Translucent emeralds - will color change with setting??

[Mreader]

I have been eyeing some emerald rings in simple gold settings on Etsy and also came across @GeliL 's ring here as I was googling emeralds, which happened to be from the same company of the Etsy rings I was looking at. I have reached out to the company and they have been really good about sending lots of photos and videos of various stones. I had narrowed down to two of them. I was so struck by how different the same stones looked in each video and photo. Then I asked to see them in ring holders. I'm glad I did because whoa they look even more different (and not in a good way). The rectangular one, which is the one that I was favoring, looks completely see through! If I put that stone in a setting like the Etsy ring, do you think the translucency would close up at all? Or do you think you could see my finger through the stone lol once set? It's amazing how when the stone is lying flat on the person's hand it looks so much deeper in color. Also, I am well aware that these are emeralds that have many inclusions and are treated etc. I do not have the budget to go to the finer, minor oil category. I am okay with inclusions etc. But didn't expect a total see-through look. So this is something I may just put off indefinitely but was curious of your input of a stone unset vs. set when it comes to windows translucence etc. TIA! In order, pics of the Etsy ring, then the loose stones that co sent to me:

Etsy:



Loose stones (the more rectangular one is the one I was leaning toward:



In ringholder




Also, from an Etsy review, someone had a pic of their loose stone, and then a pic of their set stone. The difference dramatic to me. So yeah, I'm confused.

Loose stone - looks kind of cloudy:



set stone from reviewer.

 

[meely]

I think they will look much improved bezelled and set. I’ve lost the light or I would take photo of mine but you can see it in my avatar, that is an accurate photo. It is definitely translucent and pale when I hold it up to the light but I cannot see any finger when it’s on. It looks very vibrant and glowing. My stone is a 15ct cabochon so it is obviously very deep so we are not talking about the same animal but even so I think they will look vastly improved when set. What one were you considering?

 

[meely]

Sorry I see what one you are leaning towards, I wonder if that inclusion might irritate it’s quite prominent. I like the colour of the one on the far right of the hand shot best.

 

[Mreader]

Sorry I see what one you are leaning towards, I wonder if that inclusion might irritate it’s quite prominent. I like the colour of the one on the far right of the hand shot best.

Yes the far right on the hand is best in terms of color. I was just wanting something larger because it's also the smallest of the group. I wanted to get something that had a really big presence on the hand.

Also I just looked up your ring - amazing!! Love the turquoise you have too We seem to have similar looking fingers

 

[GeliL]

Based on my experience the emerald color will be a bit deeper once set, I am not sure about the window though. I don't think it will close up that much even if it's bezelled. With bigger stones like this they are usually not very deep, which is why it has that window. If you want a bigger stone with a presence without a window then its weight and therefore carat size will increase as well.

Emeralds are different to photograph and in phone cameras they tend to look more blue in some lighting. I think the difference between the set stone and the loose is to be expected and they seem to be the same stone to me at least.

The seller is very responsive and helpful though ,so if you can specify more of what you would want they can probably find one more to your liking

 

[Mreader]

Based on my experience the emerald color will be a bit deeper once set, I am not sure about the window though. I don't think it will close up that much even if it's bezelled. With bigger stones like this they are usually not very deep, which is why it has that window. If you want a bigger stone with a presence without a window then its weight and therefore carat size will increase as well.

Emeralds are different to photograph and in phone cameras they tend to look more blue in some lighting. I think the difference between the set stone and the loose is to be expected and they seem to be the same stone to me at least.

The seller is very responsive and helpful though ,so if you can specify more of what you would want they can probably find one more to your liking

The specs of the rectangular one is 3.69 carat 10.8 x 8 x 5.8 mm

That seems pretty deep to me but I’m not very familiar with colored stones and I know colored stones can be way deeper! The other issue is if I get a ring already made it would be returnable but if I pick a loose stone and set it it’s non-returnable because it’s considered custom. Perhaps just waiting for a ready made ring to come along in my budget might be the way to go.

 

[meely]

Yes the far right on the hand is best in terms of color. I was just wanting something larger because it's also the smallest of the group. I wanted to get something that had a really big presence on the hand.

