Skin diver : the new dermal anchor

«« Sterile gloves How Do I Become A Proper Body Piercer??? »»

Thursday September 11th, 2008 @ 10:09 AM

Filed under: Implants

Hello BME !

I was wondering if you knew more about this new kind of piercing/implant called the “skin diver”. It’s like a dermal anchor or microdermal, except that the skin diver it’s smaller and thiner, so it’s really on the surface of the skin. My piercer artist and a few more in France do this new kind of procedure.

I’ve had a look on the ‘net at these things and I have to say that so far I am not overly sold on the idea. I worry about the conical bit that sits below the skin. My concern is what would happen if you got a whack on it especially if it was placed over a bony area like the sternum?

That being said, I am curious as to have one in my hand (and I don’t mean implanted!!) so’s I could get a proper look and equally as curious as to popping one in myself to see exactly how they sit/feel/heal and how easily they are removed. As with everything, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Posted by Tiff Badhairdo | Permalink | Leave a comment | Trackback

26 Responses to “Skin diver : the new dermal anchor”

Wow. Made in Thailand, stated as being just “G23″ titanium, and with the idiot’s guide to installing a “skin diver” (Video CD available!). Sounds reputable, alright!!

Dimruthien on September 11th, 2008 at 8:40 pm

When I looked at it I thought the little cone would be on TOP and the flatback in the skin…but it’s the other way round. That does seem dangerous not to mention it would seem really easy to rock it out once it’s healed.

HereKittyKitty on September 11th, 2008 at 11:04 pm

another one of those “new” things like the micro piercing… bleh.

Clara on September 12th, 2008 at 6:17 am

why bother yourself with a stoopid vcd dim, when you can just watch a 3 minute youtube video instructional? (i’m not joking. google it.)

from the video it actually looks *bigger* than a standard IS microdermal, and has about the same chance of healing as a subdermal labret stud. it’s even being marketed as a sort of microdermal for dummies, complete with matching tools to make it a connect-the-dots procedure.

to the person who posted the question, there’s a good chance your piercer either isn’t as well informed as they should be or is more concerned with making a quick profit than actually giving you a modification that will last more than month. i presume the practitioners using these things aren’t able to competently implant microdermals, because they offer no advantage - find someone who can do it.

i’ve seen french manufactured microdermals which have a larger base than the IS/anatometal ones and are supposed to be significantly more difficult to place, although the result is more “robust”. perhaps your piercer has been using these anchors with difficulty, and would find they had more success with the american style.

regardless, i think it’s time to find a new piercer.

redeye on September 12th, 2008 at 7:32 am

Thanks everyone for your answers !
But you can place as well the cone on the top of the skin. But yeah, I think in a bony area, this is not a good idea to put the cone on the skin, maybe.

Eleozero on September 13th, 2008 at 1:00 pm

if its from Thailand, which it is, its less then $1.

So hope the piercers in france are only charging like $20-$40 total for these procedures.

its just a bad idea all around and I would never recommend “Skin Divers” to be used.

although it does make me want to sing: “HOLY DIVER” totally!

Warren Hiller on September 15th, 2008 at 12:56 am

lol at HOLY DIVER comment!

Sassie_L on September 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 am

It’s about that new “dermal skin diver”. I’m a what you can call an “oldschool freehand piercer” and I wonder if someday people won’t beleive in “trying” new things anymore. No critisism to anyone, it’s more of a positive view of the evolution of BODMOD, I share the point that it can always be ameliorated of desing and practibility BUT, let’s give it a try. By the way, just to let you know all, I saw this type of anchorage on the back of a tattoo magazine and never saw a “piece” in real, so my comment is partial, IAM Syl20

Syl20 on September 25th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

I had my first skin diver done 3 weeks ago and have had no problems with it. So for anyoone having doubts i would advise doing your research before getting it done but in my experiance there was no problems.

PiercedFreak on October 3rd, 2008 at 7:14 pm

Three weeks isn’t even REMOTELY enough time to decide if it’s going to be problematic or not, of course.

