Inclusions

[Nomsdeplume]

If a stone is heavily included, but the color is to die for, would you buy it?
Would it look absolutely awful in a piece of jewelry?

 

[chrono]

If the inclusions are bad enough to distract from the beauty of the stone, no, I would not buy it. The second consideration is the structural integrity of the stone.

 

[Nomsdeplume]

So heavily included stones chip and crack very easily?

 

[mariedtiger]

I personally am usually not much bothered by inclusions, I find them interesting if the stone is in other ways beautiful. Some stones are just "mine". I recently had a goldsmith call an aqua of mine crappy, and it made me sad, but I still didn''t want to return it. It was his opinion, not mine.

 

[mariedtiger]

But I agree with Chrono completely that it''s important to secure the structural stability of the stone.

 

[chrono]

Date: 6/1/2009 7:56:33 AM
Author: kribbie
So heavily included stones chip and crack very easily?

Yes, depending on the type of inclusion, location and quantity of inclusions, the stone would be more vulnerable to damage.

 

[Nomsdeplume]

Bummer.
TL''s included cuprian is so pretty... I was wondering if inclusions in cuprians might for some reason make them even more glowy.

 

[chrono]

I don’t find TL’s cuprian terribly included. They seem to be well located, not dispersed all across the stone, and not too distracting to the viewer. And in any case, the inclusions in her stones are copper needles which is the mineral that gives them the glow in the first place; it’s just that those copper never quite fused with the crystal.

 

[Nomsdeplume]

How about this one?

 

[mariedtiger]

For me, probably not. I have been thinking about a spessartite on the same site, that is of a vivid color, but included like that one. Do you have a gut feeling about this stone?

 

[Nomsdeplume]

I do kind of. But I don''t know whether to trust my gut here. I don''t know enough.

 

[MakingTheGrade]

I think that stone is a little TOO included for me personally.
Generally though, it depends on a stone-to-stone basis whether I find the inclusions acceptable or not. I actually like a few non-distracting, identifying inclusions in my stones sometimes, it makes it feel more au natural to me.

 

[chrono]

This stone looks too included as to be opaque. I think it would have been gorgeous as a cabochon.

 

[T L]

I have some very clean cuprians, but my glowier ones are what you would call moderately to heavily included. I have one cuprian that has a brown inclusion, and is heavily included throughout, but the color is positively amazing and as Chrono once commented, "radioactive" (thanks for letting me quote you Chrono

). The oval of mine in a ring, which is what I think you''re referring to, has inclusions other than needles, but so far, so good, it hasn''t chipped.

The above stone you posted looks a bit dull and dark in one of his pics. I wonder if there''s some camera lighting going on to make it look better than it is. However, ParaibaInternational sells very heavily included cabachon paraibas for lots of $$$; therefore, the inclusions probably do not detract so much from the beauty because the stones are probably so vivid in color. Note I have not seen PI''s stones in person, so I''m just guessing based on the pricetags and the descriptions.

Vivid color, regardless of whether it''s badly cut, too small in size, heavily included or one or more of the above, will stand on it''s own. Of course, a clean stone with vivid color will be more desirable and have the pricetag to match, but included stones are a way to get vivid color without paying the vivid price!! You should be careful of some included stones, as prior stated, they can be more fragile.

 

[Nomsdeplume]

Speaking of PI, has anyone here bought a cuprian from them?

 

[Michael_E]

Date: 6/1/2009 7:53:46 AM
Author: Chrono
If the inclusions are bad enough to distract from the beauty of the stone, no, I would not buy it. The second consideration is the structural integrity of the stone.

Poor structural integrity or downright ugliness are the only reasons that I wouldn''t buy a heavily included stone. In fact, some stones owe their look and beauty to their inclusions. Things like stars, cats-eyes and so forth would be pallid and much lower in value without their inclusions. The biggest problem with buying on the net is that often inclusions are hidden in the photographs in such a way to make you think that they are less visible than they are. I bought a red spinel once based on a picture and when it arrived it had a very distinct stripe as a veil right down the middle of the stone, (it was obvious from every angle BUT those that it was photographed at). Other stones which are heavily included can be saturated with a plastic or glass filler and that filler is the only thing holding them together. I''ve seen emeralds and rubies that were treated this way in the rough and they were nearly impossible to cut...looked nice in the "rock garden" though. If you''re buying stones from pictures make sure you can send them back or they are cheap enough that you don''t mind the risk.

