AGL report - heat only

[jm1511]

Just something that crossed my mind when looking up heated sapphires at different online vendors. When a stone is accompanied by an AGL report stating 'heat only', is that the end of the story? Or is it possible there are other types of new enhancements that are undetectable or haven't been made known to anyone other than the dealers?

Just looking for some peace of mind when it comes to heated stones.

 

[minousbijoux]

Its the end of the story, except for some new-fangled, under the radar, undetectable treatment that is top secret and known to a handful who have snuck it on to the market extremely recently. In other words, possible, but doubtful; AGL is pretty good at keeping apace of treatments.

 

[jm1511]

lol ok thanks for the reply. I'll stop being paranoid about top secret enhancements.

 

[minousbijoux]

lol ok thanks for the reply. I'll stop being paranoid about top secret enhancements.

Yeah, or you can think of it this way: we'll all be screwed right along with you, so you'll be in good company.

 

[kenny]

Its the end of the story, except for some new-fangled, under the radar, undetectable treatment that is top secret and known to a handful who have snuck it on to the market extremely recently. In other words, possible, but doubtful; AGL is pretty good at keeping apace of treatments.

This has to be true unless the criminals get on the phone to tell GIA and AGL they just developed a new deceptive process to fool them and buyers.
In fact the fine print on the back of GIA's colored diamond reports very clearly states what the report claims is not a guarantee, warrantee, or certification and even then the gem description is subject to techniques and equipment used by GIA at the time of the examination.

There must be some period of time between the crooks developing a new process and the time GIA or AGL figure it out.
It seems reasonable that in between some gems might be sold with reports stating the stones are fully natural, when in fact they are not.

A few years ago I paid a fortune for a green diamond that had a 5-year old GIA report indicating it was fully natural.
During the sale transaction I insisted Leibish send it back to GIA in NY for a new GIA report.
They graciously complied with no hesitation whatsoever.
I suspect I'm not the first green-diamond buyer to want this.

Green is very easy to nuke and make look natural since exposure to radiation in the ground looks very similar to radiation induced in a laboratory.
Supposedly GIA has to analyze brown stains on the skin of the rough to be sure.
That's why cutters leave indented naturals on most greens, and/or submit it to GIA multiple times during cutting.

Since green is so risky and expensive mine getting two GIA checks five years apart made me feel at ease paying the price.

I'd be nervous buying a green today with a only one fresh GIA report, as I have a very low tolerance for risk when so much $$$ is involved.

 

[minousbijoux]

Fwiw, the OP is talking about AGL not GIA and for colored stones, AGL is ahead of GIA in identifying the latest treatments - at least it appears that way since Christopher Smith is so active on other websites. If the OP had asked about GIA I would have definitely equivocated more in my response.

 

[kenny]

I'm commenting about the awkward problem of the impossibility of labs, all labs, catching every new treatment immediately, and offering my experience on the subject.

 

[T L]

Heat only means just that "heat only," and if there are other possible treatments, they will often say that it has not been tested for, or something like that. To be sure, contact AGL, but that's what they told me.

Usually it will say "heat only" and "no other treatment" if everything has been tested for, like diffusion, for example.

 

[jm1511]

Interesting info about testing and AGL. If it weren't for pricescope I would have bought the first stone I saw in a local store and not be any wiser about the quality of it.

 

[colorchange]

You can see mistakes, especially in “new” sorts of gems. AGTA lost all of its credibility with lack of detection of Beryllium treatment, and accepting to issue certificates on those too common new orange & pink-orange sapphires, when more conservative labs refused to issue reports.
The first to get a new treatment these days would be GIA & AIGS.

You also see some gems where new treatments get undetected, it happened to be once with a padparadsha that got out of a top lab a long time ago as unheated, when it was in fact glass filled at very low temperature. Such things happen, you can’t really blame the lab for not finding it.
I do not want to pass on such risk to my clients, so I tend to “mature” gems that are even very remotely suspicious, sending them to a lab 6 month after I bought them. Fortunately, that padparadsha got into my “maturing” stock and never reached a client of mine.
Actually, that “maturing” period also brings surprises, like some purple sapphires from Ceylon that turned out to be from a fresh deposit in Pakistan.

There are a lot more errors in origin, for instance I recently a large ruby for sale with a lab report a few year old stating unheated Burma from a very authoritative lab. I don't trust it would get Burma again now.

Now I am a very conservative gem dealers, you see some that still try to sell some Be-treated padparadshas with an AGTA certificate !

