Moving to another forum

[Obscura]

thank you, l will not comment your reply, l believe that some members are jealous a bit, at best.

I believe Natalija is asking for one of her threads to be moved because she agrees that it belongs in the fashion jewelry section. She is asking if all her threads need to be moved because she believes some of her stones are natural. I may be wrong because there does seem to be a bit of a language barrier. She also shared a sapphire in another thread that appears to be natural.

What I don’t understand is why some people feel the need to address her in such an unkind and petty manner. She seems to have way more patience than I do.

I officially joined PriceScope in 2019, but I’ve been reading the forums off and on since probably the beginning of the website. I don’t like the trend I’ve seen in recent years of criticizing some of the new members.

I’m going to bite my tongue and let my heart rate slow a bit before I comment any further. Like I said, she has a lot more patience than I do.

Yeah... except she was rude first in her original posting, hence the hostility. The members that were called "mean" I have never seen be anything more than helpful and generous, INCLUDING in reply to her initial post. Common sense isn't so common anymore.

 

[Shiny Black Cat]

thank you, l will not comment your reply, l believe that some members are jealous a bit, at best.

She has still competition from @Daisys and Diamonds avatar. Also a super-cute cat!
Love them both.

I want a cat so badly!

only black cat

 

[Autumn in New England]

She has stiff competition from @Daisys and Diamonds avatar. Also a super-cute cat!
Love them both.

I want a cat so badly!

Yes, yes, how could I forget @Daisys and Diamonds beautiful furbaby!! Actually, so many members have their lovely pets as avatars... such a pleasure to see.

 

[thirdrock]

Yeah... except she was rude first in her original posting, hence the hostility. The members that were called "mean" I have never seen be anything more than helpful and generous, INCLUDING in reply to her initial post. Common sense isn't so common anymore.

I’ve read her initial posts. All seemed well at first, then there was a post in which someone insinuated that Natalija had multiple accounts and was responding to herself. The pile-on started after that. I think she is taking flack for things she probably hasn’t even done. I don’t find her responses rude. I don’t think anything she has written justifies the vitriol directed towards her.

 

[ChaiK]

Yeah... except she was rude first in her original posting, hence the hostility. The members that were called "mean" I have never seen be anything more than helpful and generous, INCLUDING in reply to her initial post. Common sense isn't so common anymore.

Let's have fun in this forum. Her cat is lovely. She likes your posts even when you call her names.

I think she just wants to make friends, share her gems and have fun with her gems, like all of us on this forum.

It is not wise to judge posts when you cannot hear the tone of the person writing them.

 

[Obscura]

I’ve read her initial posts. All seemed well at first, then there was a post in which someone insinuated that Natalija had multiple accounts and was responding to herself. The pile-on started after that. I think she is taking flack for things she probably hasn’t even done. I don’t find her responses rude. I don’t think anything she has written justifies the vitriol directed towards her.

Asking for advice then blowing off the responses from seasoned members and saying despite being told it is "99.99999%" likely lab and saying "I don't care, I'm posting my stones anyway. Who's to say what is lab and natural?" Is obviously considered rude to a lot of people. You know what they say about opinions...

 

[Obscura]

Let's have fun in this forum. Her cat is lovely. She likes your posts even when you call her names.

I think she just wants to make friends, share her gems and have fun with her gems, like all of us on this forum.

It is not wise to judge posts when you cannot hear the tone of the person writing them.

Trolls seeking attention do exactly what she did to the letter. *Shrugs*

 

[JewelledEscalators]

Asking for advice then blowing off the responses from seasoned members and saying despite being told it is "99.99999%" likely lab and saying "I don't care, I'm posting my stones anyway. Who's to say what is lab and natural?"

Sidetracking a little bit but I lost out in buying the below ring. Interesting history, several gem lab certs including GIA saying it is natural and unheated Madagascar ruby. Others saying it is synthetic. Absolutelly gorgeous in real life.

https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2022/fine-jewels/synthetic-ruby-and-diamond-ring

The ring was sold previously by Sotheby's for 30-40k, before that it was on sale elsewhere for like 100k (retail) £ that is not $

It seems the jury was out on this one - it's a reminder that in the end, gem lab assessments are an opinion, not a fact, as they say themselves.

 

[Shiny Black Cat]

Asking for advice then blowing off the responses from seasoned members and saying despite being told it is "99.99999%" likely lab and saying "I don't care, I'm posting my stones anyway. Who's to say what is lab and natural?" Is obviously considered rude to a lot of people. You know what they say about opinions..