 

[Nomsdeplume]

Over 500 dollars is probably not cheap enough.
I''ll keep looking.

 

[Lovinggems]

Bumping this thread up. I am considering this tourmaline Kribbie posted, although it''s heavily included I think it''ll look pretty nice as a pendant, pretty large size - 14mm x 9.5mm. Could I get some objective opinions please, am I off the planet about this one?

 

[chrono]

LG,
My concern is whether the stone is safe to set and how easily will it might get damaged since it is heavily included. I don’t think you will get any sparkle from the stone because it is very opaque. Secondly, will you be able to find a jeweller who is willing to risk setting something very included.

 

[Barrett]

Color is 60% of a stone, with cut and clarity coming in second. Color will always supercede the other two. if the color sucks then no matter how well you cut it or how clean it is will not matter it will not make the stone any btter. If the color is to-die-for then clarity will take a back seat...I also think inclusions give the stone character

 

[Harriet]

Date: 6/1/2009 2:25:20 PM
Author: kribbie
Speaking of PI, has anyone here bought a cuprian from them?

I have -- several small Brazilian ones.

 

[LD]

Normally I would agree and say, steer clear. HOWEVER, there are some gemstones that, for me, are exceptions to the rule. My very very first Paraiba I bought because of the colour. It''s heavily included but I love it.

 

[T L]

Date: 6/9/2009 5:15:11 PM
Author: LovingDiamonds
Normally I would agree and say, steer clear. HOWEVER, there are some gemstones that, for me, are exceptions to the rule. My very very first Paraiba I bought because of the colour. It''s heavily included but I love it.

LD,
You need to show the better "glowier" picture of this stone. That one doesn''t do it justice.

 

[icekid]

Date: 6/9/2009 7:33:19 PM
Author: tourmaline_lover

Date: 6/9/2009 5:15:11 PM

Author: LovingDiamonds

Normally I would agree and say, steer clear. HOWEVER, there are some gemstones that, for me, are exceptions to the rule. My very very first Paraiba I bought because of the colour. It''s heavily included but I love it.

LD,

You need to show the better ''glowier'' picture of this stone. That one doesn''t do it justice.

Yes more photos, please

 

[Barrett]

you see now thats a paraiba..the color stands out..BAM..that nigerian tourmaline on the other thread can come nowhere close to being a "paraiba"..it''s just a blue-green tourmaline. Nice stone lovingdiamonds!

 

[redfaerythinker]

truly sorry to threadjack... but amethystguy... can you please leave my poor tourmaline alone?

 

[MonkeyPie]

I have a heavily included spess in a bright, firey orange. The inclusions seem to make it sparkle and flame more. So it really depends! Personally I think the color of the paraiba is awesome, but the opaque-ness...not so much.

 

[icekid]

Date: 6/9/2009 7:46:59 PM
Author: redfaerythinker
truly sorry to threadjack... but amethystguy... can you please leave my poor tourmaline alone?

red- Your tourmaline is gorgeous! Don''t pay it any mind.

 

[Barrett]

Hey Red your stone is not poor by any stretch of the imagination..it is a very nice stone indeed. To call it something it is not is wrong and opinions may differ but they are only opinions. I was comparing it to a stone with definite paraiba qualities..lovingdiamonds stone. There is no doubt what lovingdiamonds posted is a paraiba or paraiba-like stone. I am just telling it like it is and being as truthful as I can be. No offense and I hope you don''t take it personal but I take this stuff very seriously. Part of my income is derived from selling stones, rough, and mineral specimens so I am very passionate about certain aspects of the trade and my opinions and thoughts sometimes come off as being blunt or straight forward but by no means is it personal. I apologize if I came off as picking on you. I think your stone is extremely nice..please keep the pics coming!

 

[redfaerythinker]

amguy- you are by all means entitled to your opinion. However what you have done is much more than express an opinion. You have brought it up not only on my thread but on this one as well, and you used my thread to start a discussion on the horrors of calling a blue green stone a "Paraiba". You have a grand total of 31 posts and at least five of them were spent on expounding on my poor stone. All I did was buy a pretty stone, and knowing how much pricescopers love stats, I gave the stats that I was provided. I bought the stone from a reputable PS dealer, so I naturally trusted him. I''m very sorry if I have offended your higher moral standards. Me and my "just blue-green tourmaline" will be very happy without your approval.


threadjack over