Show me your less than perfect gems

[LD]

I often read threads where people want the best gemstone possible. There's nothing wrong with that but it can sometimes mean that less perfect (but still very beautiful gems) get overlooked. For example, some people want absolutely eye clean when inclusions can really add to the beauty. Or they want precision cut which means beautiful less well cut gems don't enter the equation - think how many gemstones have windows that people won't buy because of it. So, I thought I'd start a thread where people can post their "less than perfect gems"!

This is a 2.8ct Paraiba Tourmaline I bought years ago. It's so included it's nuts but the colour is awesome! The colour made me go "whoa" so this was a keeper! Now, if I had not kept this, think how much I'd have to spend nowadays (assuming I could find one) for the same thing!!!! Of course that's not a reason to keep a horrible gemstone but to me, this wasn't perfect but I loved it despite its flaws.

This link is to one of Dana's stones (I believe in his own collection and not for sale). Just look at the wonderful inclusions I'd love to own this stone - simply amazing. http://www.mastercutgems.com/viewgem.php?gemid=5539&id=21221

 

[T L]

Well, I have to say that I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect gem, but if you're looking for a gem with a large imperfection that we still love, then I would say this is it for me. This pink spinel has a huge crack that goes to the surface, but at certain angles it's very difficult to see (as in this photo).





Got the stone, which is 1.9 carats for a steal though, and had no problems with setting it.

There is something to be said for inclusions. I think people are so hung up on diamonds being flawless that they think colored stones should be as well. I love inclusions because they help to keep the price down, most are not eye visible or that distracting, and they help deem the stone natural in many cases.

 

[LD]

Your post reminded me on another gem I rescued from oblivion! This is a gorgeous little OMC with the corner chewed off! I designed a setting (made by Sally at HoW) to disguise the flaw and it's soooooooooooo pretty now!

 

[cellentani]

Between color, cut, and clarity, I would imagine the perfect gemstone is quite rare. But like people, it's the quirks that make them fascinating and memorable!

The feather inclusion is clearly seen in the first photo, but because it was skillfully oriented almost perpendicular to the table, it's very difficult to see straight on, and now that it's set, I never even notice it.

 

[FrekeChild]

LD, I love these threads....

My favorite "flawed" stone resembles strawberry soda. My 3.39ct Mahenge from AJS

 

[Michael_E]

In picked this sapphire up as a rough for under $50 and cut it in an attempt to make what looked like a sow's ear into a silk purse. Unfortunately it is now a pretty sow's ear. It is 9.16mm in diameter. It is unusual enough, with the pink and greenish yellow cross axis colors, and has small inclusions which give it a soft glow rather than being distracting, that I keep it in my collection of "weird stuff".

 

[NKOTB]

Here are my two that, given their sizes (5 cts and 2.36 cts), I wouldn't have been able to afford without the inclusions. I love them both.

 

[jstarfireb]

Almost all of my gems would be considered "imperfect" - but not because of inclusions, because I'm a stickler for eye-clean stones with few exceptions. Rather, the color isn't what anyone would consider top, and the size is always much smaller than anyone else here would seek out. I like unusual colors and am not afraid of a grey modifier!

The big exception to my eye-clean policy...a demantoid that I couldn't pass up for the size, price, and cut:


The other stone I've bought that has visible inclusions, although they're near a prong and get lost in the brightness of the mint garnet:


Songea sapphire with a color that's forest green at times and more olivey at others:



Bluish purple spinel that turns to charcoal in spotlighting, and I love that:



Another color shift spinel with a good bit of grey:


This is an imperfect stone that I kind of regret buying in my pre-PS days (the others I have no regrets about)...an alexandrite with nice color but with a window you could drive a car through:

 

[Fly Girl]

I love the inclusions in this 7.28 ct, 13.5 x 9.5 mm double blue aquamarine cut by Dana that I had set into my "Diana bracelet" in sterling silver along with small freshwater pearls. I wore this piece to the opera last week, and in the dim lights there, all you see is the rich aqua blue and the gorgeous pearls. I felt like a princess. It is wonderful that this piece didn't cost me much, because I would never own it otherwise.

 

[Fly Girl]

Here is a tsavorite cab, also from Dana. 2.78ct 7.1 x 7.8 mm and a very pretty green. I had it set in this pendant of green and rose gold, and I think the inclusions add to the rustic, earthy look of the piece.

