Does this mean I''m a bottom-feeder?

[diamondlil]

I have been obsessing over a new project: 3-stone ring with diamond sides. My birthstone is ruby, but since I cannot afford a really nice ruby in a 2+ carat size, I''m hoping that a red spinel will satisfy me. Richard Wise''s use of the term "bottom-feeder" cracked me up. I guess if the shoe fits, I may as well wear it!

I found 2 spinels that look really beautiful, but I hesitate since pictures on the net can be deceiving. The words used to describe color also confuse me. What I might think "red pink" should mean may be different than what "red pink" means to somewhat else. Does that make sense?

I wish I knew how to show both options on 1 post, but I''ll have to post them separately. Here is an oval 2.1 ct, red pink, 8.3 x 6.9 x 4.9.

Your impressions and comments are welcome.

DiamondLil

 

[diamondlil]

Here is my other option, a round, 2.64 ct., 8.7 x 4.7. Color description is "red." Not very helpful. Both stones from Mogok, Burma.

 

[cflutist]

Bottom feeder? Did you know that the "Black Prince''s Ruby" in the British Crown Jewels is actually a red spinel?

 

[movie zombie]

i''ll take whichever one you decide you don''t want....better yet, i''ll take them both!

i really like the color of the round.

peace, movie zombie

 

[Kaleigh]

WOW, how to choose??? I really love the first one, but they are both awesome stones. What a fun project!!! Can''t wait to see it once it''s done. Let us know which one you choose.

 

[diamondlil]

Date: 6/27/2005 1:19:15 PM
Author: cflutist
Bottom feeder? Did you know that the ''Black Prince''s Ruby'' in the British Crown Jewels is actually a red spinel?

LOL, yes, I do remember something like that lingering in the cobwebs of my mind.


Moviezombie, I like the color of the round too, but I wonder if the stones in person will be more deeply saturated color than in the pics. The oval is marginally lighter in the pic and may be okay in person if they are a little deeper color. I tried on a 3-stone with round ruby at (dare I say it . . .) Tiffany''s recently, and I loved the round center. I never thought I would as I usually go for fancy shapes when it comes to colored stones. I''m not good at making decisions like this.

DiamondLil

 

[FireGoddess]

They both look scrumptious - and on my screen - practically the same color! Not knowing anything about the cost of spinels, or what company both these stones are from or their return policies, is it possible to order both and then return the one you don''t like as much?? I can hardly tell a difference between the 2 on my screen. One way to narrow down would be whether you want a 3 stone round, a 3 stone oval, or an oval center with round sides...which would force you to choose one over the other due to shape...but both of them look AMAZING on my screen.

 

[raddygast]

I don't want to be a voice of negativity, but I really have to correct this notion that spinels are for bottom-feeders.

Not even taking into account the increasing market value/cost of high quality really red spinels, I must make the point that spinels are exceedingly hard to find if what you're looking for is a "pedigreed ruby replacement." Harder to find than the rubies themselves, by far. The only difference is that the rubies, while much easier to track down, are ridiculously expensive considering that they are often flux-healed and almost always heat-treated. The spinel, *if* you manage to find an amazing one, will not be cheap at all but it will offer a *HUGE* value in terms of price per "unit of beauty". Note I am not referring to absolutely amazing *untreated* Mogok rubies, which are just as rare as the spinels (that's not even worth talking about -- these things move in collector circles and we're talking easily $35K and up).

Red spinels generally don't look like rubies because most rubies have quite a bit of purple in them. The ultimate colour of ruby ("Pigeon Blood Red") even has some room for purple tones (but much more slight than the majority of mall-store crap rubies you will see, which are very purplish-pink).

Not so spinel. Red spinel generally has modifying hues of orange to it, or brownish if the stone is not so saturated and has too much iron. The brown and dark tone is undesirable so you must find a spinel that doesn't have that negative characteristic -- and that's when you realize they aren't so cheap after all. The majority of spinel candidates you'll find look like great deals and look fine in their pictures, but when you see them in person you will often have to reject them for this reason.

The good news is that "orange modifiers" appear, psychologically to me at least, to enhance the "redness" of any item. Traffic lights have orange in them. The current Formula 1 Ferrari cars have some orange added to make the red more "day-glo." Actual (scientific) red is maybe a bit more purplish/pinkish than you think!

Anyhow, the most ruby-like spinels would be straight red, with almost no orange hue, to compare with a ruby that was also as close to pure red as possible (and very, very few are -- some rubies with considerable purple modifiers sell for insanely high prices).

Even then, if you find close to the ideal colour, spinels have optical characteristics which make them look different from rubies (in some ways better, some ways worse). They won't hold their colour as well as rubies in bad lighting, and they tend not to have as much UV red fluorescence, though the best ones are certainly not shabby in fluorescence. However, spinels almost always look cleaner inside due to better clarity, but most importantly lack of dichroism and single-refractivity. The end result is a well-cut clean spinel will look much more "sparkly" and gem-like to someone used to diamonds. Really great ruby often has this sleepy, "murky" haze quality to it that tends to put off people who are used to diamonds and whose only experience with colored gems is with the more inexpensive abundant materials like amethyst, topaz and the like.

