Creation of a Sapphire ring (Advice/ Opinions desired)

[azelismia]

hi all, due to the very good advice of a few list members on another thread and a pointer to Precision Gems from Tourmaline lover I managed to procure this stone From Gene.


Now I have the next step of finding the ring to go with this ( end result will be wedding ring)

I never see Sapphires in Yellow gold, do they look bad with it? what are the pro's and con's of the various metals with Sapphires?

Does anyone know of any good sources for settings that aren't too terribly expensive. I really like the Claude thibaudeau settings but they seem sort of expensive.

I think I am torn between Palladium and Yellow gold for this but not sure of which would look best or bring out the best of the stone. Also what sort of setting brings out a stone to it's best effect. I like various kinds of settings but I want to get one that compliments or enhances the stone rather than drowning it out.
This is the description of the stone from the precisiongem web site

Blue Sapphire - 1.35 ct. This all natural, no heat sapphire comes from the Umba region of Tanzania. This color is medium deep denim blue. The stone measures 6.43 mm. Color 4-, Clarity 4


Thoughts?

 

[Kismet]

It''s really a personal preference. You might want to bring the stone to a jeweler who carries a variety of settings so that you can see how it looks in different metals. Setting it in yellow gold may bring out the green tone a bit in that stone.

 

[Gailey]

Maybe this ring by Leon will help you decide

 

[chrono]

Blue stones are usually set in white metals to help bring out the cool tones. A yellow metal sometimes clashes with that and if the sapphire has any green in it, the yellow metal will highlight that.

 

[LostSapphire]

Welcome to PS Azelismia!

Congratulations on the purchase of your new sapphire! It looks lovely. Do you have it yet?

It sounds like you haven''t quite decided what style of ring you''d like to wear. There are LOTS to look at in the Coloured Stones eyeCandy thread up at the top of this section.

Have a look, and if you find a few that speak to you, post them here. There are a lot of people in this section who are really helpful and knowledgeable regarding ring design, especially coloured stones!

I agree with Chrono re: sapphires being set in white (or often with diamonds around them) as it really sets the colour off beautifully.

Have fun!

LS

 

[azelismia]

that explains why you never see them in yellow gold

I'll have a look at that thread. Thanks!

(and yeah, I have a few styles of rings that I like but I really haven't settled on one or figured out what's ideal.) We got married on a spur of the moment thing 2 weeks ago and now are trying to do the ring thing

I don't have it yet, he's shipping on Monday.

 

[ma re]

For starters, wait for the stone before making any decisions. What happens often is that the stone in reality turns out to be quite diferent than what it looks like in vendor''s photos - not always, but it does happen.

But if it''s close to this photo, it has some green and grey in it''s blue. If you don''t understand what that means (just like many CS newbie''s don''t), compare it to LostSapphire''s avatar and you''ll see how it''s tone (darkness) and saturation are diferent. All of that (and a few other things) influences how the stone will look once set. Generally, all stones darken further, when set. That''s why I''m not crazy about the white gold idea for your ring. Since the stone already has some grey undertones, they would be more pronounced in white gold, making the stone look washed out (less blue). And the darkening which would occur wth setting might also make the stone too dark for white gold, cause that would create the strongest possible color contrast. And when you create a strong contrast, dark colors look even darker. My point is - white gold might make your stone look somewhat inky; if that''s what you like, great. If not - think again.

To explain with examples, THIS is close to what your stone would look in white gold, and THIS is close to what it would look in yellow gold. I tried to find examples with stones of similar color to yours, so that you can get a better idea. IMO white gold is great with stones of high color saturation (vividly blue, like in THIS photo), but yellow makes less saturated blues look richer. I also wouldn''t exclude rose gold, cause it would maybe make the color more blue by "shifting it" from greenish blue to purplish blue. I''m not saying it would make it purplish, but it would maybe make it less green, and the contrast wouldn''t be too harsh either. Two tone settings are another good idea IMO.

Hope this helps.

 

[azelismia]

mr ma re the first link doesn't work for me. it goes to a page not found. oops never mind I found it by going back a directory.

huge difference in those pics, it's hard to imagine they start off looking more or less teh same. the settings look vastly different though. the solitare is higher up with more light and the one in white is lower down with less light passing thru the base no?

of the two the yellow gold is better though. I think this solidifies the idea of NOT getting one of those rings that solidly wraps around the base of the gem, if they darken up that much.

I thought it was going to get all confusing with the various effects the different metals could have on the stones.

 

[ma re]

Well the purpose of me posting those pics wasn''t to show you the effects of various setting techniques, but only various colors of metal in combination with the color similar to that of your stone i.e. how different the contrast/combo is between blue/yellow and blue/white. Of course, setting technique also makes a difference, but not in perceived color saturation, unless the color of metal matches the color of the stone (rose in rose, yellow in yellow). It can only make a difference in the perceived tonal value (darkness/lightness) of the stone, and only if there is a lot of metal surrounding it. That thing that goes around the entire stone is called bezel setting, and the one with the stone higher up is called prong setting.

