Made first ever stone purchase. Grey spinel. Need help!

[chrono]

Personally, I consider the Finewater spinel to be of decent cut. My definition of precision cutting is what Gene and Barry does on a regular basis, also in line with this:
http://www.osirisgems.com/precision_cutting

I think the cut difference between the two is obvious. I do not consider a pavilion tweaking precision cutting. It is much more than that in my book. He saved weight by keeping the original step cut pavilion.

 

[chrono]

If you've seen Jean-Noel Soni's stones, they typically have very little symmetry at all....but I absolutely consider him to be a precision cutter, in fact, one of the best out there. Jerry Newman recut my Mahenge spinel, but only the pavilion, the crown was untouched. I consider it to be precision cut. So, where is that line?

I see perfect facet symmetry in the Jean-Noel Soni stone you posted. That is precision cut in my book.

 

[chrono]

I am making assumptions here but I think the OP wants a diamond alternative, colourless and dispersive but also with minimal to no tilt window, which she has described as too light or see though.

That's not what it sounds like to me. It sounds to me like she's not looking for colorless at all, and WANTS the gray body color. I'm guessing a light-medium to medium gray, since she has mentioned above being concerned about some of the pictures of the Julia stone being "too light".

Possibly, but I think the big chunky faceting of the spinel coupled with the light tone that allows skin colour to show through is giving her doubts.

 

[T L]

If you've seen Jean-Noel Soni's stones, they typically have very little symmetry at all....but I absolutely consider him to be a precision cutter, in fact, one of the best out there. Jerry Newman recut my Mahenge spinel, but only the pavilion, the crown was untouched. I consider it to be precision cut. So, where is that line?

I see perfect facet symmetry in the Jean-Noel Soni stone you posted. That is precision cut in my book.

If people are paying a premium for precision faceting then it should be the whole stone in my opinion.

Facet meets must be perfect as well, and so must polish. If a stone is undergoing a partial recut, then that's not always going to be the case. I think Uli wrote an excellent write up on precision faceting here.

http://www.osirisgems.com/precision_cutting

 

[FrekeChild]

Ok, so what I'm getting from the two of you is that stones must be cut perfectly, with perfect meet points, perfect symmetry and perfect polish for you to consider them to be "precision" cut?

 

[chrono]

Isn't that why it is called "precision" cut? If not, then it is a good or well cut non-precision cut stone to me. The stone doesn't need to be symmetrical in outline (the same way there is fancy shaped or fantasy cut precision stones) but it should have perfect meets, polish and the facet symmetry.

 

[T L]

Ok, so what I'm getting from the two of you is that stones must be cut perfectly, with perfect meet points, perfect symmetry and perfect polish for you to consider them to be "precision" cut?

Not necessarily symmetry if it's a fancy cut (think John Dyer), but perfect meet points, polish and it should have optimal light return (no windows) on the whole stone.

That is why lapidaries charge a large premium on their stones, and that's why I asked the OP in the beginning if JuliaB recut that from a native cut stone, or if its a full precision cut. For $695, I would want a full precision cut on a 2 carat grey spinel. I think the photo that Chrono showed of the two stones side by side is exemplary of what is a full precision cut, and what is not.

 

[FrekeChild]

Isn't that why it is called "precision" cut? If not, then it is a good or well cut non-precision cut stone to me. The stone doesn't need to be symmetrical in outline (the same way there is fancy shaped or fantasy cut precision stones) but it should have perfect meets, polish and the facet symmetry.

I don't think so, actually. There are precision cutters out there who don't cut perfect stones each and every single time. Does that mean there is a delineation between "good" and "great" and "perfect" cutting? Does the lack of a perfect stone every single time mean that the cutter isn't a precision cutter?

I've seen "precision cut" stones from "precision cutters" that aren't perfectly cut. So, what does that mean?

What about naturals on a girdle, such as on Kenny's green OEC diamond? Or an extra facet mixed in on an otherwise perfectly cut pavilion to get rid of a fault - perhaps an inclusion? That fault makes the stone "less" than perfect, but so does adding the extra facet.

