Education on emeralds

[Rad_Fan]

Look at a synthetic in comparison, see how sharp those back facets look, That hazy appearance, yet still clean, is what you want.

Is glistening a good word for it?

 

[T L]

Is glistening a good word for it?

No, because that means to sparkle. I think it’s more of a glowy/gleaming effect. It’s hard to describe.

 

[Atwater]

I think you’ll know if it’s a good emerald once you see it, but if it looks great in sunlight, it will look a even better in incandescent. Check it outdoors as well as inside, and in natural light, but not direct light, like near a window.

A fine emerald should look great in sunlight, right? In "Emeralds: A Passionate Guide": "In addition to the butterfly wing effect, Colombian emeralds are blessed with a natural fluorescence that takes in visible light and sends it back to you as a red message of passion underneath the sober and respectable green color. The red is invisible, but it subconsciously grabs your attention."
The reason I ask is that in the Please show me your emeralds thread (page 7-, there are posts showing an emerald looking good in north facing window light but go very dark in direct sun. Does this suggest it is not Colombian emeralds? Or is this not uncommon among Colombian emeralds?

 

[T L]

A fine emerald should look great in sunlight, right? In "Emeralds: A Passionate Guide": "In addition to the butterfly wing effect, Colombian emeralds are blessed with a natural fluorescence that takes in visible light and sends it back to you as a red message of passion underneath the sober and respectable green color. The red is invisible, but it subconsciously grabs your attention."
The reason I ask is that in the Please show me your emeralds thread (page 7-, there are posts showing an emerald looking good in north facing window light but go very dark in direct sun. Does this suggest it is not Colombian emeralds? Or is this not uncommon among Colombian emeralds?

First of all, Columbian emerald does not fluoresce. Synthetics do, so I’m not sure what that commentary about fluorescence is. My emeralds do not fluoresce.

Secondly, speaking from experience, I’ve taken shots of my stones in direct sunlight. Do they look dark to you? Normally they are medium dark to dark. The spinel is fluorescing it’s head off, so you know that’s some pretty intense sunlight there.

 

[Atwater]

The quote regarding the fluoresce of Columbia emeralds is from chapter 12 of the book "Emeralds: A Passionate Guide": http://emeraldpassion.com/sample.htm
Scroll down to the bottom under the subtitle "A perfect storm of unique traits".

Your stones are stunningly bright under direct sun. That is also why I find it strange that that specific emerald shown in the "Please show me your emeralds" thread goes very dark in direct sun. Maybe the description does not match the picture.

 

[T L]

The quote regarding the fluoresce of Columbia emeralds is from chapter 12 of the book "Emeralds: A Passionate Guide": http://emeraldpassion.com/sample.htm
Scroll down to the bottom under the subtitle "A perfect storm of unique traits".

Your stones are stunningly bright under direct sun. That is also why I find it strange that that specific emerald shown in the "Please show me your emeralds" thread goes very dark in direct sun. Maybe the description does not match the picture.

I’ll have to look at that quote in the book, but can you reference which stone you’re talking about on that page? I obviously don’t feel right critiquing stones that people own and love unless they ask for an opinion, but maybe I can provide some sensitive commentary. For example, it may not be under direct light, but natural diffused light???

 

[T L]

I read that commentary in the sample chapter. I honestly don’t know what he’s talking about. He mentions that fine Burma rubies fluoresce, and it’s visible, like the spinel I posted above. Columbian emeralds do not fluoresce.

 

[Atwater]

The emerald is at the bottom of page 7 and beginning of page 8. I looked at the picture again and I suspect the description of in direct sun probably does match the picture.

 

[Atwater]

The emerald is at the bottom of page 7 and beginning of page 8. I looked at the picture again and I suspect the description of in direct sun probably does match the picture.

I mean does not match.

 

[T L]

I see the stone you’re talking about. He may have taken that shot later in the evening sun, but the darker shot looks like what a dark emerald looks like in artificial light. My stones are darker in evening sunlight, but go more bright in morning to 3:00 pm during the summer, when the sun is more intense.

This photo was taken around 5:00 pm, summer if I remember correctly.

The bottom stone is very included.

In artificial light, that same stone gets very dark.

