Old gold solder joints

I recently came across some 40 year old gold chain that had been in a box
for many years. The problem is all of the soldered joints have become very
weak. The joints look good but the slightest force will open them up. What
could have caused this and is there a straightforward repair without
resoldering each link?

David

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 00:44:18 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry "David"
wrote:


I recently came across some 40 year old gold chain that had been in a box
for many years. The problem is all of the soldered joints have become very
weak. The joints look good but the slightest force will open them up. What
could have caused this and is there a straightforward repair without
resoldering each link?

David

one would not ordinarily expect age to degrade solder joints. So my first
question would be to wonder whether you are absolutely certain the joints are in
fact actually soldered? Some machine made chains can have seams tight enough to
appear soldered, when in fact the metal is just sort of smeared over the joint
without any actual solder...

There are a few things that might degrade a solder joint, but this is not
generally something like time spent in a box. Soaking in bleach, for example,
could weaken or even destroy some kinds of solder, especailly white gold
solders. Some acid baths might do it too, though usually what would degrade
the solder would also have a negative effect on the gold too.

As to repair, I'd guess it's not worth repairing. If these actually are solder
joints that have degraded so they now don't hold, you'd have to reflow the
solder to fix it. Not much different from fully resoldering them. Some chain
might be made with solder cored wire, which is sometimes able to be soldered by
simply furnace treating the whole chain. But it's not so simple if you don't
have the jigs and setup needed to do it, or you risk having the links solder
themselves to each other, rather than just closing the links shut.

I'd suggest your first step would be to find an experienced goldsmith to
carefully examine the chain and try to tell you just what you've got. Few
solid gold chains of any quality would have this sort of problem, or unsoldered
links. So you need to figure out first, whether your impression that the links
are really soldered but just failing, or whether they're just not soldered, and
if the latter, whether this is a quality chain worth bothering with, or whether
perhaps it's just gold filled or something like that.

And if it really is quality karat gold chain, and all the links were at one time
soldered, and the solder joints are now failing, I'd suggest sending the chain
to be refined, taking the money, and being happy with that or using it to buy
new chain...

just my two or three cents...

Peter

"Peter W.. Rowe," wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 00:44:18 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry "David"
wrote:


I recently came across some 40 year old gold chain that had been in a box
for many years. The problem is all of the soldered joints have become
very
weak. The joints look good but the slightest force will open them up.
What
could have caused this and is there a straightforward repair without
resoldering each link?

David

one would not ordinarily expect age to degrade solder joints. So my first
question would be to wonder whether you are absolutely certain the joints
are in
fact actually soldered? Some machine made chains can have seams tight
enough to
appear soldered, when in fact the metal is just sort of smeared over the
joint
without any actual solder...

There are a few things that might degrade a solder joint, but this is not
generally something like time spent in a box. Soaking in bleach, for
example,
could weaken or even destroy some kinds of solder, especailly white gold
solders. Some acid baths might do it too, though usually what would
degrade
the solder would also have a negative effect on the gold too.
(part sniped)
Peter

I little more information: The links are in fact soldered and the chain was
stored in a plastic bag. The stamp on the clasp is 14K so I assume that is
the grade of the entire piece.There was also a similar chain of the same
vintage that was not in a bag and the joints on it are fine. Could the
environment in the plastic bag have caused some form of reaction that
affected only the solder and not the rest of the link? The gold was not
especially tarnished.

David

When David put fingers to keys it was 10/7/06 1:50 AM...

...

I little more information: The links are in fact soldered and the chain was
stored in a plastic bag. The stamp on the clasp is 14K so I assume that is
the grade of the entire piece.There was also a similar chain of the same
vintage that was not in a bag and the joints on it are fine. Could the
environment in the plastic bag have caused some form of reaction that
affected only the solder and not the rest of the link? The gold was not
especially tarnished.

It's starting to sound like the chain was known as trouble back when it
was put _in_ the bag. How worn is it? I've seen chains whose links were
worn paper-thin at the ends by years of constant wear. The wear is
usually worst near a relatively rigid part (clasp, plaque). Could this
be part of the problem?

- CW

David wrote:
"Peter W.. Rowe," wrote in message
...

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 00:44:18 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry "David"
wrote:


I recently came across some 40 year old gold chain that had been in a box
for many years. The problem is all of the soldered joints have become
very
weak. The joints look good but the slightest force will open them up.
What
could have caused this and is there a straightforward repair without
resoldering each link?

David

one would not ordinarily expect age to degrade solder joints. So my first
question would be to wonder whether you are absolutely certain the joints
are in
fact actually soldered? Some machine made chains can have seams tight
enough to
appear soldered, when in fact the metal is just sort of smeared over the
joint
without any actual solder...