Lori St.Leone on October 4th, 2008 at 6:53 am

I just had two of them placed and I’ll let you know what happens. I was curious and the shop I did it at is a very reputable one, but indeed, we’ll see. There aren’t enough of fully healed examples out there to know if it was a good or bad idea.

Ayla on October 6th, 2008 at 1:24 pm

i did two on my wrsit and they popped out when i did as little as touch them, so i taped them in for 14 days and low and behold i put my hoody on and theyd vanished shite idea, shite jewellery im not even going to offer these at our studio.

paddy on November 3rd, 2008 at 7:27 am

It doesn’t sound like many people endorse them and as a piercer, I do not like the looks of these. I’d like to think that anyone with common sense would be wary-so why sell them in the BME store?

Bonnie on December 7th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

I had 4 skin divers placed on my arms (2 on each) next to my dermal anchors about 2 months ago and i’ll be honest, i prefer dermal anchors a lot more. i’ve knocked off every single one of my skin divers at least once now and had to put them back in mself. whereas with the derms i’ve knocked them around a bit and haven’t had them pop out of my skin. I’m considering taking out my divers and replacing them with anchors to be honest, they seem a lot more stable and less problematic. I hope this helps!

Jen on February 5th, 2009 at 3:04 pm

Skindivers in my experience are very much the ‘idiots’ dermal. They are a great idea in theory, but if your piercer isnt confident enough to do dermals/micro dermals and needs an easier alternative, they arnt majorly competant in the first place. Being a piercer myself and knowing both products, I know that i prefer to use dermal anchors, the bases have a better ‘hold’ when healed, are more comfortable for the customer and have the option of different ‘heads’. The skin diver (no matter which way up it is installed) is not as comfortable, is easier to displace during healing, and although heals slightly quicker, has no design addition for the body to ‘hold’ the metal. Where as the anchors have the holes for the body to graft around and through.
Simply i think Anchors are the way forward and the skindivers are simply a waste of time.

Boo on March 22nd, 2009 at 3:39 pm

I recently got a pair of skindivers, and I also have dermal anchors.

In my opinion, I like both anchors and skindivers equally. They both have pro’s and cons.

With dermal anchors, if not placed correctly, they can not sit flush with the skin, but with skindivers there is absolutely no way to NOT place them correctly in the skin. You use the dermal punch to make a 1.6mm hole, then you push in the diver.

Skindivers are not nearly as permanent as dermal anchors though, because if you snag a skindiver with your nail, you will almost for sure pull it out. While if you snag a dermal with your nail, it will probably just get irritated and pussy.

With dermal anchors, unless you know the technique to place them, its not really possible to insert them yourself, meaning you would have to go to a shop. But with skindivers, you can put them in yourself very easily. Would I pay $70+ for a professionally done dermal anchor? Yes. Would I pay $40+ for a professionally done skindiver? No.

Both dermal anchors and skindivers have about the same chance of rejection, so I most likely would choose skindivers because they are cheaper and something you could insert yourself. But if you want something that is more “permanent” I would choose dermal anchors.

Diva on April 1st, 2009 at 1:46 am

As a piercer, I have found skin divers are suitable for some customers, and others prefer the more permanent dermal anchor. I have had a skin diver in front of my tragus for 3 months now and have never snagged it or had any problems. This was my 102 piercing/mod and it was the easiest to heal.
Skin divers are ideal for people who want an easy, non permanent, single point piercng. Dermal anchors is for those who want a more permanent piece of jewellery.
I just wish they produced skin divers with a gem in them so they looked prettier.

Galaxy on April 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 am

I like my skin diver more then my anchors. I’ve had a lot better drainage around the surrounding areas, and generally they’ve looked and felt way happier. When I saw them I couldn’t beleive how small it was. Course it could just be a coincidence.

katy prost on April 6th, 2009 at 11:55 pm

I have two skin divers in my arm , i have pulled one of them out three times now , and always put it back in myself with little problem , the other i have never pulled out and never had problems.
And also referring to galaxys comment, they do produce gemmed skin divers , i have one white and one pink gemmed one in my arm

Ellie on July 7th, 2009 at 8:16 pm

I have two skin divers on my sternum a week ago. The piercer offered it as a better alternative to the traditional surface piercing which i initially came in to get. I have had absolutely no swelling or pussing so far but i do reckon if i caught them on clothing they would probably come out easily. I will update on their progress as obviously i haven’t had them long enough to give a relistic review on the matter ^_^

Emma on August 30th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

Two skin divers over here too, purely for the curiosity factor. They’ve been in a couple of weeks now and healing nicely. They don’t seem to have any advantage over dermals at all… having said that, I have knocked them a couple of times and not had any problems with them coming out.
I’ll report back!!

