Opinions wanted... blue sapphire

[thekid98]

Hi everyone. I'm seeking a nice blue sapphire for an e-ring, and have found two I'd like your thoughts on. One is a lighter toned 2.5ct cushion, the other is a 2.08ct medium-dark, silky "roval". The stones were both within my budget; the 2.5ct being about 30% more costly. The 2.08ct stone I've posted about before, and there was some concern about the silk affecting brilliance, so I've included a short video of each stone so you can see how they perform. My goal is to choose the higher quality stone, from a gemological and beauty standpoint. I'm looking for opinions, thoughts, recommendations, etc. BTW- the stone will be set either in a prong, or half bezel setting. Thanks!

Both stones shown under same lighting conditions, etc. Sorry about the background sounds, couldn't edit them out.

Stone A: 2.50ct cushion, medium-light/medium tone, facets meet well, medium sized feather inclusion in corner, some minor pitting found by appraiser. AGL cert says heat only.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25QQuRryqNY

Stone B: 2.08ct roval, medium-dark tone, facets meet less well (but still okay as far as I can tell), no inclusions (feathers, crystals, etc.) found, silky, no pitting. No AGL cert, yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE1-SEpcOjc&feature=plcp

Here's some pics. Same office fluorescent lighting.









This I find concerning... major windows looking through table to pavilion sides. I don't see much windowing looking squarely down into the table, however there is a pretty strong bow-tie effect. Are these things I should be concerned about?

 

[thekid98]

One other thing... If I was to get an AGL gembrief for the 2.08 roval, would that tell me if the stone was given any other treatment other than heat? I know these reports will tell you whether or not evidence of heat exists. If it says under Additional Enhancement: None, does that mean I can say for certain that it wasn't beryllium diffused, or is that only tested for with a prestige report? The AGL fee schedule only says that if conditions warrant additional testing I would be charged more for additional tests- says nothing about what exactly the standard gembrief would actually test for. Anybody know this? Thank you!

 

[chrono]

The rectangular cushion has a very bad and large tilt window in all the pictures shown above. It is the cut that isn't doing the stone any justice in terms of sparkle and liveliness. I have not seen the video but I expect a good sized window as well. Given that it has cut issues, costs 30% more while the colour isn't as nice as the silky roval, I would pass on this one.

The roval, unfortunately has its own set of issues, similar to the larger sapphire but is less obvious apparent because the silk and darker tone does a good job of masking it unless you know what to look for. It shows both a window and a tilt window in all the pictures.

If I had to pick one, my choice is the silky roval. If I can keep looking, I will look for something with better cut and less silk.

AGL will verify any and all treatments on the stone, be it heat, oiling, filling and etc. for the Fast Track briefs. If they suspect more than plain heat (diffusion), AGL will contact you (or whoever sent the sapphire) with an update and find out if you want to do further testing to check for diffusion, which costs a little more. If it says None under the Additional Enhancement, their opinion is that it was plainly heated with no other treatment and is also not diffused.

 

[chrono]

Video impression:

Rectangular sapphire - I think you got too close to the camera and obscured the lighting, which resulted in a lot of shadowing. Still, it could not hide the fact that the stone is very poorly cut. It is almost as flat as a pancake, windowed and has very easily seen and large tilt window. These 3 will affect the liveliness and sparkle of the sapphire. Colour looks much nicer here than the still pictures.

Roval sapphire: Same issues as the rectangular sapphire. The video only confirms what I saw in the still pictures. Flat cut stone, windowed and also has an easily seen tilt window, only that the silk and darker tone masks that. You gave us a brief side view and I noted an off centered culet.

 

[thekid98]

Chrono- Thanks for taking a look; I really value the opinions of experts like you. You are right about the windows. One thing I'm not clear on: do we call it a window only when it's visible top-down, looking directly down into the table, and a tilt window when we look through the table, at an angle, through one of the sides of the pavilion? Am I correct here? Or is a tilt window a window that's visible when you look through the side of the stone (through the pavilion only)? Thanks for the help!

 

[chrono]

It is a window when you can see through it looking straight down the table directly. A tilt window is when you can see through it at an angle from the frontal view (not from bottom up or the pavilion). Almost all gemstones will show a tilt window so this is normal but it shouldn't be this huge and at so slight an angle.

 

[stargurl78]

If I had to pick one, it would definitely be stone B, the roval. I like the color better and silkiness doesn't bother me. But I am not a fan of the flat cut so I agree with Chrono that you should keep looking.

 

[Justin_Cutter]

Personally I think these are both passes. Chrono's assessment is dead on.

~Justin

 

[thekid98]

What do you guys think of this stone? See any issues?



It's 8.4x6.4mm, 2.02ct. They don't say how deep it's cut, but the reflection makes it look okay? I see blue with maybe slightly greenish undertones, a feather across the middle, and a slightly off center culet. Is this what you see too? Sorry for all the questions- part of this is just me learning to see what the experts see...

All opinions welcome!

P.S. If that is a large feather in there, is that too big? I mean would this stone be a risk to set?

 

[airplay355]

Is it just an optical illusion or is one side of that sapphire more rounded than the other?

 

[chrono]

The first picture is essentially the same as the second picture, just slightly further away. I suspect this one has a lot of cut issues too. I prefer to see a straight on picture but can guess why the vendor would not want to do so. It looks to be shallow with a good sized window and a flat crown. I cannot make out any inclusions at this point although I see something really long on the upper left side. If this is indeed a dark inclusion, it will be obvious in the straight down view. The symmetry looks to be slightly off as well.