Also I just looked up your ring - amazing!! Love the turquoise you have too We seem to have similar looking fingers

Lol I don’t think I’ve had a finger twin before!

How small is the smaller one? The color does look a lot better and I say that as someone who is all about the size! But that is the only one that looks like it might be ‘glowy’ to me! Do you think if you went for a smaller one you could get it set else where and have a bigger setting done. Like a halo or double bezel to make it bigger.
I am not familiar with the shop so don’t know how much money we are talking about for these emeralds and settings to know if that is viable.

 

[Mreader]

Lol I don’t think I’ve had a finger twin before!

How small is the smaller one? The color does look a lot better and I say that as someone who is all about the size! But that is the only one that looks like it might be ‘glowy’ to me! Do you think if you went for a smaller one you could get it set else where and have a bigger setting done. Like a halo or double bezel to make it bigger.
I am not familiar with the shop so don’t know how much money we are talking about for these emeralds and settings to know if that is viable.

Lol My finger size is 4.75 on the left but I usually wear a 5 because I can’t stand a snug ring lol. Ok so the nicest color one you mention is 3.20 carat 9.5 x 8.6 x 5.9 mm. That one is $1750 and the emerald cut rectangular one I had been leaning towards is $1780

The other square stone is $1390 but that one is out after seeing it in more lights. But I like the size. To compare that one is 4.18 carat 9.5 x 9.5 x 6.7 mm. So the 4.18 is a similar shape to the 3.2 but I know how much a millimeter difference can make. I did though after seeing these ask to see that 3.2 in a ring holder.

A halo or double bezel would just cost more so for that I would just opt to throw that money at a bigger nicer stone.

 

[meely]

Lol My finger size is 4.75 on the left but I usually wear a 5 because I can’t stand a snug ring lol. Ok so the nicest color one you mention is 3.20 carat 9.5 x 8.6 x 5.9 mm. That one is $1750 and the emerald cut rectangular one I had been leaning towards is $1780

The other square stone is $1390 but that one is out after seeing it in more lights. But I like the size. To compare that one is 4.18 carat 9.5 x 9.5 x 6.7 mm. So the 4.18 is a similar shape to the 3.2 but I know how much a millimeter difference can make. I did though after seeing these ask to see that 3.2 in a ring holder.

A halo or double bezel would just cost more so for that I would just opt to throw that money at a bigger nicer stone.

Ah ok. How much does the setting cost if you don’t mind me asking? None of those are small sizes for an emerald.

 

[meely]

Will you go for something like the last picture?

 

[Mreader]

Will you go for something like the last picture?

Yes the first and/or last. They both have the same settings they just are different shapes. So he quoted me 790 for 14k 960 18k. I don’t know if that’s a fair cost or on the high side. Haven’t done much custom. Waiting on a piece from Daniel M now and he was less but don’t know the gram weight of gold etc. The emerald vendor said he would give 8% off that would make it in the $2500 for the whole ring. I contemplated just buying a loose stone both because of the refund situation.

 

[peacechick]

I’ve learnt many things from PS in my years hanging out here and probably the no. 1 skill learnt here that I value the most is how to identify windowing. What is a window, what is a tilt window, how it is likely to look when set, what will close up and what won’t. It doesn’t stop me from buying slightly windowed stones (sadly my budget has not increased with my knowledge) but I know what I am getting.

All of the stones on the hand shot have shallow cuts. The second from the left is probably the only one that’s not windowed (is it the one in the left ringholder?). The one you like is extremely windowed, it basically is so shallow that there’s no facets to reflect the light up. You will see the majority of your finger through it even if you set it and there will be no sparkle.

You can tell the 4.93 ct emerald from Etsy is also extremely windowed from the lack of any facet reflections in the middle. If you ask for photos against a black background, the middle will appear dark—and that’s how you know how much skin you’ll see through it.

The EC tends towards windowing more than other cuts (imo the least likely is a cushion cut). A lot of those glamorous antique EC rings rock that see through vibe. In a certain sense, it’s kind of an aesthetic as well.

