Dumb question: Are pink sapphires precious or semi-precious stones?

[Gleam]

I did a google search and it seems that sapphires are listed as precious, but I didn''t find a definitive answer on whether pink sapphires are considered precious.

Sorry for the silly question! I don''t have much experience with gemstones outside of rubies and sapphires and diamonds.

 

[arjunajane]

I was under the assumption all sapphires (qualifier: gem grade), are considered as precious.

However, what does and doesn't qualify for precious or semi precious constantly changes with both time and geography...it could be argued the terms are rather redundant, or a marketing term.

Sorry if that wasn't really the answer you were seeking!

 

[morecarats]

Use of the terms "precious" and "semi-precious" are actively discouraged in the gem trade these days. In fact the AGTA (American Gem Trade Association) includes a statement in their Code of Ethics to the effect that "Members should avoid the use of the term "semi-precious" in describing gemstones."

Having said that, sapphires have long been regarded as one of the precious gems. Ergo, pink sapphires were considered precious as well.

Amethyst and opal were at one time considered precious stones as well.

 

[morecarats]

Imagine we could re-define the concept of "precious stone". What would you include? Assuming the traditional four made the list, would you want to re-classify some gems as "precious"? Obvious candidates might include tanzanite, tsavorite garnet, demantoid garnet and alexandrite.

 

[Gleam]

Very enlightening, thank you.

I had no idea the trade discouraged the use of "semi precious" and "precious," as I still see these terms everywhere, especially when it comes to second-tier designer jewelry such as David Yurman, Me & Ro, etc. As a layman, I find these terms somewhat helpful in the sense that they clue you into the rarity of a stone. For me, I don't see the "redundancy" as I would assume the terms somewhat explain pricing, but I could be totally wrong. I assume, for example, diamonds are more rare than citrines. I can see that they're marketing tools, although "semi precious" seems like being damned with faint praise, doesn't it?

I think the crux of my question lies in whether one should expect to pay significantly less for a pink sapphire than a blue sapphire, all other specifications being equal besides color. So are pink sapphires more or less valuable, i.e. precious (at this time, in this geographic location of the western hemisphere, etc)?

morecarats, when were amethysts and opals considered precious? Just curious. And you pose a very interesting question.

 

[chrono]

Gleam,
Decades ago before the huge find of amethysts in Brazil, when amethyst was uncommon, it was considered “precious” due to its rarity. Top pink sapphires are not common and also can command very high prices, although probably slightly less than a top blue sapphire. Remember, the value assigned to a particular gemstone species or colour is only dependant upon market conditions. If the Western market prefers pink, then pinks will cost more. It is simple economics. Pink sapphires used to not be as expensive as today; part of the reason for the price hike in recent years in due to the lower quality pinks being used for beryllium diffusion to make padparadscha sapphires which commands very high prices.

 

[Gleam]

Chrono, thank you very much! Your response was very helpful.

 

[morecarats]

Gleam, your phrase "being damned with faint praise" captures the AGTA''s take on the term "semi-precious". But a number of so-called semi-precious gems are actually rarer than many precious gems. Tsavorite garnet, for example, is rarer than emerald.

The distinction between "precious" and "semi-precious" dates only to the 19th century, just around the time the huge amethyst deposits were discovered in Brazil. My theory is that the distinction was designed specifically to denigrate amethyst now that it was no longer rare.

Prior to that there was a concept of the "cardinal gems," those associated with religious and royal authorities. The list included diamond, ruby, sapphire, emerald and amethyst. Catholic cardinals still wear amethyst rings today.

In antiquity, the play of color exhibited by precious opal was though to be so rare and magical that opal was near the top of the list of rare gems. Then all those opals were discovered in Australia and people realized that couldn''t be so special. (But of course they are).

As far as sapphire goes, pink is actually a rarer sapphire color than blue. The top blues probably command higher prices, but the pinks are typically found only in smaller sizes and tend to be included. So a clean pink sapphire with top color is quite valuable, especially in sizes over 2 carats.

 

[RockHugger]

Did you know a pink sapphire is just a low quality ruby?? Noone wanted the ''pink'' rubys so they renamed them pink sapphire to sell them. And it worked because now they are soooooo popular. Marketing at its best! Sence it is a ruby I would say it is a precious stone.
There are people who still sell them as ''pink rubies'' at lower prices then red ones. I wont buy a ''pink sapphire'' because of the price on them.

 

[morecarats]

Date: 11/19/2009 9:03:53 AM
Author: Chrono
Gleam,
Decades ago before the huge find of amethysts in Brazil, when amethyst was uncommon, it was considered “precious” due to its rarity. Top pink sapphires are not common and also can command very high prices, although probably slightly less than a top blue sapphire. Remember, the value assigned to a particular gemstone species or colour is only dependant upon market conditions. If the Western market prefers pink, then pinks will cost more. It is simple economics. Pink sapphires used to not be as expensive as today; part of the reason for the price hike in recent years in due to the lower quality pinks being used for beryllium diffusion to make padparadscha sapphires which commands very high prices.

