RevolutionGems
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
- Messages
- 434
Emeralds???
- Thread starter Irishgrrrl
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,684
Pandora II
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 9,613
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,684
RevolutionGems
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
- Messages
- 434
Pandora II
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 9,613
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,684
Not only do I not have access to a Chelsea Filter, I don''t even know what one is! You guys are really dealing with a TOTAL newbie, here! LOL!
OK, I just got done checking them with the 10X loupe, and here''s what I saw:
On the emerald cut stone ~
~ A few small chips around the girdle and edges of some of the facets, and some surface scratches (especially on the table)
~ It does seem to have a good bit of inclusions, and they are kinda lacey-looking
~ I can''t tell for sure about the girdle, but it looks like it might possibly have a line down the middle?
~ Does not look like the back facets are doubling
And on the oval stone ~
~ A few small chips and surface scratches like the EC stone, but the table seems almost "pitted" (which the EC does not)
~ No lacey inclusions (in fact, I really didn''t see any inclusions)
~ Girdle seems to be flat and smooth, with no line down the middle
~ Back facets don''t seem to be doubling when viewed through the table
Please excuse my very untrained eye . . . hope this helps!
OK, I just got done checking them with the 10X loupe, and here''s what I saw:
On the emerald cut stone ~
~ A few small chips around the girdle and edges of some of the facets, and some surface scratches (especially on the table)
~ It does seem to have a good bit of inclusions, and they are kinda lacey-looking
~ I can''t tell for sure about the girdle, but it looks like it might possibly have a line down the middle?
~ Does not look like the back facets are doubling
And on the oval stone ~
~ A few small chips and surface scratches like the EC stone, but the table seems almost "pitted" (which the EC does not)
~ No lacey inclusions (in fact, I really didn''t see any inclusions)
~ Girdle seems to be flat and smooth, with no line down the middle
~ Back facets don''t seem to be doubling when viewed through the table
Please excuse my very untrained eye . . . hope this helps!
Pandora II
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 9,613
Very useful so far. I have a couple of ideas and I'm sure Jeff will call in with some too.Date: 6/17/2008 6:00:53 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl
Not only do I not have access to a Chelsea Filter, I don't even know what one is! You guys are really dealing with a TOTAL newbie, here! LOL!
OK, I just got done checking them with the 10X loupe, and here's what I saw:
On the emerald cut stone ~
~ A few small chips around the girdle and edges of some of the facets, and some surface scratches (especially on the table)
~ It does seem to have a good bit of inclusions, and they are kinda lacey-looking
~ I can't tell for sure about the girdle, but it looks like it might possibly have a line down the middle?
~ Does not look like the back facets are doubling
And on the oval stone ~
~ A few small chips and surface scratches like the EC stone, but the table seems almost 'pitted' (which the EC does not)
~ No lacey inclusions (in fact, I really didn't see any inclusions)
~ Girdle seems to be flat and smooth, with no line down the middle
~ Back facets don't seem to be doubling when viewed through the table
Please excuse my very untrained eye . . . hope this helps!
Do the facted edges on the second one look smooth and rounded or are they sharp (not just on the edges of the stone, but all the facets?
Are the facet edges worn down on either stone?
On the first one, with the line down the middle of the girdle does it seem wonkyish on both sides or is it smooth all over? With the inclusions do they seem to be spread throughout the depth of the stone or do they appear to lie in one plane - ie like a layer of included stone and the part below clean?
(A chelsea filter is a very useful device for helping to ID green stones. You look through it and depending on whether a stone looks red or green, and the precise shade of red you are getting you can get a quick idea of whether something is what it says on the tin - it needs other back up tests but is a very useful, quick and easy one. Chelsea filters are about $20 and worth having if you like green gemstones!)
It's 1am here, so I will have to get back to you tomorrow.
In the meantime if you can give as much description as possible that would be great - especially on the inclusions in the EC.