 

[0-0-0]

Wow, some really nice less than perfect gems in here. I think inclusions bother me the least in colored stones. The aqua in my pendant has a "healed" inclusion in the pavilion, but it doesn't bother me in the least as it isn't really visible, and the color and cut looks so perfect to me.



I have kept 2 stones that I consider less than perfect due to cut. I'm still not sure whether I will set them, but the colors really appeal to me even though they may not be considered perfect by others.

Trilliant aqua that displays a tilt window with the slightest tilt:


Spinel looks great at arms length:



Not so hot closeup:


I like to look at my stones up close!

 

[Pandora II]

Here's one of mine:

A purple spinel - the cut on this stone is exceptional for a native cut and it is incredibly sparkly and pretty. IRL you actually barely notice the inclusions, but I think they are beautiful. The main ones are almost perfect apatite crystals.

 

[LD]

W W everybody - thank you for helping illustrate that gems with "flaws" can be beautiful. Some of the examples above are just gorgeous but I bet those looking for "perfect" skipped right past them! You're all savvy buyers!

TL - was it you who bought the Spinel that had millions of bubbles inside it? I remember years ago there was a thread on it and it looked like a can of soda had exploded inside it! I think it was one of Tan's stones.

 

[T L]

W W everybody - thank you for helping illustrate that gems with "flaws" can be beautiful. Some of the examples above are just gorgeous but I bet those looking for "perfect" skipped right past them! You're all savvy buyers!

TL - was it you who bought the Spinel that had millions of bubbles inside it? I remember years ago there was a thread on it and it looked like a can of soda had exploded inside it! I think it was one of Tan's stones.

I don't recall owning a 'gassy spinel,' but I do remember posting a ebay listing of one because the inclusions were so cool. I was new to collecting spinels back then, and now I always look for those inclusions because they're indicative of natural material. See Pandora's stone above as it has some of those 'bubble inclusions.' This stone, a lilac spinel, has some of these bubbles. Love this stone though. These are negative crystals inside the stone and Pandora mentioned, they are apatite.

 

[LD]

Hi TL - It was Pandora's (gorgeous) spinel that made me remember. Yes, I think you had linked to the Ebay auction. Did you keep the photo of it? It was a couple of years ago and I remember that bubbles can also be indicative of synthetics but clearly nobody would put that many bubbles in a synthetic

 

[T L]

Hi TL - It was Pandora's (gorgeous) spinel that made me remember. Yes, I think you had linked to the Ebay auction. Did you keep the photo of it? It was a couple of years ago and I remember that bubbles can also be indicative of synthetics but clearly nobody would put that many bubbles in a synthetic

No, I don't have the 'gassy spinel' photo anymore, but I'm sure there's plenty of others on ebay. They're quite common inclusions it seems. I think, but don't quote me on this, that a PS'er bought that spinel and took microphotos of the inclusions. He posted the microphotos if I remember correctly.

 

[minousbijoux]

Okay my turn to play! I was racking my brains trying to come up with a good example to share, and I was getting all depressed thinking that I love all my stones and they're all perfect. Hah! Then I realized that its exactly as you say, LD, and I love my little guys despite their, how shall we say, "unique characteristics."

Here are the first ones that came to mind. The big one is a 5 ct. Namibian Spess. It has inclusions all over it - will try and get a close up to add, but we have rainy weather today - and at first I was a bit disappointed. But get it more than about 6 inches away and the color swallows up the inclusions and beams out at you that perfect, gorgeous glow. Next to that is one of the two little Mahenges I have. Although not much in the way of inclusions, this 2 ct spinel would likely go unloved because its "defect" is that it is nowhere near the "top color." But if, like me, you're favorite color happens to be that gorgeous mix of bright orange and glowy deep pink, then you too would love this stone. I thought about selling it before I realized I loved it. Now its not going anywhere. The last one, a copper bearing tourmaline cut by Roger Dery has no noticeable inclusions to speak of. I would say that if it had a defect, it would be that it is not the most saturated copper bearing tourm, but it still makes for a good flashlight in low light conditions

 

[Barrett]

[cough]...[cough]...[cracks knuckles]
I got you all beat!..[lets out raspy laugh and evil grin]
Here is my "less than perfect gem" that I won from Jeffrey Hunt in the "Ugly stone contest"
2.4ct unheated Sri lanka sapphire
Trust me the picture does wonders for this stone
Picture by Jeffrey Hunt

 

[davi_el_mejor]

The all seeing eye. Bubble inclusion dead center.

