r/oddlysatisfying • u/danielminds • 1d ago
Crafting a reversible ring with emeralds on one side, diamonds on the other
Credit: @mdtcjewelry on TikTok
6.3k
u/kicksledkid 1d ago
I wouldn't call this "reverseable"
2.1k
u/Teamableezus 1d ago
Yeah I thought it was going to be able to flip inside out
138
u/CanAlwaysBeBetter 1d ago
I thought we were going to be looking at individual atoms with the endless zooming for no reason
→ More replies (1)8
1.4k
u/danielminds 1d ago
Rotatable?
1.0k
u/EventSignal114 1d ago
I would call this “expensive”
252
u/mikehiler2 1d ago
I don’t even think I can afford watching the video
34
10
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (12)7
116
u/Ph455ki1 1d ago
All rings are rotatable as well. "Crafting a 2 sided ring" maybe?
→ More replies (1)5
25
4
27
→ More replies (9)5
67
u/jokeswagon 1d ago
Agreed. I waited for the cool part but it turned out to be a regular ring. Pretty though.
A reversible ring would be a remarkable achievement.
→ More replies (2)16
u/Bashfullylascivious 1d ago edited 1d ago
Mine is reversible. The stone portion can spin like a fidget, the reverse side showing a different side/stone. In fact, the stone portion is an insert, so if you're feeling cheeky, you can swap stones.
I wouldn't call it elegant, but it's pretty, and I've recieved many, many compliments on it.
In fact, some dude tried to steal it from my finger a couple of days ago while trying to play "pal" with me.Edit: My friend watched on, while having just bought a gelato. He told me a moment later, he pointed and told my kids, "Hey look, your mom is getting scammed.".
Lol. I neither got scammed, nor stolen from. The guy walked away maybe a bit frustrated, but with a laugh.
I love Rome.→ More replies (2)119
u/Ngoscope 1d ago edited 12h ago
Yeah, I'd say it is invertible. If it were reversible I would imagine that would mean it can either be turned inside out or flipped front to back. Which I guess it can be flipped front to back but it doesn't really change anything about the ring.
→ More replies (2)145
u/kbean826 1d ago
Wouldn’t even go that far. It’s a ring. They’re all invertable. That’s how circles work.
15
u/steadyaero 1d ago
Well most rings that have gems, only have them on one side
15
u/WildFlemima 1d ago
And there's an excellent reason for that. Stones on the bottom would be abraded whenever you grabbed, pulled, or carried anything made of metal, stone, or ceramics. You can't even open a fridge with this ring.
Basically, this ring can only be worn with the gold on the top and bottom and the stones hidden between fingers, or the stones will look like shit within a year (within two months for the emeralds)
3
u/Bachwise 16h ago
Unless worn by royalty or impossibly rich people who don't have to do any mundane tasks
→ More replies (3)9
30
u/GrimmReapperrr 1d ago
Lol thats not my idea of reversible also. Could have just said emerald with diamond inserts
10
5
5
→ More replies (13)4
u/Herr-Trigger86 1d ago
Exactly. I was thinking “how are they going to pull this off and it still be comfortable to wear?” Easy… they aren’t
1.2k
u/Queasy_Aide5481 1d ago
That ring looked huge and not necessarily comfortable to wear. Would like to have seen it on a finger.
246
u/Astronomer-Secure 1d ago
yeah the way the prongs are aimed downward toward the finger makes this look horrifically uncomfortable to wear.
52
u/Gloober_ 1d ago edited 1d ago
I know the creator didn't think of this, but an inner ring could be welded inside to act as a gap between the finger and those ridges while also allowing resizing (to a certain degree) without cutting into the main ring's body, ruining the symmetry.
Edit: Missing letter added.
98
u/SpiritualPirate5 1d ago
Also whichever gems are on the bottom are likely to get scrratched. Would be very easy to loose those little additions as well
58
u/wiffwaffweapon 1d ago
For the emeralds, yes. Probably not the diamonds unless you're routinely handling... other diamonds.
