Help! Ideas for setting first purchase..

[Pandora II]

Date: 8/18/2008 8:14:42 AM
Author: arjunajane

Pandora - please help!
Are you able to tell me what stones can I safely use for a RHR - not everyday wear, but I want to be able to set it without compromising design too much, kwim?
I thought the topaz was a good choice at hardness 8, but didn't realize about the cleavage.

I really like mint and malaia garnet, but they are out of what I'd like to spend.
I like the rhodolite garnets in J. Whites gallery..I like the dark pink and lavender spinel, also on JW site.
I also like his blue tourmaline, and aquamarine.

I have tried looking at the MOHS scale etc, but feel like I'm not going anywhere, lol!

Out of these options, in a cushion shape, which would be safe/safest choices..? Will any of them be ok to claw set, or will I need to halo/bezel set them?
I understand sapphires and rubies are probably the best choice for rings, but they are not in my budget, and to be honest I prefer other colours more..

The snowflake cut was going to be ~$450, so lets say this is the budget.
However, if I could get a malaia garnet in 7mm or more and had to spend a bit more, I'd go that way for sure...

I'm sorry, I know you helped alot in my last thread, I probably seem all over the place!

Thanks in advance sweet!

In a RHR, I would advise you stick to garnets, tourmalines, sapphires, topaz, spinel, beryl and zircons if you are very careful and prepared for possible chips.

It does depend on the cut you are after and how you want to set it. The snowflake cut is really a pendant cut not a ring cut as it's far too fragile. I think topaz is fine if you have a more rounded shape - cushions, ovals, rounds, trillions etc

I claw-set a sphene and it was fine. Wink did advise me not to have claw prongs (a la Leon Mege) because it would involve more work around the stone which wasn't a good idea.

Personally I'm not a huge bezel fan with the softer stones and especially those with good cleavage. It's a safer setting for wearing, but not for the setting process!

Coloured stones are complicated!

On the clarity issue, coloured stones are divided into Type I, Type II and Type III. The grades then apply within the type. Some stones are naturally more included than others, so you need a grading system that will differentiate more accurately. For example:

Emeralds tend to be very included, and so fall into Type III.
Aquamarines (another form of beryl - emerald is also beryl) tend to be very clean and so fall into Type I.

This enables you to quantify clarity amongst stones of a similar type. Almost all Emeralds would be I3 on a Type I scale, but on the Type III scale you can assign a grade according to how included any particular Emerald is.

I hope this all makes sense!

Just to make things worse, some inclusions are desirable: a horsetail inclusion in demantoid garnet will increase the value of the stone as it points to a Russian origin and also helps ID the stone. With Malaia/Malaya garnets, small dark carbon-like inclusions are desirable as they are also ID features. However, whilst you want these inclusions, you also want them in ways that don't compromise the integrity or beauty of the stone.


When I'm buying a stone, I take each one individually as far as inclusions are concerned. Personally I like eye-clean unless they are interesting inclusions. I do not like loupe-clean. I'm always suspicious and I like to be able to ID my stones quickly - plus it gives them some personality.

If you are setting a stone I would choose eyeclean and with no inclusions that will compromise the stone's integrity. Any dealer should be able to advise on this.

 

[MonkeyPie]

Date: 8/18/2008 10:11:54 AM
Author: Pandora II

In a RHR, I would advise you stick to garnets, tourmalines, sapphires, topaz, spinel, beryl and zircons if you are very careful and prepared for possible chips.

It does depend on the cut you are after and how you want to set it. The snowflake cut is really a pendant cut not a ring cut as it''s far too fragile. I think topaz is fine if you have a more rounded shape - cushions, ovals, rounds, trillions etc

I claw-set a sphene and it was fine. Wink did advise me not to have claw prongs (a la Leon Mege) because it would involve more work around the stone which wasn''t a good idea.

Personally I''m not a huge bezel fan with the softer stones and especially those with good cleavage. It''s a safer setting for wearing, but not for the setting process!

Coloured stones are complicated!

Well this is a very fascinating thread! I love all this information.

I gotta ask then - would claw prongs be a bad idea for my spinel?

