I Think I Found Stone for My Sapphire E-Ring

[brendaman]

I was unsure at first as one of the jewelers which I liked, Mike Shah of Shah & Shah (he''s also an appraiser), placed 4 oval sapphires in front of us. Two were unheated and two were heated. I''ve been through this process several times already, only to have been dissapointed. It was quite promising as Mike nailed the color we were looking for for all four. Strangely enough, I narrowed it down between a heated and unheated and decided on the stone below because it had more fire. I don''t have all the stats yet and hope to get clearer pics. It comes with a GIA cert. 3.74 cts. unheated Ceylon (Sri Lanka).

It''s in hold status now as bf still kind of thinking about it. My bf saw the inclusions under the microscope at 10x, and he just wasn''t sure that it was eye clean enough. He''s not really read much about inclusions, so it''s understandable. I think it''s eye clean, but if you shine a flashlight underneath the stone, you can see one of the negative crystal inclusions. I think the inclusions make it so unique and NEAT! Even though we spent two hours looking at stones and discussing settings, etc. I want to have another look at the stone.

It wasn''t love at first sight, but it was a growing kind of love. Last night, I kept seeing it in my dreams, and I wonder if it''s just that I want to fall in love with it. Everyone says I''ll know if it''s the right stone for me. And I think I know. But for material things, I think I fall in love with my head first, then my heart. If my heart doesn''t follow my head, then it''s not the stone for me. Does that make any sense??

 

[brendaman]

Another shot of the stone.

 

[elmo]

It's a fine looking color in the photo.

Clarity for sapphire is irrelevant at 10x, except when trying to evaluate origin and treatment, and how any microscopic inclusions may affect the stone's unmagnified appearance. An eye-clean stone with a nice crystalline appearance, vivid color, and attractive outline is the goal.

Why don't you take it home for a few days and see what you think under different lighting?

 

[Kismet]

Date: 12/15/2008 12:47:12 PM
Author:brendaman
My bf saw the inclusions under the microscope at 10x, and he just wasn''t sure that it was eye clean enough. He''s not really read much about inclusions, so it''s understandable.

Heh, eye clean doesn''t mean ''no inclusions seen under a microscope'' it''s eye clean while viewed face-up with the naked eye at a reasonable distance (8-10 inches I think) under regular lighting conditions. In other words, how you''re usually going to see your jewelry.

I think that color sapphire is quite lovely. It''ll make a stunning ring.

 

[Pandora II]

Looks like a great stone to me - colour is fantastic.

Remember, coloured stones are graded table uppermost with the naked eye, not under x10 like diamonds.

For an unheated ceylon sapphire, I would be very worried if I could see no inclusions at x10. I have a 2.20ct one that I love looking into with a loupe and seeing all that lovely silk - it was what made my heart beat faster and made me HAVE to have the stone.

My tsavorite is loupe-clean and I sometimes wish it wasn't as it makes me nervous not having any obvious ID signs.

If it's on your finger, no-one is going to shine a light through it, so only worry about inclusions that will bug you face-up and those that might compromise the integrity of the stone.

Buy your FI a copy of Richard Wise's book and that should put his mind at rest!

 

[elmo]

Date: 12/15/2008 1:12:14 PM
Author: Pandora II
For an unheated ceylon sapphire, I would be very worried if I could see no inclusions at x10.

Nuts. It has a GIA report stating origin ID and no enhancements, right? If you don't trust the GIA to have used something other than a 10x loupe to make that call, I don't know what to say. If it bothers you have a second lab take a look.

 

[neatfreak]

Looks beautiful! With colored stones it''s really all about the color, and if you find one with a color you love that is eye clean (even if it isn''t loupe clean) I would snatch it up personally!

 

[musey]

The color looks gorgeous. Very saturated, but not so dark that the sparkle gets lost.

 

[packrat]

I think it''s really pretty!

 

[Catmom]

I LOVE the color! It looks like it glows. I hope it turns into "the one"!

 

[cushioncutnut]

I too love the color....and I wouldn''t worry about the inclusions that your eyes can''t see. It is good for a stone to have characteristics that only you, your fiance, and the seller will know are there. (will make it easier for you to identify if someone tries to pull a switcheroo!) Maybe if you set it on top of a setting.........you may fall even more in love with the stone. It really looks beautiful!!!

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 12/15/2008 1:36:23 PM
Author: elmo

Date: 12/15/2008 1:12:14 PM
Author: Pandora II
For an unheated ceylon sapphire, I would be very worried if I could see no inclusions at x10.

Nuts. It has a GIA report stating origin ID and no enhancements, right? If you don''t trust the GIA to have used something other than a 10x loupe to make that call, I don''t know what to say. If it bothers you have a second lab take a look.

Elmo, this particular stone has a GIA report and also has inclusions - I trust the report. If the OP was talking about a stone with a GIA report and no inclusions then I would also trust the report.

I was talking more generally about inclusions and unheated sapphires. IMHO it would be very unusual to find a top colour sapphire in a decent size with no inclusions under x10 and if you do, unless that stone is backed up by a reputable lab report such as GIA then you should be instantly suspicious.

I would personally still prefer some inclusions as it always makes IDing your own stone easier. I took my e-ring to be fixed at a jeweller with a great reputation but who I hadn''t used before. I was very nervous about my tsav getting chipped or broken and when I picked it up I looked at it very carefully to check it was definitely my stone.

I will admit to getting the electronic callipers out when I got home to triple check - if my stone had had an inclusion visible under x10 I would have been less paranoid.

