Amazing RED Ruby & A Quandary

[chrono]

Far more glowy than sparkly but I don't mind that is a ruby at all. So....is it red, pinkish, purplish or practically all 3, depending on the light and time of day? The colour is very rich though, which is a huge plus. Is Litnon giving you enough time to get the lab memo while still honouring their return policy?

 

[LD]

iLander my 6ct marquise Ruby has 3 princess cut diamonds on each side and it looks very art deco. They allow the Ruby to take centre stage but don't overwhelm.

 

[iLander]

Far more glowy than sparkly but I don't mind that is a ruby at all. So....is it red, pinkish, purplish or practically all 3, depending on the light and time of day? The colour is very rich though, which is a huge plus. Is Litnon giving you enough time to get the lab memo while still honouring their return policy?

The pic in the box is direct sunlight, the two on the hands are inside with a mix of fluorescent and incandescent, the one in the OP is inside, incandescent early a.m. So yes it is very changeable. In low light, it's just a dark red, which is boring, but not a dark red/brown as some of my other rubies. It seems to pick up a light and glow wherever it goes. It's parked under an incandescent lamp and it looks EXACTLY someone got halfway through a cherry cough drop and left it there.

Michael said he would give me extra time if I need it. He also guaranteed the untreated Burmese origin, he's very sure on that. I will ask him specifically about time for getting a cert, though.

Here's a question; Do you think I should get an origin report too? Won't that make it harder to sell (in 50 years), what with the embargo and all? Or is that only across international borders? Or just get a treatment report?

 

[iLander]

iLander my 6ct marquise Ruby has 3 princess cut diamonds on each side and it looks very art deco. They allow the Ruby to take centre stage but don't overwhelm.

Oh, no you don't, LD! You can't say something that intriguing and walk away!

Post it! Post it! Post it!

Put it right here if you like, no such thing as a "thread jack" in my threads.

 

[chrono]

For some buyers, being of Burmese origin matters. We usually expect stones in the US to be pre-embargo so no worries that the origin will be an issue when reselling. The other thing is Litnon's guarantee of origin being Burmese. Since yours looks very nice and clean, and is sold as Burmese, I would want that proof of that.

 

[AGBF]

The rounds look odd and the half-moons disproportionate. It needs some sort of shape tie-in to balance the very tall length. Would you consider 2 or 3 small rounds on each side of the ruby?

I isolated this image to look at it and I really like it. Maybe it can be tweaked to be even lovelier so that Chrono loves it, too. Perhaps two small side diamonds on each side as she suggested or a band set with tiny diamonds after the initial one side stone on either side as I prefer? I agree that the larger stones do not look as good. I understand that you want your stone to be the star, too, iLander. And it should be. The only question is how, best, to set it off.

The penny just dropped. Chrono may have meant that a jeweler should set a cluster of three small rounds in a triangle on either side of the ruby. Now that would be lovely!!!

Deb, a bit slow

YES! Chrono and Deb, I think the cluster of 3 stones on each side might just do the trick!

Tomorrow, I'll do some mockups to see if I can get the size/look on that. DH really thinks it should be a big halo, and it would be magnificent, but then it would be another "wear to dinner" ring. But I don't eat out THAT much.

iLander-

I was so excited to come home tonight and see that you had liked this idea because once I understood what Chrono had proposed with the "two or three" side diamonds I started envisioning a triangle! I can't wait to see you play with these! I think they will be a fabulous little addition ( just a "je ne sais quoi") to set off your beautiful ruby. But I will wait to see if you love it as much as I am loving it in my imagination!

Hugs,
Deb

 

[AGBF]

I found a few images of an oval ruby with three diamond side stones on either side. While I like this look, I think it is great that you have a husband who wants you to go with a halo! You may not go out to dinner that often, but you can wear a haloed stone to do things other than to eat. I am sure that after Sarah, The Duchess of York became a spokeswoman for Weight Watchers, that she didn't stop wearing her ruby ring!

