Is this an emerald? - Help ID this pretty ring...

[tewing]

Hi - I purchased this ring at an antique mall recently. The owner who ran the establishment was as honest as possible, saying the tiny little clear stones were probably not diamonds (although the gentleman said they could be old mine cut diamonds, but he doubts it)and the metal was not marked.

The older lady who owned the ring said it was a "Chatham emerald and silver ring". The owner of the mall and I doubted it was Chatham because they are beautifully flawless. He thinks it might be an emerald. I really have no idea, but loved the color and I was well aware of the major chips on two of the four corners, but didn''t care. I like the ring.

I am curious what kind of center stone it is, what the metal is and what the lil stones around the outside are.

The back of the ring is very pretty, and I believe because the designs are matching, but not perfectly cut out that it was more than likely done by hand.

NO markings are evident anywhere on the ring.

I measured the stone and it is 15x10 mm.

Anyone have an opinions? Or even if it is worth going to a professional to get it reshaped to even out the damage. I live in Manhattan, but would appreciate any recommendations of such professionals since there are so many to choose from in the city.

I''m trying to figure out how to post more pictures ...

Thanks so much! Tara

 

[VapidLapid]

Firstly it is a lovely ring regardless.
Secondly no way to know for sure from a photo.
It has inclusions which may or may not be diagnostic.
Since you live in manhattan you could easily take it to GIA and get a quick cert for it to find out. I think they are on 58th street, but not sure of that. just look up gemological institute of america.
Post more pictures for us from the side and back and let us know what you find out!

 

[Burberrygirl]

I have no idea, but it''s really pretty! I hope you''ll post more pictures and let us know what you find out about the ring when you get a chance

 

[LD]

As Vapid says, it''s almost impossible to say from a photo BUT as you say, Chatham Emeralds tend to be clean. There are however some great synthetics on the market that have inclusions so who knows?

Having said that, it DOES look like an Emerald and the damage to the corners wouldn''t be unusual. I''m not sure why such a lovely Emerald would be put in a setting with anything other than diamonds?????

First things first, you could pop into a jewellers and ask them to test the "diamonds". Most jewellers (well in the UK anyway) have a diamond testing machine. That would at least solve that one. If they''ve got a coloured stone tester, they might be able to give you a better (although probably not definite) idea.

Very exciting! I do hope it turns out to be an Emerald.

 

[Barrett]

just from looking at the photos it would seem to be an emerald..a knock off you would think ..if it was a good one wouyld have a metal marking..since no metal marking and say it was a costume piece the stone you would think would be cleaner..a la syn...since it so included I bet you it''s an emerald..like i said if it was a good fake piece they would at least hjave a marking on the metal and if it was a costume piece they would have used a cleaner stone you would think..like a syn. or a piece of glass or something..my money is on "it''s an emerald"

 

[Pandora II]

It could well be a ''soude'' emerald.

I was looking at some of these last week and they are extremely convincing and look very similar to your piece. The easiest way to test for it is with immersion, but you''d need to remove the stone from the setting.

I would have this stone tested by a lab.

 

[Amber St. Clare]

very, VERY prettty ring. Let us know how it tests!

 

[serenitydiamonds]

Date: 4/2/2010 10:32:21 PM
Author:tewing
Hi - I purchased this ring at an antique mall recently. The owner who ran the establishment was as honest as possible, saying the tiny little clear stones were probably not diamonds (although the gentleman said they could be old mine cut diamonds, but he doubts it)and the metal was not marked.


The older lady who owned the ring said it was a 'Chatham emerald and silver ring'. The owner of the mall and I doubted it was Chatham because they are beautifully flawless. He thinks it might be an emerald. I really have no idea, but loved the color and I was well aware of the major chips on two of the four corners, but didn't care. I like the ring.


I am curious what kind of center stone it is, what the metal is and what the lil stones around the outside are.


The back of the ring is very pretty, and I believe because the designs are matching, but not perfectly cut out that it was more than likely done by hand.


NO markings are evident anywhere on the ring.


I measured the stone and it is 15x10 mm.


Anyone have an opinions? Or even if it is worth going to a professional to get it reshaped to even out the damage. I live in Manhattan, but would appreciate any recommendations of such professionals since there are so many to choose from in the city.


I'm trying to figure out how to post more pictures ...


Thanks so much! Tara

It could be based on look alone, but you cannot tell from just a picture. Take it to GIA or AGL, they are both on 5th Ave and 47th to know for sure. The luster of the metal does look like silver also, again one can only guess in a photo.

If it is a synthetic (Chatham, et al.) emerald, they aren't worth very much so it's up to you on whether to have it recut or not. Since the clear stones are not diamonds, one typically assumes the center stone is not valuable as the setting usually sets the tone for the entire ring. Several strategies exist to give a synthetic emerald 'real' inclusions, the cheapest of which is to heat the stone and drop it in a water bath forcing it to fracture. Only a microscope and a lab can give you a certain answer as to the composition and source of this stone.

--Joshua

 

[tewing]

Here is the back of the Green stone ring.

--Tara

 

[tewing]

Here is the green ring, plus my engagement ring by Leon Mege.

--Tara

 

[tewing]

More Green Ring!

 

[tewing]

And more!

 

[tewing]

And still more

 

[tewing]

WOW! More

 

[tewing]

and more

 

[tewing]

Last one and my personal favorite shot. Thanks all!

 

[iota15]

I hope it''s real too! It''s gorgeous, nonetheless.

 

[tewing]

Thank you - I like it, real or not. But, from what im reading, i will more than likely have to remove it from the setting for a proper ID. I will mourn loosing the back side of the setting when this happens.

 

[T L]

Date: 4/4/2010 8:49:18 PM
Author: tewing
Thank you - I like it, real or not. But, from what im reading, i will more than likely have to remove it from the setting for a proper ID. I will mourn loosing the back side of the setting when this happens.

Not necessarily. Emeralds are pretty easy to id based on specific types of inclusions in them, and the RI. You may not have to remove it from the setting. Other stones, on the other hand, are more difficult to id because of certain color enhancements and synthesis. I would just make sure that you get a gemologist that is very familiar with emeralds. I had a gemologist id a set emerald once.

 

[tewing]

Thank you Tourmaline Lover. I will make sure to find a qualified gemologist familiar with emeralds, sound advice - and I''m glad of the possibility I can keep the back intact.

 

[PumpkinPie]

it is beautiful! I hope you can find out what the stone is

 

[LD]

I''m not an expert on settings etc., but IF you do have to take the emerald out of the setting, I''m pretty sure you could open the bezel and it will come out that way (not via the back).

 

[chrono]

Not that I’d ever ID a stone from pictures alone but the stone has the look of an emerald. However, based on the information you have shared (non diamond melees and silver metal), I am highly doubtful of the stone being a real or natural emerald. Chatham makes excellent and convincing synthetics so that would be my guess. The only way for a definitive ID is to have a professional remove the stone and run some testing on it. A reputable lab will be my preference.