My first emerald ring - how did I do?

[bleeblue]

Hi everyone! I just purchased my first emerald ring and I was wondering if the PS experts could tell met a little bit more about it. Did I do good?

I was drawn to the green colour of the gem but I really have no idea about the quality of the stone. It looks really included but I think that a characteristic in most emeralds as a class 3 gem (please correct me if I'm wrong)

It has been described as a 14K yellow gold ring from the Victorian period. The emerald is approximately 8mm x 6mm and 4mm deep. These is no ct weight as it has not been removed from the setting. I think it would be about 1 ct by those dimensions.

These are vendor photos as I haven't received it yet.

 

[bleeblue]

judging by the number of views and the lack of response I must have done bad

Please let me know what you think even if it's bad so I can learn and not make the same mistake again.

TIA

 

[Largosmom]

Don't judge too fast...perhaps one of the emerald knowledgeable folks has not yet checked in. I think the ring needs a gentle cleaning. (warm water and a soft cloth) It appears as if you can see through the stone to the darker background. I like the setting, it's fairly classic. I don't know much about emeralds, so cannot comment on the quality of the stone.

Laura

 

[T L]

Since you want an honest opinion, it's really not a very good quality emerald, and hopefully you didn't pay too much for it. Sorry. I'm not sure what quality you're looking for, but emeralds can be found without very distracting inclusions, and just because this has a lot of inclusions, shouldn't make them acceptable because it is an emerald. I do expect inclusions in emeralds, but you shouldn't want so many that they cloud the stone. They also affect durability too. The color is also not very saturated in the photos, not sure how it looks IRL, but for people searching for emeralds, I really recommend going to see some top quality ones. That is a great learning experience when it comes to these stones. I'm not saying people should go out and buy a top one, but looking at top quality ones does save you from buying very low grade ones.

 

[bleeblue]

Thanks for your honest comment tourmaline_lover - could you let me know what I should look out for in the future?

I paid about $250 for it.

 

[arjunajane]

I'm no emerald expert but I dont find the gem very attractive-as TL said it appears too included(even for an emerald). Can you cancel the transaction/return it? Unless you really love the setting I would probably return and start again. Also I assume this was ebay? You are probably best off shopping with some trusted vendors who can give you proper feedback on potential purchases-start with the list that is stickied at the top of this forum

 

[T L]

Thanks for your honest comment tourmaline_lover - could you let me know what I should look out for in the future?

I paid about $250 for it.

Well, with emeralds, color is paramount, and then the amount/type of treatment. Emeralds are a very complex topic, especially when it comes to treatments, simulants and synthetics out there. For what you paid, I would say you got a fair price. You paid the price of the setting. I don't think the stone is worth very much. Your best education would be to go to a gem show or antique jewelry show and see some fine material, or if there's a museum in your area with fine emeralds. Believe it or not, we have the Field museum here, but the emerald suite they have is not that great. If you ever get to go to the Smithsonian, that would be a good education for you. A fine emerald is too difficult to photograph to show it's true beauty IRL.

 

[Indylady]

If the gem is really from the Victorian period, it shouldn't have the modern treatments that make emeralds such a tough topic to deal with. Emeralds are also notoriously difficult to photograph; do you like what you see in person? Does it have a "glow"? An 8x6 emerald is a decent size for an emerald, and for $250, I think it was set at a decent price as well. Gene at Precisiongem has a really nice emerald up if you are interested.

 

[Michael_E]

I paid about $250 for it.

Then you did very well in this purchase. Emeralds, even included ones, are worth a significant amount of money, particularly when set into an authentic period piece. The price levels for emeralds in the quality you've shown is not too much...somewhere in the $75 to $125 per carat on a wholesale level. An 8 x 6 emerald which is steeply cut and bellied like this will have a weight of somewhere between 1.5 and 1.75 carats, so is "worth" maybe $200. To buy a new setting like that right now would cost you at least what you paid for the entire ring. You could certainly have obtained a better stone had you wanted to spend more money, but then that is always the case isn't it? In contrast I doubt that you could have bought a better emerald ring than you have for the money you have into it.

Going and looking at something in the Smithsonian or another museum may be educational and entertaining, but hardly fitting when one is looking for something a bit lower down on the price scale. I think many people here forget that "doing well" depends on what something costs, and what the person buying it feels comfortable with. Remember that 15 years ago, during good economic times, the average metropolitan jewelry store sale was in the $300 to $400 range and this included wedding rings. Things haven't changed much, (except that there are a lot fewer buyers now), and so much of what people will be buying is in that range and one definitely can't be buying custom cut gems and super fine mountings in that price range. Being a connoisseur of fine gems, as many of the frequent posters here have become, can put you in a mental state which precludes even entertaining the thought of buying gems of less than optimal quality. The problem is that many are forgetting that some things are nice as they are, (particularly period pieces which are often undervalued by people who are not aware that much of their value is in their authenticity and condition), and well worth what was spent on them even if they are not perfect.