I hope no one takes this to mean that the padparadscha-colored sapphires produced by beryllium diffusion command very high prices. In fact these treated stones would not be identified as padparadscha by any reputable gemological lab, and they would command the usual prices for BE-heated sapphires (usually about $40 to $75 a carat).

 

[Gleam]

VERY interesting, morecarats! Thank you! Where did you guys get all this wonderful knowledge? Through a lifetime, I'm sure, but is there a book you might recommend?

I notice "semi-precious" is often used in a manner that suggests a consumer (especially a less knowledgeable one) should be paying a premium, although it sounds to my ears almost like an insult! Cheap jewelry, especially, seems to love unfurling the "semi precious" banner although it's clear you and I would think it's faint praise! Ever been to the jewelry counter at Target? "Semi-precious" is a label on everything!

 

[chrono]

Date: 11/19/2009 9:21:56 AM
Author: morecarats

Date: 11/19/2009 9:03:53 AM
Author: Chrono
Gleam,
Decades ago before the huge find of amethysts in Brazil, when amethyst was uncommon, it was considered “precious” due to its rarity. Top pink sapphires are not common and also can command very high prices, although probably slightly less than a top blue sapphire. Remember, the value assigned to a particular gemstone species or colour is only dependant upon market conditions. If the Western market prefers pink, then pinks will cost more. It is simple economics. Pink sapphires used to not be as expensive as today; part of the reason for the price hike in recent years in due to the lower quality pinks being used for beryllium diffusion to make padparadscha sapphires which commands very high prices.

I hope no one takes this to mean that the padparadscha-colored sapphires produced by beryllium diffusion command very high prices. In fact these treated stones would not be identified as padparadscha by any reputable gemological lab, and they would command the usual prices for BE-heated sapphires (usually about $40 to $75 a carat).

MC,
It was not clear in my explanation but the BE diffused pink sapphires are sold by unscrupulous sellers as untreated padparascha sapphires which command very high prices. Of course, it stands to reason that the true value of any BE treated gemstone is very inexpensive.

 

[chrono]

Date: 11/19/2009 9:21:42 AM
Author: Tropicgal10
Did you know a pink sapphire is just a low quality ruby?? Noone wanted the ''pink'' rubys so they renamed them pink sapphire to sell them. And it worked because now they are soooooo popular. Marketing at its best! Sence it is a ruby I would say it is a precious stone.
There are people who still sell them as ''pink rubies'' at lower prices then red ones. I wont buy a ''pink sapphire'' because of the price on them.

Tropicgal,
I would not call a pink sapphire a low quality ruby, especially one with outstanding saturation. After all, I’ve seen far too many crappy red corundum sold as ruby which I would not even give a second look. To me, a low quality ruby is something that has been lead filled or so included as to be opaque. A fine quality pink sapphire is able to take one’s breath away.

 

[RockHugger]

Ok but it IS a lower color quality. That is what I ment. If ''pink sapphires'' never existed people would never have bought pinkish red rubies, because the market demands the deep red ones.

Calling it pink sapphire is kind of a marketing scam IMO. MOST consumers dont know sapphires and rubies are the same chemically, so they think they are getting a ''rare'' pink sapphire, not a lower COLOR quality ruby. Its kinda like green amethyst being popular now...thus causing it to be a higher price (I saw a 10ct green amethyst pendent going for 300$). Noone would pay that it if it was ''public'' that it is just a green quartz. Kinda like taking advantage of the uninformed.

 

[ma re]

Article on the topic:

http://www.gemstone.org/gem-tips/ask_03_00-semi.html

 

[chrono]

True, calling it a pink sapphire is a marketing tool but calling it a scam is very strong verbiage and accusation for something that is widely and even universally accepted in the trade. Do keep in mind that saturation aka vividness of colour is what sets the price for 95% of all gemstones. I would not call a pink but obviously vivid or even intensely coloured sapphire lower colour quality. Or you can even look at it the other way; the term ruby is just a marketing “scam” to raise the price of red corundum. Why not just call it a red sapphire? Why even bother with the name “ruby”? Because the name “ruby” sells.

 

[RockHugger]

Good point. I have some ''red sapphires'' in my collection that I purchased as part of a lot. I always wondered why they didnt just sell em as rubies...but whatever. But that is why I refuse to pay market price on ANY stone....because it is all inflated by marketing.

