padparadscha engagement ring

[Indylady]

Query, IndyLady: A poster posts a "look at my beautiful stone". The ring is outside of the return time. It is obviously, say, a glass-filled ruby worth $20, and the poster paid $1000. The poster has no recourse. Should we pretend that the stone is "real"?

Your analogy isn't valid. Comparing the definition of a pad, which is highly disputed in the industry, and the stone cold fact of a glass-filled gem are two very different things.

I do get your point: if it sucks, shouldn't we say so? Well, the thing is, the highest saturation or a textbook example, while it might be more prized amongst the industry, isn't an adequate way that we judge each other gems on PS. To me, its like hearing, "Your Honda is ok, but its going to driver slower than my Ferrari," over, and over, and over again. If I purchase a $15 dollar gem from Tan, I'm not expecting a Ferrari. Its ridiculous to me when people point out modifiers on really inexpensive gems like the link I posted.

On top of that, we're not seeing the stone in person either, so I think its even ruder when posters insist on de-naming the OP's when its known that pads are a) hard to photograph and b) highly disputed in terminology anyways. This OP's favored definition of a pad looks like the pad she purchased. She picked it for what others perceive as flaws. So, I don't get how there could be criticism of the stone itself.

 

[Indylady]

Yeah, this is a constant trade off here on PS ... when to educate vs. when to just compliment.

My 2 cents is if it appears that the proud new owner seems like he/she could be brought up to speed on something important, just do it, especially if the purchase is returnable.

If you post politely but they get overly sensitive and get their feelings hurt, too friggin bad.
They needed the gem lesson AND the growing up lesson.

An education site is not the place for "if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all".

The OP handled herself very graciously here.
People said brown, brown, brown and brown, and she kept her cool.
Then GIA said only Orange so apparently, once again, the pics were off.

If you want education, feel free to start a thread on, "What is a pad?" or "Can a pad have modifiers?" or "Can I read modifiers through this picture of a pad?". There is no reason to education yourself or others through another's SMTR e-ring thread.

 

[Nashville]

Query, IndyLady: A poster posts a "look at my beautiful stone". The ring is outside of the return time. It is obviously, say, a glass-filled ruby worth $20, and the poster paid $1000. The poster has no recourse. Should we pretend that the stone is "real"?

Your analogy isn't valid. Comparing the definition of a pad, which is highly disputed in the industry, and the stone cold fact of a glass-filled gem are two very different things.

I do get your point: if it sucks, shouldn't we say so? Well, the thing is, the highest saturation or a textbook example, while it might be more prized amongst the industry, isn't an adequate way that we judge each other gems on PS. To me, its like hearing, "Your Honda is ok, but its going to driver slower than my Ferrari," over, and over, and over again. If I purchase a $15 dollar gem from Tan, I'm not expecting a Ferrari. Its ridiculous to me when people point out modifiers on really inexpensive gems like the link I posted.

On top of that, we're not seeing the stone in person either, so I think its even ruder when posters insist on de-naming the OP's when its known that pads are a) hard to photograph and b) highly disputed in terminology anyways. This OP's favored definition of a pad looks like the pad she purchased. She picked it for what others perceive as flaws. So, I don't get how there could be criticism of the stone itself.

I do understand what you're saying, and obviously most people buying a $10 gem aren't expecting the Hope Diamond. But what if OP had been looking exclusively for a pad, as many do? We know it's not the case now, but what if no one had said a thing and she had it certed only to be upset and disappointed that it wasn't a pad and it was too late to return? I agree that maybe a bit less nit picking is probably in order on the $50 and under gems, but 2K is a lot of money to be spending on anything, especially if you're potentially looking for a pad specifically.

 

[Harriet]

Melda,

Congratulations on your engagement!

An unheated orange sapphire is a rarity. I've been shopping for one, coincidentally. As I'm only seeing photographs (and cameras do lie ), I won't hazard a guess as to your ring's exact value. But, I will say that you paid an extremely fair price.

Wear it in good health,
H

 

[Indylady]

IndyLady,
Not only because I did not totally share Jax"s happiness in the above thread - but in general... You are amazingly supportive and nice and yours are the threads that I read everywhere, inclding the "hangout", because you are so supportive and one can always learn something from you...

