Questions about an older sapphire ring and setting

[mimspot]

Hey folks,

I have been exploring the world of antique and vintage blue sapphire rings. I was particularly drawn to this stone and setting:

GIA 18K Blue Sapphire Diamond Ring 12.04 TCW Unheated Ceylon Gold at 1stDibs | antique ceylon sapphire ring, antique sapphire blue

View this item and discover similar for sale at 1stDibs - Old South Jewels proudly presents... VINTAGE LUXURY. GIA CERTIFIED 18K GOLD HUGE 12.04 CARAT UNHEATED SAPPHIRE DIAMOND ANTIQUE RING & BOX! HUGE 9.52 CARAT

www.1stdibs.com

It has since sold, though sadly, not to me. I would still like to understand more about the particulars of it. Compared to similarly priced stones and settings that I have seen, it had many more eye visible inclusions than counterpart offerings, and I am curious about how it held value when compared to them despite those flaws. Maybe because of the color, size, or age?

If possible, would you be able to teach me about the types of inclusions in it from the pictures? In many of the photos there is a grouping of inclusions between 9 and 11 o'clock. I'm unable to tell if they are those of old, healing fractures, or crystals and minerals, or a combination thereof, or maybe something else? There is also then an inclusion of sorts that seems to twist through the middle down to the 4 to 5 o'clock area of the stone. Additionally, it seems to be a bit more translucent-looking, though it is described as transparent by the GIA evaluator--would this possibly be attributed to silk? Would any of these inclusions potentially weaken or shorten the life of the stone?

Thank you for any knowledge or thoughts you can share.

 

[Autumn in New England]

Hello and welcome to the forum! This is a helpful article on sapphire inclusions.

Click.

With regard to the quality of this particular stone, yes, it is rather included. It's quite silky, which is giving it the more translucent (as opposed to transparent) appearance you mentioned. In the video, the color looks a bit dark and desaturated to my eyes (I trust photos less). The mounting itself is stunning and the diamonds look fantastic. I suspect that's where 85% of the impact is coming from, and it can fool a novice into thinking the stone is better than it is. The value of the piece includes the diamonds and gold, and the fact that the sapphire is quite large and untreated. Finished pieces also tend to sell for more than their individual parts, all things being equal.

If this were a fine untreated sapphire in this size, I'd expect a much more costly price point. Now, this vendor's pricing tends to be high, but still... look at the cost. And the color isn't even anything special.

Click.

Personally, I'd rather have a stone half the size and twice as fine.

ETA: My loose 3.03ct. blue sapphire was more money than the list price of that ring. So it was definitely price appropriately, IMO, especially since it seems they sold it at a discount.

 

[Autumn in New England]

Oh and with regard to the relationship between durability and clarity, there can be a direct correlation. The stone would need to be examined in person to see if any of the inclusions pose a threat to the stone's structural integrity. But in general, a cleaner stone is a tougher stone. Silk inclusions, however, typically don't affect durability.

 

[mellowyellowgirl]

Omg the centre stone could be twinsies with my Gengar!

The stone you posted has a lot of silk but some people don’t mind (and even like) a bit of silk. Inclusions could be feathers or a bit of crystal inside or even dust clouds.

Sometimes light reflecting can make it look like an inclusion too. See the first picture of my ring. That dot is just light and doesn’t exist in real life.

I’m a bit different to the others on this forum as rather than a fine sapphire, I will settle for a “good enough” but huge sapphire. That’s what I’m drawn to, the BOOM effect on the eye that you can’t get with something small, especially as sapphires are so dense. Nothing wrong with wanting something big as long as you know the sacrifices you’re making.

 

[Autumn in New England]

I’m a bit different to the others on this forum as rather than a fine sapphire, I will settle for a “good enough” but huge sapphire. That’s what I’m drawn to, the BOOM effect on the eye that you can’t get with something small, especially as sapphires are so dense.

You make an excellent point! And you also know how to do it right!!

 

[mellowyellowgirl]

You make an excellent point! And you also know how to do it right!!

