Two little Mahenge spinels and advice on setting please

[1001smiles]

Well, I surprizingly ended up with two matching little Mahenge spinels. One I got from Swala a few weeks ago, it''s 5x7mm, nice color, but the cut could have been better. Then I (somewhat impulsively) ordered another one from Gene. It''s a little smaller (about 4.5x6.5mm), but it''s amazing how much difference the cut makes! I guess since Gene got the rough from Swala last year, it''s not surprizing that the color matches. So now I can do a matching ring and pendant, but I can''t figure out how to set such small stones. Any advice would be much appreciated!

But first the mandatory photos. First on my desk with the window behind it.

 

[1001smiles]

In the sun...

 

[1001smiles]

This is on my hand, with the sun behind me and the stones are in my shadow (if that makes sense...). I think this photo shows off Gene''s cut very nicely...

 

[1001smiles]

Last one... This is on my hand, to show proportion (my fingers look so puffy here

)

Anyways, so the stones are quite small for a size 7 finger. I think I should put the larger one from Swala into a pendant and the one from Gene into the ring (so I can admire the cut!). Any suggestions on setting, so they don't look so tiny? One thought I had was using pink sapphire melee in a halo, but I am not sure if it will enhance or take away from the pink stone. Any examples or opinions are much appreciated!

 

[Fly Girl]

Ahhh, you picked up that little Mahenge oval from Gene. Gorgeous, isn't it?

I also own a Mahenge oval from Gene, and I put it into a diamond halo. Link I prefer bezel settings, but I couldn't bring myself to cover any of his delicious facets.

Enjoy!!

 

[VapidLapid]

They are both lovely stones, great color and all , but have to say that if given the choice between a smaller precision cut gem from Gene and and larger run of the mill cut stone of equal color and clarity I would want the precision stone from Gene every time!

With your stones I would want a high carat gold east west setting for the precision cut stone as a ring and the other in the pendant maybe with a demontoid halo! but that''s just me

 

[1001smiles]

Date: 3/30/2010 7:45:16 PM
Author: VapidLapid
They are both lovely stones, great color and all , but have to say that if given the choice between a smaller precision cut gem from Gene and and larger run of the mill cut stone of equal color and clarity I would want the precision stone from Gene every time!

With your stones I would want a high carat gold east west setting for the precision cut stone as a ring and the other in the pendant maybe with a demontoid halo! but that's just me

I completely agree with you! I just wish Gene had an unlimited supply of these

 

[dzop]

Am I weird for preferring the Swala stone to the Gene stone? When I see Gene''s stone, all I see are "facets". When I see the Swala stone, I just see "COLORCOLORCOLOR".

Is it possible to prefer a well-cut, but not TOO well cut gemstone?

 

[1001smiles]

Date: 3/30/2010 8:14:21 PM
Author: dzop
Am I weird for preferring the Swala stone to the Gene stone? When I see Gene''s stone, all I see are ''facets''. When I see the Swala stone, I just see ''COLORCOLORCOLOR''.

Is it possible to prefer a well-cut, but not TOO well cut gemstone?

Not weird at all. But one thing to remember is that we are looking here at super-magnified two-dimensional, static images. But when we look at the actual stones two feet away, we often can''t see the individual facets, we just see lots of life and sparkle (while still seeing the same color). I think that''s why I prefer a better-cut stone, it just has more life to it. I find it very hard to judge gemstones from a photo (it''s probably a newbie thing)...

 

[VapidLapid]

I think the color is richer and more complex in Gene''s stone. When all I need is colorcolorcolor I''d rather have a cab

 

[dzop]

Yeah, but I feel the same way about round brilliant diamonds. Its a great cut for smaller stones, but once you get in the 2 carat and up range its just OMG CHUNKY FACETS LOOK DISPERSION.

I think "sparkle" is nice in a stone, but there''s a fine line between sparkle and faceting that distracts from the stone itself...

Date: 3/30/2010 8:21:59 PM
Author: 1001smiles

Date: 3/30/2010 8:14:21 PM

Author: dzop

Am I weird for preferring the Swala stone to the Gene stone? When I see Gene''s stone, all I see are ''facets''. When I see the Swala stone, I just see ''COLORCOLORCOLOR''.


