Advice on clarity compromise

[MatthewT]

I am looking to make an inexpensive high carat weight pendant thats more of a costume jewellery which you can casually wear in a pink/red shade.

If you were to compromise on clarity, is a better choice:

1) or this eye clean 4.5 carat trillion cut pink tourmaline (but i heard some negatives about tourmaline's durability and colour in different lighting)

2) or this 3.5 carat cushion pink spinel (which has some inclusions i think)

3) or a stone with more of clear/translucent background but very noticable inclusions like this 10 carat sapphire

4) an opaque stone like this oval six carat 'ruby'

In general does an opaque background look better than a more transparent background which shows the inclusions more?

 

[Avondale]

There is no universal opinion on what is a better compromise - it all comes down to taste. To what is most important to you. The best anyone can help you with is information, so that you can make an informed decision that's best for you.

1. The tourmaline is a lovely colour and I wouldn't be bothered about the durability. You're aiming to make a pendant, and unless the wearer is intending to fling the thing around the room like a toy or purposefully walk into poles on the street, the stone will be quite safe.

It is true, however, that pink and red tourmalines are known for shifting towards brown. If you can ask the vendor to send you some photos in different light, including low light and incandescent, this will help with your decision. If colour is your priority and the shift is unattractive to your eyes, obviously it won't work.

2. The pink spinel has a very noticeable inclusion at 12 o'clock, and I'm not sure what it is that I'm seeing on the table - is it a veil, is it poor polish, what is it? There's also some staining at 8. Are these likely to bother you (or the wearer in case it's for someone else)?

3. The pink sapphire is a more pastel colour, with black inclusions scattered throughout. The feathers usually aren't that distracting in person, but you'll want to know whether some pose structural risks due to placement or reaching the surface.

4. I wouldn't call the ruby opaque, it's translucent at worst. But then also, I wouldn't call it a ruby, more a pink sapphire. All matters of opinion. What I notice with it is the poor polish, judging by the table and crown facets' reflection. Out of all these options, it has the best colour.

My main concern is, at 6 carats, what kind of treatment has this stone received to achieve an affordable price? The most unpleasant possibility would be lead glass filling - this is an unstable treatment and one trip to the ultrasound would ruin the stone. The next thing I'm thinking is, especially considering the lower clarity, is that if the rough was pretty fractured, the stone could have been flux healed. That would leave significant residues and affect the clarity greatly (although it is a notable improvement over unfacetable rough). Flux healing is generally stable, but in case not all fractures have been healed and some are remaining open, just filled with glassy residues, you have to take a level of care similar to a glass filled stone.