To me, I think that precision cutting has more to do with the cutter using the best cutting tools they can, but more about the care taken to cut a stone. Sure, Jerry could have done a full recut on my spinel that he did a recut pavilion on (and he offered!), but that would have affected the color and the size of the stone, and in both of our opinions, that would have diminished the value AND the beauty of the stone. I don't consider a stone to be non-precision cut if it has a flaw or two, when care was taken to make sure that the stone was cut as best as it could be within the parameters of the stone. There was a gem that Doug Menahue cut recently, a freestyle honeycombed golden beryl, that had no cut diagram or symmetry, and was kind of domed like a rose cut, so certainly "windowed", but had perfect meet points and polish. Gorgeous, but does it follow the guidelines?

Perhaps I'm being too critical, but I think this is something important. We've certainly dissected "native cut" as terminology. Why not "precision cut" too? I think this is one giant gray line.

 

[T L]

Isn't that why it is called "precision" cut? If not, then it is a good or well cut non-precision cut stone to me. The stone doesn't need to be symmetrical in outline (the same way there is fancy shaped or fantasy cut precision stones) but it should have perfect meets, polish and the facet symmetry.

I don't think so, actually. There are precision cutters out there who don't cut perfect stones each and every single time. Does that mean there is a delineation between "good" and "great" and "perfect" cutting? Does the lack of a perfect stone every single time mean that the cutter isn't a precision cutter?

I've seen "precision cut" stones from "precision cutters" that aren't perfectly cut. So, what does that mean?

What about naturals on a girdle, such as on Kenny's green OEC diamond? Or an extra facet mixed in on an otherwise perfectly cut pavilion to get rid of a fault - perhaps an inclusion? That fault makes the stone "less" than perfect, but so does adding the extra facet.

To me, I think that precision cutting has more to do with the cutter using the best cutting tools they can, but more about the care taken to cut a stone. Sure, Jerry could have done a full recut on my spinel that he did a recut pavilion on (and he offered!), but that would have affected the color and the size of the stone, and in both of our opinions, that would have diminished the value AND the beauty of the stone. I don't consider a stone to be non-precision cut if it has a flaw or two, when care was taken to make sure that the stone was cut as best as it could be within the parameters of the stone. There was a gem that Doug Menahue cut recently, a freestyle honeycombed golden beryl, that had no cut diagram or symmetry, and was kind of domed like a rose cut, so certainly "windowed", but had perfect meet points and polish. Gorgeous, but does it follow the guidelines?

Perhaps I'm being too critical, but I think this is something important. We've certainly dissected "native cut" as terminology. Why not "precision cut" too? I think this is one giant gray line.

I've seen precision cuts that are not perfect, but the whole stone was attempted to be precision cut. For example, I have a cuprian that was recut, but the WHOLE stone was recut as a precision cut, so its a precision cut to me. If just part of the stone is precision cut, and say the crown or other significant parts are untouched, then I don't consider that a precision cut. There are of course lapidaries that are much better at their craft than others, and they charge a significant premium for their skills.

 

[chrono]

I've seen poorly cut precision cut stone that had huge tilt windows due to the poor design chosen (large table) in order to minimize the rough loss. But other than that, the meet points were precise, the polish great and the facet symmetry were spot on. So yes, just as there are bad, good and great non precision cut stones, there are also bad, good and great precision cut stones. Most coloured diamonds aren't precision cut either, in all honesty, due to the value of the material, so an extra facet or natural on the girdle is par for the course.

If your definition of precision cutting is the cutter using the best tools they can and with care, then if I have a jamb peg and do my very best, does that mean I am a precision faceter? When I look at the stone on the left below, my first thought is well cut non-precision stone. No one will question that the stone on the right below is precision faceted.

I know I am probably offending many lapidaries reading this, but if the stone on the lower left is considered precision cut, then would it fall under the bad to good precision cutting category?

 

[chrono]

I know I am probably offending many lapidaries reading this, but if the stone on the lower left is considered precision cut, then would it fall under the bad to good precision cutting category?

I was caught up with other things and the window to add more has closed so I am continuing my train of thought here. I certainly do not consider the stone on the lower left a bad to good precision cut at all. It is the design of cut that spells "non-precision" to me. It looks to retain much of the original cut, especially when compared to the stone on the right. I do not consider a pavilion tweaking of a non-precision cut stone to be a precision cut stone, unless it has a full recut (crown and pavilion).

