Looking for advice on ruby ring

[Cerulean]

I think it is beautiful. BUT....

It seems like you have already answered your own question. If it isn't blowing you away now, I am not sure if it will change your heart over time.

You seem to not love it and are looking for reassurance. It isn't a good deal if you aren't getting what you want. In fact, it is an objectively large sum of money for something that isn't a dream-status piece IMO.

**EDIT - If you want clean, rich red and sparkly - I wonder if you might be happier with a spinel. With your budget you could get something out of this world with richness of color, but more sparkle.

A gem dealer described ruby qualities as being "thicker" and spinel being more "watery" - these are strange ways to describe differences in materials...but I actually found it helpful. Spinel has a much higher refractive index, and is therefore has much more sparkle/fire like diamonds! And just because silky rubies are coveted, doesn't mean you have to love them. Your gem will glow much more than it will sparkle.

 

[CircularBrilliant]

Nice rings! If I may add my two cents...

The color is pretty good and while it isn’t perfect, you will hardly find a better deal with this budget, even if the stone is heated.

Is it “as good as it gets”? No, you’d be looking at a completely different price range. In today’s market a fine, 2ct unheated Burmese ruby with AGL report and color 2.5-3/75, lightly/moderately included will easily retail at 30-35k+ per carat, if you can find one. Add 30-40% if you buy from a premium jewelry brand.

Say yours is a 4.0/80 and moderately (heavily? Hard to tell) included. That might be worth 10-12k per carat unheated. remove 30% for heat treatment. You get to 7-9k per carat or 14-18k for the ruby alone. My opinion: at 16k incl. ring and diamonds it’s a online retail price, but still a lot of money so you better love it before you buy it

have fun!

Thank you for your thoughts! And wow, that ring in your avatar is amazing!!

 

[VividRed]

Thank you for your thoughts! And wow, that ring in your avatar is amazing!!

Ah! That’s the Graff ruby, sadly not mine

 

[CircularBrilliant]

I don't regret it. I also learned more about color changing gems that many only look good in very specific circumstances versus loving them in most lights. The garnets allow me to enjoy the same science phenomenon at a nice price point. I haven't received the emerald ring yet. It is going back if I don't absolutely love it. It is 3 carats in platinum and hundreds less than 0.50 ct alexandrite in a stock 14K setting that I would need sized and looks lifeless except in special light.
I don't need an alexandrite for the purpose just to have one. I love wearing rings and I do actively admire them throughout the day. If I don't lovingly stare at that emerald all day, it goes back.
I would stare lovingly at your ruby ring, although I think the diamonds take away from it. I think you may have an unrealistic ideation for a ruby. Their charm is color and glow. Perfect lab rubies don't have personality in my opinion just like white diamonds do not either (probably unpopular opinion).

Thanks! I have been wondering if the diamonds add or detract, but they sparkle so nicely that I feel my eye drawn to the whole ring more than the lab piece. I do lean towards natural pieces personally, but I appreciate lab as well. I find it a marvel that they could produce lab rubies like mine so long ago!

 

[CircularBrilliant]

Ah! That’s the Graff ruby, sadly not mine

Maybe someday!

 

[Laurainthesky]

Thanks! I have been wondering if the diamonds add or detract, but they sparkle so nicely that I feel my eye drawn to the whole ring more than the lab piece. I do lean towards natural pieces personally, but I appreciate lab as well. I find it a marvel that they could produce lab rubies like mine so long ago!

I think the diamonds are too big in my humble opinion.

 

[CircularBrilliant]

I think it is beautiful. BUT....

It seems like you have already answered your own question. If it isn't blowing you away now, I am not sure if it will change your heart over time.

You seem to not love it and are looking for reassurance. It isn't a good deal if you aren't getting what you want. In fact, it is an objectively large sum of money for something that isn't a dream-status piece IMO.

**EDIT - If you want clean, rich red and sparkly - I wonder if you might be happier with a spinel. With your budget you could get something out of this world with richness of color, but more sparkle.

A gem dealer described ruby qualities as being "thicker" and spinel being more "watery" - these are strange ways to describe differences in materials...but I actually found it helpful. Spinel has a much higher refractive index, and is therefore has much more sparkle/fire like diamonds! And just because silky rubies are coveted, doesn't mean you have to love them. Your gem will glow much more than it will sparkle.

Thanks! I am open to spinel too, but it seems like the really beautiful glowy red ones are also incredibly expensive.

 

[Cerulean]

Thanks! I am open to spinel too, but it seems like the really beautiful glowy red ones are also incredibly expensive.

They aren't cheap, but they are definitely less expensive than rubies from what I have seen!

I really think you get a wonderful one for your budget and I am sure many PSers would be more than happy to help you shop

 

[peacechick]

I think this is a beautiful example of a well cut, sparkling ruby-like red spinel:
http://etsy.me/2GWt3yn

The seller used to be active here on PS back when I had newly joined and I had bought a couple of loose stones from her. This was before she joined the trade. She also has a 3 ct ruby at an eye-watering price.

 

[Mrs_Strizzle]

@CircularBrilliant There are deals out there on red spinels, especially pre-loved. I bought this one a few months ago at a tiny fraction of your budget. The setting isn't my taste, but the spinel takes my breath away (Although I wish it were 5 cts! ). She glows like a ruby, and is clean and sparkles. I will eventually set her like that ruby ring with diamond side stones.

 

[meely]

I didn’t want to say before and I hope I don’t cause offence but for me the lab ruby you already possess is a better color and larger size. I wonder if that is why you are hesitating? Perhaps if you didn’t already own the lab ruby you might have been more blown away by the genuine article.

 

[CircularBrilliant]

@CircularBrilliant There are deals out there on red spinels, especially pre-loved. I bought this one a few months ago at a tiny fraction of your budget. The setting isn't my taste, but the spinel takes my breath away (Although I wish it were 5 cts! ). She glows like a ruby, and is clean and sparkles. I will eventually set her like that ruby ring with diamond side stones.

That's beautiful!!

 

[CircularBrilliant]

I think this is a beautiful example of a well cut, sparkling ruby-like red spinel:
http://etsy.me/2GWt3yn

The seller used to be active here on PS back when I had newly joined and I had bought a couple of loose stones from her. This was before she joined the trade. She also has a 3 ct ruby at an eye-watering price.

Thanks! She has another large spinel too that looks very pretty!

 

[CircularBrilliant]

I didn’t want to say before and I hope I don’t cause offence but for me the lab ruby you already possess is a better color and larger size. I wonder if that is why you are hesitating? Perhaps if you didn’t already own the lab ruby you might have been more blown away by the genuine article.

Haha one of my best friends keeps saying the same thing. Whenever I send her pics of a new option, she reponds that she likes the lab the best, and doesn't understand why I am still looking for something else. It's a fair point, and the lab ruby is beautiful--I certainly could never afford a natural ruby like it. There's just part of me that feels like a natural stone is more special.

 

[Mrs_Strizzle]

Haha one of my best friends keeps saying the same thing. Whenever I send her pics of a new option, she reponds that she likes the lab the best, and doesn't understand why I am still looking for something else. It's a fair point, and the lab ruby is beautiful--I certainly could never afford a natural ruby like it. There's just part of me that feels like a natural stone is more special.

Yep. Your lab ruby is ruining it for your heart while your brain is torn about it being "mind clean".

 

[meely]

Haha one of my best friends keeps saying the same thing. Whenever I send her pics of a new option, she reponds that she likes the lab the best, and doesn't understand why I am still looking for something else. It's a fair point, and the lab ruby is beautiful--I certainly could never afford a natural ruby like it. There's just part of me that feels like a natural stone is more special.

Oh I totally agree, I would love a natural ruby too. I think you will need something that looks better than your lab stone for it to ‘work’ for you.

 

[JewelledEscalators]

Thanks, voce! I think strangely enough my hesitation is actually being caused by my lab piece. Having already found a pretty perfect lab piece for a tiny fraction of the cost makes me wonder if this is really how I want to spend so much money. On the other hand, I do feel like natural rubies are different kind of special, and this one is really beautiful.

I was about to say the same. You started off with a perfect lab ruby with no inclusions and now you have a natural one, the inclusions and the 'cloudiness' jumps out at you, and you're thinking that despite it costing so much more, it doesn't look better.

I'm the opposite. I started off with a natural ruby (2.6 carats), I love it but would also love a bigger stone - like 3 to 5 carats. The odds of me being able to afford a nice bright red ruby of 3 carats let alone 5 anytime soon is somewhat slim, so I have considered getting a lab stone, but virtually every single one I see feels 'too perfect' and fake to me, and not at all like a ruby. I keep looking for a 'natural' looking lab ruby but so far, I haven't seen many, though here is one example.

Flawed lab Ruby: Oval Flawed lab Ruby

Loose Flawed lab RubyOval Flawed lab Ruby for sale from the UK with no minimum order, high quality diamond simulants for gold jewellery.

www.diamondcz.co.uk

As others have said, perhaps a ruby is not for you, and a red spinel, with its sparkle, might be the one that hits the sweet spot.

 

[VividRed]

Maybe someday!

It was sold at auction for 1m US$ per carat, and it weighs about 8 carats

If I win the lottery, maybe!

 

[CircularBrilliant]

Yep. Your lab ruby is ruining it for your heart while your brain is torn about it being "mind clean".

Oh I totally agree, I would love a natural ruby too. I think you will need something that looks better than your lab stone for it to ‘work’ for you.

Ugh yup, the lab set the bar really high. I suppose I don't need a natural ruby right *now*, so there's good price or not, there's no reason to keep something I am not sure about it.

 

[CircularBrilliant]

I was about to say the same. You started off with a perfect lab ruby with no inclusions and now you have a natural one, the inclusions and the 'cloudiness' jumps out at you, and you're thinking that despite it costing so much more, it doesn't look better.

I'm the opposite. I started off with a natural ruby (2.6 carats), I love it but would also love a bigger stone - like 3 to 5 carats. The odds of me being able to afford a nice bright red ruby of 3 carats let alone 5 anytime soon is somewhat slim, so I have considered getting a lab stone, but virtually every single one I see feels 'too perfect' and fake to me, and not at all like a ruby. I keep looking for a 'natural' looking lab ruby but so far, I haven't seen many, though here is one example.

Flawed lab Ruby: Oval Flawed lab Ruby

Loose Flawed lab RubyOval Flawed lab Ruby for sale from the UK with no minimum order, high quality diamond simulants for gold jewellery.

www.diamondcz.co.uk

As others have said, perhaps a ruby is not for you, and a red spinel, with its sparkle, might be the one that hits the sweet spot.

I am definitely going to explore my options with spinel if this goes back (which is the direction I am leaning now). Good luck in your hunt for a lab ruby with the look you want! If you wind up finding it, please share lots of pictures

 

[Bluemuse]

I personally love the ruby and diamond ring that you’re trying to decide on. The stone to my eyes is beautiful—rich, glowy and a really lovely shade of berry red.
It has inclusions, yes, but nothing marring. If I were looking for a ruby, it’s one that would definitely draw me in.
The side stones are impressive and really highlight the deep color of the main stone. I also think it is a beautifully balanced design and looks lovely on your hand.
As others have said, only you can decide if this is the best, right choice for you.

 

[voce]

Nice rings! If I may add my two cents...

The color is pretty good and while it isn’t perfect, you will hardly find a better deal with this budget, even if the stone is heated.

Is it “as good as it gets”? No, you’d be looking at a completely different price range. In today’s market a fine, 2ct unheated Burmese ruby with AGL report and color 2.5-3/75, lightly/moderately included will easily retail at 30-35k+ per carat, if you can find one. Add 30-40% if you buy from a premium jewelry brand.

Say yours is a 4.0/80 and moderately (heavily? Hard to tell) included. That might be worth 10-12k per carat unheated. remove 30% for heat treatment. You get to 7-9k per carat or 14-18k for the ruby alone. My opinion: at 16k incl. ring and diamonds it’s a online retail price, but still a lot of money so you better love it before you buy it

have fun!

Are you kidding? Imo it's more like 50% for heat treatment, and the color is more like 3.5/80 than a 4/80.

Color is king, and I think you may be undervaluing it because the pictures shared with us are not under ideal lighting environments. It holds its own next to a lab ruby, which is worth noting.

 

[voce]

I think it is beautiful. BUT....

It seems like you have already answered your own question. If it isn't blowing you away now, I am not sure if it will change your heart over time.

You seem to not love it and are looking for reassurance. It isn't a good deal if you aren't getting what you want. In fact, it is an objectively large sum of money for something that isn't a dream-status piece IMO.

**EDIT - If you want clean, rich red and sparkly - I wonder if you might be happier with a spinel. With your budget you could get something out of this world with richness of color, but more sparkle.

A gem dealer described ruby qualities as being "thicker" and spinel being more "watery" - these are strange ways to describe differences in materials...but I actually found it helpful. Spinel has a much higher refractive index, and is therefore has much more sparkle/fire like diamonds! And just because silky rubies are coveted, doesn't mean you have to love them. Your gem will glow much more than it will sparkle.

While I can agree with most of what you said, you are WRONG WRONG WRONG about spinels having a higher refractive index than sapphires.

Table of Refractive Indices and Double Refraction of Selected Gems - IGS

Refractive indices and double refraction (birefringence) help gemologists identify gems. The following table lists these values for selected gemstones.

www.gemsociety.org

Check that link or GIA for proof. Spinel refractive index is 1.712-1.762. Ruby and sapphire refractive index is 1.762-1.778. They could be the same, but based on those values I don't see how you can make the claim of how refractive index for spinel is higher.

Sparkliness is the result of a myriad factors, not just the refractive index. The crystal structure (and therefore type and the range of inclusions you are likely to find on that particular crystal) has more to do directly with sparkliness than the refractive index, even though refractive index may have a lesser role to play in the sparkliness; for example, I have a VERY sparkly Russian emerald even though emeralds are generally lower, when it comes to refractive index. The sparkliness on that stone, both had to do with the CLEAN CRYSTAL and the PORTUGUESE CUT. After all, with an emerald cut even diamonds don't sparkle, but flash.

 

[Cerulean]

While I can agree with most of what you said, you are WRONG WRONG WRONG about spinels having a higher refractive index than sapphires.

Table of Refractive Indices and Double Refraction of Selected Gems - IGS

Refractive indices and double refraction (birefringence) help gemologists identify gems. The following table lists these values for selected gemstones.

www.gemsociety.org

Check that link or GIA for proof. Spinel refractive index is 1.712-1.762. Ruby and sapphire refractive index is 1.762-1.778. They could be the same, but based on those values I don't see how you can make the claim of how refractive index for spinel is higher.

Sparkliness is the result of a myriad factors, not just the refractive index. The crystal structure (and therefore type and the range of inclusions you are likely to find on that particular crystal) has more to do directly with sparkliness than the refractive index, even though refractive index may have a lesser role to play in the sparkliness; for example, I have a VERY sparkly Russian emerald even though emeralds are generally lower, when it comes to refractive index. The sparkliness on that stone, both had to do with the CLEAN CRYSTAL and the PORTUGUESE CUT. After all, with an emerald cut even diamonds don't sparkle, but flash.

Oh weird, I had no idea (obviously). I must've read the wrong information somewhere or flipped it...thanks for correcting me!

Rereading - I am seeing that spinel has singular refraction - which I thought meant more light dispersion (similar to diamonds / garnets) and meant that full spectral array can be reflected in a spinel, but not a ruby - hence the comment about fire.

It is entirely possible that I am still misunderstanding...I have only studied perception of color within the context of digital interfaces

 

[Cerulean]

While I can agree with most of what you said, you are WRONG WRONG WRONG about spinels having a higher refractive index than sapphires.

Table of Refractive Indices and Double Refraction of Selected Gems - IGS

Refractive indices and double refraction (birefringence) help gemologists identify gems. The following table lists these values for selected gemstones.

www.gemsociety.org

Check that link or GIA for proof. Spinel refractive index is 1.712-1.762. Ruby and sapphire refractive index is 1.762-1.778. They could be the same, but based on those values I don't see how you can make the claim of how refractive index for spinel is higher.

Sparkliness is the result of a myriad factors, not just the refractive index. The crystal structure (and therefore type and the range of inclusions you are likely to find on that particular crystal) has more to do directly with sparkliness than the refractive index, even though refractive index may have a lesser role to play in the sparkliness; for example, I have a VERY sparkly Russian emerald even though emeralds are generally lower, when it comes to refractive index. The sparkliness on that stone, both had to do with the CLEAN CRYSTAL and the PORTUGUESE CUT. After all, with an emerald cut even diamonds don't sparkle, but flash.

Oh yes and of course "cleanness" and cut make or break the sparkle / performance of a stone.