 

[JewelFreak]

Michael's viewpoint is very good & well put. And for a first buy, you got a very pretty ring -- I would've paid that for the setting alone. I love it; it's classical, simple yet graceful & will never go out of style. You could wear it on either hand. Someone else got joy from it too, which adds to its value as far as I'm concerned. The question is, do you like the emerald? If it makes you happy, then it's worth whatever you pay for it. If you want to keep the ring, wear it & maybe eventually you'll find another stone as you learn that you might want to put into that setting, or another one. (It's also darned hard to photograph gems -- I'm learning that the hard way! So possibly your emerald looks different IRL.)

On the other hand I always found it helpful -- and great fun -- to wander around top quality gems & drool & dream. Museums or stores or online (Sotheby's & Christies auction catalogs are breathtaking & a good source.) Being familiar with what the best looks like is never harmful. I am always pleased when I find a website that will compare really good gems with lesser-quality ones, too.

Pala has a very good explanation of colored gems: http://www.palagems.com/quality_4cs.htm#color that can help you know what to look for. While it doesn't deal specifically with emeralds, at least it gives the basics that apply to all of them.

Welcome to PS & stay with us!

--- Laurie

 

[T L]

I paid about $250 for it.

Then you did very well in this purchase. Emeralds, even included ones, are worth a significant amount of money, particularly when set into an authentic period piece.

Cloudy, opaque emeralds (I'm not talking about the OP's stone) are worth far less, so you can find emeralds for $10/ct wholesale. We're talking bottom quality. I don't think all emeralds are worth a significant amount. Like any gem, there are poor grades, and are worth very little.

 

[dragonfly411]

personally I think you did well. I think despite it's inclusions the stone has a unique beauty. Emeralds aren't easy to find in affordable ranges for the size. You also got such a beautiful setting with it!

 

[artdecogirl]

Bleelue, it's lovely, I don't know anything about emeralds but I love vintage styles best and that is a beautiful setting, those prongs are awesome!

 

[LD]

I'm afraid that I have to agree with TL and say that your Emerald is not of a good quality. You asked what to look for? A couple of things straight away that you can compare is that an Emerald should have a clarity that you can see through the gem and determine the facets - think of a diamond and how you look through it and see the facet patterns. That's the same thing but of course in green! If you search on this forum I'm sure there will be photos around and about! Emeralds typically have "jardin" i.e. inclusions in the stone. These are normal BUT when they interfere with the clarity too much, the value of the Emerald dips considerably.

So, look for a lovely deep grass green (or forest green) Emerald that you can see the facets and as little inclusions as possible. Be aware however that the better the clarity, the better the colour, the more money you'll have to pay If you're bothered about treatments there are tons of posts on this forum that you could read that'll give you a great deal of information - it's not for everybody but you might want to have a read!

On a positive note, the cheaper semi mounts you've probably seen some of us buy on this forum averages around $150-250 so you can see that in effect you've bought the setting and got the Emerald for free!

 

[T L]

Here's a nice emerald I own that is not top quality by any stretch of the imagination, but it represents kind of what LD is stating. Despite the inclusions, you can still see the facet patterns. It is a very slightly bluish green, and of a medium tone. I think it's a pretty stone, and although not top, it's not horrible either (at least to me). It's sitting on top of a fakey CZ setting for display purposes, It is unset. I own a much better emerald, but I think this is a good example of a middle of the road stone and allows someone to look for something on a budget without having to sacrafice beauty either. It is Columbian. Zambian, or other African stones tend to be slightly cleaner, but not as blue IMO, and the bluish secondary is what emerald afficionados look for.

 

[desertgem]

I really like the setting! From the comments I gather it is truly an old product rather than a reproduction. I will have to look for something similar as I like Iolite and Chrome diopside gems, and that seems a very protective setting. If it is truly an older emerald, the traditional oil treatment may has been leeched out of the stone. If the previous owner used strong detergents wearing it , or tried to clean with same, this wold make the inclusions ( some of which appear to reach the surface) visually stronger. It probably wouldn't be worth while to send it to a professional stone doctor to evaluate and restore/polish, but it is possible that much of the problem is from wear and treatment. I would certainly re-evaluate after you get it and on your finger, as closeups can be misleading, especially when inclusions are part of the game.

Jim

 

[Arkteia]

I think for your first emerald, you did very well, if only price-wise. Is it only my impression or does it glow much more in real life? I have just a few emeralds, and none of them of high quality, except for the last one which is Colombian, but if you like emeralds, you'll learn with time, and you can always sell this one on ebay for at least the same price. It is your first one, and I have a feeling that you like it, so wear it in good health!