Reuben on September 8th, 2009 at 6:42 am

i have had mine done 2 days ago wile i was on holiday, im not too sure of the difference with the diver and the anchors. (mine is just a flat gem, that cant be changed) i have had it done on the side of my hansd below my pinky finger, but my hand is rather brusd and still feels a bit tingely now and then. i have tried to do some reasearch however there is no info on them being done where i have had mine. any advice anyone could give me would be fab. thanks. xxxxx

lisa on September 9th, 2009 at 8:06 am

The bad thing with skindiver is you cannot change the top, unlike dermals that have so many different tops, gemstone to replace…

Diana on September 12th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

I just did one in the top of my forearm just two try it out… I’ve got a Dermal that is two years old on my stomach which I didn’t think would last.. but has. I’m unsure what I should charge, if I decide to go ahead and offer them as a service.

Timb on September 26th, 2009 at 1:11 am

I’ve been piercing for four years and recently took a class on performing skin divers and dermal anchors. I’ve had both dermal anchors and skin divers on my body and have found no problems in either of them (as far as migration/rejection, etc), apart from acciedentally catching them on my hair or clothing. I think that the dermal anchor would be for those(A) with a higher pain tolerance and (B) into more of the permanent modifications. Obviously dermal anchors ANCHOR themselves into the skin and require a little more attention to remove whereas skin divers can be removed easier. Both procedures were fairly quick. I think the skin diver hurt a little less, but both healed beautifully with proper care. I have skin divers on my upper check bone near my eyes and my dermal anchor is on my chest right at my neck. I have YET to find a problem with either of them. But always do your homework.

Mo on October 10th, 2009 at 4:02 pm

hey!
i got a skin diver put behind my ear/upper neck about 2 weeks ago and seems to be healing quite fine. i have had it taped constantly (as the piercer told me to do)
i have noticed the last few days that one side of it is hard, is this normal and will it go away.
cheers,

sacha on October 12th, 2009 at 9:14 am

Rate This Post

+19 / 27 votes Vote This Post Down

Loading ...

Wow. Made in Thailand, stated as being just “G23″ titanium, and with the idiot’s guide to installing a “skin diver” (Video CD available!). Sounds reputable, alright!!
Dimruthien on September 11th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
When I looked at it I thought the little cone would be on TOP and the flatback in the skin…but it’s the other way round. That does seem dangerous not to mention it would seem really easy to rock it out once it’s healed.
HereKittyKitty on September 11th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
another one of those “new” things like the micro piercing… bleh.
Clara on September 12th, 2008 at 6:17 am
why bother yourself with a stoopid vcd dim, when you can just watch a 3 minute youtube video instructional? (i’m not joking. google it.)

from the video it actually looks *bigger* than a standard IS microdermal, and has about the same chance of healing as a subdermal labret stud. it’s even being marketed as a sort of microdermal for dummies, complete with matching tools to make it a connect-the-dots procedure.

to the person who posted the question, there’s a good chance your piercer either isn’t as well informed as they should be or is more concerned with making a quick profit than actually giving you a modification that will last more than month. i presume the practitioners using these things aren’t able to competently implant microdermals, because they offer no advantage - find someone who can do it.

i’ve seen french manufactured microdermals which have a larger base than the IS/anatometal ones and are supposed to be significantly more difficult to place, although the result is more “robust”. perhaps your piercer has been using these anchors with difficulty, and would find they had more success with the american style.

regardless, i think it’s time to find a new piercer.
redeye on September 12th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Thanks everyone for your answers !
But you can place as well the cone on the top of the skin. But yeah, I think in a bony area, this is not a good idea to put the cone on the skin, maybe.
Eleozero on September 13th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
if its from Thailand, which it is, its less then $1.