 

[Amistica]

I am making assumptions here but I think the OP wants a diamond alternative, colourless and dispersive but also with minimal to no tilt window, which she has described as too light or see though.

That's not what it sounds like to me. It sounds to me like she's not looking for colorless at all, and WANTS the gray body color. I'm guessing a light-medium to medium gray, since she has mentioned above being concerned about some of the pictures of the Julia stone being "too light".

Possibly, but I think the big chunky faceting of the spinel coupled with the light tone that allows skin colour to show through is giving her doubts.

YES, yes, yes! This conversation, right here! This is what I am struggling with.

It is clear to me now, that I am misusing the word glassy, and do mean colorless. I want some color, not colorless. I DO want it to be a diamond alternative, but even if I was going for a diamond, I would not choose colorless, at all. I prefer warm diamonds. In the case of choosing a grey spinel, I am looking for a color that IS very light, that would look great with platinum or palladium. When looking at this posted color chart,

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/forum/files/grayscale__1_.jpg']https://www.pricescope.com/forum/files/grayscale__1_.jpg[/URL]

I would say that what I want would be like a "2" or "3". I am wondering if that would put me between the color of the stone on its way to me, and Freke's silver spinel. Love her silver, but I would want quite a bit lighter than that one.

Where do people think the stone falls? like a "0-1"?? And if so, how much more darker, in people's experience, would be putting a stone like that in a platinum or palladium setting be? Would it bump it an entire number?

 

[Amistica]

In the video, it does not look colorless, but this is then just because of the light hitting it only? So the true color, the one I would see indoors, would mainly be like the picture of it on her hand, with the skin tone showing through?

 

[T L]

Also when you say "diamond alternative," do you mean you want it to emulate how a diamond looks. If so, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. Very few stones emulate a true diamond look and they're all either too soft for jewelry, or lab created.

Why not just look at grey diamonds as well? Some can be affordable, much more so than white diamonds.

 

[OTL]

I do not get the beauty of grey spinel so I will save that part. But this spinel to me is definitely not precision cut. It's just a well cut not windowed native cut stone. I agree with TL that for the price tag you are paying, it should be a full precision cut. Grey spinel material isn't that rare, you can sometimes find nice cut grey spinel for much cheaper on ebay. But if it really sings to you then it's worth it to you. And that's what matters. As for recut, if the cutter touched only part of the stone, such as pavilion, which means the table is remained native cut. I do not consider that makes the whole stone precision cut.

 

[FrekeChild]

I am making assumptions here but I think the OP wants a diamond alternative, colourless and dispersive but also with minimal to no tilt window, which she has described as too light or see though.

That's not what it sounds like to me. It sounds to me like she's not looking for colorless at all, and WANTS the gray body color. I'm guessing a light-medium to medium gray, since she has mentioned above being concerned about some of the pictures of the Julia stone being "too light".

Possibly, but I think the big chunky faceting of the spinel coupled with the light tone that allows skin colour to show through is giving her doubts.

YES, yes, yes! This conversation, right here! This is what I am struggling with.

It is clear to me now, that I am misusing the word glassy, and do mean colorless. I want some color, not colorless. I DO want it to be a diamond alternative, but even if I was going for a diamond, I would not choose colorless, at all. I prefer warm diamonds. In the case of choosing a grey spinel, I am looking for a color that IS very light, that would look great with platinum or palladium. When looking at this posted color chart,

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/forum/files/grayscale__1_.jpg']https://www.pricescope.com/forum/files/grayscale__1_.jpg[/URL]

I would say that what I want would be like a "2" or "3". I am wondering if that would put me between the color of the stone on its way to me, and Freke's silver spinel. Love her silver, but I would want quite a bit lighter than that one.

Where do people think the stone falls? like a "0-1"?? And if so, how much more darker, in people's experience, would be putting a stone like that in a platinum or palladium setting be? Would it bump it an entire number?

Hmmmm.....I'm going to post a few colorless-gray stones. Tell us which you prefer.

It's impossible to tell from Julia's photographs where this stone falls in the color range. If I am completely honest, I find Julia's photographs very hard to read. The images in direct sunlight always black out the stone (and this is across the board with all of her images), and while fire is nice, it doesn't help discern the actual body color of the stone.

When is the stone slated to arrive?