Is it possible to prefer a well-cut, but not TOO well cut gemstone?

Not weird at all. But one thing to remember is that we are looking here at super-magnified two-dimensional, static images. But when we look at the actual stones two feet away, we often can''t see the individual facets, we just see lots of life and sparkle (while still seeing the same color). I think that''s why I prefer a better-cut stone, it just has more life to it. I find it very hard to judge gemstones from a photo (it''s probably a newbie thing)...

 

[T L]

Date: 3/30/2010 6:35:56 PM
Author:1001smiles
Well, I surprizingly ended up with two matching little Mahenge spinels. One I got from Swala a few weeks ago, it's 5x7mm, nice color, but the cut could have been better. Then I (somewhat impulsively) ordered another one from Gene. It's a little smaller (about 4.5x6.5mm), but it's amazing how much difference the cut makes! I guess since Gene got the rough from Swala last year, it's not surprizing that the color matches. So now I can do a matching ring and pendant, but I can't figure out how to set such small stones. Any advice would be much appreciated!

But first the mandatory photos. First on my desk with the window behind it.

1001,
Without looking at faceting, do you think the color is very similar for both stones? I think that's what you're saying here in the highlighted sentence, but just wanted to be sure.

 

[1001smiles]

I''d say the color of the two is pretty much the same. I think Gene''s faces up a deeper color because it''s a deeper cut. I should take some pics from the side and up-side-down, so you can see. The down side of the deeper cut is that Gene''s stone faces up smaller for approximately the same weight. I think both of these are very pretty.
I have to say, comparing these two has been quite educational for me.

 

[1001smiles]

Date: 3/30/2010 8:37:48 PM
Author: tourmaline_lover

Date: 3/30/2010 6:35:56 PM
Author:1001smiles
Well, I surprizingly ended up with two matching little Mahenge spinels. One I got from Swala a few weeks ago, it''s 5x7mm, nice color, but the cut could have been better. Then I (somewhat impulsively) ordered another one from Gene. It''s a little smaller (about 4.5x6.5mm), but it''s amazing how much difference the cut makes! I guess since Gene got the rough from Swala last year, it''s not surprizing that the color matches. So now I can do a matching ring and pendant, but I can''t figure out how to set such small stones. Any advice would be much appreciated!

But first the mandatory photos. First on my desk with the window behind it.

1001,
Without looking at faceting, do you think the color is very similar for both stones? I think that''s what you''re saying here in the highlighted sentence, but just wanted to be sure.

That''s funny, TL, we were typing messages at the same time!

 

[T L]

Date: 3/30/2010 8:40:22 PM
Author: 1001smiles

Date: 3/30/2010 8:37:48 PM
Author: tourmaline_lover

Date: 3/30/2010 6:35:56 PM
Author:1001smiles
Well, I surprizingly ended up with two matching little Mahenge spinels. One I got from Swala a few weeks ago, it''s 5x7mm, nice color, but the cut could have been better. Then I (somewhat impulsively) ordered another one from Gene. It''s a little smaller (about 4.5x6.5mm), but it''s amazing how much difference the cut makes! I guess since Gene got the rough from Swala last year, it''s not surprizing that the color matches. So now I can do a matching ring and pendant, but I can''t figure out how to set such small stones. Any advice would be much appreciated!

But first the mandatory photos. First on my desk with the window behind it.

1001,
Without looking at faceting, do you think the color is very similar for both stones? I think that''s what you''re saying here in the highlighted sentence, but just wanted to be sure.

That''s funny, TL, we were typing messages at the same time!

ESP!!! LOL! Well, your two stones are lovely. Enjoy them, and thanks for reading my mind.

 

[Arkteia]

I have a similar stone from Eric and just took it out today since I was looking for something in my box. It has a beautiful color and excellent fluorescence but I did have to try different ways on my finger to minimize extinctions. This being said, most of native cuts could benefit from recutting and in pre-precision cutting days, we would not considered the cut of Eric''s stone a problem.

Also, I think his prices are quite affordable.

Both of them would look great when set. I am planning to set my Mahenge, too.