I really want them. I thought I couldn''t have a bezel setting since spinel is softer...bah!

arjunajane, you''re helping all of us get edjucated

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 8/18/2008 10:22:07 AM
Author: MonkeyPie

Date: 8/18/2008 10:11:54 AM
Author: Pandora II

In a RHR, I would advise you stick to garnets, tourmalines, sapphires, topaz, spinel, beryl and zircons if you are very careful and prepared for possible chips.

It does depend on the cut you are after and how you want to set it. The snowflake cut is really a pendant cut not a ring cut as it''s far too fragile. I think topaz is fine if you have a more rounded shape - cushions, ovals, rounds, trillions etc

I claw-set a sphene and it was fine. Wink did advise me not to have claw prongs (a la Leon Mege) because it would involve more work around the stone which wasn''t a good idea.

Personally I''m not a huge bezel fan with the softer stones and especially those with good cleavage. It''s a safer setting for wearing, but not for the setting process!

Coloured stones are complicated!

Well this is a very fascinating thread! I love all this information.

I gotta ask then - would claw prongs be a bad idea for my spinel?

I really want them. I thought I couldn''t have a bezel setting since spinel is softer...bah!

arjunajane, you''re helping all of us get edjucated

Absolutely you can have claw prongs. Sphene is a 5 on the Mohs and is really only a collectors stone. Spinel is far, far stronger and harder and has no cleavage so you can relax on that one - Harriet has claws on hers.

You could even bezel it and it would probably be fine as well. I''m a coward and super cautious.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/18/2008 10:11:54 AM
Author: Pandora II


In a RHR, I would advise you stick to garnets, tourmalines, sapphires, topaz, spinel, beryl and zircons if you are very careful and prepared for possible chips.

It does depend on the cut you are after and how you want to set it. The snowflake cut is really a pendant cut not a ring cut as it''s far too fragile. I think topaz is fine if you have a more rounded shape - cushions, ovals, rounds, trillions etc

I claw-set a sphene and it was fine. Wink did advise me not to have claw prongs (a la Leon Mege) because it would involve more work around the stone which wasn''t a good idea.

Personally I''m not a huge bezel fan with the softer stones and especially those with good cleavage. It''s a safer setting for wearing, but not for the setting process!

Coloured stones are complicated!

On the clarity issue, coloured stones are divided into Type I, Type II and Type III. The grades then apply within the type. Some stones are naturally more included than others, so you need a grading system that will differentiate more accurately. For example:

Emeralds tend to be very included, and so fall into Type III.
Aquamarines (another form of beryl - emerald is also beryl) tend to be very clean and so fall into Type I.

This enables you to quantify clarity amongst stones of a similar type. Almost all Emeralds would be I3 on a Type I scale, but on the Type III scale you can assign a grade according to how included any particular Emerald is.

I hope this all makes sense!

Just to make things worse, some inclusions are desirable: a horsetail inclusion in demantoid garnet will increase the value of the stone as it points to a Russian origin and also helps ID the stone. With Malaia/Malaya garnets, small dark carbon-like inclusions are desirable as they are also ID features. However, whilst you want these inclusions, you also want them in ways that don''t compromise the integrity or beauty of the stone.


When I''m buying a stone, I take each one individually as far as inclusions are concerned. Personally I like eye-clean unless they are interesting inclusions. I do not like loupe-clean. I''m always suspicious and I like to be able to ID my stones quickly - plus it gives them some personality.

If you are setting a stone I would choose eyeclean and with no inclusions that will compromise the stone''s integrity. Any dealer should be able to advise on this.

They sure are!!!

This absolutely makes more sense, thankyou so much for explaining further and taking the time.
I don''t know what else to say, you truely are a sweetheart

I agree with you that the snowflake is more of a pendant thing - I just wanted to have my cake and eat it too, lol

I have put in a request for some quotes from Jeff White, I''m loving his cushion cuts.
So, if I still want to use claw prongs, I''m going to guess I would be better off requesting a cushion with rounded corners, such as the pic below? (which just happens to be my dream rock, lol)..

And out of the ones you have mentioned, lets say I want a rich pink colour - as far as durability, would any be "better" than the other - say out of a Rhodolite garnet, pink spinel, or pink tourmaline..?

Does that question make sense?

 

[MonkeyPie]

Date: 8/18/2008 10:28:45 AM
Author: Pandora II

Date: 8/18/2008 10:22:07 AM
Author: MonkeyPie

Well this is a very fascinating thread! I love all this information.

I gotta ask then - would claw prongs be a bad idea for my spinel?