As for settings increasing the darkness of a stone by enough to consider it on a scale of 1-10, it's not likely to bump it up an entire number.

 

[FrekeChild]

I've seen poorly cut precision cut stone that had huge tilt windows due to the poor design chosen (large table) in order to minimize the rough loss. But other than that, the meet points were precise, the polish great and the facet symmetry were spot on. So yes, just as there are bad, good and great non precision cut stones, there are also bad, good and great precision cut stones. Most coloured diamonds aren't precision cut either, in all honesty, due to the value of the material, so an extra facet or natural on the girdle is par for the course.

If your definition of precision cutting is the cutter using the best tools they can and with care, then if I have a jamb peg and do my very best, does that mean I am a precision faceter? When I look at the stone on the left below, my first thought is well cut non-precision stone. No one will question that the stone on the right below is precision faceted.

I know I am probably offending many lapidaries reading this, but if the stone on the lower left is considered precision cut, then would it fall under the bad to good precision cutting category?

That's the thing, there are tons of issues that can come up from cutting. The orientation of the rough, inclusions, the angle of the pavilion for the material, the crown height, the table size, and probably a dozen more things I wouldn't even think of because I'm not a lapidary and have never cut a gemstone.

That's not what I meant, and you know it Chrono. There is a certain amount of education, experience, talent and care that goes into cutting exceptional gemstones. If you handed the same piece of rough to 10 different lapidaries, you'd likely get 10 different end products.

It sounds to me like you all want everything to be cut to diagram specifications as well as the "perfect meets, perfect polish, perfect symmetry, etc" for it to be considered precision cut.

I'm beginning to think that this term "precision cut" is very subjective.

 

[Amistica]

TL, I didn't realize grey diamonds were a thing, or that any diamond of any color would be affordable in the 2-3 carat size range. Zhonestly, I would not want to spend more than 1000 -1500 on the stone. From what I had read, spinel and garnet are the only other single refractive stones (which to me meant the closest looking stone to having the fire and sparkle of a diamond). Anything you can tell me in these regards would be great.

Frekechild's - I like the color of one and three. But non of them seemed colorless in comparison to the hand shot on Julia's. yours appear white, and grey, to me.

 

[FrekeChild]

TL, I didn't realize grey diamonds were a thing, or that any diamond of any color would be affordable in the 2-3 carat size range. Zhonestly, I would not want to spend more than 1000 -1500 on the stone. From what I had read, spinel and garnet are the only other single refractive stones (which to me meant the closest looking stone to having the fire and sparkle of a diamond). Anything you can tell me in these regards would be great.

Frekechild's - I like the color of one and three. But non of them seemed colorless in comparison to the hand shot on Julia's. yours appear white, and grey, to me.

The only diamond you will likely be able to find in that size range for that budget would be a black diamond. This one is pretty, but under your desired size and possibly darker than you want, and is $6k.
http://www.leibish.com/gray-diamond/151ct-light-gray-round-si2-68069-13720

Zircon is doubly refractive and is capable of plenty of fire (perhaps even more so than diamond), and can be colorless. It has it's downsides, however.

Ok, lets get a couple terms straight:

colorless = white
See through = windowed

All gemstones show a tilt window to some degree. That means, when you aren't looking at them straight on, you can sort of see through the stone, like the graphic below, but not to that same degree. I am posting a few of pictures of what this can look like in a few different stones.

Of the other stones that I posted:
One is basically colorless/white. It was recut by Jerry Newman.
Two is very slightly windowed in the middle, and is a very light gray. This one is poorly cut, and has a small window and a fat belly.
Three is the stone I call Silver, and can look very dark in some lights and colorless in others.
Four is a stone I purchased from Julia B. It is a medium gray and can look darker and lighter, again, depending on the lights.

I picked the pictures of the stones I did because they give the best idea of the body color of each stone.

Spinel is a very temperamental stone. No matter what the color, it can look completely different in different lighting situations. So, since you've never seen one in person before, I think you need to see it, play with it and make up your mind. Bright, direct single sourced like (such as the sun or spotlights) are going to make everything simultaneously dark, with flashes of fire. In my experience, gemstones look best under trees or in some other variety of indirect lighting - I like to take pictures of stones with the sun behind me and the stone in front of me. I've taken a ton of videos of spinels and you can find some of them very easily on youtube. There is one in particular that I took, comparing two gray spinels for a friend of mine, and I'm pretty sure that would give you a good idea of how these can perform.