 

[babydoll_mini]

OOOOOH, you got Gene''s latest mahenge spinel !!
I am sooooooooooo jealous, and I''ve been mad at myself for not checking his site early enough that evening for the whole week

It turned out to be gorgeous!
Now I''m even madder

 

[1001smiles]

Thanks, TL and crasru.
So any other suggestions on how to set them?

 

[Arkteia]

I shall try to draw it tomorrow. But...Have you seen a simplified sign of Pisces? Two heads, and two "tails" pointing E and W? No imagine: no heads, an oval spinel set W-E. a diamond halo but instead of round edges, you have a "tail" on the east side (starting from the top of the halo, pointing downwards) and a tail on the west side (starting from the bottom, pointing up). God...how can I explain? You just lengthen the sides, instead of making them round. I shall try to draw it tomorrow. It will optically elongate the stone. You actually can do it with the stone oriented N-S.

 

[Arkteia]

OK, do not pay attention to this weird explanation. I shall try to draw it. But I really liked Kismet''s ring that she posted at my thread about vanadium crhrysoberyl. The trick is, if you make the mounting larger than the stone (not a typical halo) it will optially enlarge the stone. And then use something beautiful on the sides of the stone like she did. (Sorry, Kismet, I am stealing your idea - but not completely). My idea was somewhat different but bottom line, the edges of the mounting have to "protrude" instead of typical halo which may "squeeze" the stone and make it optically smaller.

 

[ma re]

Beautiful stones!

But if you''re thinking about a matching set, I don''t know how good of a match these two can be, considering the (very) obvious differences in cutting, and probably obvious differences in the level of brilliance. So I don''t have a suggestion when it comes to designing a set, but I think this ring design is very nice for a small gemstone: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/finished-spessartite-ring.101824/. Also, if I remember correctly, Marcyc has a similar ring done in white metal with a red garnet, also lovely.

 

[oddoneout]

Amazing colour. I can see what you mean about the difference in quality of cuts.

 

[innerkitten]

Nice stones! I also love Gene''s cutting. It gives the stone that extra something.

 

[arjunajane]

I love that oval of Gene''s, so pretty! I have the same cut in a spinel and it really gorgeous when the facets are lighted up

Perhaps a 3 stone oval ring with a diamond in the middle?

 

[RevolutionGems]

Every once in a while, someone comes on here asking, "What''s the difference between a native cut stone and a prcision cut stone?" The close-up of the two stones says it all. Both are beautiful, but, to my eye, Gene''s stone leaves the other one in the dust. That is easily the best comparison picture I have ever seen.

 

[marcy]

Great colors and they do match but wow what a difference in cut!

 

[chrono]

Date: 3/30/2010 8:14:21 PM
Author: dzop
Am I weird for preferring the Swala stone to the Gene stone? When I see Gene''s stone, all I see are ''facets''. When I see the Swala stone, I just see ''COLORCOLORCOLOR''.

Is it possible to prefer a well-cut, but not TOO well cut gemstone?

I am in agreement with you when looking at the magnified pictures where the Swala stone is all colour and Gene’s stone is mostly about the faceting. However, when looking at the faraway shots, I’m pretty sure the two look very similar as it is very difficult to pick out the details, more so after they are set.

 

[1001smiles]

Wow, thank you all for your responses!

I agree with Jeff, this has been quite educational for me because both stones are pretty much the same color and size, so we can compare directly what difference the cut makes.
Let me add the stats for comparison purposes:
Swala spinel: 0.92 ct, 7 x 5 x 3.2 mm
Gene''s spinel: 0.89 ct, 6.67 mm x 4.55 mm (doesn''t specify depth, but obviously much deeper than the other one)

So at the end of the day, the precision cut stone faces up smaller because it''s deeper, but I think it also has a more vivid color because of the depth and it''s more lively in person. The Swala stone looks a bit dark in the middle. But it faces up bigger... So I guess peopel can make their own conclusions...

So here are the photos I promised. This one is from the side, comparing the cuts and the depth. I think this photo says it all...

 

[1001smiles]

Here''s an up-side-down view, to compare color. It''s pretty much the same...

I think it''s a rare opportunity to compare two stones of almost identical material and weight, and see what difference the cut makes.
BTW, don''t get me wrong, I think the Swala stone is very pretty as well and I am glad I got it.

 

[1001smiles]

Last one, these are vendor photos for comparison.

Gene''s photo: