Questions about an older sapphire ring and setting

[mimspot]

Hey folks,

I have been exploring the world of antique and vintage blue sapphire rings. I was particularly drawn to this stone and setting:

GIA 18K Blue Sapphire Diamond Ring 12.04 TCW Unheated Ceylon Gold at 1stDibs | antique ceylon sapphire ring, antique sapphire blue

View this item and discover similar for sale at 1stDibs - Old South Jewels proudly presents... VINTAGE LUXURY. GIA CERTIFIED 18K GOLD HUGE 12.04 CARAT UNHEATED SAPPHIRE DIAMOND ANTIQUE RING & BOX! HUGE 9.52 CARAT

www.1stdibs.com

It has since sold, though sadly, not to me. I would still like to understand more about the particulars of it. Compared to similarly priced stones and settings that I have seen, it had many more eye visible inclusions than counterpart offerings, and I am curious about how it held value when compared to them despite those flaws. Maybe because of the color, size, or age?

If possible, would you be able to teach me about the types of inclusions in it from the pictures? In many of the photos there is a grouping of inclusions between 9 and 11 o'clock. I'm unable to tell if they are those of old, healing fractures, or crystals and minerals, or a combination thereof, or maybe something else? There is also then an inclusion of sorts that seems to twist through the middle down to the 4 to 5 o'clock area of the stone. Additionally, it seems to be a bit more translucent-looking, though it is described as transparent by the GIA evaluator--would this possibly be attributed to silk? Would any of these inclusions potentially weaken or shorten the life of the stone?

Thank you for any knowledge or thoughts you can share.

 

[Autumn in New England]

Hello and welcome to the forum! This is a helpful article on sapphire inclusions.

Click.

With regard to the quality of this particular stone, yes, it is rather included. It's quite silky, which is giving it the more translucent (as opposed to transparent) appearance you mentioned. In the video, the color looks a bit dark and desaturated to my eyes (I trust photos less). The mounting itself is stunning and the diamonds look fantastic. I suspect that's where 85% of the impact is coming from, and it can fool a novice into thinking the stone is better than it is. The value of the piece includes the diamonds and gold, and the fact that the sapphire is quite large and untreated. Finished pieces also tend to sell for more than their individual parts, all things being equal.

If this were a fine untreated sapphire in this size, I'd expect a much more costly price point. Now, this vendor's pricing tends to be high, but still... look at the cost. And the color isn't even anything special.

Click.

Personally, I'd rather have a stone half the size and twice as fine.

ETA: My loose 3.03ct. blue sapphire was more money than the list price of that ring. So it was definitely price appropriately, IMO, especially since it seems they sold it at a discount.

 

[Autumn in New England]

Oh and with regard to the relationship between durability and clarity, there can be a direct correlation. The stone would need to be examined in person to see if any of the inclusions pose a threat to the stone's structural integrity. But in general, a cleaner stone is a tougher stone. Silk inclusions, however, typically don't affect durability.

 

[mellowyellowgirl]

Omg the centre stone could be twinsies with my Gengar!

The stone you posted has a lot of silk but some people don’t mind (and even like) a bit of silk. Inclusions could be feathers or a bit of crystal inside or even dust clouds.

Sometimes light reflecting can make it look like an inclusion too. See the first picture of my ring. That dot is just light and doesn’t exist in real life.

I’m a bit different to the others on this forum as rather than a fine sapphire, I will settle for a “good enough” but huge sapphire. That’s what I’m drawn to, the BOOM effect on the eye that you can’t get with something small, especially as sapphires are so dense. Nothing wrong with wanting something big as long as you know the sacrifices you’re making.

 

[Autumn in New England]

I’m a bit different to the others on this forum as rather than a fine sapphire, I will settle for a “good enough” but huge sapphire. That’s what I’m drawn to, the BOOM effect on the eye that you can’t get with something small, especially as sapphires are so dense.

You make an excellent point! And you also know how to do it right!!

 

[mellowyellowgirl]

You make an excellent point! And you also know how to do it right!!

I saw a twin but fine version of my sapphire. It’s won GRS awards and whatnot. OMG it is sublime but…….. yeah……priced out of this planet I think!

 

[Dreamer_D]

I just want to throw out there that I am not convinced that is a true antique setting. It doesn’t have the hand made look and the design elements are a mish mash of eras. Just in case that mattered to you when thinking about the piece.

 

[Autumn in New England]

I saw a twin but fine version of my sapphire. It’s won GRS awards and whatnot. OMG it is sublime but…….. yeah……priced out of this planet I think!