Need to choose a sapphire, ASAP! Long post warning!!

[thekid98]

Hey PSers. Looking for some opinions and info to help me make a good blue sapphire choice (or more specifically, to avoid a catastrophe). My situation in a nutshell- I've been looking for some time to put together an e-ring for my gf -- sapphire with a diamond halo. I'd been planning on having more time to shop around, but unfortunately my gf's dad is having serious health problems. In order to get a ring on her finger asap, I found a lapidary and custom jewelry maker in my city who is willing to work with me. My tentative plan is to buy a stone from their own stock, then let her change her e-ring stone later if she wishes. I really wanted to have the lapidary get some more stones in from maybe Palagems, or go myself to see Gemfix in person (I work in the travel industry, so getting around is no problem), but it looks like we just don't have time for that anymore. The lapidary I'm working with actually has a good selection of stones (I've looked at dozens there already), and I think we narrowed my choices down to 3-4.
1) Stone number 1 has a color I really like and have not seen much of, but am not sure what to make of it. Color/clarity looks similar to this:
This is NOT a pic of my possible stone, but is very close in appearance, the color is about the same, but the real stone seems to glow almost. Like in the pic, my stone has a little blurriness/translucence to it. The stone is 2.07ct, cushion cut/oval 8.0x7.1mm, is heated Ceylon. My newbie description would be "violet-ish Blue, vivid, extremely tiny tilt window, and zero extinction. Here's the weird thing: it seems quite milky/silky/velvety in luster. Almost like smoke was trapped in it. The table is not as shiny as I would like- could this be silk inclusion right at the surface, or does it just need a better polishing job? Almost looks like it has a partial fingerprint on it's table and the table facets look "worn", or not as sharp lines as ideal. They may actually be good facets, but the weird inclusion makes them look strange. Wiping it with a cloth had no effect. I would say it's not as transparent as other stones I've seen; you can see through it enough to get some scintillation coming through from the pavillion, but it's not opaque either. In some ways it almost seems to glow- which I really like. Besides the strange "cloudiness" under and on the table, one other thing is that it's culet is slightly off center- it's not a perfectly symmetrical stone. Not terrible, but enough that it would have to be taken into account when setting it. Price is $1900 ($918/ct).

2) Stone 2 is smaller- 1.61, is 7.1x5.7mm oval, royal or light navy blue with a hint of violet, has a nice symmetrical cut, very sparkly, transparent. No extinction, no window. This is a nice stone, but I'm a little unsure if it would be big enough (would be set in a 7.5-7.75 ring). This stone really sparkles, and is what I think most people would call a very nice sapphire, but it doesn't glow like stone 1. Price is $1550 ($963/ct). Again, this image is an approximation only, credit to Gemfix.

3) Stone 3 is 2.04ct, 8.0x6.0mm oval, is a nice well saturated blue with slight violet undertone, reminds me of denim. Has a nice symmetrical cut, very sparkly, only downside is a fairly obvious top-down window. Jeweler says if I want this stone, we "may" be able to minimize the window in the setting (white gold will reflect some light back into the stone from underneath). Look is similar to stone 2, but slightly larger, and with the window. Price is $2015 ($988/ct).

4) Stone 4 is 2.87ct, 8.9x7.1mm oval, has slight color banding (2 parallel lines of lighter material cross it). I'd say it was a less saturated blue with slight greenish tint depending on the angle. Has a symmetrical cut with medium sparkliness. Color is noticeably less vibrant though. Price is $1760 ($614/ct). Here's an approximation:

All these stones were heated, stone 1 is described as ceylon, all were purchased in Thailand if that matters. At this point, I'm kind of partial to stone 1- I like the color a lot, but wish the table were a little more polished looking. What would you call a stone like this? Do you see any red-flags in my descriptions here? What would you do? I have to decide by Wednesday- we start working on the setting then. One other thing- these stones are really at the top of my price range, given that I haven't had a chance to save up money like I was hoping. Is it generally acceptable in the industry, to ask if the shop will come down in price, or is that not really something you do?

