And with May, the birthstone month of emerald, just having
ended, I can breathe a little easier, because as perfection goes, emerald is
one of the greatest challenges. A
naturally included and somewhat brittle stone, emerald easily gets chipped and
scraped during storage. In the little
plastic bags, diamond papers, and even in the gem trays, they bump into each
other and nick the surface of their neighbor.
Given the ever decreasing stash of my gem dealer friend D, I now have to
triple loupe everything. Catching a flaw
in a 4mm stone is not easy even with a loupe, and when you add to that the time
it takes to match two stones, your afternoon can quickly get sucked out from
under you.
Meanwhile, the numbers of those who want one of these pieces
is increasing – perhaps because supplies are shrinking elsewhere as well, and
prices correspondingly rise.
Add to that another problem with gemstones in general, and
emeralds in particular: inclusions.
These are tiny little openings inside the gem where stuff gets trapped
that makes the gem look ugly. That’s
what makes oiling, polymer, and other coatings so attractive for the
seller. They seep into the crevices and
open spaces, smoothing out the ugly spots.
Emeralds are among the most highly included gems I work
with. And consequently the most
problematic. The line between an
inclusion is as narrow as a tightrope.
Here’s why: when gems are faceted, it is the cutter’s challenge to make
sure none of the inclusions reach the surface.
When they do, then that gets judged to be a crack or a nick, and the
stone becomes a reject. When you try to
repolish the table of such a gem, the crack opens up more and more, until the
stone is so flat you can’t use it at all.
That’s why with extremely rare gems, like larger alexandrites, the stone
is left as is and sometimes still sold at a high price. I’ve also seen this with a green diamond
once. It had a “hole” as it was described to me, and there was no polishing it
out. Still it was worth over $40,000,
because of its rarity.
When you slice the more included material, as is now done
with emeralds, you face an even bigger problem.
For one, the rough is more included to begin with. Secondly, when it is sliced, and the
inclusions are too long, the stone can just break in two. Or it can look like it has a crack that goes
across the entire surface, as if you had dropped it or hit it with a
hammer. If you have rough sliced and are
paying for it, you can end up with nothing but slices like that, and it’s your
cost. Or you sell them anyway –
sometimes I do. If you think they won’t
break, then they are emeralds with inclusions on the outside, not cracks.
Emerald Rough, Included, not Faceting Grade |
A smaller piece of rough. |
So is it ever a crack?
Well, yes. If it wasn’t there
before the setter touched it. If it
wasn’t there before it went into ultrasonic for cleaning (generally not advised
for emeralds) or when it was steamed at close range and there was no crack
before. Then it’s a crack. But it’s still a fine line. A stone had a fine inclusion that got bigger
from the pressure of hammer setting. The
inclusion opened up into a crack, we say.
Or just “it cracked,” Or “it opened up.”
Take your pick.
So in a way, there’s not always an intrinsic difference
between the two. You can tell, sometimes,
more easily with less included stones for sure, that the stone did crack from
some sort of pressure: in a sapphire, for instance, a crack will reflect light
like a little rainbow, as opposed to the “silk”, the white lines, that are
naturally part of the stone.
The upshot: it depends on the stone, on what exactly you
see, and on the before and after of cutting, setting, cleaning and
polishing. It’s just not a
straightforward matter. A very
philosophical answer, I know.
No comments:
Post a Comment