Emerald for e-ring without certificate?

[unmet145]

Hi All,

I am new here and have a question about buying an emerald. I am thinking about buying a vintage art deco platinum setting that can hold a 5-5.5mm round or cushion cut stone (see below. the stone in the picture is a cushion cut). The store (a reputable, non-chain store, in Boston's downtown crossing area) also had some round and cushion cut emeralds. They seem to be good shape with great color, great saturation, jardin that not visible with the naked eye but were definitely there under the scope. The Jeweler said that it was a well cut stone with no window or extinction. I don't know anything about this, but I could not see anything negative about these stones.

The one that I liked the most was a .99carat 5.5mm round cut emerald graded very fine and the price he quoted was 2k. The question I have is this: when I asked if this stone is certified, the jeweler said that it was not and that it would cost $400 to certify it. This concerned me because once I got home and did some research, I found that AGL does a gem brief for $65. So was this a mis-communication? Did I mis-use the term certification when I really should have specified a gem brief?

He said that most of his diamonds have certification but that these emeralds did not and that its hard to find ones that already come withpaper. He said that he will look around for me to see if he can track one down for me.

Because I'm buying a vintage setting first and then buying an emerald that fits it, I have much less flexibility about the stone. I haven't been able to find a 5-5.5mm round cut emerald online. Should I be worried? Should I get the stone and then get a gem report on my own just so I know what kind of treatment was applied to it.

Thanks!

 

[kenny]

Emerald may not be a good choice for a ring that is expected to be worn daily for a lifetime.
It is more susceptible to damage than sapphire, or better yet diamond which are both harder.

You can find sapphires in many colors, and if you can accept treatments of the stone the price is more reasonable.
Natural diamonds come in all colors too but natural green with strong color is astronomically expensive.
Have you considered a yellow diamond?
Yellow is one of the most affordable diamond colors after brown.

About the 400 vs 65 dollar price difference the jeweler may have been referring to AGL's most expensive prestige report, plus shipping both ways, plus some profit thrown in.

 

[T L]

Hi All,

I am new here and have a question about buying an emerald. I am thinking about buying a vintage art deco platinum setting that can hold a 5-5.5mm round or cushion cut stone (see below. the stone in the picture is a cushion cut). The store (a reputable, non-chain store, in Boston's downtown crossing area) also had some round and cushion cut emeralds. They seem to be good shape with great color, great saturation, jardin that not visible with the naked eye but were definitely there under the scope. The Jeweler said that it was a well cut stone with no window or extinction. I don't know anything about this, but I could not see anything negative about these stones.

The one that I liked the most was a .99carat 5.5mm round cut emerald graded very fine and the price he quoted was 2k. The question I have is this: when I asked if this stone is certified, the jeweler said that it was not and that it would cost $400 to certify it. This concerned me because once I got home and did some research, I found that AGL does a gem brief for $65. So was this a mis-communication? Did I mis-use the term certification when I really should have specified a gem brief?

He said that most of his diamonds have certification but that these emeralds did not and that its hard to find ones that already come withpaper. He said that he will look around for me to see if he can track one down for me.

Because I'm buying a vintage setting first and then buying an emerald that fits it, I have much less flexibility about the stone. I haven't been able to find a 5-5.5mm round cut emerald online. Should I be worried? Should I get the stone and then get a gem report on my own just so I know what kind of treatment was applied to it.

Thanks!

It seems like your jeweler isn't either very educated in emeralds, or he is trying to deceive you. Be very careful of fine emeralds, as it could be a simulant, and if he's trying to dissuade you from getting a lab report, I would worry. Emeralds are some of the most highly treated and synthesized gems, so I would never spend a substantial amount of money without a lab report on an emerald. If he still gives you a hard time about it, even if you tell him about the $65 AGL brief, I would go elsewhere for an emerald.

As Kenny said, emeralds are not very good ering stones either.

 

[chrono]

The brief only tells you whether it has been treated or is untreated. IIRC, it does not tell you the type of treatment. It also does not tell you the level of treatment. To get those information, you'll either need the full AGL prestige report or GIA lab memo.