I will try to post pics of the real stones if I get the chance to go see them again early this week.
Thanks PS, you guys rock!

 

[AmeliaG]

I like the first stone the best but since its not the actual stone you're thinking about buying, I don't know what good my feedback is going to do you.

I'm going to take a stab and guess the color of that first stone is cornflower. This is one of my favorite sapphire colors. It's a little bit lighter and fresher than the standard royal blue. It's a great size.

I'm rather a newbie in sapphires too; hopefully some more experienced members will come along.

 

[chrono]

Stone 1 is my choice out of your 4 descriptions. I believe it has some silk despite being heated, hence the glow or even slightly oily or fuzzy appearance. Are the facets truly worn when inspected or the look is due to the silk? A touch of silk is great as it disperses light to give a velvety feel. Too much silk devalues the sapphire and detracts from its beauty. How does it look under various types of indoor lights? Sapphires look great outdoors but no so great under fluorescents so take note of that. Avoid inky or overly dark sapphires under that type of light.

Stone 2 is grayish, stone 3 needs tweakIng which equals weight loss and stone 4 has both colour and cut issues. If you can, it's best to avoid stones with issues right from the get go unless you have no other options.

Please post actual stone pics as soon as you can.

 

[thekid98]

Thanks for the replies. I'm leaning toward the first, "cornflower" stone, just wanted to make sure there isn't anything wrong with what I saw in it. That is, to make sure that kind of blue is not something associated with beryllium treatment or anything. It just looked so remarkably different from the others, I wondered if there was something wrong (like it's not actually a sapphire, was given weird treatments, etc.).

I will definitely post pics of the real stones if I can get back in to see them maybe tomorrow or Tuesday morning.

Chrono: Looking closely at the stone, I think the facets were not actually worn, but just looked that way because of silk on the table. Is it possible to reduce some of that dulling effect on the table facets by maybe re-polishing the table? I think this stone is right on the edge of having too much silk- where it begins to detract from the value. Also, is there such a thing as re-cutting a stone to improve brilliance? I looked at all the stones in the parking lot, and you're right- they all looked much better in the sunlight. The cornflower, silky one especially.

Thanks for the help!

 

[chrono]

Just about any stone can be heated and treated by BE diffusion, and there is no way to ID it by pictures so please have it checked out by a gemmologist who has the right tools and skills or send it to a reputable lab like AGL or GIA. AGL's fees are $55 and usually can rule out diffusion without extra testing. The odds are on your side though because the very high temperatures required for diffusion is likely to dissolve the silk in the first place.

The silk inclusion is inherent to the stone. Its effect cannot be reduced unless heated to a higher temperature. It is not something that can be lessened by a recut, repolishing or other external manipulation.

 

[LD]

Unfortunately descriptions (although they may be very accurate to you) may not be to others and the problem of showing a photo of a gem and saying it's similar is that even a tone or two either way (and don't forget you're comparing different lighting set ups etc) is exceptionally problematic. To my eyes the gems you've posted are all quite different and have unique characteristics. Even small differences will affect the price as well.

If you can post photos of the actual gems you're interested in you're more likely to get a much more thorough set of opinions/thoughts.

I hope that doesn't sound negative as I'm trying to be constructive so that you get the best help you can.

 

[thekid98]

So I made it back to the shop today to take one more look at the stones... Taking Chrono's advice, I've eliminated the larger, off-color stone, as well as the one with the large window. Right now, I need to decide between the 2.07ct "cornflower", and the 1.51 blue sparkler. I'm really leaning toward the cornflower stone, unless you guys see any major problems in it. Whatever its flaws, it has an undeniably beautiful color, and I the more I stared at it, the more it's sleepy look grew on me.

