I love that yellow tumble of yellow diamonds. That ring looks great in a handshot. And the pink. Yowzaa. Holy cow that's some collection.

 

I have absolutely nothing productive or useful to say.  My vocabulary is coming up short on words.  Did anyone else look just like these smilies?  I think I have a bruise on my chin from when it hit the table so fast.  OMC, you have made my year and terrified my DH.     I predict I will be bankrupt by summer thanks to the sparkly lust this thread has instilled........HO-LEE-COW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am with everyone else...speechless.  And for those who know me that is something!  Congrats on your wedding

WOW!

Whew. My eyes are popping. The synapses are firing. What a show, what show. Bravo.

Sorry for the delay. Had to bring DD to a party - in McDonald's of all places...

Since we are on the subject of taste, the '70s are also known as the decade that taste forgot. Flared trousers, kipper ties, sideburns and platform shoes are all good representatives of '70s ...erm... style.

And so is this sapphire and diamond ring by OH, NYC, 1973



2.12 ct in 10 equal oval diamonds (F-G/VS), 3.92 ct in 16 differently-sized brilliant-cut sapphires (won't hazard a guess, but nice deep blue), set in gold and platinum in a very 3-D way



Two things make it stand out for me: the diamonds are set in platinum - not just the prongs, but under each diamond there is a small platinum oval, so that the yellow from the gold is not picked up. And - although it is a large ring by any reckoning (LxWxH 1" x 3/4 x 3/4 or 25 x 18 x 18 mm) - it sits on the hand so nicely that it looks almost flat.



Now - did I say that's a large ring? Then this is positively huge:



nearly 1 oz (24 g) of textured gold, just over 3 ct of diamonds and over 5 ct of chrysoberyl (my guess - it was sold as beryl, but I suspect it's chrysoberyl: color, photochroism and a nice 3-phase inclusion conveniently located under a prong all point to chrysoberyl) by B, Paris, circa 1975. Size W x L x H 1 1/4" x 1 1/8 x 5/8 (30 x 27 x 15 mm)

The main stone is a lovely golden green under natural light, and loses some of the golden tint becoming almost grassy/olive colour under artificial lighting. And it's a bugger to photograph. This is as close as I can get to the artificial light colour, but the stone looks a little lighter and greener than this in reality.



Again, apart from the size, I find the shape absolutely remarkable, with two gold chain links, the suggestion of a diamond ribbon wrapped around them, and the green stone sitting on top. Workmanship is first rate - the texture is chiselled on rather than cast, and the pave diamonds are set close enough that the gold surrounding seems white rather than yellow.



As I mentioned on the "Post your sparklies" thread, these are not classical "good taste", but they have gumption, and require it in wearing them.

If you want to call them fugly, you are welcome (I would not have bought them 5 years ago; tastes change). I think in another 20 years they will be called classics. In the meantime, I'll enjoy looking at them.

Goodness!  You constantly amaze me OMC.  As you say, these may not be classical pieces but they are no less riveting!  WOW!

I'm actually kind of worried they might not let us fly when she's wearing it - they may decide it's a potential weapon! 

I thought about peridot too, but it's slightly photochroic (more yellow to more green), and it's more lively (refractive) than peridots I can remember seeing. And I imagine I may have been unduly swayed by the seller describing it as "beryl" - which I think it's almost definitely not!

Haven't got a refractometer yet. There's a nice jewellery equipment store that I need to call on... anyone have any recommendations as to type/brand?

I guess another decisive and quicker test would be hardness, but if you're right, I'd be in trouble after scratching it with a piece of topaz...

Test results to be posted here as soon as I can get them!

I've just found a nice digital refractometer on ebay for $350, and an analogue one for $150. I'm tempted; I just love gimmicks.

Also - I think I may just send a few photos of the item to B in Paris, together with the item number, and ask them to look in their archives...

But then you wouldn't have an excuse to buy a new gadget...

and the winner is...

<drum roll>

... nobody yet!

The blasted mystery stone comes up consistently with an RI of 1.70-1.71 on a brand new digital thingy (see? I succumbed). That rules out beryl at 1.56-1.62, but it (in)conveniently sits in the middle between peridot (1.65-1.68) and chrysoberyl (1.74-1.78)

Having said that, the more I think about it, the more I'm getting convinced that CS is right, and it IS peridot. I could always return it to the vendor, since it was sold as "beryl"...

B have a lot to answer for - I must make the time to call them.

Hummm, very interesting... but, even more frustrating, I'm afraid. Phooey! OMC, I'm terribly curious to hear the definitive answer as well...