 

[minousbijoux]

Neat idea to find something vintage and find the stone to match. I love that setting! Kenny is right to warn you about the pitfalls of emeralds as a center stone for a ring that will likely be worn often. But assuming you know this already, I'll answer your other questions. If you go to AGL's website, you will see that there are a range of services they provide. The first, as Kenny mentioned, is called the AGL brief. It is $55 (iirc) and will tell you basically what you have - the material, the size, the shape, and I think, the clarity. Where it gets a little dicier is with material that is normally treated, like emerald. If it has been treated, and you want to know the level of treatment, an AGL gem brief would likely not do the trick and then you would have to pull the trigger on the more expensive report (the one your jeweler quoted). I cannot recall the pricing system for the more expensive reports (some go by gem size, whether the gem is mounted or not, and whether you want the full report or the full prestige report with grading), but it sounds like your jeweler was pretty close.

So as it sounds like you know, the more invasive treatment the emerald has had, the lower its value, all other things being equal. If you do a search on this website, you will find info about emerald treatments from least to most invasive. Some emeralds have minimal treatment like simple oiling and others have materials/substances that are embedded in the cracks throughout the whole stone to improve clarity. I would suggest that you make any purchase contingent on a report that shows minimal treatments - otherwise, I believe you could find a comparable stone treatment and appearance wise elsewhere for cheaper.

Just for your peace of mind - many emeralds I have seen do not have any kind of lab report (brief or otherwise), but I would make the sale contingent on the lab report having the expected results.

 

[unmet145]

Thanks guys for your responses! I also love that setting

1st off, I do know that emeralds are not a good stone for everyday wear. However, she really wants one, and hates diamonds for some reason. I think the submerged mounting will do a better job at protecting the corners. If it doesn't work out and she messes up the stone some time in the future, so be it.

I'm glad to hear that it was in fact my lack of understanding between the difference of a brief and full report. It seems a bit absurd absurd to me to pay $400 for a certificate for a $2,000 stone. that's 20%!! I totally see why it makes sense once the stone becomes bigger and more expensive.

So if there is no certificate, is there any other way to know about the treatments. I don't mind the regular kind of treatments that seem to be ok for most people. But I would be bothered if it was a fake, or totally messed with.

Is the information about the treatments mainly to gauge value or is it also vital for future upkeep down the line?

 

[chrono]

The information about treatment is so that you know how to care for it. Some treatment is permanent, others aren't. Some treatment will discolour or leak but others are stable. The level of treatment also affects value, as is the type of treatment, hence it is good to know exactly what you are buying.

 

[partgypsy]

My question is why don't you keep the emerald that is already in the setting? A round stone would not quite fit that setting. If you want the round emerald, I would find a setting for a round stone.

As someone else said, most emeralds out there, even in jewelry stores, do not have certification. I would either advise purchasing from someone you trust, or make the sale contingent on getting a certification and pay for the cert yourself.

Then ask yourself what you want that certification to show. Amount of treatment, type of treatment? Decide what you are willing to accept, such as light-moderate oiling only.

There is a debate whether oil (traditionally cedar) or modern resins are better for emerald treatment. Myself I don't know enough to say which is better than the other, but for the longest time I was an oil only person, because it is a treatment that is reversible, while the excel may not be. OTOH some argue the excel is better because it may be less prone to discoloration and matches the refractive index better. Others here with more knowledge can comment on this. But generally the less treatment, the better.

 

[T L]

My question is why don't you keep the emerald that is already in the setting? A round stone would not quite fit that setting. If you want the round emerald, I would find a setting for a round stone.

As someone else said, most emeralds out there, even in jewelry stores, do not have certification. I would either advise purchasing from someone you trust, or make the sale contingent on getting a certification and pay for the cert yourself.

Then ask yourself what you want that certification to show. Amount of treatment, type of treatment? Decide what you are willing to accept, such as light-moderate oiling only.

There is a debate whether oil (traditionally cedar) or modern resins are better for emerald treatment. Myself I don't know enough to say which is better than the other, but for the longest time I was an oil only person, because it is a treatment that is reversible, while the excel may not be. OTOH some argue the excel is better because it may be less prone to discoloration and matches the refractive index better. Others here with more knowledge can comment on this. But generally the less treatment, the better.

Faint, minor and moderate treatment are generally accepted treatment levels for emeralds. If the stone is treated, but generally very crystal in appearance, and not some cloudy opaque looking thing, it probably has moderate treatment or better. Most decent emeralds are moderate treatment. What's even more important is the type of treatment as some can be unstable or dry out, and they would need retreatment at some point in time. If the stone is $2K or less, I would probably go with the AGL gem brief. The most important thing is that you want to make sure its not a simulant (they even make emerald simulants with fake inclusions these days). JMO.

