Why I stopped doing thin shanks

For the better part of a decade, the fashion in engagement ring shanks ran thin. 1.4mm, 1.5mm — fine wire bands that made the central stone appear to float, almost unsupported, against the finger. It photographed beautifully. It sold easily.

I stopped doing it in 2023. Here is why.

What happens at 1.5mm after five years

An engagement ring is worn every day. It contacts hard surfaces hundreds of times a week. It is exposed to cleaning chemicals, to the mechanical stress of removal and placement, to the constant flexion of a living hand.

A platinum shank at 1.5mm will deform measurably under five to seven years of normal wear. Not catastrophically — it will not break under normal conditions — but it will develop a permanent oval cross-section at the bottom of the band, and the setting walls, no longer supported by a structurally sound shank, will begin to flex. Flexing setting walls loosen stones. Loose stones fall out.

I had this conversation with too many clients returning rings for repair. The ring was three or four years old. The stone was secure when it left my workshop. The shank had simply done what 1.5mm platinum does under sustained wear.

The minimum I now work to

Rauno Oidram rings are built at a minimum shank width of 1.8mm at the base, tapering toward the shoulders no thinner than 1.6mm. For rings with significant setting heights — solitaires or larger stones where the setting creates leverage against the shank — I use 2.0mm as the floor.

These dimensions feel different in the hand than a 1.4mm band. They feel like jewellery, not wire. The ring has presence, and that presence is structural, not decorative.

The aesthetic case

A thicker shank does not make the stone look smaller — that is true only for poorly proportioned rings. A shank correctly proportioned to the stone does not diminish it. It contextualises it. A large stone on a wire band looks precarious. The same stone on a properly weighted shank looks settled, which is a more sophisticated quality.

The ultra-thin shank trend was driven partly by social media, where extreme close-up photography magnifies stones and minimises bands. In real life, on an actual hand, the effect is different — and the structural lifespan is vastly different.

What this means for my rings

I design shanks with longevity as a parameter, not an afterthought. The proportions I use are ones I am confident will look as good in 2045 as they do today, and will perform structurally over that timescale.

In the rare cases where a client cannot accept 1.8mm as a minimum, I refer them elsewhere without hard feelings. I am not interested in making rings I cannot stand behind.

The ring I make is intended to be worn every day for the rest of your partner’s life. It should be built accordingly.

For a broader understanding of how design decisions shape the total cost of a ring, read What you’re actually paying for in a €5,000 engagement ring. For the bespoke process, which includes shank specification as part of the brief, see A guide to commissioning bespoke.