You mess up my posts. If you want to comment, please read all , and put in context. But it's too complicated, and takes some time, it's easier to read and quote randomly.

 

[ChaiK]

Sidetracking a little bit but I lost out in buying the below ring. Interesting history, several gem lab certs including GIA saying it is natural and unheated Madagascar ruby. Others saying it is synthetic. Absolutelly gorgeous in real life.

https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2022/fine-jewels/synthetic-ruby-and-diamond-ring

The ring was sold previously by Sotheby's for 30-40k, before that it was on sale elsewhere for like 100k (retail) £ that is not $

It seems the jury was out on this one - it's a reminder that in the end, gem lab assessments are an opinion, not a fact, as they say themselves.

Ooh, lovely ring. I do fall for the reds. So bad. I really shouldn't.

 

[Obscura]

You mess up my posts. If you want to comment, please read all , and put in context. But it's too complicated, and takes some time, it's easier to read and quote randomly.

I did read all of it, and if that TRUELY is not your intent, then I apologize. BUT it does NOT come across that way to some. Other people AND myself have both offered advice and explained why we had a problem with your replies, and you still come across as dismissive and abrasive. *Shrugs* Not beating a dead horse anymore.

 

[JewelledEscalators]

Ooh, lovely ring. I do fall for the reds. So bad. I really shouldn't.

It really was gorgeous. I went to look at it in person at the viewing. The estimate was 2-3k, but ended up in a last minute bidding war. I was questioning myself as to what I was doing bidding so much for a 'synthetic' ruby ring. But it was the next best thing to getting a large 4-5 carat natural unheated ruby (which is sadly outside of my budget) - a 'sytnetic' ruby that looks 'natural' enough to fool the experts. Or maybe it is natural, who knows?

 

[thirdrock]

Sidetracking a little bit but I lost out in buying the below ring. Interesting history, several gem lab certs including GIA saying it is natural and unheated Madagascar ruby. Others saying it is synthetic. Absolutelly gorgeous in real life.

https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2022/fine-jewels/synthetic-ruby-and-diamond-ring

The ring was sold previously by Sotheby's for 30-40k, before that it was on sale elsewhere for like 100k (retail) £ that is not $

It seems the jury was out on this one - it's a reminder that in the end, gem lab assessments are an opinion, not a fact, as they say themselves.

I don’t think you are sidetracking. I think your post is very germane to the conversation. I thought about referencing this thread earlier.

Can anyone give me a ballpark blue Sapphire value? | PriceScope

Some knowledgeable people thought the ring was likely synthetic. Others thought that if it was real, it was probably not that valuable. All good guesses, but that’s all they were…guesses. The sapphire ended up more beautiful and valuable than it appeared to be in the original photos.

 

[Shiny Black Cat]

You mess up my posts. If you want to comment, please read all , and put in context. But it's too complicated, and takes some time, it's easier to read and quote randomly.

I did read all of it, and if that TRUELY is not your intent, then I apologize. BUT it does NOT come across that way to some. Other people AND myself have both offered advice and explained why we had a problem with your replies, and you still come across as dismissive and abrasive. *Shrugs* Not beating a dead horse anymore.

I did read all of it, and if that TRUELY is not your intent, then I apologize. BUT it does NOT come across that way to some. Other people AND myself have both offered advice and explained why we had a problem with your replies, and you still come across as dismissive and abrasive. *Shrugs* Not beating a dead horse anymore.

What kind of advice and help you offered? Why do you talk about other people opinion? Why do you have a problem with my replies?

 

[ShinyPink]

@JewelledEscalators Stunning ring! It really does give pause to the certs we so covet. Was it too difficult in 2007 to determine synthetic rubies?

 

[JewelledEscalators]

@JewelledEscalators Stunning ring! It really does give pause to the certs we so covet. Was it too difficult in 2007 to determine synthetic rubies?

Well it might be natural, as one cert is from 2021 saying it is natural. 3 out 5 in total thought it was.

If I won the ring, I think I would have posted a thread here about it

I don't usually like synthetic rubies, as it looks unnatural, too clean, and the setting is usually not so high quality. But that ring ticked all the right boxes for me.

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

Now im dreaming about my piece of glass/ synthetic tourmaline that's at the jewlers being tested
Could i get that lucky ...

 

[bright&shiny]

It really was gorgeous. I went to look at it in person at the viewing. The estimate was 2-3k, but ended up in a last minute bidding war. I was questioning myself as to what I was doing bidding so much for a 'synthetic' ruby ring. But it was the next best thing to getting a large 4-5 carat natural unheated ruby (which is sadly outside of my budget) - a 'sytnetic' ruby that looks 'natural' enough to fool the experts. Or maybe it is natural, who knows?