The inexpensive AGL gem brief for emeralds tells me everything I would want to know for a moderately priced to less expensive emerald.

 

[unmet145]

@Part Gypsy

The picture is confusing and I didn't specify, but that cushion cut stone was a loose stone that was just dropped in so that I could get a sense of how it would all look. The final product would have the stone much further down in the setting.

@TL

Thanks! I think that is what I will do. $65 seems like a reasonable price to pay for piece of mind about whether or not it is a real stone and to know how to care for it in the future. Would I need to ask to get that done before I buy the ring, or should I just do that right after on my own?

 

[chrono]

TL,
That's the old brief. The ones now issued by AGL no longer provides such information - I suppose this is so that it will not compete with their more comprehensive and expensive Prestige report.

 

[T L]

TL,
That's the old brief. The ones now issued by AGL no longer provides such information - I suppose this is so that it will not compete with their more comprehensive and expensive Prestige report.

Thanks Chrono,
Well, for $2K or less, I would still go with the cheaper one, especially if the gem is very crystal looking. JMO.

The Prestige also gives the origin, and to some people that are paying a huge premium for Colombian stones, that's also important.

To the OP,
I would contact AGL to find out exactly what the newest lab brief comes with at the present time.

 

[carmen1]

According to the AGL website (http://aglgemlab.com/gembrief/):

The GemBrief format and level of service does not quantify the extent of clarity enhancement or identify the specific filler(s) that may have been used, nor is the country-of-origin a part of this level of service. For such information, the level of service must be upgraded to the appropriate Prestige report. Size limitations do apply for specific gem varieties and additional testing requirements may also apply.

The information provided on each GemBrief includes a report number, the gemstone’s identification, measurements, carat weight, shape and cutting style, general color, enhancement information, and a digital image of the actual gemstone. The back of each GemBrief report provides variety specific information regarding mineral type, color range, history and localities from where the gem type is recovered. Also supplied on the back of the card is our consumer reference Enhancement Stability Index which ranks the stability of treatments under normal conditions of wear.

The current cost of an AGL Gem Brief for an unmounted emerald of this size would be $60, while the Prestige Report starts at $135 (origin determination and the detection of certain treatments are extra).

ETA: Looks like a GIA Gem Identification Report starts at $120
Identification Reports professionally document the results of a complete gemological examination of a material.The report will identify the material, detailing characteristics like color, transparency, shape, cut, dimensions, weight, and will include a color photo. The report will state whether the material is natural or synthetic, and whether an identifiable treatment has been used to enhance its appearance. The report will also note if the material is a simulant with no known counterpart, or if it has been assembled from two or more separate components.

By the way - that setting is absolutely gorgeous!

 

[pregcurious]

When you submit your stone to AGL, you can ask that they check for treatment first ($65 = GemBrief). If it shows treatment, they will call and ask if you want the full report with the extent of treatment ($135), or a full report with the extent of treatment and origin ($200+)

In the case of an emerald, I would assume that there is some treatment (at least oil), unless the seller is knowledgeable about emeralds and is adamant that it is completely untreated. By knowledgeable, I mean as a starting point someone who specializes in emeralds, or at least colored stones. So in general, I would expect to pay $135 for a report on an emerald because I would assume some kind of treatment, and I would want to know what it is.

That said, I would not purchase stone over $2K without getting an AGL report or an evaluation by an appraiser who is an expert on colored stones within the return period. By expert, I mean someone like Martin Fuller in VA who has worked on stones for the Smithsonian. His appraisals take about an hour, and were about $150-200 a few years ago. He has equipment in his office location for testing stones.

 

[SB621]

I can't add anything more then the posters already have on the emerald. However, I would like to question the setting. To me it looks like an antique repo and NOT a true vintage ring. You might want to get clarification on that if it is TRULY important to you to have the real thing. I just want to make sure you know exactly what your buying.

 

[minousbijoux]

I can't add anything more then the posters already have on the emerald. However, I would like to question the setting. To me it looks like an antique repo and NOT a true vintage ring. You might want to get clarification on that if it is TRULY important to you to have the real thing. I just want to make sure you know exactly what your buying.

Ahh, spoken like a true expert. Good call there SB!