 

[Harriet]

Tropicgal,
There is a fine line between pink and red. Hence, whether a piece of corundum is termed "pink sapphire" or "ruby" partially depends on which side of the table one is sitting. Like Chrono wrote, there are gemmy specimens of each and there are the dogs. If someone tried to sell me a "pink ruby" or a "red sapphire," I''d run. You say that pink is an "inferior" colour to red. Firstly, are they even separate hues? Secondly, is there such a notion as "inferiority" where it comes to colours? As for paying market price, we''re talking about unique products of nature, not fungible items. One gets what one pays for.

 

[arjunajane]

agree with everything Chrono and Harriet said..some pretty out there statements being leveled here Tropic..

 

[T L]

Date: 11/19/2009 9:53:40 AM
Author: Tropicgal10
Ok but it IS a lower color quality. That is what I ment. If 'pink sapphires' never existed people would never have bought pinkish red rubies, because the market demands the deep red ones.

Calling it pink sapphire is kind of a marketing scam IMO. MOST consumers dont know sapphires and rubies are the same chemically, so they think they are getting a 'rare' pink sapphire, not a lower COLOR quality ruby. Its kinda like green amethyst being popular now...thus causing it to be a higher price (I saw a 10ct green amethyst pendent going for 300$). Noone would pay that it if it was 'public' that it is just a green quartz. Kinda like taking advantage of the uninformed.

Tropicgal, if you're comparing a top pink sapphire to a top quality Burma ruby (the pinnacle of red colored stones) both the same carat size, both untreated, same clarity, etc. . . , then yes, the pink sapphire will not be as valuable. However, that same top pink sapphire is more valuable than your average ruby. There is a distinction.

I do get what you're saying, but comparing any pink sapphire to any red ruby is simply too vague a comparison Modifiers, saturation, tone, treatment, carat size, clarity, and other variables need to be accounted for when making comparisons such as these.

 

[PrecisionGem]

Date: 11/19/2009 10:22:48 AM
Author: Tropicgal10
Good point. I have some ''red sapphires'' in my collection that I purchased as part of a lot. I always wondered why they didnt just sell em as rubies...but whatever. But that is why I refuse to pay market price on ANY stone....because it is all inflated by marketing.

I sure hope you don''t own any diamonds! Diamonds of all stones are the most inflated by marketing. And if you consider a stone to be precious because of it''s rarity, then a diamond should not be considered precious.

As Morecarats said, the terms precious and semi-precious are really not used in the trade, as they don''t have much meaning. Certainly, tsavorite garnet is much more rare than diamond, yet one would call diamond precious and tsavorite as semi-precious.

 

[RockHugger]

I actually own quite a few diamonds. About 6 Cts of them. I never payed full market value for any of them. I refuse to pay that for any stone I own because I dont believe in the marketing hype. I know daimonds are VERY inflated.

As for you get what you pay for, I disagree. As long as you are cautious and informed you can get some GREAT deals. My largest diamond 1.2cts (the one on my finger) is an SI2, G color stone, and I paid $750 for it. Go to any store and pay the inflated ''market value'' of 3-4k. I have a 1.1ct Champagne diamond that I paid 50$ for. It is an I1-I2 diamond and a .25 champagne, SI1 I paid 25$ for.

I dunno, I guess the point I was trying to make in this thread is to be careful of market hypes, be an informed buyer, and dont pay higher prices because of a name...because with most gems the name (not the stone material) is where the money is.

 

[Michael_E]

Date: 11/19/2009 10:22:48 AM
Author: Tropicgal10
But that is why I refuse to pay market price on ANY stone....because it is all inflated by marketing.

This is interesting and seems to be a common widely held view. This view implies that the "Market Price" is something created by marketing and this is only true at the lower end of the market, (which is quite broad). At the upper end are those people who are paying the "market price" because they want the piece and they are setting the market price themselves. They realize what they are doing and are willing to pay what it takes to possess the best that they can afford. Refusing to pay the market price is fine, but it can lock you out of the better goods, since they are truly rare and generally worth what is being asked of them, (well at least within negotiating range). It really doesn''t matter if it''s diamonds, rubies, amethyst or even granite coutertop material...the best in any class will look the best, be the most rare, cost the most and in it could all be called "Precious", because it is, (check your wallet after buying the best of anything and I think you''ll agree).

 

[RockHugger]

But on the flip side, who sets what is the ''best". The market? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not a rappaport or price list. I have some stones that arnt ''the best'' but love them more then some stones I have that are ''the best''. I paid less for the ''lower quality'' stones but love them more. People are easily influanced and that is why market value sticks. People want what we have been told is the best and will pay when we are told they wre worth.

When talking about ''the best'' it is completely subjective. This is why I dont (or try not to) fall for it.

 

[T L]

Date: 11/19/2009 12:37:11 PM
Author: Tropicgal10
I actually own quite a few diamonds. About 6 Cts of them. I never payed full market value for any of them. I refuse to pay that for any stone I own because I dont believe in the marketing hype. I know daimonds are VERY inflated.