 

[azelismia]

I got the sapphire today. it is definitely not dark although the grey is pretty pronounced. it''s a grey snowy day here though.

I am inclined to keep it as it is pretty. it does match my eyes even if it''s not a pure ideal sapphire blue ( I couldn''t afford it if it were ) ..

what does concern me about this stone is that it has a little chip as pictured here. this picture is taken in natural diffused daylight (as I said it''s snowing heavily here - thru a 10x loupe) is this going to hurt future resale value of this stone ( I fully intend on upgrading to a more perfect blue for 5th or 10 year anniversary although I probably would keep this stone at that time and just relegate it to a right hand ring,but I like to keep investment in mind at all times too) After looking at this picture I was wondering if it was just an inclusion and not a chip at all but to the naked eye it really looks like a little circular chip. I am pretty sure the other little blemishes that show up on this stone in this pic are just fuzz.

In art glass a tiny chip like this devastates value.. Are gems the same way?

I am leaning solidly towards a bright shiny yellow gold for this stone. I tried it against a white gold and it looks stormy grey instead of blue. and looked a very bright vivid blue against the yellow gold.

 

[chrono]

It looks to be more like an inclusion rather than a chip. Inclusions are fine and acceptable if the stone is eye clean from the table view and doesn''t affect the integrity of the stone. Looking at the location, it appears to be all right even though it is rather close to the girdle.

 

[LostSapphire]

Date: 3/9/2009 8:45:27 PM
Author: azelismia
I got the sapphire today. it is definitely not dark although the grey is pretty pronounced. it's a grey snowy day here though.

I am inclined to keep it as it is pretty. it does match my eyes even if it's not a pure ideal sapphire blue ( I couldn't afford it if it were ) ..

what does concern me about this stone is that it has a little chip as pictured here. this picture is taken in natural diffused daylight (as I said it's snowing heavily here - thru a 10x loupe) is this going to hurt future resale value of this stone ( I fully intend on upgrading to a more perfect blue for 5th or 10 year anniversary although I probably would keep this stone at that time and just relegate it to a right hand ring,but I like to keep investment in mind at all times too) After looking at this picture I was wondering if it was just an inclusion and not a chip at all but to the naked eye it really looks like a little circular chip. I am pretty sure the other little blemishes that show up on this stone in this pic are just fuzz.

In art glass a tiny chip like this devastates value.. Are gems the same way?

I am leaning solidly towards a bright shiny yellow gold for this stone. I tried it against a white gold and it looks stormy grey instead of blue. and looked a very bright vivid blue against the yellow gold.

Just my $0.02 worth: there are LOTS of sapphires out there. Why would you settle for one with a chip in it? If the plan is to wear it for at least 5 if not 10 years, will the chip bother you? And upgrades? Who knows what the future will bring. Might happen, might not. And if it irritates you to look at it every day you may grow to resent your purchase, or, even stop wearing the ring.

I don't think purchasing a stone with a known chip is really an 'investment' per se....However, if you LOVE it, chip, colour and all, set it and love it for what it is. But you can't think of it in terms of an investment. Might be an idea to take it to an appraiser to get an opinion if it's a real chip or an inclusion...even so....

It's a very pretty blue in the photo. Can you take some more pics outdoors, both in sunlight and overcast? That would give us an idea of how it looks. (But I still can't quite get over the chip....)

I totally understand the sense of hurry when trying to find the 'right one'. I found it very frustrating, myself. And more than once, ordered (then cancelled) stones that would have meant me 'settling' on something less than what I really wanted. What helped was to keep reminding myself that I was ONLY buying ONE SAPPHIRE. And it was a FOREVER stone. It took 4-5 months to find it. Looking back now, that is but a blip on the radar.

Let's see some more pics!

LS

 

[marcy]

Pretty color. I have on my blue sapphire ring in yellow gold today and I love it in YG. Have fun shopping for your setting.

 

[Sam82]

In general, love yellow gold. However, I think that a blue sapphire would look best in white gold/platinum. It''s totally a personal perfence. Good luck.

