Advice on Sapphire Inclusion

[KRDank]

Hi All,
New to the sapphire game and buying one for an E-ring I'm looking to make. Found one that that I love but somewhat concerned about this inclusion... hoping some of your eyes could advise if you think this is a crack vs rutile. I'm buying it remotely so can only tell from videos/pics. Seller obviously says nothing to worry about.

 

[Arcadian]

Does not look to be surface reaching whatever it happens to be. To me it looks more like zoning versus a crack.

The first thing I would do is validate with the seller what that is. 2nd, find out what the return policy is. Even if you're buying remote you should always know that.

If you're too worried, its (IMO) not worth the sale. The stone itself seems to be very lovely though the middle is quite dark to me which is concerning for the type of cut it is.

 

[KRDank]

Thank you for your advice, have requested some additional angles to confirm its not reaching the surface.

Top down color seems pretty consistent but agree middle is a little dark, will see if that's just from ambient lighting. A touch brighter would be ideal!

Would you say that inclusion/zoning (whatever it is) should have a major impact in price? For reference this is about $1300 a ct.

 

[Arcadian]

Thank you for your advice, have requested some additional angles to confirm its not reaching the surface.

Top down color seems pretty consistent but agree middle is a little dark, will see if that's just from ambient lighting. A touch brighter would be ideal!

Would you say that inclusion/zoning (whatever it is) should have a major impact in price? For reference this is about $1300 a ct.

Treatment on the stone? One more thing to kind of worry about especially for sapphires is the fact that you can have all kinds of weird undisclosed treatments. A report form a good to top tier lab is key. (I say it in this way depending on where the stone is from, you can have a decent lab that gives an OK report, to a top tier lab that can give something much more in depth)

 

[PrecisionGem]

The whole surface reaching thing is in my opinion nonsense. I think it's been said often on this forum, but no one has ever offered any science behind it. Internal inclusions can grow to the surface. The surface can't grow any further in at least that direction.

 

[KRDank]

Hi,
Yes the stone is from Sri Lanka and the certificate (from a local outfit I think called RGL) notes heat treatment present - but not additional details on that like heat only, I do doubt it has any more sinister treatment though. Got a couple more video screenshots, I'm leaning towards it being a larger feather in the stone.

 

[Rfisher]

The whole surface reaching thing is in my opinion nonsense. I think it's been said often on this forum, but no one has ever offered any science behind it. Internal inclusions can grow to the surface. The surface can't grow any further in at least that direction.

Educational time.
This inclusion shown in this sapphire-
You don’t think it’s a pertinent question for a consumer to ask?
You would not price out a stone you cut with this type of inclusion any differently whether it reached the surface at one pin point or entirely across the pavilion or crown or both? Or prices out the same with totally nothing at all reaching the surface?

Or am I misreading your statement?

Edited to add- I don’t think what I see looks like color zoning. I see a veil/feather whatever the correct terminology is for bubbles or crystals or cracks or whatever that is in like a sheet like formation like a diaphragm.

I’m not a pro to say that this particular stone is suspect to crack in half. I don’t know. I’m just curious as to what someone in the trade seems to think should not ever be questioned about?

 

[PrecisionGem]

I don't think I said not to question things. What I asked is why people think that an inclusion that reaches the surface is so much more detrimental to one that doesn't? I don't think I ever implied that a totally clean stone, and one with an inclusion that may reach the surface should be priced out the same.

 

[KRDank]

I don't think I said not to question things. What I asked is why people think that an inclusion that reaches the surface is so much more detrimental to one that doesn't? I don't think I ever implied that a totally clean stone, and one with an inclusion that may reach the surface should be priced out the same.

I think the worry is that 'something' which reaches the surface could be a structural crack as opposed to small amount of feathering, rutile, fingerprint which would more likely be contained within the stone. That's my thinking at least.

 

[Rfisher]

I don't think I said not to question things. What I asked is why people think that an inclusion that reaches the surface is so much more detrimental to one that doesn't? I don't think I ever implied that a totally clean stone, and one with an inclusion that may reach the surface should be priced out the same.

I think the worry is that 'something' which reaches the surface could be a structural crack as opposed to small amount of feathering, rutile, fingerprint which would more likely be contained within the stone. That's my thinking at least.

Yes I did not state it well, nor intended to put words in your mouth, PrecisionGem, about pricing.
But leading towards why it’s discussed. I don’t think discussing if these reach the surface is nonsense. Reading that from a vendor makes me curious to hear more on why they believe that. And how it pertains to me possibly purchasing a stone from them or any other vendor who states that.

I know something like this that currently doesn’t reach the surface, isn’t a guarantee that it will never continue to the surface, with setting pressure or a drop or a whack on a table. But never asking up front where the heck it is at the point It’s being considered for purchase? How is that nonsense? Ok- you said questioning it isn’t nonsense- but think some part of it is?

Just trying to understand.
I’m not the pro.

Can I assume that if it’s there at all, it’s just as bad whether or not it reaches the surface or not? There no inbetween?