 

[Aoife]

The setting is really lovely, and while the emerald looks as though it may have had some harsh treatment over the years, there is a "glow" about the color that is very appealing. For $250, it seems to me that you bought a very pretty ring that has some history, and that will give you a lot of pleasure. Wear it and enjoy!

 

[PinkTower]

I love the setting, especially the prongs. It has a vintage look, and I like the side view the most. It reminds me of a Van Crayenest that way, the way the carving sticks up. Enjoy your new ring and wear it in good health!!!

 

[chrono]

The emerald isn’t attractive but for what you paid, I think it’s a good price. The setting alone is worth at least $250 so the stone, in essence, is pretty much a freebie. The colour of the stone is light and is too included. I can’t see the facets clearly and I’m not sure if it is because it has worn down over the years or it wasn’t cut well due to the placement and quantity of inclusions.

 

[Lee Little]

Hi Bleeblue,
I think there is no question about it, you did great!
You were not asking if you met the qualifications of a museum piece or if you had started at the top, just how you had done with your first Emerald ring. Even if one didn't know the price was a bargain one can see that you found a nice ring.
I think the color is more saturated than the close up pics show judging by the hand pic. The inclusions tell us that you did not buy a chunk of glass or a synthetic like lots of folks do first time around. Congratulations on making a great selection on your first emerald ring! Best regards, Lee

 

[serenitydiamonds]

Congrats on your first purchase, most of what you paid for is definitely the setting, especially at today's metal prices. I intend my honesty to help you and others in the future, and know that buying emeralds when you first start out can be overwhelmingly challenging given that most of the salespeople know little about them. So don't feel like you did a 'bad job', you just took one step forward in the learning process. I've got a whole selection of 'first step' stones in my collection, and they taught me tremendous lessons.

This stone without the setting is worth less than $20 a carat. The stone itself is very low quality and you should be VERY careful with it. Emeralds of these quality are usually the ones that split, fracture, or chip very easily. I just don't want you to be led on.... And I'd truly hate for the stone to chip and have you avoid emeralds in the future assuming all emeralds chip so easily.

High quality emeralds in light green colors run in the high hundreds of dollars per carat. Top color, high quality emeralds run thousands of dollars per carat to infinity, even at the 1ct size. If you see a 'top gem quality' stone for sale way below this, an alarm should go off.

If you'd like to start the road to Emerald Connoisseurship I strongly recommend Ron Ringsrud's book, Emeralds: A Passionate Guide. It's a wonderful read by someone who has tremendous experience in the field.

--Joshua

 

[Lovinggems]

I like the ring, it's a lovely design, the emerald cab has character, and emeralds are hard to photograph. This is my opinion only but I don't think you overpaid for the ring.

 

[T L]

If you'd like to start the road to Emerald Connoisseurship I strongly recommend Ron Ringsrud's book, Emeralds: A Passionate Guide. It's a wonderful read by someone who has tremendous experience in the field.

--Joshua

I second that, and any one interested in emeralds should get this book before it goes out of publication, and the price goes way up.

 

[bleeblue]

Thank you for your responses everyone - I really appreciate it! It has been very educational and I will try and find a copy of that book

I haven't received my ring yet - but I will try and post some pics once I do.

 

[bleeblue]

I received my ring today and I must say it looks much better IRL than in the photos. The vendor must have used flash as the emerald is nowhere near as washed out as in the pictures.

The gem is also much more translucent than in the vendor photos although it does have these little black inclusion spots that seem to be swimming in the green.

I love the colour - it's velevety smooth and seems a very saturated green to me although I'd be the first to admit that I'm no emerald expert.

I've taken some photos as promised. I can now understand why everyone says that emeralds are hard to photograph. I just can't capture the colour, clarity and saturation - it's more blue IRL. Using flash was also a no no - but i've included one flash photo below to show you my poor attempt and for comparison.

 

[bleeblue]

a couple more pics...

There also seems to be some colour zoning, like it's more blueish in some areas around the edges. Is this common in emeralds?

The gem also looks like it really needs a repolish - would it be worth doing for an emerald of this size and quality? And if so, who should I send it to? Dana?

 

[chrono]

It looks a lot better in your pictures and based on that, I think you did well for your first emerald. Yes, I can see now that the vendor used flash which washed out the stone but it also allowed you (and us) to see into the stone much better.

 

[Lee Little]

That is even better than I guessed by comparing his hand pic and the others that were pretty obviously taken with flash when you see the dark color in his hand pic.
You may want to tighten up the prongs, or have a stone setter do it, a couple are not making contact with the stone. Best regards, Lee

 

[Kismet]

Very pretty! It's way nicer than the vendor's pictures.