Advice on setting opal

Jewelry Discussion
21 
simply choosing a mounting style or method that will be most
attractive for a given stone is just part of the jewelers job, not
some automatic attempt at fraud

Yes and it even goes deeper than Peter’s post. Most of the opals
I’ve been setting recently - I set quite a few over time - have been
opaque through the stone. When you’re dealing with what this thread
is actually about- a $150 white opal that has a certain
transluscence to it, then you ~must~ think about what’s behind it.
You can’t set it on a wire bearing when you will see some rim around
the girdle after it’s set, for instance. A common problem…Whether
the background is silver, white gold, yellow gold or black or pink
becomes a part of the design process by necessity and saying one is
better than the other is simple snobbery. And it’s not just opal,
it’s any stone you can see through - quartz, citrine and many others.

And then you also get into another problem of light - if you put
black paper (whatever) behind it, you’ll get a different effect than
if you paint the back with a Sharpie. As Peter says, it’s part of the
job - it’s often a case where SOMETHING must be done - what that
might be is up to the maker and the exact circumstance.

22

Hello T.L. Goodwin,

Look, if you back a stone with an artificial color, whether you
attach the artificial color to the stone or not, you are still
altering the color of the stone. And you better disclose it.

I completely agree with disclosing any treatment that enhances any
gemstone.

So my question is this, you have a customers crystal base opal with
no body color, great play of color. You are to set it in yellow gold
and you cannot have the back open. This makes the opal have a yellow
body color and washes out some of the play of color. This alters the
natural color of the opal.

What is your solution to the gold giving the opal color that is not
it’s natural color? Would you set it and see if the customer notices
that their opal does not like it did unset?

I show the customer how their opal would look with the back open
against their skin, with a gold backround and with black backround.
There are a lot of opal doublets set in gold jewelry that are opal
glued to stone that makes them look like boulder opal, and this
affects how they look.

From what I have seen, backing poor quality opals does not really
make them look much better.

Giving the customer the options is inclusive with disclosure and
results in the best results in my experience.

Richard Hart
Denver, Co.

23

I disagree with Leonid…

Actually there is a very good reason. Let's recall definition of a
gemstone. In order to call a mineral gemstone - mineral MUST
posses BEAUTY, RARITY, AND DURABILITY. If any of it missing, it is
not a gemstone anymore.

There are all sorts of material that are missing one of these
qualities and can still be considered “Gems”.

This definition is an invention of the gem trade and can be
challenged by any goldsmith, jeweller or regular guy.

Just because we would like to define something as “X” doesn’t make
it so.

24 
opaque through the stone. When you're dealing with what this thread
is actually about- a $150 white opal that has a certain
transluscence to it, then you ~must~ think about what's behind it.

I agree with John totally.

And this topic fascinates me. I think it’s a danger for us, as
creators, to get sidetracked onto meta-issues. We forget that most
customers want, above all, to buy something beautiful, over something
less attractive but “pure”, or that took months to make, or that
required years of training, etc. They simply want something
beautiful!

I’m not saying that ethics, high standards, and good raw materials
don’t matter. Of course they do. But as long as it’s explained to the
customer how the piece was made and why, it’s their decision to
choose to buy a beautiful opal mounted, for example, on black jade,
versus a less attractive mounting.

The gentleman I take cabbing lessons from, Dave Hanna, mounts plume
agate on dark stone of equal hardness. They’re so beautiful they’ll
make you cry. The first time I saw them, I could barely breathe. But
without that backing? One has to squint and hold the stone up to the
light to see why it’s Earth’s beautiful treasure.

Lorraine

25

Hello all,

Actually there is a very good reason. Let's recall definition of a
gemstone. In order to call a mineral gemstone - mineral MUST
posses BEAUTY, RARITY, AND DURABILITY. If any of it missing, it is
not a gemstone anymore.

Rubbish, diamonds are not rear at all but this is a very
“price-controlled” market worldwide. Beautiful might be, however it
depends on the way you look at them. Durable yes… if you don’t
smash it. Rare…WRONG! Painite is very rare but unknown for lady’s,
beautyful and durable (mohs hardness of 8). Tanzanite ( another Tiff &
Co product) is found only in one mine worldwide with a hardness of
6.5 which is not durable at all. Is it a gemstone…yepp, it is.
Ammolite is also found in only one spot worldwide (Alberta,Canada)
and pretty soft 4.5 - 5.5 which is another gemstone.