 

[colorchange]

kenny, have you thought of the risk that GIA might refer to previous analysis for consistency instead of doing it anew ? I don't re-use labs for that reason on the same stone.

 

[bcavitt]

You can see mistakes, especially in “new” sorts of gems. AGTA lost all of its credibility with lack of detection of Beryllium treatment, and accepting to issue certificates on those too common new orange & pink-orange sapphires, when more conservative labs refused to issue reports.
The first to get a new treatment these days would be GIA & AIGS.

You also see some gems where new treatments get undetected, it happened to be once with a padparadsha that got out of a top lab a long time ago as unheated, when it was in fact glass filled at very low temperature. Such things happen, you can’t really blame the lab for not finding it.
I do not want to pass on such risk to my clients, so I tend to “mature” gems that are even very remotely suspicious, sending them to a lab 6 month after I bought them. Fortunately, that padparadsha got into my “maturing” stock and never reached a client of mine.
Actually, that “maturing” period also brings surprises, like some purple sapphires from Ceylon that turned out to be from a fresh deposit in Pakistan.

There are a lot more errors in origin, for instance I recently a large ruby for sale with a lab report a few year old stating unheated Burma from a very authoritative lab. I don't trust it would get Burma again now.

Now I am a very conservative gem dealers, you see some that still try to sell some Be-treated padparadshas with an AGTA certificate !

I assume you mean AGL since AGTA is a trade association not a laboratory?

 

[smitcompton]

Hi Bryan,

Your assumption would be incorrect. AGTA opened its own lab some yrs ago. They couldn't make a go of it and so closed it down. I know it was in existence for several yrs.


Annette

 

[jm1511]

So I see it does happen that things can go missed in a lab report. I'm assuming this is very rare though..

Are there characteristics I should look for when viewing a gem, blue sapphire specifically, that would make it suspicious or a "new" type of gem?

 

[colorchange]

So I see it does happen that things can go missed in a lab report. I'm assuming this is very rare though..

Are there characteristics I should look for when viewing a gem, blue sapphire specifically, that would make it suspicious or a "new" type of gem?

Yes, it would be very rare that a treatment get unnoticed. And there is absolutely not the faintest chance someone who doesn’t see massive amount of gemstones would detect something unusual that a lab didn’t catch. But gem dealers have a better view than labs on some clues, like prices & availability, and most see many more stones than the guy in a lab.

 

[jm1511]

Got it. Thanks for the reply and info, very informative.

 

[kenny]

kenny, have you thought of the risk that GIA might refer to previous analysis for consistency instead of doing it anew ? I don't re-use labs for that reason on the same stone.

Nothing is ever 100% certain.
We can only strive for what is more likely.

Yes that's possible, not likely, and not certain unless GIA knows their equipment/processes did not change between the reports.
In that case the 5 years being a long time make is more certain the green diamond is natural, than if only 6 months had elapsed between reports.

The reason I think it is unlikely GIA just rubber stamps the new report is GIA's legal department knows that would be exposing GIA to potential liability.
Imagine this scenario.
The green diamond, with two GIA reports 5 years apart, was later determined to be treated (perhaps by AGL or other high-level lab) and the equipment/processes used on GIA's second report date would have caught the treatment.

... not that my tiny green dot would be worth such a court case but GIA is that lab of choice for plenty of multi-million dollar FCDs for clients with deep pockets.
Next, GIA's fine print on the back of the second report state the diamond is described based on equipment/processes in use by GIA on the report date on the reverse.

Yes, GIA is not perfect as we saw in the 'report-gate' scandal, but if a customer is going to risk their money buying FCDs touted to be fully natural GIA is still the best 'friend' they have.

 

[chrono]

AGTA had a lab years ago but the lab is no longer functioning.

GIA has made errors before; synthetic alexandrite was deemed natural by mistake and the oiling treatment of ruby was not disclosed. In both cases, AGL detected these when the stones were sent to AGL for a second review. Per the Gem Forecaster's latest newsletter, GIA was under investigative review for covering up a bribery scheme where a few personnel were paid to grade a parcel of diamonds higher than they actually are.

 

[pregcurious]

Justincutter had a sapphire that came with an AIGS report that it had no treatment, but then GIA found it had been heated. You can read about it here:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/5-58-ct-blue-sapphire-gemsthailand.163440/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/5-58-ct-blue-sapphire-gemsthailand.163440/[/URL]

 

[chrono]

My personal order of preference from lowest to highest is AIGS, GIA, then AGL (out of all the three labs mentioned so far in this thread). I think AIGS is fine for most gemstones but would not be my top choice for sapphires.