings, but the trade off is that then the rings will be weak and the resulting jewelry won't hold up well to stress. Using full hard wire results in the stiffest rings, but then the springback is so great that the mandrel size stops being truly representative of the finished ring size, making it hard to know what ring size to use for a given weave.

After much experimenting, we settled on what we believe is the best compromise between the two horns of this dilemma. We use half hard wire, which is quite strong, and coil it under a great deal of pressure, which both subdues the springback and hardens the rings substantially. We then tumble polish the rings for hours, hardening them still more so that the finished result is stiff, strong rings with as little springback as possible. This process works great, so well in fact that it actually makes 14K gold unworkably hard, which is why we don't offer it now, though we will later on when we're set up to anneal those rings back to softness.

Customers have often commented about how dead on our ring measurements are when they've measured the ID with calipers. Still, though, there has to be some tiny amount of springback remaining simply because we aren't using dead soft wire to start with. The issue referred to in the email results from the fact that half hard argentium wire is a little bit softer than half hard traditional sterling and half hard copper is a little softer than argentium. We use the same mandrels and the same processes, but the resulting ring sizes are still going to vary by an eentsy amount, no matter what. It's physics and there's no way around it.

Over time, we'll test every weave in every ring size of every metal we carry and post those results with recommendations. In the meantime, though, the Weave Gallery is your friend and can help you plan your projects with these specs in mind. When a particular size is mentioned as being snug in traditional sterling, expect the weave to be a bit stiffer in argentium or copper. Use those properties when you need a stiffer chain, perhaps for a bangle type bracelet or to act as a neckwire to hold a heavy pendent without sagging. Conversely, though, when a weave is just a hair too loose in traditional sterling, using argentium or copper in those sizes will result in a much nicer chain, so use those characteristics to your advantage. Every metal is different and learning about them is part of the art. *s*

 

This is a little preview of the surprise I mentioned in Tuesday's entry. I hope you enjoy it. *s*

Romanov (with beads)

This is a particularly beautiful byzantine variation but it can be kind of tricky and requires the ability to make a really good bead link. (I'll have a tutorial available for bead links soon but it isn't ready yet so you might need to search online for instructions in the meantime.)

One unit of Romanov consists of two segments of byzantine and one bead link, joined at each end with a larger connecting ring. A segment of byzantine consists of 14 rings (2-2-2-Fold-2-2-2-Fold-2). The tricky part is the bead link. It must have small simple loops, not wrapped loops, and the loop must begin right up against the bead with no visible 'neck', which takes some practice. Once you have two byzantine segments and a bead link made, open your large connecting ring and put on one end of a byzantine segment, one end of the bead link, then one end of the other byzantine segment and close the ring. Open another large connecting ring and put the other end of each piece on it in the same manner. If you have trouble getting it to fit or if the unit won't lay flat once it's put together, chances are good that the bead link is too long and must be remade. This is why it's so important to have the loop right against the bead.

Romanov can be made with byzantine segments of any gauge but you might have to play with it a bit to find the right size bead to fit in the center. It's a bit easier if your chain isn't too snug. For your first try, I would recommend byzantine segments made of 18g/3.5mm rings, 16g/5.0 or 5.5mm connecting rings and 6mm round beads.

Two recent incidents have inspired me to write this piece today. I saw some Jens Pind's woven by someone I considered a chain master and there were mistakes in it. Then I got a note from a customer who'd put down her Jens Pind's in progress and wasn't able to resume work on it, despite my kit instructions on how to find your place. She suspected she'd made a mistake and that's why it didn't look quite right and she wasn't able to find her place.

With Jens Pind's, mistakes are easy to make and hard to spot. They're almost impossible to spot at the point they're made. Once you're well past the mistake, it's still hard to spot... and damned near impossible to fix.

(I know it can be fixed because I've joined two ends of Jens Pind's together into a continuous length of chain, which is the same process you'd use to fix a mistake, but it was brutally difficult, took forever and I don't recommend it. It's far less painful to just take the chain apart at that point and have two chains to finish.)

So anyway, I decided to write here about my method for searching out mistakes so you'll know how to spot your own. Lay the chain in your hand and look at its grain. Notice that the rings form dashed lines that run the length of the chain with all the dashes lying at the same angle. Look at the last picture on this page to see what I mean. Notice the row of rings marching the length of the chain, like a line of dashes. Follow that line with your gaze and notice that every ring lies at the exact same angle as every other ring in that line.

Now find a line like that in your own chain and trace it with your gaze, looking for perfect alignment of angle, all the way along its length. If those rings are all in line, roll the chain, find another line and follow it. If one ring is other than perfectly aligned with all the rings fore and aft of it, that's a mistake in the chain.

If you find such a mistake, you'll have to take the chain apart back to that spot, ring by ring, or divide the chain into two at that spot. It's a huge pain, I know, but don't be upset about it because the very fact that it is such a huge pain will keep you always checking as you go along in the future and that means you'll never have to do this again and you will truly have mastered the notoriously difficult Jens Pind's... and that's something to be proud of. *s*

Someone sent me a link to this creative use of chainmaille and I thought it would make a nice gift for someone who enjoys giving dinner parties.

Napkin Rings

Of course now we have to wonder who 'Ray' is... but that's beside the point. *g* These would look lovely made from European 4-in-1 in 18g/3.0 or 3.5mm, or even more slinky and elegant in 20g/2.5mm if you're feeling ambitious.

It's never too early to start thinking about those Christmas gifts you're going to make. *s*

At some point, we're going to have a very nice kit for this variation. It's not, however, anywhere near the top of my to do list right now. I featured a 'coming attractions' picture of it in one of my instruction books, though, before I realized how many other kits I'm dying to work on, so of course I get emails asking about it with some regularity. So for those of you who already know how to weave Parallel Chain (and I'm linking to the kit for those who haven't learned it yet) and are bold and intrepid maillers, willing to work out the finer points of instruction on your own, here's a quick and dirty tutorial for making the lovely and versatile Parallel Flowers, pictured here:

This photo wasn't taken with a ruler, obviously, but for the purposes of calculating the needed number of rings, figure each flower to be just shy of an inch in width. The large rings are 18g/6.0mm and the smaller rings are 18g/3.5mm.

For one flower, make a strand of parallel chain consisting of 4 sets of doubled rings and the 3 captive rings that go between them. Curve the strand around and attach the end sets of doubled rings to each other, then gently and carefully work in a captive ring between them. It's fiddly and tight and patience is required. It is, however, worth the trouble. *s* Have fun.

 

Lately I've had several people ask what weave I used for certain pieces of jewelry I've made, namely Gaia, Welcome to the Amazon and Heart of the City, and whether there will be a kit available for that weave any time soon. The weave is Jens Pind's Linkage and we already have a kit available for it here, under Journeyman Project Kits .

Please note that 1) this kit is hard on your hands and, 2) it's a project kit, meaning it requires previous knowledge of some weave. In this case, that weave is spiral. If you don't know how to weave spiral, you can learn with our Double Spiral 4-in-1 Kit. Note that the draped bit of chain on Heart of the City is single spiral chain which the Double Spiral 4-in-1 Kit also teaches.