I believe the purpose of this forum is not only to share each other's joy and admire the stones but also to learn. Yesterday people told me that the spinel I bought was 90% extinct - not because they wanted to spoil my joy, just to teach me to choose better and spend my money wiser in the future. And TL, the kind soul, even had to switch off her monitor because she did not want to make me unhappy!
I do not believe that people are not supportive of Melda. It is almost a must to certify expensive colored sapphires because of what is sold around especially on ebay... And pad is like San Graal, people may spend years trying to find it and still would not.
I am very happy for Melda. A colored sapphire of such a size a quality in a nice diamond mount would make a great E-ring and I am positive that she'll be happy with it. Congratulations.

Crasru, you are too kind. I do understand that the critical remarks posted on PS are to help, not to hurt. Your analogy is perfect; a pad truly is some parts mysticism, some parts legend, a bit of a quest..no wonder its easy to get so passionate when debating a pad. Have you ever heard such debate over peridot?

 

[kenny]

Yeah, this is a constant trade off here on PS ... when to educate vs. when to just compliment.

My 2 cents is if it appears that the proud new owner seems like he/she could be brought up to speed on something important, just do it, especially if the purchase is returnable.

If you post politely but they get overly sensitive and get their feelings hurt, too friggin bad.
They needed the gem lesson AND the growing up lesson.

An education site is not the place for "if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all".

The OP handled herself very graciously here.
People said brown, brown, brown and brown, and she kept her cool.
Then GIA said only Orange so apparently, once again, the pics were off.

If you want education, feel free to start a thread on, "What is a pad?" or "Can a pad have modifiers?" or "Can I read modifiers through this picture of a pad?". There is no reason to education yourself or others through another's SMTR e-ring thread.

But teaching and learning happen all the time on all kinds of threads, also this is not the SMTB forum.
I certainly learned a bout pads on this thread.

I'd agree that much beyond ohhs and ahhs would be inappropriate on SMTB.

 

[Indylady]

Query, IndyLady: A poster posts a "look at my beautiful stone". The ring is outside of the return time. It is obviously, say, a glass-filled ruby worth $20, and the poster paid $1000. The poster has no recourse. Should we pretend that the stone is "real"?

Your analogy isn't valid. Comparing the definition of a pad, which is highly disputed in the industry, and the stone cold fact of a glass-filled gem are two very different things.

I do get your point: if it sucks, shouldn't we say so? Well, the thing is, the highest saturation or a textbook example, while it might be more prized amongst the industry, isn't an adequate way that we judge each other gems on PS. To me, its like hearing, "Your Honda is ok, but its going to driver slower than my Ferrari," over, and over, and over again. If I purchase a $15 dollar gem from Tan, I'm not expecting a Ferrari. Its ridiculous to me when people point out modifiers on really inexpensive gems like the link I posted.

On top of that, we're not seeing the stone in person either, so I think its even ruder when posters insist on de-naming the OP's when its known that pads are a) hard to photograph and b) highly disputed in terminology anyways. This OP's favored definition of a pad looks like the pad she purchased. She picked it for what others perceive as flaws. So, I don't get how there could be criticism of the stone itself.

I do understand what you're saying, and obviously most people buying a $10 gem aren't expecting the Hope Diamond. But what if OP had been looking exclusively for a pad, as many do? We know it's not the case now, but what if no one had said a thing and she had it certed only to be upset and disappointed that it wasn't a pad and it was too late to return? I agree that maybe a bit less nit picking is probably in order on the $50 and under gems, but 2K is a lot of money to be spending on anything, especially if you're potentially looking for a pad specifically.

Melda, I do apologize sincerely for the threadjack. If anyone wishes to continue this discussion, please feel free to start a thread.

Nashville, there isn't such a thing as being "exclusively a pad". I think you mean "cert'ed as a pad". To me, there just isn't a point in a romanticized search for a stone based on its certification. I know it must be rewarding to be able to say, "I have a cert, and it says this is a padparadscha sapphire, so it is." The truth is, the definition of a pad has changed time and time again, and it may be defined more precisely, or may be defined differently, in the near future. So, it is important to love the stone, and its color, more than its certification. One day, a lab may decide that pads are only Sri Lankan in origin. The Tanzanian stone, AIGS certified, that is posted below might become invalid in the magical land where the lotus flower marries the sunset. It will be as beautiful as the day it came back certified as a pad. Certs are important, but color is king, and a color you love is more important than the classification on a cert at the end of the day.