Hope that explains my meaning. I absolutely wasn''t suggesting that the GIA reports shouldn''t be trusted.

 

[coatimundi_org]

Looks promising! Glad you had fun finding the negative crystal. Inclusions are fun eh?

 

[Clairitek]

I love the color of that stone! Its totally drool worthy.

 

[elmo]

Pandora I agree 100% with what you''re saying, I don''t know why in the world I read that the way I did at first, very sorry! Inclusions are a gemologist''s friend

.

 

[geckodani]

I think the color is STUNNING on that sapphire!

 

[stepcutnut]

The color looks gorgeous in the pics, I hope it''s the one

 

[tessari]

I don''t really know what I am talking about but a jeweler told me to watch out for numerous inclusions because they make a stone more vulnerable to cracking. So I''m not sure if this is true, maybe an expert can weigh in.

 

[movie zombie]

T, depends on the stone, what the inclusions are and where they''re located.

personally, i think that if this stone called to you and you now can''t get it out of your mind, you''ve found THE ONE. love the color.

movie zombie

ps agree with the above re inclusions are your friend in many cases.

 

[brendaman]

Here are more details about MY sapphire from the seller.

"Oval faceted, natural, unheated blue sapphire has been certified by GIA, is 9.67mm long by 7.87mm wide by 5.92mm deep, weighs 3.74 carats and has no color reaction to long-range, ultra-violet illumination. It is eye clean (loupe grade SI1 clarity that is VS2 clarity on GIA''s Gem Clarity Grading Scale) and well-made. The table diameter is 43%; the crown angles are 34 degrees; the crown height is 19%; the polished girdle is medium to slightly thick; the pavilion depth is 44%; the total depth is 75%; the culet is closed; there is no color zoning.It is a translucent, moderately bright, strong, blueish-violet color (GIA''s GemSet bV 5/4)."

The depth is high, but I think I can live with that (assuming my preferred setting can accommodate it), because the color is just wonderful in person.

 

[brendaman]

Here''s a pic sent to me, but it''s rather dark on the top half.

 

[elmo]

75% depth is not high for a traditional cut sapphire. It takes about that much depth to avoid a window. Stones that aren''t square or round tend to have that dark-on-one-side appearance depending on which side the light is coming from. If it bothers you get a round square or square cushion

. That''s a really lousy photo they took though. I hope it looks like your photos and not that

.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

It looks beautiful! Did you decide not to look at Jeff White''s stone? My problem is that after seeing one of his well cut stones, I can''t settle for a lesser cut.

 

[marcy]

Gorgeous color!

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 12/16/2008 9:15:22 PM
Author: elmo
75% depth is not high for a traditional cut sapphire. It takes about that much depth to avoid a window. Stones that aren''t square or round tend to have that dark-on-one-side appearance depending on which side the light is coming from. If it bothers you get a round square or square cushion

. That''s a really lousy photo they took though. I hope it looks like your photos and not that

.

Ditto!

My tsav has the dark-on-one-side effect as well - it''s not so noticeable in real life as it can be in photos.

 

[brendaman]

DS06: I took a pass on Jeff''s sapphire. I do LOVE his cuts, but the sapph was too light. Jeff told me that compared to LostSapphire''s stone, this was much lighter and that if I was looking for something like LS''s sapphire, then the stone he had was not for me. Jeff made it really easy for me to decide. One day I will get one of his stones for a RHR!

 

[cushioncutnut]

It sounds like you have found "the one"! It looks gorgeous! I can''t wait to see when it is done!!

 

[icekid]

it looks like it''s GLOWING BLUE! so pretty brenda!

 

[Brown.Eyed.Girl]

That''s going to be one gorgeous ring Brendaman! The color is amazing!

 

[T L]

Date: 12/15/2008 3:01:02 PM
Author: Pandora II

Date: 12/15/2008 1:36:23 PM
Author: elmo

Date: 12/15/2008 1:12:14 PM
Author: Pandora II
For an unheated ceylon sapphire, I would be very worried if I could see no inclusions at x10.

Nuts. It has a GIA report stating origin ID and no enhancements, right? If you don't trust the GIA to have used something other than a 10x loupe to make that call, I don't know what to say. If it bothers you have a second lab take a look.

Elmo, this particular stone has a GIA report and also has inclusions - I trust the report. If the OP was talking about a stone with a GIA report and no inclusions then I would also trust the report.

I was talking more generally about inclusions and unheated sapphires. IMHO it would be very unusual to find a top colour sapphire in a decent size with no inclusions under x10 and if you do, unless that stone is backed up by a reputable lab report such as GIA then you should be instantly suspicious.

I would personally still prefer some inclusions as it always makes IDing your own stone easier. I took my e-ring to be fixed at a jeweller with a great reputation but who I hadn't used before. I was very nervous about my tsav getting chipped or broken and when I picked it up I looked at it very carefully to check it was definitely my stone.

I will admit to getting the electronic callipers out when I got home to triple check - if my stone had had an inclusion visible under x10 I would have been less paranoid.

Hope that explains my meaning. I absolutely wasn't suggesting that the GIA reports shouldn't be trusted.

Wow, couldn't agree more. I want inclusions in my stone to 1) prove it's natural 2) prove it's identity like a fingerprint. As long as they're not huge inclusions you can see easily, or as long as you don't have a ton of zoning, small inclusions are perfectly fine and actually help. I would be very very suspect if a sapphire had no inclusions. In that case, I would think it's a simulant or synthetic one.

Nice color stone.