I guess I also didn't think sparkle was a technical term...(again, still learning) - I would have imagine that emerald cut diamonds still "sparkle" at least from my vantage point, just scintillating in slower/ broader sparks / vs lots of small sparks

 

[voce]

Oh weird, I had no idea (obviously). I must've read the wrong information somewhere or flipped it...thanks for correcting me!

Rereading - I am seeing that spinel has singular refraction - which means more light dispersion (similar to diamonds / garnets). It also means that full spectral array can be reflected in a spinel, but not a ruby - hence the comment about fire.

It is entirely possible that I am still misunderstanding...I have only studied perception of color within the context of digital interfaces

I've made the same assumption before regarding sapphire and spinel refractive index, only to realize myself that I was wrong. With what you're saying with regard to singly or double refractive, it's still only a small piece of the bigger picture.

Table of Refractive Indices and Double Refraction of Selected Gems - IGS

Refractive indices and double refraction (birefringence) help gemologists identify gems. The following table lists these values for selected gemstones.

www.gemsociety.org

For example, while what you are summarizing can explain why diamonds and spinels are sparkly (fire), it is still inadequate to explain why a doubly refractive gem like sphene has fire and is a sparkle-bomb more so than spinel, nor why certain species of garnets like almandine look dull, not sparkly.

You are trying to flatten a multi-dimensional problem, oversimplifying what is actually complex. My advice: stop doing it. Not everything in the world has a simple (and accurate/correct) explanation. Human minds like to think in terms of allegories and linearity, but human minds are wrong more often than humans realize.

 

[Cerulean]

I've made the same assumption before regarding sapphire and spinel refractive index. With what you're saying with regard to singly or double refractive, it's still only a small piece of the bigger picture.

Table of Refractive Indices and Double Refraction of Selected Gems - IGS

Refractive indices and double refraction (birefringence) help gemologists identify gems. The following table lists these values for selected gemstones.

www.gemsociety.org

For example, while what you are summarizing can explain why diamonds and spinels are sparkly (fire), it is still inadequate to explain why a doubly refractive gem like sphene has fire and is a sparkle-bomb more so than spinel, not why certain species of garnets like almandine look dull, not sparkly.

You are trying to flatten a multi-dimensional problem, oversimplifying what is actually complex. My advice: stop doing it. Not everything in the world has a simple explanation. Human minds like to think in terms of allegories and linearity, but human minds are wrong more often than humans realize.

Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. Sphene is a very helpful example.

And don't worry...I am not beholden to a myopic, grossly oversimplified view of the world. I am merely stumbling through information where I lack depth of knowledge and am coming across hodgepodge accountings of this topic that are clearly too reductive. I usually steer clear of the most technical conversations in Rocky Talky for this very reason - as conversations go over my head faster than I can say "Oooh purdy!"

But - I am extremely grateful that this forum full of knowledgeable folks exists so I can learn (albeit slowly) and am prevented from misguiding others with inaccurate information!

...I am tempted to debate the power and necessity of allegory, analogy and metaphor as an aide in human understanding (but wholeheartedly agree that "fact-keeping" is NOT our forte as a species) but I will save that for another time so I no longer continue to threadjack.

 

[Bron357]

With rubies, if unheated, they tend to have more rutile (why they are heated in the first place) so I think that adds to the “glow” but reduces the sparkle.
My experience with my wee ruby is that in sunlight its glow overwhelms any sparkle it might produce. (The ring was sold to me as ruby but you might argue it’s more a red purple sapphire).
the strong fluorescence is quite intriguing, even in the lowest light you can still get glow.

 

[CircularBrilliant]

@voce @Cerulean @Bron357 I appreciate the discussion! I learn so much from PS.

 

[VividRed]

Are you kidding? Imo it's more like 50% for heat treatment, and the color is more like 3.5/80 than a 4/80.

Color is king, and I think you may be undervaluing it because the pictures shared with us are not under ideal lighting environments. It holds its own next to a lab ruby, which is worth noting.

Hi Voce,

I suppose pricing will depend on the vendor and the market you’re in. I have seen 30-35% discount to unheated for low heat only (no flux, no fillers), you may know otherwise.

On color I said 4 because while it probably is a 3.5 in terms of spectral purity (but who knows without equipment), the overall appeal is affected by the inclusions and I think AGL factors that in to some extent in the color grade. I might be wrong though.
Regardless, 4 is a very good score so I didn’t mean to diminish its beauty.