Modern jewellery making techniques can be very seductive, not least the ease with which an artist can design a piece on a computer and forego the time-consuming, and often frustrating, process of manufacture. But, the question needs to be asked: is something being lost by the artist who absents themselves from that part of the process? In this essay, I argue that such artists are subjected to a truncated creative process. Their design doesn’t come up against the limits of the material, and that of their own abilities. They aren’t forced to modify or refine their design in the face of such obstacles. By contrast, the artist with a handmade approach, such as Peter Bauhuis or Karl Fritsch, continues to have input by physically participating in the manufacture of the piece. The hurdles they must overcome in realizing their idea stimulate and extend the creative process, and the result can be a superior piece. But it doesn’t always turn out that way. The nature of the process is such that the artist can hit a brick wall and have nothing to show for their efforts other than wasted time and material. But it’s worth the risk. The increasing homogenization of culture has lead to a reaction of individuality, and a return to some old ways: the artisanal approach. Adorning one’s body with jewellery is part of a person’s attempt to define and express that individuality, and nothing can express that uniqueness like a custom, one-off piece. A handmade piece. This isn’t a new idea, of course, and it finds expression in ancient aesthetics, such as the raw beauty of wabi-sabi, right up to the work of more contemporary practitioners, whose work is discussed here.