Please help me choose my first coloured stone!

[FrekeChild]

I most definitely disagree.
Sticking around the 6-6.5mm mark since I don't actually know how big a stone your setting will fit.
http://www.acstones.com/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=139&idproduct=4019
http://www.acstones.com/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=139&idproduct=4097
http://www.acstones.com/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=139&idproduct=4068
http://mastercutgems.com/index.php?page=viewgem&id=6421
http://mastercutgems.com/index.php?page=viewgem&id=6422
Etc.

The stone you bought looks like it has a window. You can get a precision cut stone or even a nice "native" cut stone for within your budget.

With what do you disagree, FrekeChild?
I do think my setting is too nice (or maybe I should say too expensive) for a $200 stone. It feels a bit silly to put a $50-$200 stone (coloured or not) into a $1500 setting, but I love the setting and don't want it to just sit in my jewelry box unworn. I've only had it 60 days and selling it seems silly since I know I'll not get back anywhere near what I paid for it. I feel stuck, so to me a good compromise it to fill it with a CS, wear it as a RHR, and find something different for my diamond.

I do like the BB tourmaline you posted, but am confused -- is it worth more than the stone I bought because of the BB cutting? I've hung around here long enough to know that BB stones are in demand!

Lol. Well I have a $100 tourmaline in a Bez Ambar setting that was in the $2k+ range.

A $180 spinel in a $2,500 Mark Morrell setting.

Until recently I had a $2,500 Beverly K ring that originally held a $35 pink tourmaline.

Price, in gemstones, is not determined by beauty. It's determined by the market, and the market wants bright bold color. Which is why rubies, emeralds and sapphires are so expensive - the market wants deeply saturated brightly colored stones. So those are the most expensive. Does that mean they are the most beautiful? Not necessarily, in my opinion. I like bright colors as much as the next guy, but I like sparkle more. So if given the opportunity to purchase a gem, I'm going to take the sparkly, well cut spinel over the mediocre, cloudy, highly desired, sapphire/ruby/emerald.

If you want to go out and buy a super expensive stone because the setting was $1,500, by all means, go bling it up, but as I see it, sometimes beauty does not equal a big price tag.

Diamonds are a whole different ball of yarn - since there is the distinct lack of color, cut and sparkle carry a premium.

 

[Pandora II]

Hi Elliemay, did you get a chance to cruise thru Gemfix.com? here is the link to their zircon page. The B/G tourmalines have no rounds at the moment. On the aquamarine page, there is a sweet round for $235 (3rd row down ) but not sure if aqua was still in the running or not.

http://www.gemfix.com/zircon_blue.html

I have purchased 3 stones from gemfix and all were exact colours to what was posted online. I had a great experience with Laura and Andrew!

FYI: Zircons are very soft, and I would not at all recommend them for rings. Aqua is better for infrequent wear.

Cripes, do not buy a zircon for a ring unless you plan to wear it 3 times a year for a dinner! IMO it's a pendant/brooch/earrings stone... I have some in my study collection that I removed from antique settings (which went to good use elsewhere) and the damage to the facet edges and the faces of the parts that weren't protected by the setting is SCARY!

Aqua v tourm is 50/50 - both need equal care and neither is a 24/7 stone.

 

[elliemay]

Right. I've emailed Barry and asked him to cancel my order for the tourmaline and now feel like it's more or less certain that I'll be returning the eBay tourmaline as soon as I receive it.

Y'all have helped me to focus my mind a bit and I think I need to take a few days to really set out exactly what it is that I'm looking for and exactly how much I'm prepared to spend for it. Once I know, I'll be back and will welcome any and all help!

Hi Elliemay, did you get a chance to cruise thru Gemfix.com? here is the link to their zircon page. The B/G tourmalines have no rounds at the moment. On the aquamarine page, there is a sweet round for $235 (3rd row down ) but not sure if aqua was still in the running or not.

http://www.gemfix.com/zircon_blue.html

I have purchased 3 stones from gemfix and all were exact colours to what was posted online. I had a great experience with Laura and Andrew!

I like several stones from that site and think they have such nice pictures! I'll probably stay away from zircon because I know I'll chip the hell out of it! I have to acknowledge that I'm hard on my rings, so I'm probably going to have to go with a sapphire, spinel, or chrysoberyl -- it's just a matter of finding one in a colour I like!

 

[ChrisA222]

HUh...I didn't realize zircon was considered a no-no for a ring. In fact I have a large blue zircon I was going to have made for a ring for myself. Isn't Zircon between a 7 and 8 on Moh's? I know its considered a brittle stone, but I'd imagine it is harder than all the quartz stones that are commonly set..citrine/amethyst as well as chrome diopside and what about all the opal rings people wear?