Now, I like the ruby murkiness if the color is great -- it is caused by several factors, including rutile silk inclusions, but it is definitely not the same look as a very red and clear spinel, which has more "life". Extinction contrasts are more pronounced in spinel and I happen to like that very much -- you get a lot more shimmer between the red and the "black" that really defines the cut.

Not to mention that red spinels were made red by none other than Mother Nature, not some master Thai heater's oven where not only the colour but little fissures and cracks have been improved and healed by very intrusive man-made techniques.

Anyway, the long and the short of it is: if you find a truly beautiful red spinel, cherish it the way you would any other unique gem. Pretend, in your mind, that the red of a fantastic red spinel is a completely different color from the red of an amazing ruby. If you are in the game to hunt one down, treat it as a hunt and be prepared for it to take a while. When you find your bounty, you will be that much more satisfied.

It's when people fall into the lamentable trap of seeking spinel to satisfy ruby aspirations that things can go sour. In my view, it's like dating a woman as a "consolation prize" after being rejected by the one you really desired. It's just not good for both parties.

I'm actually thinking of the spinels out there in the world! They deserve more than to have their beauty evaluated solely on the basis of comparison with the kinds of rubies that only Kings, Queens, Sultans, Bill Gates, Donald Trump and Michael Schumacher can afford.

Every gem type is beautiful in its own right. For me, I've always been attracted to the underdog, so the rarity, the "not altered by man" quality which is extremely rare in gems these days, and the "gem-like look" really sold me on spinel vs. ruby. So much so that if I won the lottery, yeah I'd definitely get one or two amazing ruby specimens, but I would still be more interested in hunting for spinel.

 

[flopkins]

It seems to me the first oval is more pink, the second more red?? But it''s so hard to say from the pics. Either one looks YUM!! If that makes you a bottom feeder... boy I''m joining the club!!!

 

[diamondlil]

FireGoddess,
I would love to just get both and return one, but I feel funny about doing that. The company does have a great return policy so maybe I''ll inquire about it. If they are comfortable with that, knowing that is my intent to return one, I''d feel better.

Raddygast,
Thanks so much for your post. For many of the reasons you stated (cleaner, sparklier, less murky), I like spinel better than ruby as well. Rubies with too much purple are not my cup of tea either. I think I''m drawn to the word "ruby" because it''s my birthstone which is kind of silly since "birthstones" were made up by someone at some point in time. I have seen many spinels (in person) with the brownish/orange undertones, and they are not very appealing to me. I like a medium red with a pinkish undertone (what I would call blue-red). It''s very difficult to use words to describe variations in color. In my hunt, I have seen a few that were exactly the color I prefer. Unfortunately, like you stated, their prices were beyond my current pocketbook. I put the project out of my mind for a few months. Then, just in the last few weeks, more threads have popped up regarding spinel which had me searching further into some of the internet vendors. I stumbled upon these 2 affordable stones and am faced with making a decision. I hate decisions for myself. If I was helping someone else make the decision it would be clearer to me for some twisted reason.

DiamondLil

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

I am partial to ovals--so I say that based on shape alone; truth be told they both "appear" nice on my screen. Good luck!!

cheers--Sharon

 

[widget]

Author: raddygast
I don''t want to be a voice of negativity, but I really have to correct this notion that spinels are for bottom-feeders.

Hi, Raddygast! Always nice to see you and that magnificent avatar stone! (Have you mounted it yet?)

I THINK the term "bottom-feeders" (not my favorite term) was meant to describe those who for budgetary reasons seek out lovely looking, less expensive, perhaps non-collector-quality gemstones....of any variety. I don''t think anybody meant that spinels in particular are for "bottom feeders"!!

Here''s a beauty offered by National Gemstones: 3.55ct @ $3500/ct, or: $12,425!!

Not too much "bottom feeding" with this one, methinks!

widget

 

[velouriaL]

I thought the whole bottom-feeding thing had to do with pearls coming from oysters... eh... nevermind...

 

[Matata]

There are a few web sites that I check frequently (some would say in an obsessive/compulsive manner

) and this beauty was not on diamondexpert''s site last week and today it''s on hold. Looks like it''s on fire inside. Yummy.

 

[belle]

Date: 6/27/2005 6:12:32 PM
Author: velouriaL
I thought the whole bottom-feeding thing had to do with pearls coming from oysters... eh... nevermind...

that''s what i thought too! i was expecting to read about pearls

not that i mind looking at all of these lovely spinels!

 

[fountainfairfax]

I''m glad I read this thread! I''ve been drooling over red-orange spinels for the last couple of weeks, not as a ruby replacement per say, but because I just love red. I love both of the stones DiamondLil posted, but I do agree with the majority that the round has a slightly more pleasing color. I also have to thank Raddygast for posting- there is a lot of great spinel info to consider.
Hopefully my own cushion spinel hunt will be a happy and successful one and you can be sure I''ll post the results here!