Hugs,
Deb

 

[chrono]

Setting 3 diamonds in a triangular fashion is very classic. Or have 2 diamonds (one above the other) on each side of the ruby is a bit Art Deco-ish.

 

[T L]

Don't cut it, that stone is ALL about color. If it is truly an unheated Burmese ruby of 4 carats, you got the deal of the century on it. I can't believe that price.

 

[apropos]

Since that stone is not sparkly anyway and the colour is fantastic, why not convert flip it cover (table down), convert it into an oval cabochon or keep the shape and make it a longish sugarloaf?

The colour is the main draw and the facets already add next to nothing, so you might as well go colour enjoyment purist - IMO it's better to have a superb cab than a lousy faceted.

 

[iLander]

@ Deb; I love the look of those, thank you! I especially love the 3 in the milgrain surround, that seems lovely. I would totally do yellow gold.You're very nice to help!

@ Chrono; You used my magic word "classic".

 

[iLander]

Don't cut it, that stone is ALL about color. If it is truly an unheated Burmese ruby of 4 carats, you got the deal of the century on it. I can't believe that price.

Thanks, TL, I value your opinion highly.

I got an email from Jerry, and he said he could cut it down to a perfect stone about 6.9 by around 9 or 10. I really don't want to do that, then it would be an ordinary ruby, like all the rest out there. The size makes it remarkable, and the lack of cut is starting to grow on me. It's an antique, at least 100 years old, maybe more, I feel like I should respect that.

Jerry also said he could just try to keep the size and adjust the angles a bit, but frankly, I'm becoming more afraid to mess with it.

I think I got that price because I go on Michael's site 3 or 4 times every SINGLE day while working, for about 2-3 minutes. It's my little break between projects, and he has new stuff Very often. This was on for a very short time before I grabbed it. I figured it was worth a look because he ships fast and he's very easy with returns. He had this ruby's sister in the ruby section, but I think that's gone now. He told me he got a great price and he's passing it along, and I think that' s true.

 

[iLander]

Since that stone is not sparkly anyway and the colour is fantastic, why not convert flip it cover (table down), convert it into an oval cabochon or keep the shape and make it a longish sugarloaf?

The colour is the main draw and the facets already add next to nothing, so you might as well go colour enjoyment purist - IMO it's better to have a superb cab than a lousy faceted.

There's an occasional flash from the facets in back, and they're lovely. I'm not going to mess with it.

 

[AGBF]

@ Deb; I love the look of those, thank you! I especially love the 3 in the milgrain surround, that seems lovely. I would totally do yellow gold.You're very nice to help!

@ Chrono; You used my magic word "classic".

Once I see a thread like this, iLander, it is very hard to keep me out of it. I miss a lot of threads, but if I ever get hooked on one about a great red spinel or a ruby I am usually there for the duration. Only real cruelty to me will drive me out of the thread and that type of cruelty usually gets the thread closed by the moderator!!! It is a great pleasure to me to be able to be here and to participate in this thread. I love living vicariously through you!

Hugs,
Deb

 

[T L]

Don't cut it, that stone is ALL about color. If it is truly an unheated Burmese ruby of 4 carats, you got the deal of the century on it. I can't believe that price.

I got an email from Jerry, and he said he could cut it down to a perfect stone about 6.9 by around 9 or 10. I really don't want to do that, then it would be an ordinary ruby, like all the rest out there. The size makes it remarkable, and the lack of cut is starting to grow on me. It's an antique, at least 100 years old, maybe more, I feel like I should respect that.

Jerry also said he could just try to keep the size and adjust the angles a bit, but frankly, I'm becoming more afraid to mess with it.

Untreated, Burmese rubies of that size are too costly per carat to cut down. I wouldn't bother, because the color speaks for itself. The stone isn't about sparkle, but color. It could also lose saturation if you cut it, so please don't.

What I would do is get an AGL origin report though.

 

[iLander]

Untreated, Burmese rubies of that size are too costly per carat to cut down. I wouldn't bother, because the color speaks for itself. The stone isn't about sparkle, but color. It could also lose saturation if you cut it, so please don't.

