Setting for a little ruby

[Treflo]

Newbie here with my first post! I came across this little pre-owned loose gem (0.6 ct., ~5mm across and 4.9mm top-bottom) and the color nearly stopped my heart. I'm having it sent out to GIA for a cert, but a G.G. gemologist believes it's a natural ruby. While I'm waiting for the certification, I'm having fun imagining how I might set it. I started out assuming it would be best as a pendant stone -- it's tiny, especially compared to some of the amazing pieces on this forum! -- but I'd be able to see it so much better on a ring. What would you do: pendant or ring? (My hands and fingers are average-sized and square, and dainty rings don't normally look great on me. I wear necklaces often. But if it's in a ring, I could stare at it all day! ... )

 

[mayaINaU]

Newbie here with my first post! I came across this little pre-owned loose gem (0.6 ct., ~5mm across and 4.9mm top-bottom) and the color nearly stopped my heart. I'm having it sent out to GIA for a cert, but a G.G. gemologist believes it's a natural ruby. While I'm waiting for the certification, I'm having fun imagining how I might set it. I started out assuming it would be best as a pendant stone -- it's tiny, especially compared to some of the amazing pieces on this forum! -- but I'd be able to see it so much better on a ring. What would you do: pendant or ring? (My hands and fingers are average-sized and square, and dainty rings don't normally look great on me. I wear necklaces often. But if it's in a ring, I could stare at it all day! ... )

I bought a tiny fancy yellow diamond heart, and I considered setting it in a ring or bracelet. I ended up buying a second one and setting them in earrings, but to be honest, I regret it! I would rather be able to see it. What about a bracelet like these options?

 

[Avondale]

Oh this is beautiful! Fingers crossed it comes back from GIA bearing good news.

In the meantime, first thing is you want to throw that idea that your hands don't look good enough for a dainty ring out the window. I've seen way too many women here self-conscious about their hands when they have absolutely no reason to be. If you want to have a dainty ring - get a dainty ring. If you want to have a blingtastic ring with more finger coverage - get that. The bracelet ideas above are also very stylish and elegant, and if you enjoy wearing bracelets, this little babe will steal all the looks.

It may be tiny, but it's mighty. It will make a stunning piece anyway, so just go with what your heart desires (hehe... pun definitely not intended, but it ended up so good ).

 

[Treflo]

I bought a tiny fancy yellow diamond heart, and I considered setting it in a ring or bracelet. I ended up buying a second one and setting them in earrings, but to be honest, I regret it! I would rather be able to see it. What about a bracelet like these options?

These are lovely! I especially like the bangle. I hadn't thought of a bracelet ... now I have 3 good options!

Oh this is beautiful! Fingers crossed it comes back from GIA bearing good news.

In the meantime, first thing is you want to throw that idea that your hands don't look good enough for a dainty ring out the window. I've seen way too many women here self-conscious about their hands when they have absolutely no reason to be. If you want to have a dainty ring - get a dainty ring. If you want to have a blingtastic ring with more finger coverage - get that. The bracelet ideas above are also very stylish and elegant, and if you enjoy wearing bracelets, this little babe will steal all the looks.

It may be tiny, but it's mighty. It will make a stunning piece anyway, so just go with what your heart desires (hehe... pun definitely not intended, but it ended up so good ).

The best pun! I really appreciate the advice. This is my first ruby and my first attempt at any sort of jewelry customization, plus I really love the stone (conditional on some info from the certification) so it all feels very high stakes . I just wanna do it justice, you know? But I will definitely keep "dainty ring" on the options table.

 

[ShinyPink]

What a lovely stone! You did a great job, and I think you'll be hooked soon!

 

[Autumn in New England]

Welcome! I love everyone's suggestions. Me, I'm a ring girl, so I'm always designing for rings in my head. I might do an elaborate halo to give it a bit more impact. But it's lovely... enjoy!!

 

[Treflo]

What a lovely stone! You did a great job, and I think you'll be hooked soon!

That’s what I’m afraid of …

Welcome! I love everyone's suggestions. Me, I'm a ring girl, so I'm always designing for rings in my head. I might do an elaborate halo to give it a bit more impact. But it's lovely... enjoy!!

Thanks very much for the suggestion!

 

[MMtwo]

What a lovely stone! dust for good news soon. I agree that this diamond has the presence to carry a ring.

 

[Treflo]

Plot twist ...

After a local GIA graduate jeweler checked the stone and gave her opinion that it was a natural ruby, I asked her to help me send it off to GIA for certification. She said it was a very clean stone with just a few small inclusions under 10x magnification.

BUT yesterday the same jeweler called me to say another employee checked the stone with a Presidium gem tester before sending it off, and it read as glass! She advised not sending it out to GIA because it's worthless.

I'm now consulting a second jeweler who says he'll get back to me with his opinion next week. I don't want to spend over $100 on certifying a bit of glass with GIA, so I'll see what he says first!

In the meantime, my question: Does anyone know of glass simulated gemstones that fluoresce red like this? Google tells me that selenium glass can fluoresce red, but I'm not clear on whether it's used as a ruby simulant. Just wondering if anyone has experience with faux (not just synthetic) rubies that behave this way.