 

[azelismia]

yeah, I''ll get some more pics of it in the next few days. hopefully the sun will come out. Taking pics thru the loop works amazingly well. I am hoping to take the ring to the jewlery store tomorrow to look at settings I can get them to tell me conclusively if it''s a chip or not. To be honest it''s so small it''s hard to find when looking at it with the naked eye. the sparkles tend to draw your eyes away from it and i think it could be covered with a prong. It does bother me to get something new with a chip but I think I could overlook it. you can feel it with your finger too. I really haven''t decided if it''s a deal breaker or not. I am just not sure how much better I could do color/size and price wise. I have been told I could go twice as High in price as I went here ( my husband doesn''t really like this stone much, He was expecting royal blue, not steel blue. I had already way overstepped limits in buying this with how much the kind of setting I wanted was going for) but.. looking around I just don''t see that I can do that much better.... having a treated stone would bother me more than a minuscule chip.



here''s another late snowywinter afternoon end of daylight picture against the skin non magnified.

the distance the camera is from the stone is about six inches. it''s really not noticeable. I can''t even tell where it is from this pic. The funny thing about this stone is that in some light it looks down right steely or pure grey and in other lights its a very nice blue.

 

[azelismia]

Sam, I think it depends on the underlying colors of the stone. When I take this to the jewelers tomorrow I''ll take pics of both types of settings against it

from what I''ve seen of my own jewelry against this though, having a white metal would make it look like a grey stone rather than blue. I think Mr Ma re is right in his estimation.

 

[chrono]

I am concerned if you say you can feel it with your finger. Have you informed Gene about this? Could it have gotten damaged in transit?

 

[azelismia]

no, I wanted to have some sort of idea about what was normal before I formatted a letter. I am a total noob when it comes to this sort of thing. I don''t see how it could have happened in transit. the little plastic box it was in looks perfect.

 

[T L]

Umba and Songea sapphires tend to be more steely or denim blue. If you want a more vivid blue, then Ceylon or Madagascar are typically the stones to get with Madagascar being slightly more affordable. However, good luck trying to find one as nicely cut as yours.

In any case, it does look like a pretty stone, beautifully cut, and I''m not sure what you paid, but with sapphires, color is everything. Gene is great because he has something for everyone.

That looks more like an inclusion than a chip. I know Gene would never sell a stone with a chip in it, and if he did, he would offer a complete refund or store credit. If you decide to keep it, then I would definitely do white gold for the stone. It''s still much prettier than 99% of what you see in the mall stores.

 

[azelismia]

well I agree, and that''s why I am not rushing into anything as far as returning it. I am going to get a jewelers opinion on if it''s a chip or inclusion.

For my price range I don''t think I am going to do better.. Even if it does have a chip I kind of doubt I can do better.

I paid 432 for it and for what is out there that seemed like a pretty hot deal for a decent blue stone with a good cut. I don''t think I am going to get better color for under a thousand not heat treated.

Shawn was the one expecting it to be royal not me. I really like the color in some of the treated ones but if I get treated why not go all the way and just get a created stone?

that all seems like a slippery slope to me.

 

[ma re]

OK folks, let''s get one thing straight - you can''t feel an inclusion under your finger; if you can feel it, it''s a chip. However, it doesen''t look like something that could affect durability, and with a prong at the right place, no one would even know it''s there. Regarding the setting, I agree that sapphires can look smashing in white metal and diamonds, but only if they have no grey. When people say that they prefer sapphires in white metal, they often visualize those "one in a million" sapphires, which cost as much as a new car (or a house). Icekid''s avatar shows a nice sapphire in an even nicer white metal setting, but you''ll see it has no grey and it''s a light tone of blue, so no wonder it looks nice in white.

P. S. He thought it''ll be a royal blue, for like, 300$/ct? Show him the prices of royal blue ones! But make sure you grab him when he faints BTW

 

[Babyblue033]

I know nothing about Sapphires so I''m afraid I have nothing to contribute on that. But can I just point out something I noticed while reading your thread? What pops out for me as a central theme seems to be "I can''t do any better" and I can''t help but think you''re really settling with this stone. I know great sapphires cost money, but that doesn''t mean you should settle for something you don''t truly love. One of the things I love about color stones is that regardless of what the "standards" are, what the highly desired colors are in the industry, it ultimately comes down to what YOU like.

For example, I find blue sapphires beautiful on others, just not on me. Your stone however seems more "moody" to me and I personally find gray in it more appealing. But you keep saying you can''t do much better and I''m not sure if I could personally wear a ring with that sort of sentiment. No matter how much money I spent, no matter how "high quality" the stone is, I want to love it for what it is and not look at it with regret.

I wish you best of luck with your ring, I''m sure it''ll be beautiful whatever you decide to do. I just didn''t want you to settle for something you didn''t truly love.

 

[Pandora II]

Royal blue sapphires are going to be a lot more $$$ - especially if you don''t want heat-treated and you want a precision cut I''m afraid.

Sapphires I have seen from Tanzania all seem to have the greenish or grayish over tone, if you want bright blues, then Sri Lanka is more likely to be the source you''d need. I wouldn''t set a stone with a greenish cast in a yg setting as it will bring out this characteristic.