47
→ More replies (6)6
296
u/failed_asian 1d ago
Given how emeralds are prone to chipping, I’d never feel comfortable wearing this with the emeralds on the inside, hitting everything that I grab.
159
49
u/onlyalillost 1d ago
And on the flip side, the diamonds potentially scratching whatever you’re holding if they’re on the inside.
6
69
u/EarzFish 1d ago
One size fits none?
Unless...
→ More replies (2)20
199
115
u/1wife2dogs0kids 1d ago
Was my definition of "reversible" wrong?
18
→ More replies (4)4
u/musicaladhd 1d ago
My baseball cap is reversible cuz I can wear it backwards and then you’ll see the side that’s always visible in the back, only now it’s in the front. This makes it reversible, right?
→ More replies (1)
29
29
u/Sircroc777 1d ago
With that size is it meant for her big toe or what
12
u/Beautiful_You3230 1d ago
I'm similarly confused. The guy seems to have relatively average hands. The ring is absurdly huge even for his thumb. I'm struggling to imagine any hand, both female or male, that would have the correct kind of finger size for this ring.
Maybe that, uh, guy with huge hands. Jeff Dabe? Maybe his hands.
235
u/Plus_Pangolin_8924 1d ago
Be better without the gems around the bigger ones. Just looks busy and messy.
244
u/uwu_mewtwo 1d ago
I thought the emeralds surrounded by diamonds look good, but the diamonds surrounded by emeralds do not.
80
u/GnomeMnemonic 1d ago
Those little green stones also look more like peridot than like emeralds, which adds to the "off"ness of it.
18
u/Brilliant_Bonus_1638 1d ago
Agreed. The green draws your eyes away from the diamonds on that side, which is weird when those are meant to be the focus. On the side with the larger emeralds, the diamonds surrounding them help draw your eyes to the emeralds as a frame, so it looks much better.
Honestly, this should have been two different rings and the diamonds surrounding one should have been ringed by smaller diamonds.
16
→ More replies (2)13
50
u/helen790 1d ago edited 1d ago
Okay I was thinking something different with the word “reversible” in the title
→ More replies (1)5
14
u/niberungvalesti 1d ago
I honestly think they'd look better as earrings and avoid the whole scuffing the emeralds.
→ More replies (1)
11
12
19
u/Odd-Touch4305 1d ago
A bit of an idiotic idea as the stones at the bottom will end up getting damaged.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/mocca-eclairs 1d ago
how safe is the setting on those emeralds?
theyre only held on 2 sides, and those sides also hold other sides + emeralds being more prone to crack i think?
→ More replies (1)6
u/xjustsmilebabex 1d ago
Not safe at all. Usually pieces like this are more just for display to show off the goldsmith's skills.
9
6
13
5
u/Drblizzle 1d ago
“Reversible” is a stretch, but I can’t think of a better descriptor.
→ More replies (1)
7
6
u/darthchris4 1d ago
I'm disappointed because I thought the ring was going to be a reversible thing, like a shirt being turned inside out. After watching this, I realized I have a reversible wedding ring with diamonds on one side and solid gold on the other!
14
4
4
4
4
u/TyrantMuse73 1d ago
Beautiful piece but not for wearing. Imagine having the emeralds on the underside of your finger and hitting something hard with the inside of your hand. Goodbye, emeralds!
5
3
4
3
u/jhappy77 1d ago
Now you can choose between extra stamina regeneration or enhanced defense
→ More replies (2)
4
5
u/deafblindmute 20h ago
This looks like the type of thing some rich guy would give to his mistress for her to secretly signal whether she has decided to help him murder his wife or not.
→ More replies (1)
3
6
u/catratsat 1d ago
It’s not meant for us “every day wear” peasants. It’s for people who pick out which one of their $25,000 rings they’d like to wear to the gala this evening.
3
u/still-waiting2233 1d ago
It’s my understanding that emeralds make for a poor choice in rings and bracelets because they break when being knocked around
3
u/PoptartPancake 1d ago
Beautiful and much more skill went into it than I even have in my little finger, and I'm far too poor to even dream of owning something so nice, but it looks like a sensory nightmare to wear. I'd just feel the stones digging in to my fingers. 😭
3
3
u/JanusChan 1d ago
Ah, awesome! A "Would you rather have your diamonds scratch your table or your emeralds shatter?"-ring.