Some diamonds are “upgrated” (in my way of expressing this
treatment) by leaserlight. Bad spots will be lasered in order to make
de stone better and getting a higher price for the same gemstone.
Don’t forget all the marketting and advertising of famous company’s
like Tiff & Co, Lance and Co and many others sending the diamond up
to heaven with commercials about them…because they’re expensive
and market as the king of all The best knowen commercial
is “Diamonds are a girl best friend” and of you go, no diamond no big
love and no engagementring. Silly, but it works pretty well.

A few links in order to upgrate your mind, check it out by yourself.
http://www.curiousnotions.com/gemstones/

Have fun and enjoy
Pedro

26 
And it's not just opal, it's any stone you can see through -
quartz, citrine and many others

Windows can be a challenge to deal with. For inventory maybe the
best thing is not to buy heavily windowed stones in the first place,
but cost and proportions become more of a factor. For client owned
goods what you see is what you get, and what you have to work with.

Client handed me a very pale yellow saph roughly 12x5mm roundish,
yeah that’s about a 40% total depth. It wasn’t a window, it was a
freakin lens. “Do something, its important to me, and its got to look
great!” So I made a sort of bezelly ring in white gold with a solid
back lined with 24K. Off hand I can’t recall if the lining was bright
or fine satin finish. No matter how tight one makes a bezel dirt is
going to find its way in. I studied the stone and found there were
two places way off to the sides where I could hide a drilled hole in
the mount with the stone oriented just so. It didn’t show face up but
allowed a good steaming now and then.

Was it worth it? While I wouldn’t have made such a thing for stock
it was the customer’s imperative and Amex. Apparently the significant
cost was worth it to the client.

I don’t feel paper, or plastic trash bag or sharpie or paint are
permanent enough. Just imagine what your customer might think if she
takes it elsewhere for cleaning and the jeweler hands it back, all
crappy looking and informs her it was poorly done. I don’t believe
quality is solely snob territory.

27 
it's often a case where SOMETHING must be done - what that might be
is up to the maker and the exact circumstance.

John is absolutely right. I have yesterday finished a ring that came
in for a stone replacement. It was set with a shattered black
sapphire and the client wanted a shallow aqua cab set in the space
of the sapphire. So I cut a cab out of good quality material but when
the stone was placed in the setting it simply died because of a
black hole in the center caused by the hole in the ring. I then
soldered a 18ct white gold flat little plate in the hole and gave it
a high polish. I left two small holes in the white gold under the
stone on either side for cleaning. After I set the stone, it looks
great. The customer loves it, loves the idea of a ‘reflector’ ( his
words) In this case there was no other choice, really and I don’t
think the value of the stone was lowered in any way.

Cheers, Hans
http://www.meevis.com
http://hansmeevis.blogspot.com

28 
Rubbish, diamonds are not rear at all but this is a very
"price-controlled" market worldwide. Beautiful might be, however
it depends on the way you look at them. Durable yes... if you don't
smash it. Rare...WRONG!

Subject of diamonds is a complicated one because one has to go
against a huge marketing machine to prove the point, but general
principal stands - RARITY, BEAUTY, DURABILITY.

I do agree that diamonds that populate jewellery stores are not
rare, and as shockingly as it may sound, they are not Yes,
I said it. Most of the diamonds are crap.

Those who has been trained in old school traditions should remember
that there was a time when all and especially diamonds
were evaluated on “water”. Some books would tell you that “water” is
the same as clarity and therefore archaic and redundant, but not so.

Water is a measure of crystal perfection. A diamond can have
flawless clarity grade, but be of poor water. Alas, there is no
grading on water in GIA certificates, so as far as industry concern,
it does not exist. But, if diamonds would be graded on water, that
would be a different world. Pure water diamonds are quite rare.

Leonid Surpin

29 
This definition is an invention of the gem trade and can be
challenged by any goldsmith, jeweller or regular guy.

I wish it would be true, but gem trade have abandoned these
principals long time ago.

Real gemstones are much rarer than a trip to a gem dealer would
suggest. Rarity factor is disappearing from consideration due to all
the treatments available and durability is almost gone as well. And
it reflects in gemstone pricing. Just look what happend to corundum
market.