 

[diamondlil]

Date: 6/27/2005 6:06:20 PM
Author: widget

Author: raddygast
I don''t want to be a voice of negativity, but I really have to correct this notion that spinels are for bottom-feeders.

Hi, Raddygast! Always nice to see you and that magnificent avatar stone! (Have you mounted it yet?)

I THINK the term ''bottom-feeders'' (not my favorite term) was meant to describe those who for budgetary reasons seek out lovely looking, less expensive, perhaps non-collector-quality gemstones....of any variety. I don''t think anybody meant that spinels in particular are for ''bottom feeders''!!

Here''s a beauty offered by National Gemstones: 3.55ct @ $3500/ct, or: $12,425!!

Not too much ''bottom feeding'' with this one, methinks!

widget

LOL, my interpretation of the term was the same as yours, Widget. I wish I had the budget for a $3,500/ct stone, but I''ll have to put that off until my lotto winnings arrive.

DiamondLil

 

[raddygast]

Matata, that stone on Gary''s site looks utterly amazing. But nothing can substitute for seeing a stone in person, and I''m thinking the size might be just a bit too small for a 3-stone ring, unless the side diamonds were quite petite too.

 

[raddygast]

Widget: that 3.55 ct $12,000 USD spinel is amazing. Just check out the color on the photo that appears on the AGL Grading Report. It totally blows away the color on the pic you posted.

If I had any money at all, I would seriously buy that gem as a collector's piece. I mean, come on. It's over three and a half carats, and according to the AGL scale, it's 95% red/orange!! (70% red, 25% orange). Psychologically, to me, that is basically the most fluorescent dayglo red possible in nature.

I am seriously disappointed that they don't have a 1.5ct stone on offer with the same color. If they had, I'd imagine it would only cost something like $4500 and even though that was way beyond my budget I would sell my laptop and TV and maybe even my bed in order to buy it.

 

[raddygast]

AGL cert.

 

[Sagebrush]

Lil,

Since I seem to be responsible for the term "bottom feeder" perhaps I should clairfy. I don't think that buying a red spinel in lieu of a ruby is bottom feeding. I'm trying to recall in what context I used that term but I am sure that was not what I meant. In fact, some of my best friends are spinels and (please don't tell anyone) red tourmalines. I mean, I included a whole chapter on spinel in my book. Raddygast's post puts it quite well and I agree.

Buy a spinel instead of a ruby! Thats good advise is the option is a beautiful spinel or a cheap, I mean ugly ruby.I would even go so far as to suggest that buying a beautiful spinel is a good idea period.

Now just a little caveat on color. A red spinel with 25% orange secondary is not particularly rare. A red spinel with 10% or less is. I will post one (recently sold) later.

 

[velouriaL]

Red tourmaline? Like rubellite? I don''t think I''ve ever heard of red-RED tourmaline. Do tell.

Raddy- you have the gem bug worse than any male I''ve ever seen who''s not in the trade! Selling off your laptop? Wow. That''s a dedication to beauty I can respect. I hope you GF appreciates it! Does she have any interest in this kind of thing?

(Oh yeah, and... woooheee... those are some gorgeous gems!)

 

[MINE!!]

OOOHHH raddygast... I love that color... how yummy.... IT is AWESOME>>>!!!

 

[velouriaL]

Spinel eyecandy

I want them on my ears immediately!
Or maybe in one of those victorian Moi et Toi rings with some seed pearls (to bring it all back to real bottom-feeders!)....

 

[movie zombie]

oh, velourial, i love those red spinels!!!!

the original richard wise reference to ''bottom feeders'' in another thread was a lead in for talking about PEARLS....yes, the real pricescope bottom feeders are discussing PEARLS...

so take those two lovely reds of velourial''s and surround them with a halo of pearls...now we''ve got major major major bottom feeding going on. wow, wouldn''t that be stunning?! let the bottom feeding begin!!!!

peace, movie zombie

 

[velouriaL]

haha...mz... that TOTALLY cracked me up!

MAJOR BOTTOM FEEDING GOING ON!

 

[diamondlil]

Okay, so I got the "bottom-feeding" insinuation all wrong, but I wasn''t the only one. Please forgive me.

Ooooh, red tourmaline sounds interesting. I have not heard of that either -- only rubellite. How about rhodolite garnet? Are they ever bright red/purple? All the ones I''ve seen are very deep/muted.

DiamondLil

 

[chrono]

Isn''t red tourmaline also known as rubellite?

I am also looking for a matched set of pear shaped smaller red stones (not ruby or ruby substitute) and the search has been long and hard without much success. I''ve looked at red spinels, rubellite and rhodolite garnet without any luck. What are my other options?

 

[Sagebrush]

Rubellite is another name for red tourmaline. I don''t use the terms because of its obvious "ruby-like" connotation. And now ladies and gentlemen, here, on our stage, for your delectation is a ruby red spinel:

 

[movie zombie]

richard, that is just simply so divine it must be fattening!

peace, movie zombie