So hope the piercers in france are only charging like $20-$40 total for these procedures.

its just a bad idea all around and I would never recommend “Skin Divers” to be used.

although it does make me want to sing: “HOLY DIVER” totally!
Warren Hiller on September 15th, 2008 at 12:56 am
lol at HOLY DIVER comment!
Sassie_L on September 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 am
It’s about that new “dermal skin diver”. I’m a what you can call an “oldschool freehand piercer” and I wonder if someday people won’t beleive in “trying” new things anymore. No critisism to anyone, it’s more of a positive view of the evolution of BODMOD, I share the point that it can always be ameliorated of desing and practibility BUT, let’s give it a try. By the way, just to let you know all, I saw this type of anchorage on the back of a tattoo magazine and never saw a “piece” in real, so my comment is partial, IAM Syl20
Syl20 on September 25th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I had my first skin diver done 3 weeks ago and have had no problems with it. So for anyoone having doubts i would advise doing your research before getting it done but in my experiance there was no problems.

x
PiercedFreak on October 3rd, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Three weeks isn’t even REMOTELY enough time to decide if it’s going to be problematic or not, of course.
Lori St.Leone on October 4th, 2008 at 6:53 am
I just had two of them placed and I’ll let you know what happens. I was curious and the shop I did it at is a very reputable one, but indeed, we’ll see. There aren’t enough of fully healed examples out there to know if it was a good or bad idea.
Ayla on October 6th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
i did two on my wrsit and they popped out when i did as little as touch them, so i taped them in for 14 days and low and behold i put my hoody on and theyd vanished shite idea, shite jewellery im not even going to offer these at our studio.
paddy on November 3rd, 2008 at 7:27 am
It doesn’t sound like many people endorse them and as a piercer, I do not like the looks of these. I’d like to think that anyone with common sense would be wary-so why sell them in the BME store?
Bonnie on December 7th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I had 4 skin divers placed on my arms (2 on each) next to my dermal anchors about 2 months ago and i’ll be honest, i prefer dermal anchors a lot more. i’ve knocked off every single one of my skin divers at least once now and had to put them back in mself. whereas with the derms i’ve knocked them around a bit and haven’t had them pop out of my skin. I’m considering taking out my divers and replacing them with anchors to be honest, they seem a lot more stable and less problematic. I hope this helps!
Jen on February 5th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Skindivers in my experience are very much the ‘idiots’ dermal. They are a great idea in theory, but if your piercer isnt confident enough to do dermals/micro dermals and needs an easier alternative, they arnt majorly competant in the first place. Being a piercer myself and knowing both products, I know that i prefer to use dermal anchors, the bases have a better ‘hold’ when healed, are more comfortable for the customer and have the option of different ‘heads’. The skin diver (no matter which way up it is installed) is not as comfortable, is easier to displace during healing, and although heals slightly quicker, has no design addition for the body to ‘hold’ the metal. Where as the anchors have the holes for the body to graft around and through.
Simply i think Anchors are the way forward and the skindivers are simply a waste of time.
Boo on March 22nd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I recently got a pair of skindivers, and I also have dermal anchors.

In my opinion, I like both anchors and skindivers equally. They both have pro’s and cons.

With dermal anchors, if not placed correctly, they can not sit flush with the skin, but with skindivers there is absolutely no way to NOT place them correctly in the skin. You use the dermal punch to make a 1.6mm hole, then you push in the diver.

Skindivers are not nearly as permanent as dermal anchors though, because if you snag a skindiver with your nail, you will almost for sure pull it out. While if you snag a dermal with your nail, it will probably just get irritated and pussy.

With dermal anchors, unless you know the technique to place them, its not really possible to insert them yourself, meaning you would have to go to a shop. But with skindivers, you can put them in yourself very easily. Would I pay $70+ for a professionally done dermal anchor? Yes. Would I pay $40+ for a professionally done skindiver? No.