 

[Autumn in New England]

I don't know about glass, but both natural and synthetic rubies do fluoresce under UV light. Flame fusion rubies in particular fluoresce quite brightly. I'm not sure if this stone is natural or not, but those presidium testers (aside from their use with diamonds and moissanites) are famously unreliable.

 

[dk168]

It is what I would call a small yet mighty stone!

I have a small pink-red Spinel that I was struggling to set, until I came across a few antique paved puffed heart diamond pendants recently, like this:



Just found this one on Google, and I thought it would be great with your heart cut Ruby:



DK

 

[Autumn in New England]

P.S. I doubt highly this stone is actually glass (synthetic/lab-grown, possibly). But this gem just doesn't have that "rhinestone" look to it. Plus, simulants are usually cut perfectly by machine. This stone looks to have a native cut.

 

[Treflo]

I don't know about glass, but both natural and synthetic rubies do fluoresce under UV light. Flame fusion rubies in particular fluoresce quite brightly. I'm not sure if this stone is natural or not, but those presidium testers (aside from their use with diamonds and moissanites) are famously unreliable.

P.S. I doubt highly this stone is actually glass (synthetic/lab-grown, possibly). But this gem just doesn't have that "rhinestone" look to it. Plus, simulants are usually cut perfectly by machine. This stone looks to have a native cut.

Thank you so much for sharing your expertise. I really appreciate it! (And of course, it gives me hope!)

I was a bit surprised that the jeweler put so much confidence in that machine after examining the stone thoroughly in person -- but I'm no expert. And you're spot-on about the cut in spite of the distant pictures. It's ... imperfect, shall we say. The part of me that wants to stay hopeful says it would have to be a fairly elaborate glass fake/simulant, if it is that, between the imperfect cutting, the red-fluorescing glass, and a few small inclusions ... but we'll see.

The synthetic/natural ruby distinction is a whole other issue for sure. As long as I can be reasonably confident that it's some kind of gemstone, I'm happy to leave that issue to the professionals at GIA.

 

[Treflo]

It is what I would call a small yet mighty stone!

I have a small pink-red Spinel that I was struggling to set, until I came across a few antique paved puffed heart diamond pendants recently, like this:



Just found this one on Google, and I thought it would be great with your heart cut Ruby:



DK

Fabulous ideas for a pendant! Thanks so much! Pave diamonds would be a fantastic contrast with the pink-red, and the heart-of-a-heart concept is really sweet

 

[elle_71125]

That baby is a perfect example of “small but mighty.” The color is so gorgeous and vibrant, and I would 100% want to put it in a ring.

And for a little inspo...

 

[Autumn in New England]

Thank you so much for sharing your expertise. I really appreciate it! (And of course, it gives me hope!)

I was a bit surprised that the jeweler put so much confidence in that machine after examining the stone thoroughly in person -- but I'm no expert. And you're spot-on about the cut in spite of the distant pictures. It's ... imperfect, shall we say. The part of me that wants to stay hopeful says it would have to be a fairly elaborate glass fake/simulant, if it is that, between the imperfect cutting, the red-fluorescing glass, and a few small inclusions ... but we'll see.

The synthetic/natural ruby distinction is a whole other issue for sure. As long as I can be reasonably confident that it's some kind of gemstone, I'm happy to leave that issue to the professionals at GIA.

Have it tested at GIA or AGL (not sure where you're located). I just want to prove that jeweler wrong now.

 

[Autumn in New England]

That baby is a perfect example of “small but mighty.” The color is so gorgeous and vibrant, and I would 100% want to put it in a ring.

And for a little inspo...

You always have the best inspo! Because you have great taste!!

 

[Starstruck8]

BUT yesterday the same jeweler called me to say another employee checked the stone with a Presidium gem tester before sending it off, and it read as glass! She advised not sending it out to GIA because it's worthless.

Here's a DIY test. You can look for double refraction directly. Look through the stone (e.g. through the table and a pavilion facet) at a small LED indicator light. Try this at few different angles, with different pavilion facets. If you can see a doubled image (two images, very close together, that move in parallel) from at least one angle (not necessarily all angles), the stone is definitely not glass. Here's an illustration of the setup:

It would be wise to try this with some doubly and singly refractive stones you are sure of, to make sure you know what to look for.

Of course, this won't separate natural from synthetic ruby, nor will it distinguish ruby from other doubly refractive stones. But if you see double refraction, it will rule out glass (or garnet or spinel).

Like you and others, I'd be surprised if this were glass.

 

[Autumn in New England]

Here's a DIY test. You can look for double refraction directly. Look through the stone (e.g. through the table and a pavilion facet) at a small LED indicator light. Try this at few different angles, with different pavilion facets. If you can see a doubled image (two images, very close together, that move in parallel) from at least one angle (not necessarily all angles), the stone is definitely not glass. Here's an illustration of the setup:

It would be wise to try this with some doubly and singly refractive stones you are sure of, to make sure you know what to look for.

Of course, this won't separate natural from synthetic ruby, nor will it distinguish ruby from other doubly refractive stones. But if you see double refraction, it will rule out glass (or garnet or spinel).