There are a few things that might degrade a solder joint, but this is not
generally something like time spent in a box. Soaking in bleach, for
example,
could weaken or even destroy some kinds of solder, especailly white gold
solders. Some acid baths might do it too, though usually what would
degrade
the solder would also have a negative effect on the gold too.
(part sniped)
Peter


I little more information: The links are in fact soldered and the chain was
stored in a plastic bag. The stamp on the clasp is 14K so I assume that is
the grade of the entire piece.There was also a similar chain of the same
vintage that was not in a bag and the joints on it are fine. Could the
environment in the plastic bag have caused some form of reaction that
affected only the solder and not the rest of the link? The gold was not
especially tarnished.

David

Just because the clasp is stamped /marked 14k really doesnt mean
anything without other supporting marks say from a
maker or shop or assay office..
It sounds more like a fake than anything else its
most likely to be gold plated base metal lead/tin soldered..
all you can do is
get the gold tested to find out if it really is gold at all.
any competent goldsmitn will have the gold testing kits.
a shop in a
mall is unlikely to know how to test your material.

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:50:11 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry "David"
wrote:

little more information: The links are in fact soldered and the chain was
stored in a plastic bag. The stamp on the clasp is 14K so I assume that is
the grade of the entire piece.There was also a similar chain of the same
vintage that was not in a bag and the joints on it are fine. Could the
environment in the plastic bag have caused some form of reaction that
affected only the solder and not the rest of the link? The gold was not
especially tarnished.

Simple storage over time in a plastic bag will not have degraded the chain or
the solder joints. It might, in some situations, accelerate the rate of
tarnishing for a silver chain, but that's not the case here. So discount the
part about the bag. Likely, the chain with trouble also had the same situation
originally. Time won't have made it worse, but won't have made it better
either, of course. In order for time in the bag to have degraded the chain, it
would have had to have been stored in the bag along with something fairly
corrosive that could etch the solder joints. There ARE things that could do
this, of course. But it's not likely, and in most cases, the whole chain would
show at the least, some bad tarnishing, corrosion products of some sort (like
green patina in spots) or you'd see residue of whatever had been in the bag
with the chain. You've not mentioned anything like that, so I doubt that's the
case.

Just because the clasp is marked 14K is not a guarantee that the rest of the
chain is also 14K, especially with spring ring clasps, which are usually
attached with an unsoldered jump ring attachment, and are easily changed and
replaced. If the stamp is on a part soldered to the chain, it may be more
likely a mark part of the original chain. But be aware that very often, those
folks selling fakes, will take the time to place a nice prominant 14K mark on
their gold plated wares. I doubt this is the situation here, but it's still
possible. A mark on only the clasp is not always to be trusted, though it's
useful info.

My guess is that this chain never had good solder joints, even if the links look
soldered, and were in fact supposed to be soldered. Modern chain making
machines now usually use lasers to weld or solder the joints, and these are
usually remarkably reliable. Before the lasers, the machines used an electrical
resistance soldering method to heat the joints, and while this normally worked
very well, occasionally one would have a machine adjusted a little wrong, or
with dirty contacts, or some such, which might be producing faulty solder joints
on what was supposed to be soldered chain. These can look normal enough, but
amount to what we'd call a "cold joint", where even though the solder appears to
flow, one side of the joint isn't hot enough for the solder to properly adhere
and bond, or although solder flows and bonds, not enough of it does so,
producing too small a joint area for strength.. When that sort of thing
happens, the chain that results can look fine, but it will behave as you
describe, with apparently soldered joints having no strength. Chains that do
this have a habit of ending up in some jewelers scrap box, since once customers
have had the chain break and need repair a couple times for no real reason, the
chains end up being scrapped.

The other thing that can happen with chains, including modern ones, is that in
wear, if the chain is yanked and pulled too much, the solder seams can become
stressed. Often a goldsmith will see this when a customer brings in a chain for
repair, and it's found that even though one can repair the actual break, the
chain is going to continue to break again, since the whole chain has been overly
stressed, and many links have solder joints that have cracked and almost failed.
With some types of chain, this can happen without causing very obvious visual
distortion or stretching of the chain. But again, when it becomes obvious to a
customer or a jeweler that the chain is not going to be servicable, it often
ends up in the scrap pile.

Perhaps that is why you found a chain sitting around in a decades old plastic
bag...

The other point to make is back to your original posting, asking whether there
is an easy fix. The answer is no. There isn't. If the links are heavy enough
to allow being individually soldered again, one could do that. But that's going
to be a good deal of work. Most ordinary commercially made chains wouldn't be
worth the trouble. But this is difficult for any of us via a newsgroup, and
without good images of the chain, to really evaluate. Take the chain to a
competent goldsmith. Perhaps there is something you, and we, have missed, that
makes the problem solvable, such as perhaps the problem is only in a limited
small section of the chain, which could be simply removed, for example. In the
group, we're all really only guessing. Someone with the chain in hand and a
good loupe to examine the links will have a better idea of what's going on.

Peter

What a pity that Benjamin Mark has left us! It would appear that many of
your other contributors have gone elswhere, now that he has taken offence at
somebody's criticism. I think that everybody has lost out. What do you
think, Peter?