Edited 100 times. Can’t think straight.

 

[PrecisionGem]

I didn't say that discussing inclusions is nonsense either. What I think is nonsense is what I so often read on this forum which is basically if a stone has an inclusion that reaches the surface.... don't buy it.
I would like to hear why not? I know some people won't tolerate any inclusions anywhere in a stone. I have some customers who if a stone is eye clean, but with a 10X loupe or some use a 15X, they fine a small speck, will reject the stone. Others feel that inclusions are interesting, and help identify the stone as natural.

I think the misconception is that if an inclusion reaches the surface, somehow the stone will fall apart. I don't find this to be true at all. Maybe Rfisher you have some experience in this area that I have not. Any emerald that has been oiled, must have surface reaching inclusions or else the oil would have no effect. It couldn't get inside the stone.

 

[Rfisher]

OH KAY!
Sorry for the thread derail @KRDank
And that is coming from someone who indeed does not have more experience in gemstones in any capacity than @PrecisionGem.

But it does come from someone who returned this stone for an undisclosed surface reaching inclusion, and pavilion photos on the listing did not show any bit of it.


And also returned this stone because the vendor told me I could trust him that no inclusion reached the surface.


So - I’m guilty of that.

Could it be that if the veil / feather whatever it is, just the fact it exists in the stone is the main concern? That it is surface reaching shouldn’t be any concern in any capacity?
I don’t know?
I tried to ask an expert and didn’t get an answer.

 

[voce]

I didn't say that discussing inclusions is nonsense either. What I think is nonsense is what I so often read on this forum which is basically if a stone has an inclusion that reaches the surface.... don't buy it.
I would like to hear why not? I know some people won't tolerate any inclusions anywhere in a stone. I have some customers who if a stone is eye clean, but with a 10X loupe or some use a 15X, they fine a small speck, will reject the stone. Others feel that inclusions are interesting, and help identify the stone as natural.

I think the misconception is that if an inclusion reaches the surface, somehow the stone will fall apart. I don't find this to be true at all. Maybe Rfisher you have some experience in this area that I have not. Any emerald that has been oiled, must have surface reaching inclusions or else the oil would have no effect. It couldn't get inside the stone.

Isn't it possible that surface reaching inclusions might make the surface not "smooth", thereby accelerating abrasion, facet wear & etc.? I agree that structurally there's not much difference whether the inclusions are surface reaching or not, but I suspect that, particularly when it comes to an inclusion on the crown of the gem, it might lead to faster abrasion of facets, from a purely theoretical mechanical standpoint.

I'm someone who doesn't mind surface reaching inclusions in the pavilion of the gem, so long as it doesn't affect light return too much, but I would likely find surface reaching inclusions in the crown too distracting.

 

[lovedogs]

I think I get nervous if I see anything that looks like a true "crack". But if something small reaches the surface then I worry much less.

 

[chrono]

Same, I am very uncomfortable when it looks like a crack. I am also not comfortable with something that breaks the surface unless the stone is very cheap so if something happens, I can easily write off the loss.

 

[arkieb1]

As someone who has dropped, smacked and broken a lot of gemstones, sometimes it doesn't matter jack if the inclusions reach the surface or not, you can still crack or break a gemstone. Some gems don't even have to have any inclusions you can see with your eyes if you smack a cleavage plane the wrong way which I've also done you can still break or take a big chunk out of some gemstones.

I've broken an Argyle diamond smashing it too hard at an angle against brickwork, renovating taking out a brick wall and I've had other coloured gemstones I've worn for years with multiple inclusions and inclusions that reach the surface and never had an issue.

So I'm going to put out yes sometimes the types of inclusions matter, but sometimes it's more about the type of stone and how you drop, smack, smash or damage it that counts. The average person who looks after their jewellery well and is not hard on it probably might encounter some wear, or abrasion, or chipping, that would be far more common than breaking a stone.

And no I do not wear rings when renovating any more....

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I've broken an Argyle diamond smashing it too hard at an angle against brickwork, renovating taking out a brick wall and I've had other coloured gemstones I've worn for years with multiple inclusions and inclusions that reach the surface and never had an issue.

Argyle diamonds are much easier to break than other diamonds.
My friend who worked for the company who found the mine did a smashing experiment with parcels from brazil, south africa and Argyle.
I have the bits somewhere that he gave me after Riotinto bought them out.

 

[arkieb1]

Argyle diamonds are much easier to break than other diamonds.
My friend who worked for the company who found the mine did a smashing experiment with parcels from brazil, south africa and Argyle.
I have the bits somewhere that he gave me after Riotinto bought them out.

I wish I'd known that before I accidentally wore it renovating, it was a cognac coloured RB over a carat.....

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I wish I'd known that before I accidentally wore it renovating, it was a cognac coloured RB over a carat.....

 

[LilAlex]

Cutters/sellers and setters/jewelers don't always agree on what is a "low-risk" stone for setting or for daily wear. I have encountered this.