I saw a twin but fine version of my sapphire. It’s won GRS awards and whatnot. OMG it is sublime but…….. yeah……priced out of this planet I think!

 

[Dreamer_D]

I just want to throw out there that I am not convinced that is a true antique setting. It doesn’t have the hand made look and the design elements are a mish mash of eras. Just in case that mattered to you when thinking about the piece.

 

[Autumn in New England]

I saw a twin but fine version of my sapphire. It’s won GRS awards and whatnot. OMG it is sublime but…….. yeah……priced out of this planet I think!

 

[LilAlex]

I just want to throw out there that I am not convinced that is a true antique setting.

But, but...it's in an old box...?!

 

[BoSnerdley]

If possible, would you be able to teach me about the types of inclusions in it from the pictures?

I actually looked at some of this seller's offerings. I'm not an historian, but it appears she has a lot of old stuff that is probably legit 'antique' - so she's probably not a front for some Asian manufacturer like I've seen with other accounts lol. The key is that there are sometimes negatives in some of the larger stones she has (as with many natural stones). 100 years ago, the upper echelon of society didn't have high powered lights and cameras with 40x zoom - they bought stuff that was large and was able to be bragged about and showboated at the next debutante ball. So not only were they not as educated nor concerned as the average PS poster - but even if they were, they didn't have the tools available to make an educated purchase. One of the drawbacks when dealing with 70+ year old pieces.
As an example, this was one ring I saw in person:

GIA Platinum Blue Sapphire Ring No Heat Sri Lanka 18K Diamond Vintage 11.27 CTS For Sale at 1stDibs

For Sale on 1stDibs - Old South Jewels proudly presents...VINTAGE LUXURY... GIA CERTIFIED PLATINUM & 18K 11.27 CARAT UNHEATED SAPPHIRE & DIAMOND VINTAGE RING AND BOX. 5.85 CARAT

www.1stdibs.com

The gray spot I circled in red is a window. Can't really tell in the photographs, other than seeing a gray spot. Is it a deal killer? Well, it is a nice sized stone, with lots of diamonds. A hell of a lot cheaper than what you could likely find elsewhere. Whether it's acceptable is up to the eye of the wearer.

In one of her platform accounts, she says she's liquidating an estate. I got all excited, thinking she's liquidating her parents' estate....but come to find out, that's just where she gets most (all?) of her product.

 

[mimspot]

Hello and welcome to the forum! This is a helpful article on sapphire inclusions.

Click.

With regard to the quality of this particular stone, yes, it is rather included. It's quite silky, which is giving it the more translucent (as opposed to transparent) appearance you mentioned. In the video, the color looks a bit dark and desaturated to my eyes (I trust photos less). The mounting itself is stunning and the diamonds look fantastic. I suspect that's where 85% of the impact is coming from, and it can fool a novice into thinking the stone is better than it is. The value of the piece includes the diamonds and gold, and the fact that the sapphire is quite large and untreated. Finished pieces also tend to sell for more than their individual parts, all things being equal.

If this were a fine untreated sapphire in this size, I'd expect a much more costly price point. Now, this vendor's pricing tends to be high, but still... look at the cost. And the color isn't even anything special.

Click.

Personally, I'd rather have a stone half the size and twice as fine.

ETA: My loose 3.03ct. blue sapphire was more money than the list price of that ring. So it was definitely price appropriately, IMO, especially since it seems they sold it at a discount.

Autumn in New England:

Thank you so much for your candor and detailed response! I also appreciate the links to the resources for further education. I was able to see your wonderful stone and ring you created on another thread. Wow! Absolutely stunning!!

I certainly am enjoying this community and learning. I appreciate you making me feel so welcome. I hope you have happy holidays!

 

[mimspot]

Omg the centre stone could be twinsies with my Gengar!

The stone you posted has a lot of silk but some people don’t mind (and even like) a bit of silk. Inclusions could be feathers or a bit of crystal inside or even dust clouds.

Sometimes light reflecting can make it look like an inclusion too. See the first picture of my ring. That dot is just light and doesn’t exist in real life.