 

[T L]

TL, I didn't realize grey diamonds were a thing, or that any diamond of any color would be affordable in the 2-3 carat size range. Zhonestly, I would not want to spend more than 1000 -1500 on the stone. From what I had read, spinel and garnet are the only other single refractive stones (which to me meant the closest looking stone to having the fire and sparkle of a diamond). Anything you can tell me in these regards would be great.

Frekechild's - I like the color of one and three. But non of them seemed colorless in comparison to the hand shot on Julia's. yours appear white, and grey, to me.

The only diamond you will likely be able to find in that size range for that budget would be a black diamond. This one is pretty, but under your desired size and possibly darker than you want, and is $6k.
http://www.leibish.com/gray-diamond/151ct-light-gray-round-si2-68069-13720

Liebish is very expensive for grey diamonds. I don't buy grey or brown diamonds from them, but I think they're the best place to find other fancy colors which are more rare and valuable. Grey or brown are not particularly valuable colors, unless there's a blue or violet modifier of course. Straight grey or yellowish or greenish grey are far less money if you know where to look.

I have several, and they all checked out as natural, and I didn't pay Leibish prices for them. For me, it's not a stone that requires a GIA report too, unless you care deeply about irradiation or other treatment, and any jeweler can test them as natural. On browns and greys, I personally don't care.

For example, here's one from a store that my friend had very good success with. I don't care much for the depth and the thick girdle, but its just an example of what you can find for better prices. It is included, but so are the ones on Leibish as well. I bought my greys a few years ago, and the dealer I use is no longer selling on ebay. I know its ebay, but as I've said in other threads, I think they're a great place to buy off color diamonds, but other gems, like rubies, padparadschas, and other rare highly treated expensive colored gems, not so much.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-51cts-UNTREATED-CUSHION-FANCY-STEEL-GRAY-NATURAL-LOOSE-DIAMOND-/221449706061?pt=Loose_Diamonds&hash=item338f6e5a4d

One should also note that most grey diamonds have a milky cast to them, including the one from Leibish that Freke pointed out, and the ebay one as well, but they still sparkle. I have a greenish grey with no milky cast, and it was still affordable, but the milky cast also tells me that its probably natural since this type of characteristic is common with grey diamonds. My other grey diamonds have a milky cast as well. I still love them, and for me, there's just something metallic and gorgeous about the luster of a grey diamond that I don't see with any other grey gem.

 

[swissmiss]

I quite like the thought of a grey diamond (and the ebay one posted above is a good example) and it might achieve the look you're going for a bit better than a spinel.

 

[pregcurious]

If you are open to stones other than diamond for an ering, have you considered Montana sapphires? They are well priced and sapphires are harder than spinels:
http://www.gemfix.com/sapphire_montana.html

 

[Amistica]

Okay, I received it. I was checking my mail box, and was extremely surprised to see it sitting in there! It was suppose to be registered mail, and signature needed, but nope, it was in my box at the end of the drive. I don't understand, but at least it made it. I am working on trying to figure out how to get the pics and video off my iPad and on here. I'm technically challenged, with limited time. Any suggestions while I play with it would be appreciated. I am trying not to post one pic at a time

 

[Amistica]

pregcurious, those sure are pretty I considered sapphires for awhile, but just didn't like how they didn't seem to have as much shine. Hence me looking at spinel for its single refractiveness. Not that I am ruling them out completely, as my thoughts are split on the stone I have received.

 

[Amistica]

 

[Amistica]

 

[FrekeChild]

So, what do you think?

 

[Amistica]

 

[Amistica]

I like it, but it is as I thought. I am good with the stone in the different light, like cushions, size is good ( but a little bigger would be better). Cut is okay-ish.... but I am not sure I can get past what I guess are the tilt windows. To me, they are huge, like, 1/4of the stone, huge. Only half the pics loaded, need to get the tilt windows up, I'm going to go and try again. And not sure why videos didn't post, as well. May take me awhile, have a baby on my lap!

 

[chrono]

The tilt window is large due to the design chosen (few and large facets) and the almost absence of colour. Perhaps the cut design isn't the right one for you.