Leonid Surpin

30

Hello all,

by all means and respect Leonid and please don’t feel offended by
this answer.

Giving a customer the best could be - as you mentioned
before-

the way of the general rule. However I do not mention anything
according general rules due to the fact that a customer knows nothing
about these rules, why bodering him with old fashion and out of use
. Old school began with the classification of diamonds
with Jager,Top river, river , top wesselton, wesselton etc. These
names explain the tradition of comparing diamonds with water and it
is out of this world. The grading for diamonds are the 4C’s and
that’s it. No Type 1A, 1aA or type 1aAB according their chemical
cristal composition. This is very misleading for a
customer, not completly wrong but also not right eather. Old school
was telling about semi-precious gemstones aswell. I still need to
explain people where this name is derived from and it is out of use.
The intention of giving these “goods” a “standard” was truely a way
of giving the shild a name but it causes a lot of misunderstanding.
Pearl is not a rock or mineral but organic material aswell as amber
and others. They are, however, classified as semi-precious gemstones
without being a stone, know explain a customer this one!

IGS (International Gemstone Society) can not clarify with an exact
definition what a gemstone is, they don’t even talk about the fact
of being rare or not. They do talk about durable and beauty not
mentioning one word of being rare. Australian gem association defines
it as “By modern definition, a gemstone is a mineral or other natural
material that is beautiful enough, durable enough, and rare enough,
to be used for personal adornment or for the embellishment of
personal possessions”. My question is, howmuch is enough?

Despite all the effort of giving gemstones and other organic or non
organic material a correct classification, mankind can not classify
them unter a exact definition. To make it even more strange, colored
glas had a higher value in the very old day’s compared with real
Now, how silly can this be but don’t ask me if they placed
this under the name of

This is the reason why I tell people that rare, beauty and durable
are not the right terms for the -old school or not- definition of a
gemstone because some of them are not even classified as stone in the
meaning of minerals or a collection of them. I know I’m not right and
yes, I know that you’re a little bit not wrong (I can’t surpress a
smile at this point) but this is the way it is. Precious opal with a
backing is not a gemstone because it is not precious enough and
ordinary opal is a gemstone because it shows a bit of color with no
backing? However, opal is not a gemstone because it’s not durable and
on the other hand picture opal is precious due to the special color
pattern and rarity? Even old school can’t cover this subject and has
to pass on this one with “general rules”

Let me close this -of topic- subject by shaking my hand halfway with
you and wishing you the very best for the next upcoming year.

Enjoy and have fun, cheers Leonid!!
Pedro

31 
Old school began with the classification of diamonds with Jager,Top
river, river, top wesselton, wesselton etc. These names explain the
tradition of comparing diamonds with water and it is out of this
world. The grading for diamonds are the 4C's and that's it. No Type
1A, 1aA or type 1aAB according their chemical cristal composition.
This is very misleading for a customer, not completly
wrong but also not right eater.

Don’t you find it interesting that the very thing that make Diamond
precious gemstone is omitted from grading reports?

I do not agree that it is misleading There is nothing
misleading about it. There are 2 types of diamonds. Type one is
diamonds containing nitrogen; and type two is diamonds which do not.
Each type is subdivided, for for the purposes of this discussion, we
don’t need to go into it.

Type 2 diamond is a precious stone and type one could be, but only in
top grades. The old school incorporated all this in simple term
“water”, and now it takes book to describe it. So what is more
misleading?

Old school was telling about semi-precious gemstones swell.

Actually, it is over-simplification. Gemtrade with GIA leading the
pack, has been using fallacy knows as “Reductio ad Absurdum” to
obscure the fact that not all gemstones are made equal.

K. Kluge classified gemstone into 5 classes. Fersman into 6 and
bionic gems. As late as 1980, Kievlenko has classified into 3 groups

  • Jewellery Stones, Jewellery Industrial Stones, and Industrial
    Stones. First two groups further subdivided into 6 categories, and
    the third one without subdivision.

All classifications are based on probability of occurrence in Earth
crust, or in other words RARITY.

Leonid Surpin

32

Hello Leonid and all others,

I agree 100 procent with you that this matter is very interesting
and I’m all for it to learn as much as possible. I even think that we
could sit on a table with cake and something to drink, talking hours
about this matter.