Just my opinion, and Im no jewelery expert...but just remember that everyone has opinions and not any one person's opinion is a fact. What stone may be too risky for one, may not be for another. And I agree with whoever posted that the monetary value of the stone means nothing if you like the stones beauty! Its just that there may be better options out there is all...whether its the cut, the color, the durability, etc.

 

[Pandora II]

HUh...I didn't realize zircon was considered a no-no for a ring. In fact I have a large blue zircon I was going to have made for a ring for myself. Isn't Zircon between a 7 and 8 on Moh's? I know its considered a brittle stone, but I'd imagine it is harder than all the quartz stones that are commonly set..citrine/amethyst as well as chrome diopside and what about all the opal rings people wear?

Just my opinion, and Im no jewelery expert...but just remember that everyone has opinions and not any one person's opinion is a fact. What stone may be too risky for one, may not be for another. And I agree with whoever posted that the monetary value of the stone means nothing if you like the stones beauty! Its just that there may be better options out there is all...whether its the cut, the color, the durability, etc.

One of the classic ID signs for zircon is looking for the chipped facet and girdle edges - I don't know of any other stone that carries that as a diagnostic.

If you want to wear a zircon ring for special evenings out or similar then it would be fine - otherwise you are asking for trouble.

Mohs Scale merely states how resistant a stone is to scratching - nothing more. While that is important, for me, how tough a material is and it's lack or otherwise of cleavage are equally or even more important.

I would never advise anyone to set chrome dioside in a ring either.

Opal does scratch but it's generally cut en cabochon and the scratches are not so evident. On the other hand, the structure gives it toughness that many harder stones don't have. Jadeite is a great example of this - super-easy to scratch, very hard to break.

Most PSers take good care of their jewellery, but the vast majority of people don't - even if they have spent $$$ on a piece, so if I say that I don't advise setting a certain stone as a ring I mean it in more of a general public way. If someone has done their research on the stone and is aware of the potential issues and is happy with the risk then by all means go ahead and do it.

I have sphene earrings and a pendant - I've seen people set them as rings and it makes me wince, but if like LD you know what you are doing then why not. But when my SIL saw a loose one I had and asked if she could have one as a ring I said absolutely not.

 

[FrekeChild]

I don't really do zircon either. I've been told a few too many times about how easily the facet edges chip.

I've been told, by Barry Bridgestock, that in desert climates, the dry dust in the air abrades the facets. He lives in Yuma, Arizona and I live in New Mexico. Just for fun, he sent me a zircon he had had for about ten years, just to show me what ten years of dry desert air had done to it.

I don't have any pictures of the poor little thing, but it was a sad little mess. The edges were abraded so badly they looked like they had been nibbled on by mice, and the whole thing was just kind of pathetic.

So I don't really do zircons. I have two white ones, and I plan to set them into earrings eventually. For now they are in a box. It is not air tight. I fear for them, but I love them too much to let them go.

 

[elliemay]

Zircon is the one CS I've owned in the past. It was set in a ring and was absolutely stunning for about a year, but then I started to notice it going a bit "fuzzy", for lack of a better word. The table facets started to go grainy and it wasn't long until I noticed a small chip. That pretty much ruined the ring for me and I stopped wearing it and it sat in my jewelry box for about five years. I recently sold it (with a full disclosure and pics of the abraded facets) and will stay away from zircon in the future (even though I truly love the colour of the blue ones!).

 

[T L]

HUh...I didn't realize zircon was considered a no-no for a ring. In fact I have a large blue zircon I was going to have made for a ring for myself. Isn't Zircon between a 7 and 8 on Moh's? I know its considered a brittle stone, but I'd imagine it is harder than all the quartz stones that are commonly set..citrine/amethyst as well as chrome diopside and what about all the opal rings people wear?

Just my opinion, and Im no jewelery expert...but just remember that everyone has opinions and not any one person's opinion is a fact. What stone may be too risky for one, may not be for another. And I agree with whoever posted that the monetary value of the stone means nothing if you like the stones beauty! Its just that there may be better options out there is all...whether its the cut, the color, the durability, etc.

In this particular case, it is a fact that zircon is a soft stone. Opinions are opinions, like when people judge color, or otherwise, but there are some facts stated on this site by very knowledgeable people, like Pandora for instance. I would not discount them.

Also important to note that when buying a soft stone like a zircon, one must be very careful who sets it, as it needs more delicate care during the setting process.

 

[chrono]

The brittleness of zircon is well known among those who know their coloured stones. There is more to a gemstone's wearibility than the MOH scale. One has to take into account the brittleness, cleavage and etc. I would not wear a zircon ring more often than a few times a year.