 

[T L]

Here is an explanation of what Ringsrud is talking about at the bottom of this thread. They fluoresce in visible light, not UV light. SerenityDiamonds was in the trade at the time and specialized in Columbian emeralds.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...emeralds-flouresce-red-under-uv-light.148197/

 

[T L]

An article by Ringsrud on emeralds in various light sources.

http://whitefeathergems.com/content/experts/ron-emeralds.pdf

 

[Atwater]

Here is an explanation of what Ringsrud is talking about at the bottom of this thread. They fluoresce in visible light, not UV light. SerenityDiamonds was in the trade at the time and specialized in Columbian emeralds.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...emeralds-flouresce-red-under-uv-light.148197/

Your emeralds in direct sunlight show that "explosive brightness" (for lack of better words) that look similar to the fluoresce effects of your spinel in sun. I think that is the effect of fluoresce to the visible light.

 

[Atwater]

An article by Ringsrud on emeralds in various light sources.

http://whitefeathergems.com/content/experts/ron-emeralds.pdf

Great information! Unfortunately the regular fluorescent lights in offices are the worst for emeralds as well. A lot of us (me included) spend most of our weekday time in such lights

 

[T L]

Your emeralds in direct sunlight show that "explosive brightness" (for lack of better words) that look similar to the fluoresce effects of your spinel in sun. I think that is the effect of fluoresce to the visible light.

I thought about that after I read clarification on Ringsrud’s comments about emerald fluorescence. They do “glow” in intense sunlight, so perhaps that is some fluorescence???

 

[T L]

Great information! Unfortunately the regular fluorescent lights in offices are the worst for emeralds as well. A lot of us (me included) spend most of our weekday time in such lights

A great emerald will look good in fluorescent light.

 

[ordinaryrainbow]

Do you think the Tiffany emeralds could have been from Zambia, which could perhaps account for the different look? I have read that Tiffany sources some emeralds from Gemfield's supplies from the Zambian mines, and Zambian emeralds are less likely to show the gota de aceite effect.

Zambian emeralds are supposed to be more blue in hue, and clearer, than emeralds from Columbia. Does anyone have a comparison picture that shows the difference? I am curious how different Zambian emeralds appear from, say, emeralds from the Chivor mine in Columbia, which are also supposed to be more blue/green and more clear than emeralds from Muzo.

I also wonder why emeralds from Columbia attract a price premium, when the Zambian emeralds are described as clearer. (This may be my personal taste coming into things, because I personally prefer a blue/green colour to an alpine green colour.) I would understand an emerald that has the gota de aceite effect commanding a premium, but it seems that even with emeralds from Columbia, very few emeralds display this effect.

 

[T L]

Do you think the Tiffany emeralds could have been from Zambia, which could perhaps account for the different look?

.

Yes. Red_Fan saw some Zambians at Tiffany and they had the same flat appearance. If you want to save money, but like that look, buy a synthetic.

One does not need that Gota de Aceite feature to have a beautiful stone, but it is an extra special bonus. Colombians still look more “hazy,” giving off a velvety appearance.

 

[prs]

Oh, I forgot to mention: the 1.73ct muzo is 7.88x7.26x4.57; the 2.2ct chivor is 8.2x7x4.2. I am puzzled why the face sizes do not differ much especially given that the muzo is deeper.

There must be a typo in the dimensions of the 2.2ct chivor. The side by side photos clearly show its face up size to be significantly bigger than the muzo. I'm guessing the x7 should really be x9.7.

 

[T L]

Old mine emerald from the Spanish conquest.

I wanted to post for educational purposes. This is pretty much like the stone I saw years ago at a high end antique show. I ended up buying an 18th century Japanese watercolor, but I wish I could have left with this! I can’t even imagine the price per carat, but I’m guessing at least $75k/ct.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BRVwX4_B44A/?igshid=1b01m0y0op6h1

 

[Atwater]

I finally met George and Cate (@thesisgems) this afternoon. We went through some emeralds, checking them in various lighting; Cate also showed me some of her rings. I did find my favorite among the stones, but I have not made my final decision yet. Here are some emeralds George showed me. The following four are all minor oil (excel)

Indoor on white cloth on a table by a south-west facing window. I would say natural diffused light.

The four emeralds from left to right: 2.2ct Chivor, ~3ct Chivor, 1.78ct Muzo, 1.52ct Muzo.
Upside down:


In very bright (jewelry-store-like) light. The stones do not look blue at all, but they all show up like blue stones. In this light, the sheen effects are quite obvious.
Here from top-right to left-bottom: 1.78ct Muzo, 1.52ct Muzo, 2.2ct Chivor, 3ct Chivor.

In fluorescent light (office light). Again, the picture make them all blue. To my relief, they do not look bad at all in fluorescent light.