I really want them. I thought I couldn''t have a bezel setting since spinel is softer...bah!
arjunajane, you''re helping all of us get edjucated

Absolutely you can have claw prongs. Sphene is a 5 on the Mohs and is really only a collectors stone. Spinel is far, far stronger and harder and has no cleavage so you can relax on that one - Harriet has claws on hers.

You could even bezel it and it would probably be fine as well. I''m a coward and super cautious.

Thanks Pandora! I was starting to get worried heh. I''ll have to look up Harriets spinel, too.

Since we are on the hardness bit - is there a reference page somewhere that lists the gem types and their hardness ratings?

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/18/2008 10:22:07 AM
Author: MonkeyPie

Well this is a very fascinating thread! I love all this information.

I gotta ask then - would claw prongs be a bad idea for my spinel?

I really want them. I thought I couldn''t have a bezel setting since spinel is softer...bah!

arjunajane, you''re helping all of us get edjucated

No worries MP, someone''s gotta ask the questions and look silly, lol!

 

[Pandora II]

I''d go for the spinel - I think it will be more what you are looking for.

I''d also pick the garnet over the tourmaline.

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 8/18/2008 10:49:05 AM
Author: MonkeyPie

Date: 8/18/2008 10:28:45 AM
Author: Pandora II

Date: 8/18/2008 10:22:07 AM
Author: MonkeyPie

Well this is a very fascinating thread! I love all this information.

I gotta ask then - would claw prongs be a bad idea for my spinel?

I really want them. I thought I couldn''t have a bezel setting since spinel is softer...bah!
arjunajane, you''re helping all of us get edjucated

Absolutely you can have claw prongs. Sphene is a 5 on the Mohs and is really only a collectors stone. Spinel is far, far stronger and harder and has no cleavage so you can relax on that one - Harriet has claws on hers.

You could even bezel it and it would probably be fine as well. I''m a coward and super cautious.

Thanks Pandora! I was starting to get worried heh. I''ll have to look up Harriets spinel, too.

Since we are on the hardness bit - is there a reference page somewhere that lists the gem types and their hardness ratings?

There isn''t one, but I suppose I could draw one up and include all the extras like cleavage problems, setting problems and clarity types. Will take me a bit of time to do and I''ll need to get it checked by a couple of people.

Might be a good sticky....

 

[MonkeyPie]

Date: 8/18/2008 11:07:21 AM
Author: Pandora II

Date: 8/18/2008 10:49:05 AM
Author: MonkeyPie

Thanks Pandora! I was starting to get worried heh. I''ll have to look up Harriets spinel, too.

Since we are on the hardness bit - is there a reference page somewhere that lists the gem types and their hardness ratings?

There isn''t one, but I suppose I could draw one up and include all the extras like cleavage problems, setting problems and clarity types. Will take me a bit of time to do and I''ll need to get it checked by a couple of people.

Might be a good sticky....

If you have the time/inclination I know I would certainly bookmark it!

 

[ma re]

Date: 8/18/2008 9:29:55 AM
Author: arjunajane

Date: 8/18/2008 8:36:07 AM
Author: ma re




Here''s the full link to the picture (maybe you can open it now):
http://www.hisnhersfinestjewellery.com/images/originals/37-MR%20a.jpg

If you''re asking about clarity grades of colored stones - there aren''t any, cause those are not diamonds. And with diamonds, I can''t say anything about particular grades (although VVS and even SI should be completely fine), but stick to something like ''if the stone (be it diamond or anything else) has so much inclusions that it looks fuzzy, muddy or has an obviously affected clarity (visually) it''s best not to set it in a ring unless bezel set'' - just to be safe.

ummm..ok

I was referring to your previous post about inclusions affecting the wearability of coloured stones.

Now I''m more confused, as every coloured stone vendor offers clarity grades for their stones eg. http://www.whitesgems.com/gems/CHL001.htm click on ''what does this mean'' and a clarity grade table comes up, which to me looks the same as for diamonds..? This is just one example of many.
eg. http://www.customgemstones.com/GARNET/Garnet.htm every stone has a clarity grade/description.
I''m sorry, but have I misunderstood your statement?

I have purchased a number of diamonds and am comfortable with my understanding of the 4 c''s there (including clarity)

, so I''m only referring to coloured stones in this thread.