It is up to the honnest jeweller to explain layman, ordinary people
with no or very poor knowledge in simple words what this all means.
To them a diamond is a freaking hard gemstone and expensive with
“fire”…fullstop. If they know a liitle bit more about gems, they
can talk about emerald and sapphire not mentioning about corundum and
beryllium. The majority of them don’t even know the differents
between red sapphire and fancy color ones. This is also true in this
unique worldwide forum with all the respect for the ones who have
knowledge concerning

What I’m trying to explain is that there is no exact definition
explaining what a gemstone is. Not by a national company nor by
international standards, by nobody. General rules…yes but still
they’re not correct and the funny thing is that none of them are the
same. All the classifications and category’s from K.Kluge, A.Fersman,
G.Gyurich, M.Bauer and others already speak for themself, by all
means, there is no definition.

Actually there is a very good reason. Let's recall definition of a
gemstone. In order to call a mineral gemstone - mineral MUST
posses BEAUTY, RARITY, AND DURABILITY. If any of it missing, it is
not a gemstone anymore.

Azurite, sphalerite and many others are not even hard and therefore
not durable. In your opinion they do not meet the “BRD-definition”
and are no gemstones by using your/this expression? However, they are
mentioned as gemstones in books in some kind of classification by “a”
gemologist i.e. mineralogist. You are telling by your own words that
this is not applicable. Who wrote this definition you’re talking
about above? Kluge, GIA, Yvanovich, CIBJOU, Florence Bascom, Alexis
Damour, Heddle?

With your -the one you’re using as reference- general rule, you’ll
cut off to short and that is misleading in my opinion.

I provide customers and people who’re looking for the
correct specs without talking about rules and if they like to make
some, well that’s up to them. I keep it correct and according the
facts. In this way, they’re happy, it is true, honnest and they’ll
come back to me. I’ll NEVER come up with my own homemade definition
just to set a standard to help someone understanding what this is all
about. If someone realy wants to learn it all, I advice him/her to
study mineralogy or gemology and I’m done. I do not say that your
definition - or the one you’re referring to- is homemade but I do say
that it is wrong and confusing.

With respect, wishing you the very best and a happy Newyear.

Pedro

33 
Azurite, sphalerite and many others are not even hard and
therefore not durable. In your opinion they do not meet the
"BRD-definition" and are no gemstones by using your/this
expression?

This is correct. I do not want to use term “investment jewellery”,
but you would have a hard time getting this type of jewellery through
Sotheby’s appraisers, or any other reputable action house, unless a
piece would be of high artistic value.

Enamel is not a gemstone by any definition, but a lot of jewellery
is done with enamel. There is jewellery with porcelain inserts; there
is jewellery with lab-grown stones, and glass paste. Jewellery is
made with many different things. Some of it are historically and
artistically important. That does not change the definition of a
gemstone. “BRD-definition” holds.

Leonid Surpin

34

Hello Orchidland,

Just to throw another thought into the mix - if a translucent cab
(amethyst, blue topaz) is set on a silver backing, what will happen
in time as the silver patinas? The lovely color will diminish, and
the customer will probably be disappointed by the change. In that
case, it makes good sense to seal the metal, line the bezel back with
a non-tarnishing material, or otherwise preserve the original white
metal color. The stone is not changed in any way, and its appearance
stays as it was originally set.

My personal preference is to avoid the tarnish and use a “reflector”
(as Hans customer called it) behind the stone.

Judy in Kansas

35 
My personal preference is to avoid the tarnish and use a
"reflector" (as Hans customer called it) behind the stone

It certainly has a long and illustrious heritage. Cellini has a long
detailed description in his autobiography describing his skills and
methods of foiling behind stones, and we see in celtic and
anglo-saxon work, those wonderful garnet inlay pieces, that great
care and skill was used to place carefully polished and textured
gold foils behind the stones. The rich and sparkly appearance of
those garnet inlays is largely the result of those foil reflectors.

Peter

36

Judy

Just to throw another thought into the mix - if a translucent cab
(amethyst, blue topaz) is set on a silver backing, what will
happen in time as the silver patinas?

When I set a translucent cab like Montana Agate I polish the inside
of the setting and use enough CA Special T (superglue) to cover the
back of the cab and bond the cab to the silver. It seems to keep the
tarnish at bay.

Rick Copeland
rockymountainwonders.com