ok so I started messing around with using these to make some settings for shoes, and so far my experimentation has had odd results, to me at least.
experiment #1
lapidary box, wyvern-shaped as the setting. Using dragon's-tear rubies, yielded wyvern-shaped rubies as the setting. and completely wiped out the dragon's-tear part, but kept the lapidary setting.
experiment #2
lapidary box, silver-tinged setting, a piece of spiderweb obsidian, turned into spiderweb obsidian settings
this somehow completely wiped out the entire silver-tinged part
experiment #3
gem cutter, moon-shaped setting, a piece of spiderweb obsidian, turned into moon-shaped obsidian settings.
this one kept the moon-shaped, but wiped out the spiderweb part.
Soooooo little confusing since I can't tell what the settings are going to be until I actually make four put them in the pouch and give them to the gem dealer. I plan on doing more experimenting, if anyone else has any results please share them.
BURGRAFS2
RATHBONER
Re: gem cutter/lapidary conundrum
11/04/2017 05:32 AM CDT
Everything in GS has a 15/15/15 article/adjective/noun.
When you make the settings, the original adjective is replaced by the noun and the noun becomes "settings".
It seems that in some cases the manufacture of settings keeps the original article (#1,#3), but in some cases it replaces it with the adjective (#2), but you always have to lose one part of the 15/15/15 because the noun has to become "settings".
Using a gem cutter will give a reliable result, because that wipes out the adjective to start with (XXX/YYY/ZZZ cuts to "cut//ZZZ" and becomes "cut/ZZZ/settings") but I don't know how to predict the effect of lapidary boxes on setting manufacture.
When you make the settings, the original adjective is replaced by the noun and the noun becomes "settings".
It seems that in some cases the manufacture of settings keeps the original article (#1,#3), but in some cases it replaces it with the adjective (#2), but you always have to lose one part of the 15/15/15 because the noun has to become "settings".
Using a gem cutter will give a reliable result, because that wipes out the adjective to start with (XXX/YYY/ZZZ cuts to "cut//ZZZ" and becomes "cut/ZZZ/settings") but I don't know how to predict the effect of lapidary boxes on setting manufacture.
BURGRAFS2
Re: gem cutter/lapidary conundrum
11/04/2017 08:47 AM CDT
yeah it's really odd, prior to them becoming settings, they all look perfect, then somehow in the setting process you get something that could go either way.
JL177
Re: gem cutter/lapidary conundrum
11/04/2017 04:45 PM CDT
You really need to LOOK at the settings, because what you see in your hand isn't necessarily what you're going to see in the final product.
>glance
You glance down to see a set of diamond settings in your right hand and nothing in your left hand.
>l my setting
The settings, which appear to be made from dragon's-tear diamonds, could be used when cobbling to make footwear that is:
>glance
You glance down to see a set of diamond settings in your right hand and nothing in your left hand.
>l my setting
The settings, which appear to be made from dragon's-tear diamonds, could be used when cobbling to make footwear that is:
studded with dragon's-tear diamonds | dragon's-tear diamond-studded |
inset with dragon's-tear diamonds | dragon's-tear diamond-inset |
buttoned with dragon's-tear diamonds | dragon's-tear diamond-buttoned |
beaded with dragon's-tear diamonds | dragon's-tear diamond-beaded |