Help me choose a stone!

[vasamacil]

First - Thanks to those who replied in my first thread about Ruby clarity, after reading some articles here and there, I now know why very clean Rubies are harder to find than very clean Sapphires.
----------

Now my Problem:

I have a custom e-ring design specified & quoted, ready to be made... except I haven''t
decided on a center stone.

My girlfriend''s favorite stone is Ruby, followed by Sapphire.

So I have now narrowed my choices to the following 5 stones, all approx the same diameter:

Rubies from ajsgems.com:
1: http://www.ajsgems.com/RUB/RUB-00120.htm
2: http://www.ajsgems.com/RUB/RUB-00283.htm
3: http://www.ajsgems.com/RUB/RUB-00309.htm

Sapphires from thenaturalsapphirecompany.com:
4: http://www.thenaturalsapphirecompany.com search for item B574
5: http://www.thenaturalsapphirecompany.com search for item B537


My thoughts so far:
a: naturalSapphire(NS) has a more ''professional'' look to their website
b: NS has better/more pictures to compare stones with
c: both provide certs for an additional cost/wait
d: ajsgems (AG) has a 10 day return window vs. 5 days for NS
e: I''ve asked AG for additional comparison pictures or additional color description, but have not recieved a reply
f: I don''t care that the Rubies have been heat treated, as long as they weren''t filled/fluxed
g: The Ruby prices seem low, but not so low as to raise a flag, like some I found at other sites

Does anyone have any input on experiences with either of these dealers?
Any input on the stones? - The setting is gold with side diamonds, so either color will work.


Thanks again,
-Lelyn

 

[widget]

Hi, vasamacil:

Hopefully you will soon hear from AJS regarding the rubies you're considering. It really is nice to be able to "talk" to the vendor when he has the stones in front of him to compare. Is there a toll-free phone no. you can use for reaching AJS?

I've purchased stones from AJS...although not such 'important' ones. And even returned one with not hassle at all. I was very pleased with them. I thought their pictures of their stones were quite representative.

I've never dealt with NSC, but have heard only good things about them.

Although judging gemstones through photographs is dicey at best, I thought for fun I'd post pics of the stones you're considering.

Good luck!

widget

PS: (edited to add) Of the sapphires, I like 537 better...it looks brighter and livelier. I "think" I like 120 best of the rubies, but I'd want to "talk" to the vendor before I'd decide on one of them. JMO

 

[Cave Keeper]

Date: 8/24/2005 5:01:14 AM
Author:vasamacil
:
So I have now narrowed my choices to the following 5 stones, all approx the same diameter:

Rubies from ajsgems.com:

1: http://www.ajsgems.com/RUB/RUB-00120.htm

2: http://www.ajsgems.com/RUB/RUB-00283.htm

3: http://www.ajsgems.com/RUB/RUB-00309.htm
:

Perhaps you could consider the three rubies from another angle - selecting a stone that will suit the ring you chose.

Will the stone be receiving light only from its face? If so, you may need to choose a lighter stone. Then select the first ruby.

Does the ring allows light to enter from below the bottom or lower sides of the stone? If so, you may need to choose a darker stone. Then select the second ruby.

If the ring is an in-between case (i.e., does not exactly allow too much light to enter from below or sideways, but also does not totally shut them out), then select the third ruby.

The simple reasoning (which may of course be wrong due to so many other unknown factors) is based on the assumption that you particularly like the colors of the three rubies you have selected (and they are virtually the same color) and the assumption that the three stones are about the same quality, except insofar as their brilliance is affected by their cutting proportions.

Since the dimensions of the three rubies are given as:-

1. 5.8 x 5.8 x 3.7 mm. - Shallowest in proportion
2. 5.4 x 5.4 x 4.2 mm. - Deepest in proportion
3. 5.6 x 5.6 x 3.9 mm. - In-between in proportion.

Unfortunately, this reasoning will go totally wrong if the seller''s photographer has adjusted his lighting based on exactly the same reasons in order to achieve that ''all stones look the same - good and nice'' effect. Then, if that is the case, you may have to deploy reverse logic to ensure that you select the most suitable one.

If it were me, I''d choose the one with the largest face and use the ring structure to hide the fact that the stone is the shallowest of the 3. Who knows, your bride might encounter a situation where someone else has the second stone on her ring. Then, you know whose ring will look bigger in comparison. At that moment, you''d be saved from some othewise inevitable nagging.

 

[valeria101]

Either shop sounds good: Walter Arnstein''s is quite well knows and AJS has been trie by several posters on this forum so far for things in any price range they offer without complaint. For better or worse, knowing this is better than choosing seller by the ''beauty'' of the website !

Actually, all five stones look nice. There isn''t anything bad in those pictures, even the smal window of the ruby in the middle wil probably not show in person (IMO), the camera is allot more revealing than it should in this regard.


Just a random opinion:

283 / 574

 

[MINE!!]

I think they are all very pretty... I just wanted to throw this one in the lot, I love this stone...

 

[vasamacil]

Date: 8/24/2005 1:24:19 PM
Author: MINE!!
I think they are all very pretty... I just wanted to throw this one in the lot, I love this stone...

Thanks! I also saw that stone. I love it, but I don''t think she would. Maybe I can get her to buy it for me
.

Date: 8/24/2005 1:24:19 PM
Author: Cave Keeper
Perhaps you could consider the three rubies from another angle - selecting a stone that will suit the ring you chose.

Will the stone be receiving light only from its face? If so, you may need to choose a lighter stone. Then select the first ruby.

Does the ring allows light to enter from below the bottom or lower sides of the stone? If so, you may need to choose a darker stone. Then select the second ruby.

If the ring is an in-between case (i.e., does not exactly allow too much light to enter from below or sideways, but also does not totally shut them out), then select the third ruby.

The simple reasoning (which may of course be wrong due to so many other unknown factors) is based on the assumption that you particularly like the colors of the three rubies you have selected (and they are virtually the same color) and the assumption that the three stones are about the same quality, except insofar as their brilliance is affected by their cutting proportions.

Since the dimensions of the three rubies are given as:-

1. 5.8 x 5.8 x 3.7 mm. - Shallowest in proportion
2. 5.4 x 5.4 x 4.2 mm. - Deepest in proportion
3. 5.6 x 5.6 x 3.9 mm. - In-between in proportion.

Unfortunately, this reasoning will go totally wrong if the seller''s photographer has adjusted his lighting based on exactly the same reasons in order to achieve that ''all stones look the same - good and nice'' effect. Then, if that is the case, you may have to deploy reverse logic to ensure that you select the most suitable one.

If it were me, I''d choose the one with the largest face and use the ring structure to hide the fact that the stone is the shallowest of the 3. Who knows, your bride might encounter a situation where someone else has the second stone on her ring. Then, you know whose ring will look bigger in comparison. At that moment, you''d be saved from some othewise inevitable nagging.

The stone will be set in a half encircling bezel, light will enter from top, bottom, and 2 lower sides.
The depth/color vs face size has me leaning towards the third of the rubies as a nice balance.
Also, all her current Ruby jewelery tends to the darker stones, as she prefers them.
The lighting adjustment problem was one reason I requested further pictures or descriptions to get a better sense of the 3 stones. I if don''t recieve an email response in the next couple of days, I will def. call them.


ALso Attached are larger picutres of the Saphs, for a slightly better comparison.

Thanks,
-Lelyn