ETA: oh, and thanks for fixing the link. This is what I thought you were describing

We misunderstood eachother a bit here

and I probably chose some wrong words in my reply

I meant to say that there''s no universal clarity system for colored gems as there is for diamonds, where you could apply the same set of letters for every colored stone to describe the same grade. But there are ways to figure out a clarity of each stone as Pandora II described in detail.

About other stones you mention here, I hope you understand that they all visually behave diferently, for various reasons, and that there are color variations among similar stones. Therefore, each will result in a diferent visual effect, due to the level of brilliance (spinel and rhodolite would be sparklier than tourmaline) and the shade of color - it''s also easier to find a vibrant pink tourmaline, than a spinel fo the same color. Prices also vary (rhodolite being the least expensive, spinel the most), as do stone sizes (it''s easier to find larger garnets and tourmalines than spinels). But they''re all quite durable stones, so it comes down to preference.

Anyway, hope you make good decisions for all your projects

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/18/2008 11:34:10 AM
Author: ma re

Date: 8/18/2008 9:29:55 AM
Author: arjunajane

Date: 8/18/2008 8:36:07 AM
Author: ma re





Here''s the full link to the picture (maybe you can open it now):
http://www.hisnhersfinestjewellery.com/images/originals/37-MR%20a.jpg

If you''re asking about clarity grades of colored stones - there aren''t any, cause those are not diamonds. And with diamonds, I can''t say anything about particular grades (although VVS and even SI should be completely fine), but stick to something like ''if the stone (be it diamond or anything else) has so much inclusions that it looks fuzzy, muddy or has an obviously affected clarity (visually) it''s best not to set it in a ring unless bezel set'' - just to be safe.

ummm..ok

I was referring to your previous post about inclusions affecting the wearability of coloured stones.

Now I''m more confused, as every coloured stone vendor offers clarity grades for their stones eg. http://www.whitesgems.com/gems/CHL001.htm click on ''what does this mean'' and a clarity grade table comes up, which to me looks the same as for diamonds..? This is just one example of many.
eg. http://www.customgemstones.com/GARNET/Garnet.htm every stone has a clarity grade/description.
I''m sorry, but have I misunderstood your statement?

I have purchased a number of diamonds and am comfortable with my understanding of the 4 c''s there (including clarity)

, so I''m only referring to coloured stones in this thread.

ETA: oh, and thanks for fixing the link. This is what I thought you were describing

We misunderstood eachother a bit here

and I probably chose some wrong words in my reply

I meant to say that there''s no universal clarity system for colored gems as there is for diamonds, where you could apply the same set of letters for every colored stone to describe the same grade. But there are ways to figure out a clarity of each stone as Pandora II described in detail.

About other stones you mention here, I hope you understand that they all visually behave diferently, for various reasons, and that there are color variations among similar stones. Therefore, each will result in a diferent visual effect, due to the level of brilliance (spinel and rhodolite would be sparklier than tourmaline) and the shade of color - it''s also easier to find a vibrant pink tourmaline, than a spinel fo the same color. Prices also vary (rhodolite being the least expensive, spinel the most), as do stone sizes (it''s easier to find larger garnets and tourmalines than spinels). But they''re all quite durable stones, so it comes down to preference.

Anyway, hope you make good decisions for all your projects

I think we did, sorry I didn''t understand!

Cheers for the further info on rhodolite vs spinel vs tourmaline, that really is helpful.

Sorry we didn''t "get" each other earlier, I appreciate all the advice you have offered

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/18/2008 11:20:09 AM
Author: MonkeyPie

Date: 8/18/2008 11:07:21 AM
Author: Pandora II

Date: 8/18/2008 10:49:05 AM
Author: MonkeyPie

Thanks Pandora! I was starting to get worried heh. I''ll have to look up Harriets spinel, too.

Since we are on the hardness bit - is there a reference page somewhere that lists the gem types and their hardness ratings?

There isn''t one, but I suppose I could draw one up and include all the extras like cleavage problems, setting problems and clarity types. Will take me a bit of time to do and I''ll need to get it checked by a couple of people.

Might be a good sticky....

If you have the time/inclination I know I would certainly bookmark it!

Pandora, if you have the time I think would be a wonderful asset.
I think it would help so many people, and save you guys alot of repetiton!

You could submit to Andrey to have it as a journal even..