Both dermal anchors and skindivers have about the same chance of rejection, so I most likely would choose skindivers because they are cheaper and something you could insert yourself. But if you want something that is more “permanent” I would choose dermal anchors.
Diva on April 1st, 2009 at 1:46 am
As a piercer, I have found skin divers are suitable for some customers, and others prefer the more permanent dermal anchor. I have had a skin diver in front of my tragus for 3 months now and have never snagged it or had any problems. This was my 102 piercing/mod and it was the easiest to heal.
Skin divers are ideal for people who want an easy, non permanent, single point piercng. Dermal anchors is for those who want a more permanent piece of jewellery.
I just wish they produced skin divers with a gem in them so they looked prettier.
Galaxy on April 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 am
I like my skin diver more then my anchors. I’ve had a lot better drainage around the surrounding areas, and generally they’ve looked and felt way happier. When I saw them I couldn’t beleive how small it was. Course it could just be a coincidence.
katy prost on April 6th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
I have two skin divers in my arm , i have pulled one of them out three times now , and always put it back in myself with little problem , the other i have never pulled out and never had problems.
And also referring to galaxys comment, they do produce gemmed skin divers , i have one white and one pink gemmed one in my arm
Ellie on July 7th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
I have two skin divers on my sternum a week ago. The piercer offered it as a better alternative to the traditional surface piercing which i initially came in to get. I have had absolutely no swelling or pussing so far but i do reckon if i caught them on clothing they would probably come out easily. I will update on their progress as obviously i haven’t had them long enough to give a relistic review on the matter ^_^
Emma on August 30th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Two skin divers over here too, purely for the curiosity factor. They’ve been in a couple of weeks now and healing nicely. They don’t seem to have any advantage over dermals at all… having said that, I have knocked them a couple of times and not had any problems with them coming out.
I’ll report back!!
Reuben on September 8th, 2009 at 6:42 am
i have had mine done 2 days ago wile i was on holiday, im not too sure of the difference with the diver and the anchors. (mine is just a flat gem, that cant be changed) i have had it done on the side of my hansd below my pinky finger, but my hand is rather brusd and still feels a bit tingely now and then. i have tried to do some reasearch however there is no info on them being done where i have had mine. any advice anyone could give me would be fab. thanks. xxxxx
lisa on September 9th, 2009 at 8:06 am
The bad thing with skindiver is you cannot change the top, unlike dermals that have so many different tops, gemstone to replace…
Diana on September 12th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I just did one in the top of my forearm just two try it out… I’ve got a Dermal that is two years old on my stomach which I didn’t think would last.. but has. I’m unsure what I should charge, if I decide to go ahead and offer them as a service.
Timb on September 26th, 2009 at 1:11 am
I’ve been piercing for four years and recently took a class on performing skin divers and dermal anchors. I’ve had both dermal anchors and skin divers on my body and have found no problems in either of them (as far as migration/rejection, etc), apart from acciedentally catching them on my hair or clothing. I think that the dermal anchor would be for those(A) with a higher pain tolerance and (B) into more of the permanent modifications. Obviously dermal anchors ANCHOR themselves into the skin and require a little more attention to remove whereas skin divers can be removed easier. Both procedures were fairly quick. I think the skin diver hurt a little less, but both healed beautifully with proper care. I have skin divers on my upper check bone near my eyes and my dermal anchor is on my chest right at my neck. I have YET to find a problem with either of them. But always do your homework.
Mo on October 10th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
hey!
i got a skin diver put behind my ear/upper neck about 2 weeks ago and seems to be healing quite fine. i have had it taped constantly (as the piercer told me to do)
i have noticed the last few days that one side of it is hard, is this normal and will it go away.
cheers,
sacha on October 12th, 2009 at 9:14 am

Skin diver : the new dermal anchor

«« Sterile gloves How Do I Become A Proper Body Piercer??? »»

Thursday September 11th, 2008 @ 10:09 AM

Filed under: Implants

Rate This Post

26 Responses to “Skin diver : the new dermal anchor”

Leave a Comment

Search

Support BME

Stats

Highest Rated Posts

Categories

Archives

Meta

Feeds