Can you see anything that looks a bit like a little sausage shape with a bubble inside it? They will be very small! Or anything that looks like very thin parallel straight lines or bubbles or swirls within either stone, or, finally, anything that looks like flakey metallic disks for want of a better description!
Finally, with the chips, what does the surface of them look like - if you can see it...
Is it rough and jaggy looking, or does it look bit like a sea-shell - concentric semi-circles (you'll know what I mean if you can see that!)
Sorry - gazillion questions, but I love a good treasure hunt!
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,684
Glad my last post was useful! I''ll try to answer the rest as well as I can:
~ On the oval stone, the edges of the table look sharp, but the edges of the other facets look kinda smooth and rounded. But, ALL of the faceted edges of the EC stone look sharp.
~ None of the facet edges look worn down on either stone.
~ The line that I think I can see in the girdle of the EC stone looks like it''s pretty smooth (if it''s there at all).
~ The inclusions in the EC stone look like they''re pretty evenly distributed throughout the stone, and not all on one plane. They almost look like fine dust sprinkled evenly throughout the stone. It''s hard to tell what color they are, but they seem to be maybe just a slightly darker shade of green than the rest of the stone? (I checked again, and still can''t find any inclusions in the oval stone.)
~ No sausages with bubbles, parallel straight lines, bubbles, swirls, or flakey metal discs. Although I wish there were . . . those all sound pretty cool! LOL!
~ The few chips I can see in both of the stones are wee tiny so I really can''t tell for sure . . . but they look like they''re of the rough and jaggy variety, and not the concentric circle variety. (Again, I can''t tell for sure because they''re so small!)
Thanks, Pandora!!!
~ On the oval stone, the edges of the table look sharp, but the edges of the other facets look kinda smooth and rounded. But, ALL of the faceted edges of the EC stone look sharp.
~ None of the facet edges look worn down on either stone.
~ The line that I think I can see in the girdle of the EC stone looks like it''s pretty smooth (if it''s there at all).
~ The inclusions in the EC stone look like they''re pretty evenly distributed throughout the stone, and not all on one plane. They almost look like fine dust sprinkled evenly throughout the stone. It''s hard to tell what color they are, but they seem to be maybe just a slightly darker shade of green than the rest of the stone? (I checked again, and still can''t find any inclusions in the oval stone.)
~ No sausages with bubbles, parallel straight lines, bubbles, swirls, or flakey metal discs. Although I wish there were . . . those all sound pretty cool! LOL!
~ The few chips I can see in both of the stones are wee tiny so I really can''t tell for sure . . . but they look like they''re of the rough and jaggy variety, and not the concentric circle variety. (Again, I can''t tell for sure because they''re so small!)
Thanks, Pandora!!!
Pieface
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 223
Hehe I''ll throw my hat in ring with a few comments and hopefully will learn some more myself. Keep in mind my sum total of knowledge comes from Barbara Smigels online gemology course - lol!! I''m also making assumptions that your answers are accurate for the exercise
Lack of facet doubling doesn''t sound promising for emerald or tourmaline for the emerald cut stone as both are double refractive stones and should show this feature. The line down the girdle could be a sign that the stone is an assembled gem. The fracture pattern is also inconsistent with beryl, assuming we have the right identification on it. The lack of facet edge wear is consistent with a fairly hard stone and the fracture pattern and single refraction seem consistent with spinel. I jumped to an early conclusion of ''soude emerald'' as it kinda fit with the description so far, plus Barbara has a nice description and photo in her tutorial, lol!! I look forward to seeing if this was a reasonable guess to make from the data according to the experts. Of course I''ll probably get told to use the evidence to determine what it is not and leave alone determining what it is but it is fun to guess
I''ll leave it there for now. I have a few thoughts on the oval but I''m interested to see what Pandora and Revolution have to say.
Irishgrrl - please let me reiterate that I know next to nothing so please realise that there is a 99.9% chance that I am waaaaay off base
Lack of facet doubling doesn''t sound promising for emerald or tourmaline for the emerald cut stone as both are double refractive stones and should show this feature. The line down the girdle could be a sign that the stone is an assembled gem. The fracture pattern is also inconsistent with beryl, assuming we have the right identification on it. The lack of facet edge wear is consistent with a fairly hard stone and the fracture pattern and single refraction seem consistent with spinel. I jumped to an early conclusion of ''soude emerald'' as it kinda fit with the description so far, plus Barbara has a nice description and photo in her tutorial, lol!! I look forward to seeing if this was a reasonable guess to make from the data according to the experts. Of course I''ll probably get told to use the evidence to determine what it is not and leave alone determining what it is but it is fun to guess
I''ll leave it there for now. I have a few thoughts on the oval but I''m interested to see what Pandora and Revolution have to say.
Irishgrrl - please let me reiterate that I know next to nothing so please realise that there is a 99.9% chance that I am waaaaay off base
swimmer
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,516
Hi Irish,
I''ve got even less info for you but on the Antiques Roadshow the little British fellow says check the setting for marks, if it is gold, there will be markings of some sort. He joked that Grams wouldn''t put a treasure in a bit of brass. But also know that gold cocktail rings with faux colored stones or less spendy stones are not unusual. I love my great grand aunt''s vast "ruby" cocktail ring in pink gold. A real ruby would require both insurance and more care.
What you have is gorgeous! It would be nice if they were emeralds, but they are still priceless to you.
I''ve got even less info for you but on the Antiques Roadshow the little British fellow says check the setting for marks, if it is gold, there will be markings of some sort. He joked that Grams wouldn''t put a treasure in a bit of brass. But also know that gold cocktail rings with faux colored stones or less spendy stones are not unusual. I love my great grand aunt''s vast "ruby" cocktail ring in pink gold. A real ruby would require both insurance and more care.
What you have is gorgeous! It would be nice if they were emeralds, but they are still priceless to you.
Pandora II
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 9,613
Okay, here's my guess - obviously based just on the information that you have given - so don't use it in place of a proper appraisal.Date: 6/17/2008 8:38:54 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl
Glad my last post was useful! I'll try to answer the rest as well as I can:
~ On the oval stone, the edges of the table look sharp, but the edges of the other facets look kinda smooth and rounded. But, ALL of the faceted edges of the EC stone look sharp.
~ None of the facet edges look worn down on either stone.
~ The line that I think I can see in the girdle of the EC stone looks like it's pretty smooth (if it's there at all).
~ The inclusions in the EC stone look like they're pretty evenly distributed throughout the stone, and not all on one plane. They almost look like fine dust sprinkled evenly throughout the stone. It's hard to tell what color they are, but they seem to be maybe just a slightly darker shade of green than the rest of the stone? (I checked again, and still can't find any inclusions in the oval stone.)
~ No sausages with bubbles, parallel straight lines, bubbles, swirls, or flakey metal discs. Although I wish there were . . . those all sound pretty cool! LOL!
~ The few chips I can see in both of the stones are wee tiny so I really can't tell for sure . . . but they look like they're of the rough and jaggy variety, and not the concentric circle variety. (Again, I can't tell for sure because they're so small!)
Thanks, Pandora!!!
Oval stone - I am guessing that this is glass paste. I have one with the same rounded edges, colour and pitted surface in the table. Lack of double refraction rules out tourmaline, and I have never seen a spinel in that colour of green (they tend to be either a light peridot colour or a murky colour a bit like green sapphires). The stone is also too clear for me not to be suspicious. The fact that the girdle edges seem smooth would suggest that it isn't a garnet topped doublet.
Does it seem warm to the touch compared with a know natural gemstone? (Your tongue is quite a good judge of this by the way!)
EC stone - this I'm not sure about at all. Emerald is doubly refractive but you'd need a piece several inches thick before you'd be able to see doubling of the back facets, so the fact you can't is positive and rules out tourmaline.
I positive it's not a soude emerald - it would be top green colour if it was, the girdle would be a pretty good give away and the ones I have seen all have these strange inclusions like little metallic disks that are only in one layer.
It could potentially be a garnet topped doublet that has been nicely assembled - one way of having a look for this: Turn the stone upside down, using a good light source have a look at the back of the stone and see if you can see a pinkish line around the edges of the whole stone (not each facet, but like a very slightly smaller outline of an EC shape in a pinkish shade). If you can see that then it is almost certainly a GTD. I'm not sure the colour is good enough for one though. Fakes tend to shout 'top quality' at you!
This is the stone that I am most interested in seeing what an appraiser says as there is nothing as yet which rules out emerald.
On the inclusions I asked you about, sausages with bubbles would have been nice - they are properly called 'three-phase inclusions' and are a negative cavity left by a crystal and filled with liquid and a gas or air bubble (sometimes there's a teeny crystal in it too). Emeralds quite often have these.
Parallel straight or curved lines are called striae and indicate a synthetic stone.
Swirls and bubbles are good indicators of glass - and some synthetics.
There are other synthetic emeralds that have what looks like a darker green crackle effect (which is exactly what it is!).
The oval is paste and the EC may be an emerald - that's about all I can guess at I'm afraid.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,684
Thank you, everyone, for your input!
Pandora, your conclusions don''t surprise or disappoint me at all. I always thought that, if one of them was a real emerald, it was the emerald-cut one. The oval one just doesn''t look "emeraldy" enough, if that makes any sense!
I''m at work right now, and I don''t have the rings with me, but I don''t remember seeing the pinkish outline you mentioned on the EC stone when I was playing with it last night. (And I really looked at that thing, both with and without the loupe, so I think I would have noticed that.) But, I''ll check again just to make sure when I go home at lunchtime.
Just to clarify a little bit about the girdle on the EC stone: I had a hard time determining if there was a line or not. It definitely doesn''t look like the girdle on the oval stone, which is pretty thick and smooth. If you were to sit the EC stone face-down (so it''s resting on its table) and look at the edges of the stone, they would look kinda like this: <> It''s almost like there is no girdle ~ just an edge where the facets meet.
Swimmer, as far as the markings on the metal of the rings are concerned . . . I seem to remember that they both had some sort of stamp on the inside of the shank, but I don''t remember what they looked like. I''ll check that out at lunchtime too and get back to you.
I really appreciate the help you all have given me so far. I don''t want to waste an appraiser''s time (and my money!) getting the rings appraised if one or both of them are fakes.
Pandora, your conclusions don''t surprise or disappoint me at all. I always thought that, if one of them was a real emerald, it was the emerald-cut one. The oval one just doesn''t look "emeraldy" enough, if that makes any sense!
I''m at work right now, and I don''t have the rings with me, but I don''t remember seeing the pinkish outline you mentioned on the EC stone when I was playing with it last night. (And I really looked at that thing, both with and without the loupe, so I think I would have noticed that.) But, I''ll check again just to make sure when I go home at lunchtime.
Just to clarify a little bit about the girdle on the EC stone: I had a hard time determining if there was a line or not. It definitely doesn''t look like the girdle on the oval stone, which is pretty thick and smooth. If you were to sit the EC stone face-down (so it''s resting on its table) and look at the edges of the stone, they would look kinda like this: <> It''s almost like there is no girdle ~ just an edge where the facets meet.
Swimmer, as far as the markings on the metal of the rings are concerned . . . I seem to remember that they both had some sort of stamp on the inside of the shank, but I don''t remember what they looked like. I''ll check that out at lunchtime too and get back to you.
I really appreciate the help you all have given me so far. I don''t want to waste an appraiser''s time (and my money!) getting the rings appraised if one or both of them are fakes.
RevolutionGems
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
- Messages
- 434
Wow. I am so outclassed here it isn''t even funny.
Pandora, you never fail to amaze me. I know a little bit about the inclusions, fracture, etc. but only enough to get myself in trouble. I am sitting here with my mouth hanging open (a tiny trail of drool on my chin)at the knowlege you posses. If I may say it...you ROCK!(pun fully intended.)