This Modern Jeweler article shows an overwhelmingly orange pad http://www.modernjeweler.com/web/online ... hire/1$529
This Richard Hughes article shows a stone that is also quite orange, from which I believe Melda's inspiration came from. The caption says that its color is delicate, but I find it to be stronger in saturation than what I often see termed as a pad. http://www.collectorfinejewelry.com/buy ... adscha.htm
This is an AIGS certified pad that is more pinkish than orangish, and much more delicate in color than the pictures posted above. http://www.gemselect.com/sapphire/sapphire-250510.php

 

[Indylady]

Kenny, most/many CS'ers don't post their CS stones or rings on SMTB, so there are often SMTB style threads around here even though they're not posted directly in SMTB.

 

[Nashville]

No, I mean exclusively. As in, "I want a pad, the whole pad, and nothing but a pad". Never mentioned a certificate from a magical land of any sorts , though I do get what you're saying.

But my point wasn't about what qualifies. I'm certainly no expert. I just see no reason to chide posters who were offering advice pertaining to her purchase in the colored stone forum. I'll agree to disagree and bow out now.

 

[dzop]

Totally agree, but in this case (a) it was a $2,000 ring, so we're not talking about a $10 Odysseygem special, and
(b) the gem was purchased as, and represented as padparadscha, raising issues of (i) whether the color was truly padparadscha, whatever that means, and (ii) whether the stone was Be-diffused.

In this thread, posters looking at the posted pictures told OP that they believed she had not bought a padparadscha, as the vendor had claimed, and advised her to receive a cert and appraisal. Their advice was CORRECT. The stone was not certified as padparadscha. It certed as an orange sapph, which is less valuable.

Thus, IMO, this is a textbook example of posters possibly being the bearers of bad news, but in a productive way.

Query, IndyLady: A poster posts a "look at my beautiful stone". The ring is outside of the return time. It is obviously, say, a glass-filled ruby worth $20, and the poster paid $1000. The poster has no recourse. Should we pretend that the stone is "real"?

Your analogy isn't valid. Comparing the definition of a pad, which is highly disputed in the industry, and the stone cold fact of a glass-filled gem are two very different things.

I do get your point: if it sucks, shouldn't we say so? Well, the thing is, the highest saturation or a textbook example, while it might be more prized amongst the industry, isn't an adequate way that we judge each other gems on PS. To me, its like hearing, "Your Honda is ok, but its going to driver slower than my Ferrari," over, and over, and over again. If I purchase a $15 dollar gem from Tan, I'm not expecting a Ferrari. Its ridiculous to me when people point out modifiers on really inexpensive gems like the link I posted.

On top of that, we're not seeing the stone in person either, so I think its even ruder when posters insist on de-naming the OP's when its known that pads are a) hard to photograph and b) highly disputed in terminology anyways. This OP's favored definition of a pad looks like the pad she purchased. She picked it for what others perceive as flaws. So, I don't get how there could be criticism of the stone itself.

 

[T L]

The OP asked for "thoughts" in the first post of this thread. I took that to mean "honest opinions." Therefore, we gave them. Some SMTB threads in CS are also educational, especially when someone asks for opinions or thoughts. If she just posted the ring and said "Look at my beautiful new padparadscha," people might have not been so forward with their opinions. However, I must admit that whenever I see padparadscha threads on CS, I cringe. I don't think there is a more synthesized, overly treated, or misrepresented gem such as these. I can understand all the warnings and advice some people give, and I'm really grateful they do. I'm also glad the OP sent the stone to the GIA, and I'm glad she is learning about orange sapphires.

Yes, sometimes these types of threads come off sounding as harsh or mean spirited, but it is really done in the best interest of the OP. The truth sometimes hurts, but it can also save you a lot of grief and money too. Whenever I post a SMTB thread on PS, I always ask for honest opinions. I actually find Pricescoper's honest opinions to be quite interesting, and repetitive "ooohs and aaahs" can be a bit mundane and boring actually, and I don't know if I should believe all of them . LOL!

 

[melda]

well, i still think that if more vivid stones can be classified as "pad," that's what mine looks like.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YlrQQ03Jz...AAAAU/HBvfvxX9gv8/s320/mel's+padparadscha.JPG

Art Nouveau's unbelievable pad sapphire sure doesn't look delicate in this picture, but i don't think anyone would dispute that it is a pad.



for me, the moral of the story is, "what's in a name?" i don't like delicate color, and i certainly don't like all the pads that look like baby pink to me. call my stone whatever you like; it's still exactly what i wanted!

