Trying to decide between two emeralds

[Macky]

Recently, I posted a question on deciding between two sapphires, and everyone gave me such lovely and helpful responses. I was wondering if members would be so kind to do the same again with these two emeralds that I have acquired? Trying to decide which stone to set. One is a 2.55 Zambian emerald (non-oiled and VS quality) and a 1.3 Zambian emerald (oiled and SI quality). The 2.55 emerald is the first one posted and the 1.3 emerald is the second one. Thank you very much in advance!

 

[Bluegemz]

I vote for the first emerald.

 

[Macky]

Thank you!

 

[chrono]

Before purchasing, verify that there are no surface reaching cracks.

 

[Macky]

Oh I have already purchased both. Please explain why you think there might be surface reaching cracks in either stone? And if they exist, does it mean that I can't set either stone? Thanks!

 

[chrono]

Any gemstone is weaker the more inclusions it has. Surface reaching inclusions more so, but should be fine as a pendant stone.

 

[Macky]

Ok thanks! Could a VS stone still have the surface reaching cracks?

 

[chrono]

VS for emerald is different than VS for diamond. Both stones are clearly included.
Which lab verified the clarity rating or is this an estimate by the vendor?

 

[Macky]

Well yes but I read that almost all emeralds have inclusions?? Isn't it in general an included stone?

 

[chrono]

There's included and there's included.

I get those with clear type inclusions, rather than black spots (so that it looks eye clean-ish).
I prefer lightly treated than heavily treated
I prefer a more permanent and stable clarity treatment over oiling, which needs to be re-treated over time
I prefer to have a solid lab like AGL and GIA verify the stone and treatment.

 

[Macky]

Well, it's a good thing I spent under twenty dollars for each stone. The lab that verified them is IGL. If they turn out to be worse clarity than promised by the vendor- so be it. I'm just someone who likes to collect many stones and am not too fussy about their condition! As long as they are able to be set I'm not really concerned with how included they look!

 

[PrecisionGem]

Most any emerald is going to have surface reaching inclusions, if not, then oil or any other treatment couldn't have any effect. You would need there to be surface reaching to get the oil into the stone.
I don't think a surface reaching inclusion makes the stone any less strong than an inclusion that doesn't reach the surface. At least with surface reaching it can't grow any more in one direction.

 

[T L]

Well, it's a good thing I spent under twenty dollars for each stone. The lab that verified them is IGL. If they turn out to be worse clarity than promised by the vendor- so be it. I'm just someone who likes to collect many stones and am not too fussy about their condition! As long as they are able to be set I'm not really concerned with how included they look!

For that price point, I wouldn't be too worried about them, but with emeralds, you get what you pay for, and they might further crack or chip during the setting process. Tell your jeweler to not put them in an ultrasonic cleaner, which many do, after setting. I would set them in a softer metal like 14 to 18k gold too. Never ever ultrasonic clean them yourself for that matter.

 

[partgypsy]

For that price, just enjoy them. Set, but again the setter will not give you any guarantees regarding setting damage. It's just a risk you will have to take.

 

[chrono]

For $20, I wouldn't sweat it. It's easily replaceable.

 

[Macky]

Thanks everyone for your replies and suggestions!!! Will post photos on here after I get them set!