I thought I had a pretty good grasp and I am pretty fair at picking and identifying rough but you have shown me the light. I really need to get deeper into gemology.
You are my new best friend. Are you single? Want a boyfriend?
Pandora, you never fail to amaze me. I know a little bit about the inclusions, fracture, etc. but only enough to get myself in trouble. I am sitting here with my mouth hanging open (a tiny trail of drool on my chin)at the knowlege you posses. If I may say it...you ROCK!(pun fully intended.)
I thought I had a pretty good grasp and I am pretty fair at picking and identifying rough but you have shown me the light. I really need to get deeper into gemology.
You are my new best friend. Are you single? Want a boyfriend?
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,684
Pandora II
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 9,613
LOL, thank you for the compliments.
I can assure you that I am VERY, VERY far from being an expert of any sort - I do do a lot of reading and as much looking as possible, but I am still a beginner and don''t know a fraction of what there is to know. Gemmology is definitely one of those subjects where the more you learn the more you realise that you have barely touched the surface of the subject.
I envy your cutting skills immensely - and you will understand far more than I do about crystallography and optics in order to be able to cut the beauties that you do. I can draw nice pictures of crystal systems, but would I recognise them in a piece of rough??? I have no idea!
I''m going to try my hand at buying some stones and a piece of rough (for a cab) when I''m in Ratnapura in October - I don''t mind admitting that I am frankly terrified of entering the lion''s den of the gem markets there and I am trying to learn as much on inclusions as I can at the moment. Sadly theory is no replacement for handling the actual stones and spotting the things you have read about and seen pictures of.
Many thanks for the offer, but I''m getting married in 5 weeks time!
RevolutionGems
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
- Messages
- 434
Pandora II
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2006
- Messages
- 9,613
RevolutionGems
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
- Messages
- 434
Well, if you can get something out, even a badly cut native stone, the offer stands.
I very much envy you being able to go to a real gem market. The closest I have come is gem shows. One of my dreams is to go hang out in the Thai gem markets for a couple of weeks to see how things actually transpire.
If I though I could do it, and had the means to get started, I would spend my time buying and selling rough gem material all over the world. I find that, while I love to cut, I am very much fascinated by the rough itself. I see the potential and have a feeling of great satisfaction when I have a really great rough stone in my hand.
I guess I am just a hopeless rough rock romantic....
I very much envy you being able to go to a real gem market. The closest I have come is gem shows. One of my dreams is to go hang out in the Thai gem markets for a couple of weeks to see how things actually transpire.
If I though I could do it, and had the means to get started, I would spend my time buying and selling rough gem material all over the world. I find that, while I love to cut, I am very much fascinated by the rough itself. I see the potential and have a feeling of great satisfaction when I have a really great rough stone in my hand.
I guess I am just a hopeless rough rock romantic....
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,684
I''m back from lunch with a little more info for everyone:
Pandora ~ I checked the EC stone one more time, both with and without the loupe. I didn''t see any kind of a pinkish outline like you mentioned.
Swimmer ~ I checked the stamps on the insides of the rings. The oval one says "LIND. G.E.C." (I''m not sure what LIND. means, but I''m guessing G.E.C. might mean "gold electroplate"?) The EC one says 14k, so I''m figuring it''s 14 karat gold.
Thanks again, guys! And Pandora, congratulations on your upcoming wedding! Sorry about your luck, Jeff!
Pandora ~ I checked the EC stone one more time, both with and without the loupe. I didn''t see any kind of a pinkish outline like you mentioned.
Swimmer ~ I checked the stamps on the insides of the rings. The oval one says "LIND. G.E.C." (I''m not sure what LIND. means, but I''m guessing G.E.C. might mean "gold electroplate"?) The EC one says 14k, so I''m figuring it''s 14 karat gold.
Thanks again, guys! And Pandora, congratulations on your upcoming wedding! Sorry about your luck, Jeff!
Pieface
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 223
Darn it! I should of had my guess on the oval as that was a lot closer!