What I would do is get an AGL origin report though.

I will follow your advice exactly, TL.

I definitely won't cut it if you think it'll lose saturation! That's it's best feature!

An origin report will cost me an arm and a leg on a stone this size, but if it's good, it'll be worth it. I will do that too.

 

[iLander]

@ Deb; I love the look of those, thank you! I especially love the 3 in the milgrain surround, that seems lovely. I would totally do yellow gold.You're very nice to help!

@ Chrono; You used my magic word "classic".

Once I see a thread like this, iLander, it is very hard to keep me out of it. I miss a lot of threads, but if I ever get hooked on one about a great red spinel or a ruby I am usually there for the duration. Only real cruelty to me will drive me out of the thread and that type of cruelty usually gets the thread closed by the moderator!!! It is a great pleasure to me to be able to be here and to participate in this thread. I love living vicariously through you!

Hugs,
Deb

Good! I think we will go on an adventure together, Deb!

I messed around on the computer with marquise side stones, arranged in a little V-shaped cluster, and that totally didn't work. From a distance, it just looked like 3 round side stones! Wasn't even worth saving the file, but it was like this setting;

http://www.uniquesettings.com/products/show/4205

What do you think of this one? http://www.uniquesettings.com/products/show/3815

 

[chrono]

Do not put this under the wheel! The weight loss is too great and it might end up pink. I think the report will be worth it. That said, what would you do if it comes back with an inconclusive origin or heat treatment? Not saying it is, but will you love it any less?

 

[AGBF]

What do you think of this one? http://www.uniquesettings.com/products/show/3815

I think I would like it more with an oval than with the round it is shown with. The settings you found reminded me of some I saw when I was trying to set my spinel. I am trying to recall what I saw that was so graceful. I remember that there were some arrangements of sides stones using small marquise diamonds together that were lovely. I will see if I can find any photos. (But don't give up the idea of three small round stones in a triangle on each side. I think that would be fabulous!!!)

Deb

 

[AGBF]

When I was searching for the right setting, Tourmaline Lover and diamondseeker contributed these two photos for me to consider. TL had used the one she contributed, a Harry Winston setting, to set a mint garnet if I recall correctly. Both settings used marquise shaped diamonds. I seriously considered using one of these settings because I was very taken with them and thought they looked wonderful with an oval shape.

I still love the idea of a triangle of small rounds, though. Like you, iLander, I love classic settings. In the end I set my spinel with pear shaped diamond side stones, even though that is how I had already set my tanzanite. I keep going back to the classic. I am conservative about jewelry (except high karat gold, which is my only wild streak!).

Deb

 

[AGBF]

When I was searching for the right setting, Tourmaline Lover and diamondseeker contributed these two photos for me to consider. TL had used the one she contributed, a Harry Winston setting, to set a mint garnet if I recall correctly. Both settings used marquise shaped diamonds. I seriously considered using one of these settings because I was very taken with them and thought they looked wonderful with an oval shape.

Below is a photo of TL's beautiful mint garnet set in rose gold. Although she used small round stones to fill in the marquise shapes flanking her stone, she told me when she posted the photo that her design was based on the Harry Winston piece which used marquise shaped diamonds. It shows that one can adjust designs to one's taste! One might even add a tiny ruby, as Roberto Coin does, to a corner of the a triangle of diamonds. (Not that Roberto Coin does that, but he always hides a ruby in his diamond necklaces.)

AGBF

 

[iLander]

Deb,

I adore that Harry Winston setting! It's just a jaw dropper. Also I love TL's mint with rose gold it's just Diamondseeker's ring looks like an heirloom treasure.

Please give me the link to your spinel. I know I saw (and was very jealous) at the time, but I can't seem to find it now.

I was thinking to myself last night, "Am I overthinking this thing?" and I remember Blake Lively's fabulous ring. It's a big oval, on a simple diamond band. Graceful, and if I just do the front in a few diamonds, not too expensive. The ruby is not as big on my finger as her diamond is on hers, but it's almost the same idea.