As for you get what you pay for, I disagree. As long as you are cautious and informed you can get some GREAT deals. My largest diamond 1.2cts (the one on my finger) is an SI2, G color stone, and I paid $750 for it. Go to any store and pay the inflated 'market value' of 3-4k. I have a 1.1ct Champagne diamond that I paid 50$ for. It is an I1-I2 diamond and a .25 champagne, SI1 I paid 25$ for.

I dunno, I guess the point I was trying to make in this thread is to be careful of market hypes, be an informed buyer, and dont pay higher prices because of a name...because with most gems the name (not the stone material) is where the money is.

I know this thread is heading off to tangents, but I do think you can get good buys on used diamonds as well and some champagne stones can be very affordable, especially if they're included.. However, in colored stones, it's usually you get what you pay for unless you're incredibly lucky. There are some places that charge high retail (ie: Tiff & Co ) and in that case, I would buy a fine gem from somewhere else, but it's still not going to be a bargain if it's a very rare and fine colored gem.

 

[Michael_E]

Date: 11/19/2009 1:02:20 PM
Author: Tropicgal10

When talking about ''the best'' it is completely subjective. This is why I dont (or try not to) fall for it.

Subjective ? I think more Objective as in Color, Clarity, Carat and Cut....These are all of the hallmarks of quality and the "Best" are those stones which have the greatest combination of these qualities. Obviously there are distinctions to be made and some hairsplitting over the nuances of color or clarity, but overall the "Market" decides what is best based on what people are willing to pay. If you run into areas where the "Emperor has no clothes", meaning the market is overcome with hype, then it best to avoid that area, but overall the best items at the upper end of the market are obvious based on where they fall with those four C''s. While marketing may change price levels overall, it really doesn''t affect the perception of what is considered the "best", based on those four C''s. If you aren''t willing to pay the price and are just as happy with items which don''t fit into the top end, that''s great, but those who do are not "falling for" anything and are most likely just in a position where they have the resources to buy the best without considering the cost too much.

 

[RockHugger]

Well lets just say to each is own and call it a day, because noone is going to change anyones opinion on the subject and its not something important enough to argue about. Agreed?

 

[Harriet]

One answer to your question about how market prices are set is that they are determined by the intersection of demand and supply. There is a guide to the wholesale prices of gems. It contains criteria as to what constitutes a top token of its type. But one may not like what is regarded as a top gem, which is fine and easier on the pocket.

Calling pax is fine by me, as long as no one is misled by certain of your statements.

 

[LD]

Tropic - I agree with TL. You CAN buy diamonds at much less than the perceived "market" price and get some good deals. You only have to look at some threads I've started to see that's possible. HOWEVER in the coloured gemstone market, it's slightly different. I would be incredibly lucky to buy a well cut, well saturated, perfect clarity gemstone at below market rates. You have to sacrifice somewhere along the line. Take a look at your collection - would you say that each of your gemstones are well cut? Without windows? Would you say that they are all well saturated? etc etc.

You do pay for what you get. Of course you can pay much more than the market rate for an exceptionally well cut, well saturated gemstone but you except you're paying more for quality. For example, if I were to buy a 2ct gemstone (for example) from Ebay or a "normal" dealer would it have the same cut as say a Richard Homer, or a John Dyer or a Gene Flannigan stone? I can unequivocably tell you no. I own both well cut and less well cut gemstones. You DO pay for what you get and trust me, I'm a very savvy buyer.

As for the pink sapphire / ruby debate? Unless you've seen an exceptionally beautiful pink sapphire I can understand why you'd feel they were a poor man's ruby. They're not. They're in a class of their own which is why they are classified differently.

That doesn't mean that to buy a well cut, well saturated gemstone will cost the earth. Far from it. You just have to know where to buy and the Vendors on this forum are a very very good start!

 

[Michael_E]

Date: 11/19/2009 1:27:30 PM
Author: Tropicgal10
Well lets just say to each is own and call it a day, because noone is going to change anyones opinion on the subject and its not something important enough to argue about. Agreed?

I don''t want to give you the impression that I am arguing with your point of view or even trying to change it. My point is that there are different areas of a huge market and that different things prevail in each. When asking about pink sapphire being precious or not, a person really needs to know which pink sapphire ? A 10 carat intense pink flawless sapphire is and always has been precious. On the other hand, for stones in the under $1000 or so part of the market, they may not have always been considered precious and their price and perceived quality, (average public perception), has been swayed quite a bit by marketing. In effect I agree with you Tropicgal, (actually more than you know since the bulk of the stones which I cut or buy, are in the lower end of the price spectrum...making me just as particular and price conscious as you are).