I saw that the birefringence of emerald was pretty low but had no idea that you would need such a large piece to detect the facet doubling. I''ll put that in my memory bank. Thanks Pandora! The colour should have been a giveaway on my guess. Just shows how dangerous a teensy bit of knowledge can be haha!
Hopefully that one is an emerald then Irishgrrrl - Good Luck!
I saw that the birefringence of emerald was pretty low but had no idea that you would need such a large piece to detect the facet doubling. I''ll put that in my memory bank. Thanks Pandora! The colour should have been a giveaway on my guess. Just shows how dangerous a teensy bit of knowledge can be haha!
Hopefully that one is an emerald then Irishgrrrl - Good Luck!
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,684
Oops! Sorry, Swimmer! I meant to say "G.E.P" not "G.E.C." I think my brain is on the fritz lately! LOL!style="WIDTH: 99%; HEIGHT: 135px">Date: 6/18/2008 1:22:18 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl
I''m back from lunch with a little more info for everyone:
Pandora ~ I checked the EC stone one more time, both with and without the loupe. I didn''t see any kind of a pinkish outline like you mentioned.
Swimmer ~ I checked the stamps on the insides of the rings. The oval one says ''LIND. G.E.C.'' (I''m not sure what LIND. means, but I''m guessing G.E.C. might mean ''gold electroplate''?) The EC one says 14k, so I''m figuring it''s 14 karat gold.
Thanks again, guys! And Pandora, congratulations on your upcoming wedding! Sorry about your luck, Jeff!
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,684
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,684
Everybody was so helpful with this!
I just wanted to let you all know that I''m taking the emerald cut stone to a local jeweler tonight. I''ve been meaning to go to this jeweler anyway, because they buy used jewelry and I have a few items I want to get rid of. (Don''t worry . . . I''m not selling either of the rings mentioned in this thread!) This jeweler has a very good reputation, and I spoke to them on the phone yesterday afternoon. They said they would be happy to take a look at the stone and tell me for sure if it''s an emerald or not. If it is, I intend to get it appraised and possibly reset. I''ll keep you guys posted!
I just wanted to let you all know that I''m taking the emerald cut stone to a local jeweler tonight. I''ve been meaning to go to this jeweler anyway, because they buy used jewelry and I have a few items I want to get rid of. (Don''t worry . . . I''m not selling either of the rings mentioned in this thread!) This jeweler has a very good reputation, and I spoke to them on the phone yesterday afternoon. They said they would be happy to take a look at the stone and tell me for sure if it''s an emerald or not. If it is, I intend to get it appraised and possibly reset. I''ll keep you guys posted!
Fly Girl
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2007
- Messages
- 7,312
Wondering if the "LIND." means it could be a Linde created emerald. Do you think the ring could date from the 1960s or so?Date: 6/18/2008 1:22:18 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl
I''m back from lunch with a little more info for everyone:
Pandora ~ I checked the EC stone one more time, both with and without the loupe. I didn''t see any kind of a pinkish outline like you mentioned.
Swimmer ~ I checked the stamps on the insides of the rings. The oval one says ''LIND. G.E.C.'' (I''m not sure what LIND. means, but I''m guessing G.E.C. might mean ''gold electroplate''?) The EC one says 14k, so I''m figuring it''s 14 karat gold.
Thanks again, guys! And Pandora, congratulations on your upcoming wedding! Sorry about your luck, Jeff!
I''m not an expert, but I was a huge fan of Linde stars when I was a kid.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,684
FlyGirl, I guess that''s entirely possible! I really don''t know for sure when my Great-Grandmother bought/was given the ring, but the design looks like maybe it might be from the 50s or 60s? I had never heard of Linde before. Do the Linde emeralds look pretty authentic? If so, I don''t think this is one . . . it looks kinda fake to me.