Mahenge spinel

 

[NKOTB]

I LOVE this thread.

 

[petit_bijou]

Some lovely examples everyone! So many just prove how compelling great colour can be despite other less desirable features.

TL, I LOVE that lilac colour!!! A play-date in your jewelry box would be a dream come true!

 

[LD]

[cough]...[cough]...[cracks knuckles]
I got you all beat!..[lets out raspy laugh and evil grin]
Here is my "less than perfect gem" that I won from Jeffrey Hunt in the "Ugly stone contest"
2.4ct unheated Sri lanka sapphire
Trust me the picture does wonders for this stone
Picture by Jeffrey Hunt

Ahem ............. I need to take issue with this! Please explain how your ugly stone has managed to be photographed by Jeffrey Hunt?

 

[LD]

The all seeing eye. Bubble inclusion dead center.

Mahenge spinel

Really cool photo davi - thank you!

 

[LD]

I don't know what you guys think but seeing how many responses and photos there have been in this thread (which has REALLY surprised me), I am very pleased that we see past perfection and go with our love for a gem when it appeals to us!

I hope new collectors will take heart from this that "perfect" isn't always best, most coveted or to strive for.

 

[T L]

I don't know what you guys think but seeing how many responses and photos there have been in this thread (which has REALLY surprised me), I am very pleased that we see past perfection and go with our love for a gem when it appeals to us!

I hope new collectors will take heart from this that "perfect" isn't always best, most coveted or to strive for.

Perfect is also subjective. What one person might find as a perfect gem, may not be for someone else. I used to think my 8 carat aqua was perfect.

 

[Lady_Disdain]

[cough]...[cough]...[cracks knuckles]
I got you all beat!..[lets out raspy laugh and evil grin]
Here is my "less than perfect gem" that I won from Jeffrey Hunt in the "Ugly stone contest"
2.4ct unheated Sri lanka sapphire
Trust me the picture does wonders for this stone
Picture by Jeffrey Hunt

You have to share the stone that won you that sapphire.

 

[Barrett]

[cough]...[cough]...[cracks knuckles]
I got you all beat!..[lets out raspy laugh and evil grin]
Here is my "less than perfect gem" that I won from Jeffrey Hunt in the "Ugly stone contest"
2.4ct unheated Sri lanka sapphire
Trust me the picture does wonders for this stone
Picture by Jeffrey Hunt

Ahem ............. I need to take issue with this! Please explain how your ugly stone has managed to be photographed by Jeffrey Hunt?

It was photographed before it got into my hand...not the other way around! I would never stoop so low as to have someone who takes some of the best gem photos actually photo something like this. What do you think I am...a monster!

He actually posted this on the other forum and whoever sent him the highest "bid" through PM got the stone and the proceeds were donated to the Green Gem Foundation. We were all forewarned and it was the "ugly stone contest".

Hery Lady Disdain, long time no talk! Hope things are well with you

 

[periwinklegirl]

What a great idea!

Here's mine. It's actually my ering! It has a big honking inclusion, not only right in middle of the table, but actually right on the surface! It makes my stone an SI3. But, as so many of you have said, it also made it a lot more affordable (as in, thousands less). And even though I know it's there, I can only really see it when I hold my ring up to within six inches and even then it's fairly hard to see. Of course, the loupe shows it very clearly!

On a related note, I met someone recently who had chosen a very included rose-cut diamond for her ering - so included that it looked like dull quartz (I3?). She said she liked it because no one is perfect and marriage isn't perfect, so why should her diamond be perfect?

 

[davi_el_mejor]

Almost forgot that my mangagement ring is an I1! LOL

You can see the major inclusion in the upper right corner

It also has surface reaching inclusions in the crown facets. Which you can barely see in the lower left edge.

 

[T L]

What a great idea!

Here's mine. It's actually my ering! It has a big honking inclusion, not only right in middle of the table, but actually right on the surface! It makes my stone an SI3. But, as so many of you have said, it also made it a lot more affordable (as in, thousands less). And even though I know it's there, I can only really see it when I hold my ring up to within six inches and even then it's fairly hard to see. Of course, the loupe shows it very clearly!

On a related note, I met someone recently who had chosen a very included rose-cut diamond for her ering - so included that it looked like dull quartz (I3?). She said she liked it because no one is perfect and marriage isn't perfect, so why should her diamond be perfect?

Actually included diamonds are very "in" now, and a lot of designers are using them. Love your sapphire ring by the way.