 

[chrono]

The updated AGL brief for emerald looks like the below. Now, it is basically a verification that it is indeed an emerald and whether it is treated. There is no colour descriptor, type of filling nor level of filling. Even within the Prestige report, there are 3 different levels with different costs:
1. Basic prestige report
2. Prestige report with origin
3. Prestige report with quality grading

Brief: $60 for unmounted, $75 for a mounted stone.
Prestige: $135 for unmounted, $155 for mounted. It is more for origin and quality grading.
http://aglgemlab.com/pricelist/

GIA
http://www.gia.edu/gem-lab-service/colored-stone
GIA will also accept stones that are mounted.

 

[unmet145]

I can't add anything more then the posters already have on the emerald. However, I would like to question the setting. To me it looks like an antique repo and NOT a true vintage ring. You might want to get clarification on that if it is TRULY important to you to have the real thing. I just want to make sure you know exactly what your buying.

Thanks SB621,

How would one tell if its a true vintage setting and not a reproduction?

The jeweler said that he had plenty of reproductions on hand and asked if I wanted to see those. I insisted on vintage and he brought out some trays of them from the back. A lot of them were in sub-par condition, worn down, some had shanks that were almost non-existent or crudely cut off prongs or missing side gemstones. The setting in the original post was one of the ones in better shape. He was adamant about it being an old ring. I was assuming I could just take his word for it. Am I wrong?

Thanks!

 

[SB621]

I can't add anything more then the posters already have on the emerald. However, I would like to question the setting. To me it looks like an antique repo and NOT a true vintage ring. You might want to get clarification on that if it is TRULY important to you to have the real thing. I just want to make sure you know exactly what your buying.

Thanks SB621,

How would one tell if its a true vintage setting and not a reproduction?

The jeweler said that he had plenty of reproductions on hand and asked if I wanted to see those. I insisted on vintage and he brought out some trays of them from the back. A lot of them were in sub-par condition, worn down, some had shanks that were almost non-existent or crudely cut off prongs or missing side gemstones. The setting in the original post was one of the ones in better shape. He was adamant about it being an old ring. I was assuming I could just take his word for it. Am I wrong?

Thanks!

First off there is a big difference between Art Deco vs. vintage vs. antique. From the standards that I have seen in the industry antique basically means it is over 100 years old. Art Deco is from that specific time period (late 1800's to early 1900's) and vintage just means it is old but not specific to time period. In other words you can have a vintage ring from the 1980's/ 1990's. Most people know the difference however, many use the terms I mentioned interchangable (total pet peeve on mine) and just don't know better. I'm thinking your jeweler falls into that category.

I think the best way to know 100% sure what you are getting, if your own jeweler doesn't know, is to have the ring appraised by a good antique appraiser such as David Atlas or someone local to you who is completely independant and has no vested interest in your purchase (meaning they could sell you something better at a lower price etc). The appraisal would tell you what you need to know about it plus help you get your ring insured.

If you really like the ring but a true antique (not vintage) is a must for you I would make the sale contingent on the appraiser stating what it is. However I think you can get a much nicer antique ring online. If you post on the antique forum those ladies are amazing at finding stuff. Or if you live near a big city i would check out some antique jewelry stores. It would be a red flag for me when someone pulls out a tray of rings that are pretty much delipated and says they are antique/ vintage whatever. If you are interested I'm happy to post some of my favorite online vendors who carry gorgeous antique rings over in the antique forum if you would like to browse them. If anything you can at least see if you like anything out there better plus compare pricing. Though i will tell you true antiques are usually on the pricey side as they are hard to find and sold quickly.

 

[Hera]

I can't add anything more then the posters already have on the emerald. However, I would like to question the setting. To me it looks like an antique repo and NOT a true vintage ring. You might want to get clarification on that if it is TRULY important to you to have the real thing. I just want to make sure you know exactly what your buying.

Thanks SB621,

How would one tell if its a true vintage setting and not a reproduction?

The jeweler said that he had plenty of reproductions on hand and asked if I wanted to see those. I insisted on vintage and he brought out some trays of them from the back. A lot of them were in sub-par condition, worn down, some had shanks that were almost non-existent or crudely cut off prongs or missing side gemstones. The setting in the original post was one of the ones in better shape. He was adamant about it being an old ring. I was assuming I could just take his word for it. Am I wrong?

Thanks!

I responded in your other Antique thread, but I think it could be an authentic vintage ring. It might possibly have not been worn much and is in excellent condition. I would expect the material to be platinum, to have some old cut stones (old mine, oec, possible single cuts) and very fine milgraining. When/if you buy it, get it appraised and a good appraiser will be able to tell more certainly.