What do you think?

 

[iLander]

Do not put this under the wheel! The weight loss is too great and it might end up pink. I think the report will be worth it. That said, what would you do if it comes back with an inconclusive origin or heat treatment? Not saying it is, but will you love it any less?

Pink?!! Eeeeee!

Nope, no wheel. I am not getting near it!

If it's not what it says it is, back it goes. Otherwise, I'd just feel disappointed everytime I looked at it. I guess my hopes are up.

Michael said he'll extend the refund time until after they produce the cert, absolutely no problem whatsoever.

 

[AGBF]

Deb,

I adore that Harry Winston setting! It's just a jaw dropper. Also I love TL's mint with rose gold it's just Diamondseeker's ring looks like an heirloom treasure.

Please give me the link to your spinel. I know I saw (and was very jealous) at the time, but I can't seem to find it now.

I was thinking to myself last night, "Am I overthinking this thing?" and I remember Blake Lively's fabulous ring. It's a big oval, on a simple diamond band. Graceful, and if I just do the front in a few diamonds, not too expensive. The ruby is not as big on my finger as her diamond is on hers, but it's almost the same idea.

What do you think?

I never saw Blake Lively's ring before. I absolutely think that you could set your ruby alone the way her diamond is set.... If it were mine, and I opted for that setting, I would do it the way you said you would and set it in a band set with diamonds to have some sparkle around it. Very small diamonds, but not necessarily pavé.

On the other hand, I do not think you are "overthinking" this, unless you are still spending sleepless nights! Your stone is wonderful and the stuff of which fantasies should be made!

By the way, I do not think that the photo diamondseeker posted was of a ring that she owns.

Hugs,
Deb

 

[LD]

iLander - you've seen this before but as you wanted to see it again - here you go! 3 princess cuts on each side.

I'm so glad you're keeping this and not committing a cardinal act of a recut! Good call.

 

[distracts]

Heh, I'd see if it could just be polished a bit into a cabochon and then set it that way. Or flip it upside-down like it's some kind of rose cut.

I personally would set it in some ridiculous Etruscan-inspired setting in 18k yellow.

 

[AGBF]

iLander - you've seen this before but as you wanted to see it again - here you go! 3 princess cuts on each side.

Gee, LD, according to the rules as I understand them (at least the rules iLander has set down for herself), with that ring you can go out to dinner all the time! I mean: FANCIER than a halo!!!! FABULOUS!!!

Deb/AGBF

 

[misskittycat]

I haloed my sapphire that was roughly the same dimensions as your ruby:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-sapphire-and-diamond-halo-right-hand-ring.188360/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-sapphire-and-diamond-halo-right-hand-ring.188360/[/URL]

If I were to do it again, or think about a reset, I would do something like this.



Or perhaps with a double itty bitty double diamond halo.



Classic yet really good presence.

 

[iLander]

I never saw Blake Lively's ring before. I absolutely think that you could set your ruby alone the way her diamond is set.... If it were mine, and I opted for that setting, I would do it the way you said you would and set it in a band set with diamonds to have some sparkle around it. Very small diamonds, but not necessarily pavé.

On the other hand, I do not think you are "overthinking" this, unless you are still spending sleepless nights! Your stone is wonderful and the stuff of which fantasies should be made!

By the way, I do not think that the photo diamondseeker posted was of a ring that she owns.

Hugs,
Deb

I agree, small but not tiny, diamonds. It will take some time to figure out the exact size.

 

[iLander]

iLander - you've seen this before but as you wanted to see it again - here you go! 3 princess cuts on each side.

I'm so glad you're keeping this and not committing a cardinal act of a recut! Good call.

WOW! Did I see this beauty before? I'm sure I did and it slipped out of my feeble old brain. That is stunning, LD! Do you love it? I would just stare at it every day . . .

That's also a very good idea, I would never have thought of 3 princess on each side!