The following two are taken in a north-west facing balcony. The afternoon sun is quite strong.
same order from top-right to left-bottom: 1.78ct Muzo, 1.52ct Muzo, 2.2ct Chivor, 3ct Chivor.
In direct sun:

In shade:


Among these four, I like the 1.52ct muzo the most, the ~3ct Chivor the second. The 1.52ct was my favorite from the very beginning; intuitively I find it has more life. I think it is because it has the darkest tone among the four, and later on as we checked them in different lighting, its sheen effects are most evident and also more balanced. Unfortunately, its per ct price also reflects its quality.

However, although they are beautiful in direct sun, they do not quite have that "glow" effect similar to the fluorescence effects of some spinels. Or in other words, they do not quite like that "glow" or "explosive brightness" T L's emeralds exhibit in direct sun. I am not sure if this means they fluorescence less in day light or not.

 

[Atwater]

Here are a few other stones I saw:
An 8+ct muzo, minor oil, very clean, bluish, I am surprised I only took its picture in direct sun:


A 3.3ct trillian minor oil, more included but the color is beautiful. I did not take my own photos and copied the photos from https://www.instagram.com/p/Bykl0ZClkBj/

 

[Atwater]

Now an 7.3ct cabochon, it is most likely minor oil.
I think this is in indoor natural light, but it could also be in shade on the balcony.


Glowy in direct sun;

In shade on balcony:


Other than some inclusions in one area, this cab is rather clean. It has a bit more blue tone than in these pictures and it is really beautiful.

 

[Atwater]

So what do you think about them, especially the 1.52ct Muzo? The 1.52ct Muzo is 7.59x6.87x4.7mm. The size is moderate but still decent for my ring finger.

The cab also grabs my attention; I am debating whether I should get the cab instead; it may make a more unique ring. Will you choose the cab over the facet emerald?

 

[Atwater]

Also, what price should I anticipate for a 7.3ct fine color, minor oil, pretty clean emerald cab? The asked price is $10k, which sounds high to me.

 

[T L]

The cabochon price sounds right, That’s around $1300/ct for a huge stone. If it were a faceted stone, the price would be much higher.

BTW, my emeralds don’t always look like that in direct sun, it must have been the time of day. Here’s another shot in direct sun, and even the spinel isn’t as bright neon as the other photo.

I think the Chivor and the cabochon are beautiful and provide a lot of bang for the buck, but Muzo is Muzo. Did they look velvety, especially in artificial light?

 

[Crazie4Cuts]

@Atwater Thank you for sharing! Both emeralds are beautiful! Is the cabochon Muzo or Chivor? As I don’t know enough about pricing perhaps knowing more about the stone there maybe some wiggle room on the price? It is a big stone and I think unique to have such a fine, large stone. But don’t let size be your only determination on which stone to select (but I have to admit I would be in awe and be secretly coveting that one! !). Are both stones within your budget? Please let us know the dimensions on the cab!

-C4C

 

[Rad_Fan]

UNIQUE to me will be that 3ct elongated Chivor but that POP of the cab is mesmerizing.

How would you wear the emerald? Enjoying it mostly indoor or outdoor? Consider the 1 which you're most attractive to under your usual environments?

Fun problem to ponder for a Sunday.

 

[Sungura]

@Atwater wow. Thanks for sharing these beautiful emeralds. Since I now know from experience how difficult it is to capture the true color and light, it’s so hard to comment on these. I like the 1.52 Muzo best but it’s just a gut feeling.

I think even the smallest face up of these 4 gems is a substantial size and will look stunning as a ring stone.

I’m glad you were able to see them one day and then leave them to think about it. That always allows for some perspective

I hope one at least takes your breath away

Looking forward to hearing more!!!!

 

[Atwater]

The cabochon price sounds right, That’s around $1300/ct for a huge stone. If it were a faceted stone, the price would be much higher.

BTW, my emeralds don’t always look like that in direct sun, it must have been the time of day. Here’s another shot in direct sun, and even the spinel isn’t as bright neon as the other photo.

I think the Chivor and the cabochon are beautiful and provide a lot of bang for the buck, but Muzo is Muzo. Did they look velvety, especially in artificial light?

Thank you for the information. All of them show the sheen effects in artificial light. They have a texture feeling, which I suppose is the velvety you mentioned. The 1.52ct muzo and the large chivor (2.8ct) are most obvious in these effects, I think the 2.2ct chivor and 1.78ct muzo have less (at least to me). When examining them in shade out on the balcony, the 1.52ct muzo also clearly shows a soft quality, which I really like.

Oh, an update: unfortunately the 1.52ct muzo is no longer available. George did tell me that another lady was considering it but she has passed her promised decision deadline, but he would need to confirm with her first. I got the news today that she still wants it. So it is no longer available.