Light spinel

[Pretzel]

I've got a working design in my head which involves bezels, channel-set coloured baguettes, rose gold and platinum. I don't require any convincing at all on pairing pink and green and gold, TL. my favourite!

I am not sold on the colour of the halo/spacer gems. A light warm brown diamond might be perfect! I am thinking of tapering off the side from light to darker stones, so this could very well be an option.

Not sure how to describe the luster and clarity. I have high standards for luster, and it meets my standards? I expected some inclusions as advertised (and described in more detail by the seller). The description was enough for me to identify the inclusions immediately, and I've never used a loupe before! You cannot see them by eye alone, though. I find the purple tinted translucence to be quite appealing. Like sparkley perfume water!

 

[Niel]

So this may sound crazy, but I feel like brown side diamonds would look lovely.

That's a bold combo! I think it would be difficult to get it just right, and you'd probably have to use yellow or rose gold.

I like Chrono's suggestion of pale green side stones. Pale blue would also work, if you like a monochromatic look.

I think with the right stone it would be very fabulous. I think it would be very organic if done in say a three stone bezel. With rose gold? Yum. Like really light, like a U with grown undertones.

 

[Pretzel]

Okay, so I am finally able to look at it in the daylight and I am panicking a bit!

I can see the inclusions by eye now, especially from behind. There appear to be brown spots near the edge of the gem, faintly visible by eye, definitely visible by loupe and very visible in my grossly under-exposed iPhone camera shots! Under the loupe, I see various marks on the surface, and I'm not sure if it just needs polishing or ? I also see something which looks like a chip.

From behind, you can see what I think is the brown "feather" inclusion?



See the brown around the edges?



I am baffled where the browns is coming from! I see it on the edges but not all over like this photo suggests. But when the sun comes out, this is what happens, even in the shade, though much much lighter.



More coming.

 

[Pretzel]

So I took some hand shots to show a more realistic colour (less under-exposed). When the light hits it at the right angle, it really sparkles, but at other angles it appears much more glassy and dull.


Sparkles:




Dull/window:




Loupe sparkles (under-exposed):




I do love how it soaks up and reflects the colours around it. Not sure about the brown, but maybe that is the push to use brown diamond accents?

 

[Niel]

When once its set will you ever look at it upside down?

 

[chrono]

I noticed the browning in your pictures (page 1) and also the vendor's pictures but figured that it didn't bother you so it wasn't worth mentioning it. However, it looks like you picked up on it and it bothers you now. The reason you see just a few from the back but lots from the front is that they are reflecting all over the place. What are the "marks" you see on the surface? I don't see anything other than much smaller brown inclusions. Where is the "chip" you see?

I think what you are seeing is normal in terms of sparkle; there's more when you have light, there's less when it is dimmer. One would guess that the inclusions might also damper the light return if they distort too much of the light path through the stone. If the price you paid is fair (discounted for the inclusions), I still think it is a pretty stone from afar. The cut is certainly above reproach.

 

[Pretzel]

I noticed the browning in your pictures (page 1) but figured that it didn't bother you so it wasn't worth mentioning it. However, it looks like you picked up on it and it bothers you now.

Now I know the brown is in the stone and not just the lighting.

I am not sure it impacts on the eye-appeal, especially next to the skin. You still get an overall feel of the lilac, which takes on a bluish tint in daylight. Set in gold and on my skin, it will be framed in warm orange-brown tones regardless. So, I am not sure how I feel about the brown. More disappointed that it wasn't in the description rather than that it was in the stone.

- Identification: Natural Unheated & Untreated Spinel
- Carat: 2.32
- Shape: Cushion
- Measures: 8.20x7.01x5.16 (millimeter)
- Color Grade: Very Good
- Tone: L30
- Color Zoning: None
- Clarity: Lightly Included
- Cutting Grade: Very Good
o Brilliancy: 90%
o Depth: 74%
- Origin: Sri Lanka
- Treatment: None

Certificate No: GB1303060437

Overall Grade: Very Good

Tenderly colored adamantine spinel. Very uncommon bright tone in spinel. No gray. Very sparkly. See handshot for color reference. No visible inclusions. No window. Great gem for a ladies ring. Still affordable spinel color. As durable as sapphire, or diamonds for that matter.

The tiny marks are on the crown/ and look like faint scratches, like from tweezers? The tiny tiny chip is on the bottom/side.

I paid just over $800 for it but have no idea if that is fair. I know the supplier tends to be higher because they guarantee ethical sourcing of natural and untreated stones. I live in the UK, so the exchange rate is in my favour at the moment.

 

[chrono]

I am also surprised by the description of "no visible inclusions". $800 is very expensive for a 2 ct light coloured spinel but if the ethical aspect of it is important to you, then your choices of vendors are limited. There are plenty of other vendors who also carry natural and untreated spinels in the vetted list if you are open to that. Spinels are rarely treated. If you'd like to continue working with the same vendor, it is best to email him to share your concerns. He has a large inventory and can probably find a cleaner similar replacement spinel.

 

[Pretzel]

I have (very nervously) emailed the vendor. We will see what they say.

I asked about the inclusions before I purchased the gem. They said:
"Inclusions you can only see under the lens: Fine needles and a waterlilie."

If I return this, I will aim to find something a bit more pink than purple, I think, as my head has been filled with pink spinels and brown diamonds now.

 

[chrono]

I'm wondering if he is referring to the "browns" as the waterlilies.

 

[Niel]

I have (very nervously) emailed the vendor. We will see what they say.

I asked about the inclusions before I purchased the gem. They said:
"Inclusions you can only see under the lens: Fine needles and a waterlilie."

If I return this, I will aim to find something a bit more pink than purple, I think, as my head has been filled with pink spinels and brown diamonds now.

Well I just wanted to say one that sounds amazing and two, of that's all you can think about now. Sounds like maybe this stone isn't the one?

 

[T L]

I wouldn't use brown accents because it will just enhance the brown in the stone, and unless you like brown, I probably wouldn't do that. I would want to amp up the pink in the gem, which is why I mentioned the pale green accents. You should use pale green stones that are as light or almost as light as your gem though, otherwise they'll be too distracting.

Take this pink/green diamond ring for example. Pink and green really play nicely off each other, and enhance each other, even if the stones themselves are not very saturated in color.

 

[T L]

I'm wondering if he is referring to the "browns" as the waterlilies.

I suspect those are very small microscopic patch like inclusions that make the stone slightly sleepy. I've seen them in pale pink spinel before. I could be wrong, but that' sounds like what it is, and what she's describing in the stone's appearance.

Here's my pink spinel on the right, and I don't know if you can see them clearly, but there's these snowflake looking inclusions and it can make the stone appear sleepy in some lighting.

 

[Pretzel]

I wouldn't use brown accents because it will just enhance the brown in the stone, and unless you like brown, I probably wouldn't do that. I would want to amp up the pink in the gem, which is why I mentioned the pale green accents. You should use pale green stones that are as light or almost as light as your gem though, otherwise they'll be too distracting.

TL:

http://www.gemselect.com/sapphire/sapphire-346127.php



???

 

[T L]

I wouldn't use brown accents because it will just enhance the brown in the stone, and unless you like brown, I probably wouldn't do that. I would want to amp up the pink in the gem, which is why I mentioned the pale green accents. You should use pale green stones that are as light or almost as light as your gem though, otherwise they'll be too distracting.

TL:

http://www.gemselect.com/sapphire/sapphire-346127.php



???

Yes, those would be appropriate. They match the saturation and tone of your stone well, but they're green instead of purple. I think when combining gems like that, it's important to match tone and saturation, and I like the combination of warm and cool colors (pink and green).

 

[Niel]

I suppose you're right about brown. I just like brown diamonds with pink halos. I assumed it would be similar. But I do like grown. The op may not.


Have you looked into chrysoberyl. That can be found in a lovely green, budget friendly. And would look cute with pink.

 

[Pretzel]

I like brown. I like just about everything but yellow, really! That's part of the problem.


I am going to photograph the gem properly under ideal light conditions tomorrow so I can photoshop it next to various other colours. My initial thought is that green will make it even more violet rather than pink. So I am still entertains the idea of a warm pinkish brown halo.

Here are some brown, blue and green halos to entertain us in the meantime.

 

[Pretzel]

And some with accent stones or other effects

I am deteriorating this thread into eye candy but I suppose it is okay since I am the OP?

 

[erinl]

Pretzel--

My thought is that if you are having second thoughts about the spinel don't ignore them. If you are thinking about making a custom setting with accents stones etc, it will not be an inconsequential purchase. And you don't want the center stone to be less than what you want...

But this is coming from someone who has never set anything!!!

 

[FrekeChild]

Do you only see them in these hugely magnified pictures or do you see them in person when the stone is farther than 6 inches from your face?

 

[Pretzel]

On the hand in the evening it is a gorgeous gem because it becomes a proper pinkish lilac and the brown tones on the edge are overshadowed or blend in. You can see the brown, faintly on the edges, but only if you know what you are looking at. It affects two of the four edges on the face.

In the daytime the gem is more of a blue-lavender (periwinkle?) and the brown is incongruent. More easily seen, gem looks a bit muddy in places at certain angles when there is no sparkle.

Now, it is clearly well cut so the brown has a minimal effect on the gem face up. It has less effect when the gem in on hand, because the brown of the skin helps the brown to blend. And if the gem were bezel set,you wouldn't see the brown edges at all.

I am trying to process the feeling of disappointment and distrust that has come from seeing the brown inclusions which were not mentioned in the description. The gem itself is lovely especially at night. I don't want to reject the gem just because I'm disappointed in the vendor. I have to think about whether it has been appropriately valued.

We took some macro shots last night which show the brown and its coverage more clearly. I will post them later today.

 

[Pretzel]

Ok, here come the photos!

Everything is taken using Canon 30d with various lenses and a mounted flash. There was also our normal hallway overhead lights which cast a warm glow. Our walls and my outfit was a warm beige, so you will see that in the gem.

This is the closest to what you see when you look at the gem as any photo will get:


Here you see the beige reflections from the wall and me.


Here you see how the warm beige reflections mix with the pale violet tones of the gem. Hides the brown inclusions!


In a foil 'mount' with different white balance. Reality is somewhere between the two. The foil fools the exposure metering on the camera so the gem tends to appear much darker than in reality. I'm not prepared to do HDR processing on a macro shot!! Hard enough to stay in focus as it is!



More to come.

 

[Pretzel]

More photos of the colour -- as close to reality as I can manage it. You can spot the inclusions and admire the faceting!







One more post of photos to come, focusing on the inclusions this time.

 

[Pretzel]

Here you can see the coverage of the brown inclusions. There are other inclusions which can been seen in previous posts, but here I'm focusing on the brown inclusions. They are visible from the front, but mostly cling to the edges. In daylight it is more prominent and muddies the colour.

 

[Niel]

So have you made a decision to keep it or not?

Your photos are very nice.

 

[FrekeChild]

A lavender stone that I had had a brown inclusion once. It's also one of the nicest colored lavender spinels I've ever owned.

So, have you come to a conclusion?

 

[Pretzel]

We have decided to keep it. I will not be getting side stones as I want to keep the ring as delicate as possible, to match the spirit of the gem. I have a jeweler in mind for the setting, which will still involve bezels and channel set emerald cut diamonds or sapphires. I don't think it will be green as I am not keen on green and purple. I am going to see what pale blue or pink looks like and maybe even brown. I would like the ring to be modern and classic and unfussy, with curves and angles and precise finish rather then decorative and sparkly bits. So, no milgrain, filigree, pave, and halos, I think!