 

[meely]

Yes the first and/or last. They both have the same settings they just are different shapes. So he quoted me 790 for 14k 960 18k. I don’t know if that’s a fair cost or on the high side. Haven’t done much custom. Waiting on a piece from Daniel M now and he was less but don’t know the gram weight of gold etc. The emerald vendor said he would give 8% off that would make it in the $2500 for the whole ring. I contemplated just buying a loose stone both because of the refund situation.

Yes I get that. I do think emeralds are particularly hard to buy sight unseen. The sellers setting does look like they would be on the heavy side.
With regard to cost for custom settings, If you look at my most recent thread you will see the cads for the ring in question but basically I’ve been quoted the same cost for a 18K prong setting from DK for a 9.38 x 7.64 stone.

 

[Mreader]

I’ve learnt many things from PS in my years hanging out here and probably the no. 1 skill learnt here that I value the most is how to identify windowing. What is a window, what is a tilt window, how it is likely to look when set, what will close up and what won’t. It doesn’t stop me from buying slightly windowed stones (sadly my budget has not increased with my knowledge) but I know what I am getting.

All of the stones on the hand shot have shallow cuts. The second from the left is probably the only one that’s not windowed (is it the one in the left ringholder?). The one you like is extremely windowed, it basically is so shallow that there’s no facets to reflect the light up.

You can tell the 4.93 ct emerald from Etsy is also extremely windowed from the lack of any facet reflections in the middle. If you ask for photos against a black background, the middle will appear dark—and that’s how you know how much skin you’ll see through it.

The EC tends towards windowing more than other cuts (imo the least likely is a cushion cut). A lot of those glamorous antique EC rings rock that see through vibe. In a certain sense, it’s kind of an aesthetic as well.

The Etsy ring that I posted actually is not on there anymore and it’s not that big it’s 2.75. I know the one you were talking about though and they look similar but they are not the same. The one that is currently on Etsy you can see through just like you said:



Interestingly on the model you can’t see through it as much



And yes the second one from the left is the same stone that is in the ring holder. I was thinking about that one or the rectangular and leaning toward rectangular. But when I saw the square one in the ring holder it looks like it has the opposite problem and it’s cloudy and opaque.

 

[Mreader]

Yes I get that. I do think emeralds are particularly hard to buy sight unseen. The sellers setting does look like they would be on the heavy side.
With regard to cost for custom settings, If you look at my most recent thread you will see the cads for the ring in question but basically I’ve been quoted the same cost for a 18K prong setting from DK for a 9.38 x 7.64 stone.

Thank you for that info! I honestly so appreciate when PSers share prices and I try to do so whenever possible bc it’s so helpful (though I also completely understand why they wouldn’t!). And I see you are a 4.75 lol!!! I’m now anxious to see the better quality stone in the ring holder like I requested. Will share when I get it.

 

[peacechick]

The Etsy ring that I posted actually is not on there anymore and it’s not that big it’s 2.75. I know the one you were talking about though and they look similar but they are not the same. The one that is currently on Etsy you can see through just like you said:



Interestingly on the model you can’t see through it as much



And yes the second one from the left is the same stone that is in the ring holder. I was thinking about that one or the rectangular and leaning toward rectangular. But when I saw the square one in the ring holder it looks like it has the opposite problem and it’s cloudy and opaque.

Oh I was just reading off the picture which said 4.93 cts, I have no idea which ring it is. You’re right, the one you just attached does look better on the hand, although I do wonder if it’s the same stone? Is that modelling shot from the listing or a photo posted by the customer? ETA: scrap that comment, I can see it’s the same stone from that diagonal inclusion!

At these prices though... it’s basically whether you value finger coverage or excellent cut. We have to choose and can’t have it all sadly, unless we are Liz Taylor!

 

[Mreader]

Oh I was just reading off the picture which said 4.93 cts, I have no idea which ring it is. You’re right, the one you just attached does look better on the hand, although I do wonder if it’s the same stone? Is that modelling shot from the listing or a photo posted by the customer? ETA: scrap that comment, I can see it’s the same stone from that diagonal inclusion!

At these prices though... it’s basically whether you value finger coverage or excellent cut. We have to choose and can’t have it all sadly, unless we are Liz Taylor!

I’ve posted so many pics it’s confusing! Haha! This pic is what first drew me in. It’s different from the 4+ ct.



