Why did Cartier use a sapphire with "fair" clarity?

[Gleam]

I''''m looking at this ring here.

Fay Cullen''''s description rates the clarity of the sapphire as "fair." I would not expect Cartier to use stones with anything other than good clarity (perhaps the standards are very different for sapphires, which I know nothing about). Or maybe at that time when the ring was made, they weren''''t so picky about clarity?

Just curious and thought someone might enlighten me!

 

[fierypyropixy]

Hmm, Gleam, that link is sending me to this post.

Can you re-link the FC ring?

 

[Gleam]

fiery, oops, weird! Sorry! http://www.faycullen.com/rings/800/fsn1101r5sd.html or click here

 

[brandy_z28]

This is totally a guess on my part but I think that since it''s a cabachon that a "fair" clarity grade is acceptable. I particularly like the color in photo 7 in the additional photos. Also if my research serves me well sapphire is a type II gem so inclusions are a bit more acceptable or expected. I could be totally wrong though.

 

[Michael_E]

No idea about the stone but I love their sales pitch...it sounds a bit like reading the label on a wine bottle.

 

[chrono]

My guess is that it has to do with being a cabochon as opposed to a faceted stone. Faceted stones are usually eye clean but with cabochons, they are cut that way to mask the inclusions. If faceted, the inclusions will most likely be too distracting, as such, I suspect, the cabochon is given a fair rating for clarity.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

I would agree with Brandy and Chrono.

 

[T L]

Um, my gut feeling is that the original stone was replaced with an inferior one. That sapphire does not look like it would be Cartier cab standards.