Like you and others, I'd be surprised if this were glass.

This eyeball is everything.

 

[Treflo]

That baby is a perfect example of “small but mighty.” The color is so gorgeous and vibrant, and I would 100% want to put it in a ring.

And for a little inspo...

Definitely feeling inspired now

 

[Treflo]

Have it tested at GIA or AGL (not sure where you're located). I just want to prove that jeweler wrong now.

Same

 

[Treflo]

Here's a DIY test. You can look for double refraction directly. Look through the stone (e.g. through the table and a pavilion facet) at a small LED indicator light. Try this at few different angles, with different pavilion facets. If you can see a doubled image (two images, very close together, that move in parallel) from at least one angle (not necessarily all angles), the stone is definitely not glass. Here's an illustration of the setup:

It would be wise to try this with some doubly and singly refractive stones you are sure of, to make sure you know what to look for.

Of course, this won't separate natural from synthetic ruby, nor will it distinguish ruby from other doubly refractive stones. But if you see double refraction, it will rule out glass (or garnet or spinel).

Like you and others, I'd be surprised if this were glass.

Wow, this is great to know. I'll give it a shot when I get the stone back. Time to get out the ol' bifocals!

 

[Dreamer_D]

I recall another poster who had local Jewelers convinced her large emerald was synthetic and it came back real! Maybe get another opinion!

 

[Autumn in New England]

Same

Please keep us posted!

 

[Treflo]

I recall another poster who had local Jewelers convinced her large emerald was synthetic and it came back real! Maybe get another opinion!

I think I will. Some things just aren’t quite adding up here.

 

[Bron357]

No, glass gems do not fluoresce without chromium. There are lots of red gems, natural, that don’t have chromium so they also don’t fluoresce.
Did you watch as he tested with the Presidium?
Was the gem clean?
A Presidium can be useful in small ways but they are NOT a replacement for proper Gemological tools.

 

[Treflo]

No, glass gems do not fluoresce without chromium. There are lots of red gems, natural, that don’t have chromium so they also don’t fluoresce.
Did you watch as he tested with the Presidium?
Was the gem clean?
A Presidium can be useful in small ways but they are NOT a replacement for proper Gemological tools.

This is very helpful! No, I didn't see the Presidium testing. In fact, the jeweler herself didn't see it. She said another employee did the testing before sending the stone to GIA (the jeweler herself was at home at the time) and she reported the result to me as pretty much definitive.

To be fair, I didn't know whether/how well the stone fluoresced until after that, so I wasn't able to add that information to her assessment. When she told me the stone was glass, I went to the hardware store to grab a UV flashlight, picked up the stone from the jeweler, and checked for fluorescence myself at home.

 

[T L]

It could be a glass filled ruby. In which case, it would be worth very little. So it could be glass and ruby combined.

 

[Treflo]

Not that anyone really needs to know about this saga, but for the record:

1. I sent the stone to a different local jeweler. I didn't tell him anything about the previous test. He used a refractometer and a visual inspection to conclude that it's just glass.

2. In the meantime, I'd ordered a cheap but functional dichroscope. I looked at the stone when it arrived and ... it's polychroic. The first image below is my stone through my dichroscope; the second image is a randomly selected internet image of (supposed) polychroism in a ruby through a dichroscope. I'm no expert in optics, but as far as I can tell, polychroism entails double refraction (birefringence): that is, if a stone shows polychroism, it is doubly refractive. Rubies (all sapphires) are doubly refractive stones. Glass is singly refractive. Except ...

3. There is such a thing as polychroic glass -- glass that does sometimes show
"anomalous birefringence"!

So ...

It's hard for me to imagine that two totally independent jewelers and their refractometers are both wrong. My understanding is that most glass-filled rubies test as rubies on refractometers? But there is still something odd about this stone. If nothing else, it's a really clever, detailed glass fake. In addition to the imperfect cut and the fluorescence, the two specific, separate colors detected in my dichroscope look exactly like the two separate colors shown in the random sample image of a ruby "from the internets."

Someday, when I have extra cash to burn on a stone that's probably just glass, I'll send it in to a major lab. For now, I think it's going to stay in its gem box as a big question mark.

 

[Treflo]

Here's a DIY test. You can look for double refraction directly. Look through the stone (e.g. through the table and a pavilion facet) at a small LED indicator light. Try this at few different angles, with different pavilion facets. If you can see a doubled image (two images, very close together, that move in parallel) from at least one angle (not necessarily all angles), the stone is definitely not glass. Here's an illustration of the setup:

It would be wise to try this with some doubly and singly refractive stones you are sure of, to make sure you know what to look for.

Of course, this won't separate natural from synthetic ruby, nor will it distinguish ruby from other doubly refractive stones. But if you see double refraction, it will rule out glass (or garnet or spinel).

Like you and others, I'd be surprised if this were glass.

For what it’s worth, I did attempt this! Tricky because the stone’s so tiny. I tried first with an old peridot earring, so thought I knew what I was looking for. Then I tried with this stone and thought I saw the doubled image! I confirmed later with a dichroscope — pretty sure it’s doubly refractive.