 

[kenny]

I'm glad you like your stone ( I do too) but can you really think of it as a pad now that GIA graded it and did not say it was a pad?

When GIA grades a sapphire don't they make a decision about whether or not they consider it to be a pad?

Is it true that if GIA does not actually state it is a pad then they are stating it is not a pad?
Or is the pad question something the owner must specifically request and pay extra for, like origin?

Here's an example of one that GIA states is a pad:

 

[Nashville]

well, i still think that if more vivid stones can be classified as "pad," that's what mine looks like.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YlrQQ03Jz...AAAAU/HBvfvxX9gv8/s320/mel's+padparadscha.JPG

Art Nouveau's unbelievable pad sapphire sure doesn't look delicate in this picture, but i don't think anyone would dispute that it is a pad.



for me, the moral of the story is, "what's in a name?" i don't like delicate color, and i certainly don't like all the pads that look like baby pink to me. call my stone whatever you like; it's still exactly what i wanted!

That's great! Generally the basic definition of pads (however distorted it may be) shows a mix of pink and orange. But you don't like pink, so it worked out for the best anyway.

 

[T L]

Melda,
I think AN's padparadscha is a is clearly a more orange stone with very little brown. It is a very very very VERY rare example of an orange sapphire without the abundance of brown that plagues most of these gems. You see, desaturated orange is really brown. While the GIA may call a sapphire "orange," unfortunately their report gives no mention of the strength of saturation, unlike the AGL report.

 

[chrono]

Melda,
Much like the advice of getting your stone checked out by GIA with the stone ending up being an untreated orange sapphire instead of a padparadscha sapphire, it’s far easier and more accurate to send your stone to a highly skilled independent appraiser like Richard Sherwood for an evaluation of the colour quality and valuation, rather than making all sorts of assumptions. GIA does not give their opinion on the colour quality and this is where getting an appraisal comes in.

 

[T L]

I will also add that I know of very few appraisers really qualified to judge a padparadscha correctly. If I would send it to anyone, it would be Richard Sheerwood, or I would get an AGL that scientifically conveys the quality of color, although it does not give an estimated value on the stone. I think pricey colored gems that are suspected of being high quality, like potentially fine quality rubies, emeralds and sapphires, really need an AGL to accompany them. That is my opinion. I do not think the GIA suffices in this regard, especially if you want to know the true quality of color and overall quality of your stone.

 

[melda]

chrono: it's actually easier to make an assumption.

kenny: i did not say i think the stone is a pad, i said it looks like other vivid stones that are being called "pad." i am not arguing with the g.i.a. report. nor am i saying that my stone looks like AN's pad. his stone cost $25,000 and it shows.

and good lord, people, i said that i would get an appraisal once i have some money.

 

[chrono]

it's actually easier to make an assumption.

Absolutely, which is why I made the suggestion to have it appraised by someone highly skilled, experienced, qualified and independent like Richard Sherwood. Especially in light of your pondering about whether what you paid is worth it, why make assumptions?

 

[melda]

chrono: it was a joke, see, because you first wrote that sending my stone for an appraisal was easier.

i would like to now close the thread to everything other than boring oohs and ahhs.

 

[LD]

Doesn't Kenny have a point?

If the GIA had thought this was a Pad, they would have said as much. They haven't. They've said it's an "orange sapphire". If they had indicated that it was pinkish/orange or orangeish/pink then I could understand that perhaps there would be confusion. To me, an orange sapphire will NEVER by any definition of a Pad be a Pad. Irrespective of saturation, a Pad has to show the two colours. If GIA haven't graded it as such then I would hazzard a guess it's not there.

At the end of the day, an Orange unheated sapphire is a lovely gem in it's own right. I'd be tempted to scream it from the heights that it's a lovely example of an Orange sapphire rather than trying to put an overcoat on it and call it a Pad.

Hope that makes sense and I very much don't want to upset anybody!

 

[kenny]

Turning off brain.
Turning on heart.

Ohhh Ahhhh.

 

[LD]

chrono: it was a joke, see, because you first wrote that sending my stone for an appraisal was easier.

i would like to now close the thread to everything other than boring oohs and ahhs.

Oooops, we were posting at the same time ........


Oooooh

Ahhhhh

Oooooh

Ahhhhh

 

[Harriet]

Melda,

Is "congratulations" ok?