Fly Girl
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2007
- Messages
- 7,312
Quoting from an on-line search:Date: 7/11/2008 4:15:51 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl
FlyGirl, I guess that''s entirely possible! I really don''t know for sure when my Great-Grandmother bought/was given the ring, but the design looks like maybe it might be from the 50s or 60s? I had never heard of Linde before. Do the Linde emeralds look pretty authentic? If so, I don''t think this is one . . . it looks kinda fake to me.
Later, from 1965 to 1970, the Linde Division of Union Carbide produced completely synthetic emeralds by hydrothermal synthesis. According to their patents (US3,567,642 and US3,567,643), acidic conditions are essential to prevent the chromium (which is used as the colorant) from precipitating. Also, it is important that the silicon containing nutrient be kept away from the other ingredients in order to prevent nucleation and confine growth to the seed crystals. Growth occurs by a diffusion-reaction process, assisted by convection. Typical growth conditions include pressures of 700-1400 bars at temperatures of 500 to 600 °C with a temperature gradient of 10 to 25 °C. Growth rates as fast as 1/3 mm per day can be attained[citation needed]
Luminescence in ultraviolet light is considered a supplementary test when making a natural vs. synthetic determination, as many, but not all, natural emeralds are inert to ultraviolet light. Many synthetics are also UV inert.
Irish-Have you tried using UV light to see if there is luminescence? (i.e., Hold ring under UV in a dark room, then turn off the UV and see if there is still a slight glow from the stone.)
Yes, those Linde rings did look at bit cheap. They are back now. You can see some examples of the sapphire cab on e-bay.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,684
I haven''t tried the UV light trick, but that''s good to know . . . I might have to give that a shot!
Meanwhile, I took the emerald cut stone to the jeweler''s tonight to see if they could tell me what it was. They looked at it under a loupe, and I was told that it "probably isn''t an emerald . . . might be some kind of synthetic, but we really can''t tell for sure unless we take it out of the setting." So, I don''t know a whole lot more than I did before.
Meanwhile, I took the emerald cut stone to the jeweler''s tonight to see if they could tell me what it was. They looked at it under a loupe, and I was told that it "probably isn''t an emerald . . . might be some kind of synthetic, but we really can''t tell for sure unless we take it out of the setting." So, I don''t know a whole lot more than I did before.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,104
Irishgirl,
I have a strong hunch the ring with the "Lind" stamp and "GEP" is costume jewelry. In a quick search I found this at a costume jewelry site:
"Item No: C-1791 Faux Smoky Topaz Rhinestone Ring
The ring is rhodium plate white 14 KT H G E over base metal and marked ''Lind''. A Prong mounted glass simulated smoke topaz set, 8 mm x 10 mm with fine small clear rhinestones surrounding the large set. The condition is near mint." GEP ("Gold Electroplate") HGE and ("Hard Gold Electroplate") are common markings in such items.
Lind would be the maker and a company of that name was active in Attleboro, MA the 50s.
Judging just from the color and size of the oval stone I''d guess it may be synthetic spinel or glass.
For a final judgment you first need to find a gemologist, not an appraiser. The gemologist can tell you what the stones are and if they''re natural and of possible value, then seek out an appraiser. Just my opinion of course.
Richard M.
I have a strong hunch the ring with the "Lind" stamp and "GEP" is costume jewelry. In a quick search I found this at a costume jewelry site:
"Item No: C-1791 Faux Smoky Topaz Rhinestone Ring
The ring is rhodium plate white 14 KT H G E over base metal and marked ''Lind''. A Prong mounted glass simulated smoke topaz set, 8 mm x 10 mm with fine small clear rhinestones surrounding the large set. The condition is near mint." GEP ("Gold Electroplate") HGE and ("Hard Gold Electroplate") are common markings in such items.
Lind would be the maker and a company of that name was active in Attleboro, MA the 50s.
Judging just from the color and size of the oval stone I''d guess it may be synthetic spinel or glass.
For a final judgment you first need to find a gemologist, not an appraiser. The gemologist can tell you what the stones are and if they''re natural and of possible value, then seek out an appraiser. Just my opinion of course.
Richard M.
- Status
Featured Topics
300x240.png)