G.H.Ireland (Igor)

--
_ _________________________________________
/ \._._ |_ _ _ /' Orpheus Internet Services
\_/| |_)| |(/_|_|_ / 'Internet for Everyone'
_______ | ___________./ http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:27:50 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry Mr G H Ireland
wrote:

What a pity that Benjamin Mark has left us! It would appear that many of
your other contributors have gone elswhere, now that he has taken offence at
somebody's criticism. I think that everybody has lost out. What do you
think, Peter?

I'd tend to agree. Mr. Mark's choice to take offence at what seemed to me a
relatively minor technical criticism seemed puzzling to me, and
disproportionate, but then it wasn't aimed at me. I thought the underlying
concept to the criticism valid enough, but the wording unkind, which is
unfortunate, and Mr. Mark chose to make an issue of it. That's his choice, and
as I noted at the time, the group is the poorer for it. But it's not something
I had control over then, nor do now. I don't own the group, nor make the rules.
I just try to administer the rules as written in the charter to the best of my
ability, which may indeed be flawed now and then. Once I allow a post, rightly
or wrongly, though, it's pretty much a done deal, and can't be undone. So if
someone wishes to make an issue of a post, that's their choice, not mine, and
aside from trying to modify future awareness of issues that might come up, not
much I can do about it. I regret that the problem came up at all, but don't
feel deep guilt for allowing the original critical post, since at the time it
simply didn't seem as objectionable as Mr. Mark apparently felt it was. Perhaps
at some point in the future, Mr. Mark may choose to come back. I hope so. And
if, perhaps, he chooses to make the slight change in the coding of his web
site's home page that was the real point of the criticism, then those people
going there with a slower connection, will be the happier for it. His choice,
on both counts.

As to the other contributors, they come and go with the seasons, with how busy
the industry and people's lives are, and all the rest. Mr. Mark was a very long
time contributor. Much of the rest of the group's traffic has been less
regular, and will likely come back as people see fit, and as newcomers find the
group and post questions that inspire responses. Many of the regular readers
have not abandoned the group, I think. They're just not so often the ones to
start a thread. So when someone comes along with something interesting to
discuss, the group will likely spring to more active life again. Don't be too
quick to write the group's obituary. And as your post seems to illustrate, when
the group goes empty long enough, someone usually finds something to say to try
and break the silence...

With that said, it's also fair to point out that the Internet is evolving, with
the web becoming a richer and richer environment, and usenet being somewhat less
important with each passing year. It maintains a unique place on the net, but
many users simply haven't even discovered it, and with the advent and popularity
of other places, like myriad blogs, or myspace pages or YouTube self published
videos, and the like, where people can easily post things for the public to read
and see, the unique role of usenet has become somewhat diluted. And in our
field, the Ganoksin web site's Orchid list continues to grow, both because being
linked to a web site means anyone using a search engine for jewelry discussions
finds it instantly, and because it's grown to be the heavyweight on the block,
also tending to preferentially draw people. So the role of r.c.j., once just
about the only decent place to discuss jewelry issues on the net, has evolved
into a smaller quieter back room for folks who just don't have the time or
energy to wade through the volumes of material on Orchid, but who don't yet wish
to just disconnect totally. And that's OK with me, frankly. I'd be upset if
the needs of the metals/jewelry community were not being met by any site, but
that's not the case. This group will survive and remain if people want it to,
and in whatever form they wish it to take. If the desire for this forum and
need for this forum disappears totally, then so will the people who make it the
discussion group it is, and that will be that. Will we have lost something if
that happens? Perhaps. or perhaps not. That opinion is also for each user to
decide. I enjoy the group, and moderating it is a privilege as well as a chore
sometimes. But if it dies, it's not like I'm going to get all depressed and
angry at the tragedy or anything... The net has changed enormously in the last
couple decades, and even more every day. This group is just one tiny part of
it, and somewhat less able to change in part because unless readers as a whole
ask me to change the group or it's rules, I don't really feel free to do so.
I'll do, of course, whatever a consensus of users of the group wish, but so far
few have suggested any changes.

And as happens so often, now I'm starting to ramble...

cheers

Peter Rowe
moderator
rec.crafts.jewelry

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 22:27:45 GMT, Mr G H Ireland
wrote:

What a pity that Benjamin Mark has left us! It would appear that many of
your other contributors have gone elswhere, now that he has taken offence at
somebody's criticism. I think that everybody has lost out. What do you
think, Peter?

If you meant this to go personally to Peter, he missed. I think we
just don't have things to talk about from time to time. It's happened
before, back when Tidbits was being posted.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:27:16 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry "Marilee J. Layman"
wrote:

If you meant this to go personally to Peter, he missed.

I didn't miss. The message was sent as a newsgroup posting, not an email to me.
In those cases, unless the question CLEARLY is only personal, I have to consider
it a comment to me within the public forum, so I post it.

I think we
just don't have things to talk about from time to time. It's happened
before, back when Tidbits was being posted.


right. And the fact that you saw, and responded to the thread nicely
illustrates my point that people haven't actually gone away, but are just
waiting for someone to come up with something they wish to discuss.

Peter