If you want a stone that you can resell for what you paid, then you need to be buying super-rare. Gemstones are NOT investments unless you are either in the trade, buying at source for well below retail or buying important stones. (Palagems has a 3ct kashmir sapphire that is over $100k - that is an investment stone). You''d be extremely lucky to get back more than $100 if you tried to resell that stone.

I''d keep looking, see a lot more actual stones so that you have an idea of what you really like and also what makes one stone cost $ and another cost $$$$$.

Many of us have spent 5+ months hunting down the right rock.

 

[azelismia]

well today I took it to a custom place and saw it in some actual settings. it''s quite lovely. much prettier in a setting than loose. I won''t be disappointed with it at all and the stone is much prettier than the preset stones I''ve seen in the malls absolutely!

I am keeping it. looking at it in white settings vs yellow settings was actually very close. you really could see a definite copper green in the yellow gold the grey pick up wasn''t anywhere near as apparent with the palladium and platinum and it looked just as blue in each. Right now the top contender is a three stone ring which will require picking up two white half carat sapphires. ( anyone know of a good source for those?)

 

[azelismia]

at this point I am going custom, this is a ring very like what I think I want to do here but I am going to try and get rid of the bezels and replace htem with prongs and make the split shank not split in pallidium

I am considering going with trillion for the side sapphires instead of round but I am not sure if that would be neat or strange. Opinions?

I can''t really visualize it.

Any other suggestions that might look neat here. I am not absolutely sure about not keeping the split shank either I kind of like it... but I kind of want it to be a little more streamliined too.

 

[azelismia]

this is an example of a wrap with the prongs, I am also unsure if I should try to keep the bezel for the size stones or go with prongs there too.

 

[chrono]

If you are going with prongs, then the side stones should be pronged too. I think it looks a bit odd or out of place to have a ring with bezels and prongs together.

 

[ma re]

Date: 3/13/2009 7:11:07 PM
Author: azelismia
at this point I am going custom, this is a ring very like what I think I want to do here but I am going to try and get rid of the bezels and replace htem with prongs and make the split shank not split in pallidium

I am considering going with trillion for the side sapphires instead of round but I am not sure if that would be neat or strange. Opinions?

I can''t really visualize it.

Any other suggestions that might look neat here. I am not absolutely sure about not keeping the split shank either I kind of like it... but I kind of want it to be a little more streamliined too.

Seems to me that you''re kind of still not sure about many things, kind of

Trillions are a very good idea IMO, since they are modern, like this design, and (in a sense) dynamic and suggest movement. I honestly can''t think of any shape that could fit better in that ring (except rounds). However, I''m not sure if bezel setting the sides would be OK, but it might be, depending on the rest of the ring.

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 3/13/2009 7:11:07 PM
Author: azelismia
at this point I am going custom, this is a ring very like what I think I want to do here but I am going to try and get rid of the bezels and replace htem with prongs and make the split shank not split in pallidium

I am considering going with trillion for the side sapphires instead of round but I am not sure if that would be neat or strange. Opinions?

I can't really visualize it.

Any other suggestions that might look neat here. I am not absolutely sure about not keeping the split shank either I kind of like it... but I kind of want it to be a little more streamliined too.

First, do you have any more pics of the stone? I'd like to see more.

Second, I think it's beautiful and I really think you lucked out finding something so quickly. LS's search took 4-5 months, and mine took 2-3, and I think I looked at a couple hundred stones in that time period.

Now for opinions on the ring. I would go white metal, but I don't do yellow. My ering stone has quite a bit of grey to it, but that is something I wanted because it gives it a bit more of a mysterious earthy look, and I put it in white metal because I just don't like yellow. I think most people go with whatever color metal they like the most, because a lot of us are very particular with the way the metal looks against our skin. So I'd think about that as well.

I agree that bezels go with bezels and prongs go with prongs. I think that the ring you posted was interesting, but I didn't like that the side stones stuck out a little bit from the central part of the ring. I think a more fluid look could be achieved there. I don't know if you're planning on wearing a wedding band with it, but that could cause some problems there. I'm also not a fan of the split shank, but I think that has to do more with the fact that I can't see the rest of the shank, and with the way it looks from the top, it doesn't look like the most comfortable of rings. It also seems to have something to do with the ring being less fluid than it could be. As for trillion side stones, that's a personal preference, as is everything else, but it really depends on what kind of ring you want to have. When I look at the ring you posted, I think: waves, ocean, swirls. Trillions probably won't have the same effect and will change the look of the ring significantly. Plus they may be somewhat harder to find because trillion anything is not a popular shape.

I'm going to try to mess around with photoshop a little and see what I can come up with. If I make something thats at least interesting, I'll post it.

 

[FrekeChild]

Ok. Here is a mockup (not my best work, but not too too bad for 3am and 50 minutes) of the modified Greenlake ring with trillions. I hope it at least helps you visualize it.