A little advice on this spinel?

[rubybeth]

Well, I just have a few questions about a spinel I''m looking at from Dan Stair. I originally loved this one: Dan Stair Blue Emerald Cut Spinel but it was quickly scooped up by someone. I e-mailed Dan, not realizing it was already sold, and he sent me back a picture of another similar spinel (photo). It''s 1.10 carats, 4.56 x 6.95mm, and Dan described it as having a "veil" (which I think I can see in the top of this photo, like a little streak of white?) and therefore not totally eyeclean but very reasonably priced. Ultimately, I''m hoping to make a RHR with a setting like this: 5x7 semi-mount from LOGR.

So, my questions:

-is the ''veil'' a really bad sort of inclusion that would make this stone weaker somehow and not good for a RHR?
-do the mm measurements sound reasonable for a 5x7 setting, or would I need to go custom? I''m okay with a different setting entirely, too, so if you''ve got any other suggestions, I''m all ears (err, eyes?)

Thanks in advance! You ladies rock.

 

[coatimundi_org]

The stone appears very clean. The "veil" is probably a small fingerprint (partially healed fracture). Many colored stones have these, and they generally do not pose problems when enclosed within the stone. In any case, if it concerns you, you can also address your concerns to Dan--but the stone looks really clean.

Fingerprints look really cool--like a human fingerprint suspended within the stone. The one in your stone looks like it will be hard to see with the eye, but easy with a loupe.

 

[T L]

Date: 12/26/2008 11:37:13 AM
Author:rubybeth
Well, I just have a few questions about a spinel I'm looking at from Dan Stair. I originally loved this one: Dan Stair Blue Emerald Cut Spinel but it was quickly scooped up by someone. I e-mailed Dan, not realizing it was already sold, and he sent me back a picture of another similar spinel (photo). It's 1.10 carats, 4.56 x 6.95mm, and Dan described it as having a 'veil' (which I think I can see in the top of this photo, like a little streak of white?) and therefore not totally eyeclean but very reasonably priced. Ultimately, I'm hoping to make a RHR with a setting like this: 5x7 semi-mount from LOGR.

So, my questions:

-is the 'veil' a really bad sort of inclusion that would make this stone weaker somehow and not good for a RHR?
-do the mm measurements sound reasonable for a 5x7 setting, or would I need to go custom? I'm okay with a different setting entirely, too, so if you've got any other suggestions, I'm all ears (err, eyes?)

Thanks in advance! You ladies rock.

It looks pretty clean to me, and ditto on everything Coatmundi said. As for the LOGR settings, it would probably fit, if not, you can easily return it. With the LOGR's, it's better to be a little undersize than oversize with the settings. I hope you have a good jeweler that can expertly set stones in calibrated mountings.

I just purchased a tourmaline with similar saturation to your spinel with a few veils in the corner. I'm currently having it bezel set in an LOGR setting. I don't see the veils at all with the naked eye. You have to realize when a picture is super blown up, it's so easy to see inclusions like veils, but you would be very hardpressed to see them with the naked eye. If the veil makes it more reasonably priced, I think that it's worth it.

 

[rubybeth]

Thanks so much, coatimundi and tourmaline_lover! I figured the tiny inclusion wouldn''t be visible, I was just slightly concerned about the safety of the stone in something that may get a lot of wear. I''m not totally sure about the LOGR setting yet, but I would have my local jeweler check the stone and confirm that it would fit. Thanks again!

 

[marcy]

I think the ring would be gorgeous with the spinel and the setting.