I’m a bit different to the others on this forum as rather than a fine sapphire, I will settle for a “good enough” but huge sapphire. That’s what I’m drawn to, the BOOM effect on the eye that you can’t get with something small, especially as sapphires are so dense. Nothing wrong with wanting something big as long as you know the sacrifices you’re making.

Omg the centre stone could be twinsies with my Gengar!

The stone you posted has a lot of silk but some people don’t mind (and even like) a bit of silk. Inclusions could be feathers or a bit of crystal inside or even dust clouds.

Sometimes light reflecting can make it look like an inclusion too. See the first picture of my ring. That dot is just light and doesn’t exist in real life.

I’m a bit different to the others on this forum as rather than a fine sapphire, I will settle for a “good enough” but huge sapphire. That’s what I’m drawn to, the BOOM effect on the eye that you can’t get with something small, especially as sapphires are so dense. Nothing wrong with wanting something big as long as you know the sacrifices you’re making.

mellowyellowgirl,

Your wonderful "Gengar" stone and the setting are absolutely beautiful! I appreciate your lens on the differences of individuals exploring and enjoying different stones. I also really enjoyed seeing your journey to Gengar. What a wonderful community. Enablers? Maybe. Kind folks? Absolutely!

I also appreciate the technical information you shared as well. Happy holidays!

 

[mimspot]

I just want to throw out there that I am not convinced that is a true antique setting. It doesn’t have the hand made look and the design elements are a mish mash of eras. Just in case that mattered to you when thinking about the piece.

Dreamer_D,

Thank you for your thoughts on the setting and for looking out for me. I figured since it wasn't stamped as Mappin & Webb that it was just stored in that box and was potentially not from that era. Happy holidays!

 

[mimspot]

But, but...it's in an old box...?!

LilAlex,

I know, right?! It does look pretty cool, though... Happy holidays!

 

[mimspot]

I actually looked at some of this seller's offerings. I'm not an historian, but it appears she has a lot of old stuff that is probably legit 'antique' - so she's probably not a front for some Asian manufacturer like I've seen with other accounts lol. The key is that there are sometimes negatives in some of the larger stones she has (as with many natural stones). 100 years ago, the upper echelon of society didn't have high powered lights and cameras with 40x zoom - they bought stuff that was large and was able to be bragged about and showboated at the next debutante ball. So not only were they not as educated nor concerned as the average PS poster - but even if they were, they didn't have the tools available to make an educated purchase. One of the drawbacks when dealing with 70+ year old pieces.
As an example, this was one ring I saw in person:

GIA Platinum Blue Sapphire Ring No Heat Sri Lanka 18K Diamond Vintage 11.27 CTS For Sale at 1stDibs

For Sale on 1stDibs - Old South Jewels proudly presents...VINTAGE LUXURY... GIA CERTIFIED PLATINUM & 18K 11.27 CARAT UNHEATED SAPPHIRE & DIAMOND VINTAGE RING AND BOX. 5.85 CARAT

www.1stdibs.com

The gray spot I circled in red is a window. Can't really tell in the photographs, other than seeing a gray spot. Is it a deal killer? Well, it is a nice sized stone, with lots of diamonds. A hell of a lot cheaper than what you could likely find elsewhere. Whether it's acceptable is up to the eye of the wearer.

In one of her platform accounts, she says she's liquidating an estate. I got all excited, thinking she's liquidating her parents' estate....but come to find out, that's just where she gets most (all?) of her product.

BoSnerdley,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experience of seeing one of Victoria's pieces. The ring I posted about was apparently just returned today and is now being re-posted on 1stDibs. It's already back on eBay.

I think I actually like the center stone of this ring in combination with the setting though I can see the huge imperfections in it. And really, I imagine, seeing it in person is really the only way to really know, as you did with the stone you got to see in real life.

I appreciate your lens regarding older settings and stones, etc., and the subsequent societal changes: improved lighting, equipment, access to information, etc. I hope you find what you are looking for in your search! Happy holidays!