Chrono: I think you were right on about stones 3 and 4. No sense buying something I already know will have issues. I appreciate the info on BE diffusion. I just saw how stone 1 was so different from the others (even the more expensive stones), and began to wonder if it was an indication of something amiss. Didn't know if maybe BE diffusion was detectable with the naked eye. Regardless, I will definitely have it looked at by a trained gemologist within the return window, if for no reason other than to satisfy my curiosity for as much info about the stone as I can get. To get an AGL or GIA report do I have to send the stone in to them, or is it the same if I take it to a gemologist who is GIA certified? Found an appraiser here on PriceScope who has membership with AGS, GIA, NAJA- does that mean they'd be able to do GIA tests, etc.?

LD: Thanks for the candid info. I'm just starting to learn how small differences can add up to major differences in price, etc. Got some pics today, would love to hear your thoughts before I lay down the plastic...

Here's some pics of stone 1 and 2 together (stone 2=1.51ct for $1550 on the left, stone 1=2.07ct for $1900 on the right)...
Pics taken under store's halogen lights, and with a LED spotlight on the tray...




Since I'm leaning toward the cornflower stone, here are a few more pics. Hopefully you can see how sleepy/silky/??? it is. Do you feel like it's TOO silky? Looking at it again today, the imperfections near it's table aren't too obvious under most conditions, but I tried to frame a few pics so you could see what I was seeing.





This last image shows, I think, that the table facets are okay, so it must have been the silk making me think it was worn or scratched.


Would love to hear your thoughts before I make this big purchase. If anyone's interested, I had another thread about choosing a setting, which you can find here https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/guy-looking-for-advice.179649/. I've come to agree with several of you who thought I shouldn't let a jeweler talk me into a smaller stone. I've since given up working with that jeweler, and have since moved on to a great shop in my home city. I've also given up on what would have been a Lady Di style ring. After cruising PS for awhile now, I've found lots of inspiration, including Justin_Cutter's awesome e-ring. I've settled on a design with a pave diamond halo on a plain shank, with possibly some milgrain metal work. We cast wax Tuesday and Wednesday. Will keep you posted.

Thanks for all the opinions/ideas- keep 'em coming!

 

[LD]

Stone on the right has a gorgeous colour - although it's difficult to see how it performs from the photos. It does look sleepy (which will be the internal silks). The photo of the table looks like it has a fingerprint on the top so it's not easy to see whether you can see the facets or not. For the money and the fact that it's larger than the other one, it's a no-brainer for me and if I was happy having a silky stone, this would be the one!

Stone on the left I wouldn't even consider. It's dark and has inclusions visible to the eye. It doesn't have the WOW factor - I apologise if this offends, it's not meant to.

Colour trumps everything but what you REALLY want is colour and performance. Your stone on the right has colour but I suspect not performance.

One last thing, you MUST MUST MUST make sure you make the sale dependent on getting an AGL lab report stating that it is untreated (other than heated if that's how it's being sold). I suspect it's been heated but you need to make sure it hasn't been berylium diffused.

 

[chrono]

Stone 1:
Nice colour but too much silk for me. I also have trouble seeing the facets which is one factor that hints to me it is too silky. You have to consider if this trade off for good colour is acceptable to you. You are going to get nice glow but hardly any sparkle or flash. The second thing that made me pause is the possible flatness of the stone. This looks to be a spready stone? What are the dimensions of this sapphire?

Stone 2:
Colouration is grayish blue but seeing the transparency, it is likely to be a much better performer, just lacking great colour. Am I seeing inclusions on the table or is that a lot of dirt?

For long term purposes (insurance replacement), my preference is to have the vendor send the stone to AGL for the fast track brief. AGL is the better lab and their $55 brief is just as comprehensive as GIA's more expensive memo. Having an independent appraiser is great too if you choose to go that route (can do the same testing) but it doesn't carry as much clout as a lab because in the end, everybody recognizes a lab better than a specific person, no matter their credentials. Furthermore, even the appraiser usually prefers the buyer to have a lab report as well.

 

[Starzin]

Agree on giving the left one a miss. As to the one on the right....I think the third photo shows facet abrasion (this is not caused by silk) and the next two photos show considerable extinction. Have you looked at this stone away from the LED/spotlights? I've a feeling it may go very dark since, as Chrono said, you can't see any of the facets.