Then the 4.93 is a cushion bought from an Etsy customer that reviewed. I realize I read your post incorrectly and thought you were referring to this first pic - whoops! And yes most of us can’t have it all! Just trying to balance how much imperfection I can live with . The pic of hand model vs stock pic gives me hope.

 

[Mreader]

Ok I have a picture of the other one that @meely said looked prettiest in color. It's alongside the others:

 

[meely]

Thank you for that info! I honestly so appreciate when PSers share prices and I try to do so whenever possible bc it’s so helpful (though I also completely understand why they wouldn’t!). And I see you are a 4.75 lol!!! I’m now anxious to see the better quality stone in the ring holder like I requested. Will share when I get it.

Great. I like the photos of the last ring,nice color on that one. DK has done some beautiful milgrain bezels and I have seen some lovely engraved bezels. Just thinking of ways of bulking out a smaller stone which are not so costly.

 

[meely]

Ok I have a picture of the other one that @meely said looked prettiest in color. It's alongside the others:

On the left? It’s definitely the nicest imo, by some way. I don’t think it looks smaller either although I know it is because it just has more finger presence.

 

[meely]

What are your thoughts @T L ?

 

[peacechick]

The one on the left is definitely the best! It has that glow and will look better set I think. Also, the one on the right has a dark speck that will bother you, don’t get it!

 

[Mreader]

On the left? It’s definitely the nicest imo, by some way. I don’t think it looks smaller either although I know it is because it just has more finger presence.

Yes the one on the left. And @peacechick I've already eliminated the one on the right just mainly wondering about how see-through the emerald cut one would be once set. Even the vendor said the one on the left was better, but he hasn't been pushy at all which is nice. So I had dismissed it bc of size but now that I do see alongside the others it has me re-thinking.

 

[Laurainthesky]

Why not look at smaller higher quality gems? This is how I usually stay on budget. Smaller stones still look big enough on little fingers. Mine is a 4.
This tourmaline is 7x5 and under a carat.

 

[Mreader]

Why not look at smaller higher quality gems? This is how I usually stay on budget.

I love your stone! But I just like a bigger look especially in the single stone style that I posted the pictures of

 

[T L]

What are your thoughts @T L ?

I think it depends on the stone and the stone (color, inclusions, cut, origin), the setting and the size of the window. There’s so many factors involved. For example, even a stone with fine color can have issues. I was at Tiffany & Co last year, and saw a clean dark emerald with a large window, and I’m sorry to say, the window was very distracting. Here’s a photo of it on my finger. It was about 1.5 carats and $32k. I was underwhelmed, not just because of the window, but the stone lacked that glow I see in Columbian material. I suspect it was from elsewhere. That whole dark area in the middle was pure window, but hard to see in the photo. I’m not saying an emerald has to be precision cut, but if a window is large enough, it will probably be a distraction.

 

[meely]

I think it depends on the stone and the stone (color, inclusions, cut, origin), the setting and the size of the window. There’s so many factors involved. For example, even a stone with fine color can have issues. I was at Tiffany & Co last year, and saw a clean dark emerald with a large window, and I’m sorry to say, the window was very distracting. Here’s a photo of it on my finger. It was about 1.5 carats and $32k. I was underwhelmed, not just because of the window, but the stone lacked that glow I see in Columbian material. I suspect it was from elsewhere. That whole dark area in the middle was pure window, but hard to see in the photo. I’m not saying an emerald has to be precision cut, but if a window is large enough, it will probably be a distraction.

32K for that particular ring does seem a lot!

 

[T L]

32K for that particular ring does seem a lot!

Well you’re paying for the designer label too.

 

[Mreader]

32K for that particular ring does seem a lot!

And you would think Tiffany would know where their stones are from. But you are also paying for the name. I still think it's a beautiful ring.

 

[meely]

Well you’re paying for the designer label too.

Oh I get that but to me it is fairly small, the color is not the best (too dark), it has a window and it does not seem glowy and if it’s not Columbian origin then that’s another mark down. Not that I am claiming my own emerald to be superior but in fairness it does have the origin, size, glow and color (we won’t mention the inclusions )