Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 72

Thread: Ultrasonic Damanging Jewellery

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    3,172

    Default

    I wish there was such a thing as a Which comparison site for jewellery tools. I'm just at a complete loss as to what to go with - a new and more expensive ultrasonic or a steam cleaner. If I make the wrong choice, it'll be a very expensive mistake.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    56

    Default

    I have exactly the same problem and my ultrasonic is gathering dust as having to repolish after cleaning items kind of defeats the object in my eyes...

    My model is http://www.cooksongold.com/Jewellery...rcode-997-1314 and it leaves white etched type marks on my silver, have tried numerous different detergents, all brand new, with and without ammonia, plus boring water (at different temperatures) and I still get the white markings. I also hung the items well apart from each other on wire... if anyone has the answer to this would be very gratefully received...

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Romsey
    Posts
    5,002

    Default

    This is probably one of the closest things to that.

    FWIW, I used one of the smaller James ultrasonics for a couple of years before going the route of the Elma (which, after the DOA issue has worked flawlessly). I know a few jewellers use cappuccino machines in lieu of a steamer; they're not really designed for heavy use, but you'd get away with it for a while.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Do steamers and ultrasonics in fact occupy the same niche in jewelry making? I've seen videos of people using steam cleaners and they always use them on an item when they've just taken it out of the ultrasonic, not instead of an ultrasonic. I know there are certain stones that can't safely be put in an ultrasonic, but can a steam cleaner ever replicate or get close to a good ultrasonic's cleaning power?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Central London
    Posts
    8,201

    Default

    Most makers are concerned with removing polishing compounds, so steam would do that. Of course, tumbling in a strong soapy solution would do much the same thing.

    However on used jewellery, you are trying to remove sweat, dirt and flakes of skin, so ultrasonics would be more appropriate.

    There is one caveat though: the dirt might be holding the stones in place, so it is wise to have the piece in a sieve or bag to catch them. Dennis

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    3,172

    Default

    I only need it for removing polishing compound. Peter's idea of using a cappuccino maker has opened a whole other can of worms. ......... and around I go again!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Staffordshire
    Posts
    1,727

    Default

    A steam cleaner is fabulous on items containing stones that cannot tolerate an ultrasonic,...such as opals or emeralds......as Dennis says they remove grime well too, though for items that can go in an ultrasonic, you can use that instead.....I have access to a professional steam cleaner.....and one is on my wish list for the long term!!!.....I am currently test driving my hand held steam cleaner which I use in the bathroom.....not a bad stand in so far!!

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    3,172

    Default

    Ah Jill, at last someone who's used a steam cleaner. Which do you prefer, steam or ultrasonic?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caroleallen View Post
    I wish there was such a thing as a Which comparison site for jewellery tools.
    Yes, it would save a lot of uncertainty and cut down on purchases you regret.

    If the jewelry trade is anything like the bookbinding trade, though, the way I see it is that the reason we don't get Which-type reviews everywhere is that the heaviest users of jewelry tools and machinery are bench employees who, if they find out a piece of equipment is no good, are not hit in the pocket personally, but simply tell their boss the thing is no good, and then sooner or later it gets replaced with something better (or worse). What they don't do, or have any incentive to do generally, is tell the rest of the world how good or bad something is. The incentive to tell the world is not there firstly because they've not been hit in the pocket by the purchase, secondly because telling the world will only let their trade competitors benefit from their mistake (this is more the boss's incentive), and thirdly because a lot of employees in all sorts of trades may be very proficient at what they do but they aren't often so passionate about it as a discipline that they want to talk about it during their time off.

    So, up to a point, most of us have to go shopping with a blindfold on because too few people in the trade broadcast or want to broadcast their experience, whether it's good or bad, of particular brands or models of tools and equipment.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Central London
    Posts
    8,201

    Default

    Well Which? magazine costs about 25 a quarter now, for a fairly healthy circulation. Can you imagine how much a small circulation Jewellers research group would need to charge?.

    It would need worth of lab testing equipment alone. Add to that qualified personnel and the covert purchase of test pieces, legal insurance, etc.

    Testimonials alone would not do,as witnessed by the range of advice found here. Dennis.
    Last edited by Dennis; 22-08-2014 at 01:51 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •