Advice on clarity compromise

[MatthewT]

I am looking to make an inexpensive high carat weight pendant thats more of a costume jewellery which you can casually wear in a pink/red shade.

If you were to compromise on clarity, is a better choice:

1) or this eye clean 4.5 carat trillion cut pink tourmaline (but i heard some negatives about tourmaline's durability and colour in different lighting)

2) or this 3.5 carat cushion pink spinel (which has some inclusions i think)

3) or a stone with more of clear/translucent background but very noticable inclusions like this 10 carat sapphire

4) an opaque stone like this oval six carat 'ruby'

In general does an opaque background look better than a more transparent background which shows the inclusions more?

 

[Avondale]

There is no universal opinion on what is a better compromise - it all comes down to taste. To what is most important to you. The best anyone can help you with is information, so that you can make an informed decision that's best for you.

1. The tourmaline is a lovely colour and I wouldn't be bothered about the durability. You're aiming to make a pendant, and unless the wearer is intending to fling the thing around the room like a toy or purposefully walk into poles on the street, the stone will be quite safe.

It is true, however, that pink and red tourmalines are known for shifting towards brown. If you can ask the vendor to send you some photos in different light, including low light and incandescent, this will help with your decision. If colour is your priority and the shift is unattractive to your eyes, obviously it won't work.

2. The pink spinel has a very noticeable inclusion at 12 o'clock, and I'm not sure what it is that I'm seeing on the table - is it a veil, is it poor polish, what is it? There's also some staining at 8. Are these likely to bother you (or the wearer in case it's for someone else)?

3. The pink sapphire is a more pastel colour, with black inclusions scattered throughout. The feathers usually aren't that distracting in person, but you'll want to know whether some pose structural risks due to placement or reaching the surface.

4. I wouldn't call the ruby opaque, it's translucent at worst. But then also, I wouldn't call it a ruby, more a pink sapphire. All matters of opinion. What I notice with it is the poor polish, judging by the table and crown facets' reflection. Out of all these options, it has the best colour.

My main concern is, at 6 carats, what kind of treatment has this stone received to achieve an affordable price? The most unpleasant possibility would be lead glass filling - this is an unstable treatment and one trip to the ultrasound would ruin the stone. The next thing I'm thinking is, especially considering the lower clarity, is that if the rough was pretty fractured, the stone could have been flux healed. That would leave significant residues and affect the clarity greatly (although it is a notable improvement over unfacetable rough). Flux healing is generally stable, but in case not all fractures have been healed and some are remaining open, just filled with glassy residues, you have to take a level of care similar to a glass filled stone.

 

[Autumn in New England]

Yeah, I agree. And, for me, strictly speaking in terms of clarity, the tourmaline is the obvious choice. Most of us own and love our pink tourms/rubellites. The wide trillion, almost fan, cut is not my favorite and there is some windowing. But the color is nice and, again, judging solely based on clarity, it is the best. I myself don't worry too much about shifting, unless it's egregious, because I only judge my gems in natural light.

The spinel - That level of inclusions is not acceptable to make it worth owning, IMO. Your call.

The sapphire - Those horizontal feathers/fractures stretching from one end to the other are dangerous. I see durability issues ahead. Skip.

The ruby - It's pink, opaque, chipped, and likely heavily treated. To me, it's a "ruby" in name only (maybe), and where's the fun in that? Hard pass.

Good luck with whatever you choose!

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

Tourmaline, love the colors. I just wouldn't want it in a ring.

 

[LilAlex]

Better answers above already and I do not love any of those examples. But, "dollars per pound," you likely won't do better than tourmaline/rubellite. I would stop shopping sapphire and spinel since anything in your size and price range will be, ahem, terrible.

If baby pink would suffice, there are bargains with morganite and kunzite. Hardness (durability) is much less of an issue with pendants than for rings or bracelets. I would wear almost anything in a pendant -- like garnet. Speaking of garnet, you could get an inexpensive garnet of good size but it is likely to be quite dark.

On the plus side: I just did a quick search and learned that kunzite "brings emotional stability, peace, harmony, and maturity to people" so I'm probably going to start handing them out at work.

 

[Odyssey44]

Great advice, as always, from the above posters. I just want to second LilAlex's suggestion to look for morganite and kunzite. 4 cts is not going to be all that big imo for a pendant and you can get some whoppers in these stones for cheaper than tourmalines. Zircon (not cubic zirconia) is another one to look for, though it will likely be more expensive than morganite and kunzite. I would always rather go for better quality in a less expensive stone than worse quality in a pricey stone. I would not bother looking at spinels, sapphires and rubies at all.

 

[mellowyellowgirl]

Definitely tourmaline! Tourmaline is your friend and it’s so readily available you can find it in any size/shade/pricing.

Here’s an example of a large tourmaline that’s in ring form. Could easily be a pedant.

 

[dk168]

I am not an expert, however, here are my 2ps.

With regard to durability, pendants have low risks of impact and abrasion unless they are not stored properly.

For my own money, I too would opt for the trillion Tourmaline, for its size, colour, cutting and clarity.

The others I would pass for the same reasons already mentioned by the others. The colour of the pink cushion Sapphire does not do anything for me. The pink oval 'Ruby' which is more like a 'Sapphire' to me is too included, however, I do love its colour.

When a stone is very included, I doubt if the background of a setting would matter much, IMHO.

DK

 

[MatthewT]

I also wondered about size, if you are about five foot and 95 pounds is a 4-5 carat stone in a halo or two too small for a pendant. I saw some like 30 carat kunzites but I read here that sunlight fades that stone. Living in the UK there isn't very strong sunlight so I have no clue how quickly it would fade.

 

[Odyssey44]

I also wondered about size, if you are about five foot and 95 pounds is a 4-5 carat stone in a halo or two too small for a pendant. I saw some like 30 carat kunzites but I read here that sunlight fades that stone. Living in the UK there isn't very strong sunlight so I have no clue how quickly it would fade.

Oh, the person is teeny then. At first I read 5 foot 5 and I was about to say they need to be hospitalized!! 4-5 carats will look a lot bigger on someone that small. In the UK I would not worry in the slightest about kunzite fading--you do not see the sun much, but that is why your skin complexions stay so lovely there.
I won't buy kunzite, but I live in Florida, where the sun is very dangerous.

 

[MatthewT]

For a pendant, do you think emerald or cushion cut looks better all other things being equal? Does the cut and colour of this kunzite look ok (30 carats)? Does this even count as pink- is it the typical pinks you get from that stone?

 

[Autumn in New England]

For a pendant, do you think emerald or cushion cut looks better all other things being equal? Does the cut and colour of this kunzite look ok (30 carats)? Does this even count as pink- is it the typical pinks you get from that stone?

I think the cut/shape is just a matter of preference. I sort of like the cushion for this project. Yes, kunzite tends to be a cool lilac pink shade. This stone is within those parameters, if maybe a tad more purple leaning. It's lovely!