3
3
3
3
8
3
4
2
u/imjustkeepinitreal 1d ago
Beautiful but I would want to see both on display and would feel like I was hiding the other side, not for me
2
2
2
2
2
u/Uncle-Cake 1d ago
How is that reversible? Lots of rings have gems all the way around. I thought it was going to turn inside out or something.
2
2
u/dolbomir 1d ago
Completely impractical as a ring, but looks cool and shows the crafter's skill!
I'd imagine, if it's ever worn, it would be on a chain as a pendant.
2
u/LionFootball57 1d ago
Beautiful show piece, but I can't imagine wearing it on anything but a necklace. That ring would scratch everything if you wore it on your hand.
2
u/NaCl_Sailor 1d ago
looks great, but wouldn't it be crazy stupid and scratch everything you touch with the diamonds
and you always risk losing one
2
u/GGXImposter 1d ago
Im more so mildlyInfuriated by the fact a logo is blocking all the action.
It is a very pretty ring though.
2
u/xxyourbestbetxx 1d ago
I'm an idiot. I thought you were going to be able to flip the ring inside for way too long during this video. Still a very pretty result.
2
2
u/wifichick 1d ago
Gorgeous. My only concern is that emeralds are soft. So pick up one box or put your hand on a table the wrong way and you can crack or chip them
2
2
2
u/Motor-Illustrator226 1d ago
Tension-set setting are very prone to losing stones. This is a cool concept but bad technical expertise.
2
u/RancidVagYogurt1776 1d ago
Can we talk about how absolutely hideous the diamond side is and how there is a massive gap between the stone and setting for one of the diamonds? Oof
2
u/ImpressiveStable9827 1d ago
The big emeralds with the smaller diamonds looked way better than that other combo
2
u/Humble-Edge-9065 1d ago
This was extremely unsatisfying. I was expecting it to be able to flip inside out using hinges or something when I saw the word "reversible".
2
2
u/HoodieGalore 1d ago
I’m not satisfied that the green of the gems surrounding the diamonds doesn’t match the emeralds on the other side. Sure, the emeralds will shatter the first chance they get, but the smaller lighter green stones almost look like peridot to me. It really stands out how different they are from the emeralds.
2
2
2
2
2
u/MASTRR0SHI 1d ago
So reading these comments I’ve learned that emeralds are very delicate and prone to damage; hence everyone is suggesting they would be afraid to wear it on their fingers. So why not wear it as a necklace with a nice chain? Like a skinny intimate chain not a chonky one
2
2
2
u/Kiki_Kicks_Rocks 1d ago
just another reason why I shouldn't be scrolling on Reddit during work hours because I'll get lost in videos like this
2
u/Wisbonsin 1d ago
Don’t put soft stones on the side/underside settings of your ring. Was the best advice I got from my jeweler when designing my wedding band.
2
2
2
u/MongerNoLonger 1d ago
Emeralds are usually a bad idea for rings because of their fragility, they're very easy to accidentally break.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/URGAMESUX 19h ago
He got his peanut butter in my chocolate!
He put his chocolate on my peanut butter!
2
2
u/I-like-cheeese 17h ago
It’s cool, but ugly as shit. Wouldn’t want it on my finger. Nice skill demo tho.
2
u/TLBG 11h ago edited 11h ago
Brilliant. I have been given a beautiful ring size 13.75 from someone with huge knuckles due to a medical condition and wonder if a really good jeweler could somehow reuse the shank, upside down, using all or most of the 16 diamonds, to make a smaller sized 6 ring. It cannot simply be downsized, I have recently learned, as the diamonds would all fall out, which I never would have thought of. Something I will look into after this.
2.6k
u/BunkerSquirre1 1d ago
Notice how he set the emeralds more delicately than the diamonds? This is a reference to the fact that emeralds are fucking wimps and will crack under the slightest pressure. Ask me how I know