I looked at the online listings for the auction - how fun to see them in person! Did you pick up anything?

 

[JewelledEscalators]

I looked at the online listings for the auction - how fun to see them in person! Did you pick up anything?

Yes, didn't realise you could just walk in and look at items on display as though you were in a jewellery store (at least at Sothebys). No unfortunately not, I didn'nt get anything else. I only had eyes for that ruby

 

[Shiny Black Cat]

I actually decided to have 2 threads if it isn't against the forum rules, because they are somehow connected.

 

[ChaiK]

I actually decided to have 2 threads if it isn't against the forum rules, because they are somehow connected.

I strongly encourage you to only have one thread.

I am a freak for organised efficiency and everything in one place is a great idea.

Plus, you don't really want any unpleasant angry posts in one thread, mixed in with your gems. Kinda adds this not very uncleansing vibe to gems.

I don't know how to describe it. I always feel gems are so pure and when I take them out, I am like ohhhh, heaven. And then you have an angry post mixed in there. That would zap the momentum to bits.

 

[Shiny Black Cat]

the point is that l want to save some posts, just as a reminder. l am sure the admins have done their job and removed inappropriate posts. i haven"t written anything l should be ashamed of. And l don't know which one to keep? I'll consider this. Thanks for your advice.

 

[thirdrock]

the point is that l want to save some posts, just as a reminder. l am sure the admins have done their job and removed inappropriate posts. i haven"t written anything l should be ashamed of. And l don't know which one to keep? I'll consider this. Thanks for your advice.

Your post will always be there and you can reference them by clicking on your username and then clicking on the number under threads or messages. You don’t have to delete anything.

Some members are suggesting that going forward you choose one thread to continue posting your gems. You could choose to start a new thread named Natalija’s Gems, or something similar, and post all of your gems on it. Alternatively, you could continue posting on one of the threads you have already started.

I think members are suggesting this because you have so many gems to share and many of them are of the same type. I think it’s probably a good idea. I’m glad you are considering it. Like I said, you won’t lose any of your previous posts.

 

[Autumn in New England]

Well it might be natural, as one cert is from 2021 saying it is natural. 3 out 5 in total thought it was.

If I won the ring, I think I would have posted a thread here about it

I don't usually like synthetic rubies, as it looks unnatural, too clean, and the setting is usually not so high quality. But that ring ticked all the right boxes for me.

The weird thing is that the GIA cert and GRS cert (both saying natural) are dated the same day, which is impossible. I wonder if that is a typo, because I couldn't confirm the GRS cert with that info. As much as I trust AGL and SSEF, I feel like the jury is still out on that ruby. Of course, I haven't examined it, but some of the inclusions look to be feathers and veils. You just don't typically see that in a synthetic ruby. But, hey, they know better than I. If it is in fact synthetic, perhaps testing greatly improved from 2007 to 2021?

 

[Shiny Black Cat]

Your post will always be there and you can reference them by clicking on your username and then clicking on the number under threads or messages. You don’t have to delete anything.

Some members are suggesting that going forward you choose one thread to continue posting your gems. You could choose to start a new thread call Natalija’s Gems, or something similar, and post all of your gems on it. Alternatively, you could continue posting on one of the threads you have already started.

I think members are suggesting this because you have so many gems to share and many of them are of the same type. I think it’s probably a good idea. I’m glad you are considering it. Like I said, you won’t lose any of your previous posts.

thank you , l am just trolling, that"s all l know on internet. i need some time to settle down. I shared almost all of my gems, waiting for my vendors to see what is new. l never know what they have , really unpredictable . Last time it was smokey quartz and some colour change gems. I don't know why is smokey quartz neglected. It also changes colour in different lights.

 

[JewelledEscalators]

The weird thing is that the GIA cert and GRS cert (both saying natural) are dated the same day, which is impossible. I wonder if that is a typo, because I couldn't confirm the GRS cert with that info. As much as I trust AGL and SSEF, I feel like the jury is still out on that ruby. Of course, I haven't examined it, but some of the inclusions look to be feathers and veils. You just don't typically see that in a synthetic ruby. But, hey, they know better than I. If it is in fact synthetic, perhaps testing greatly improved from 2007 to 2021?

Oh didn't notice that it was dated the same - good spot. But the reference number says 2006 (GRS2006-112550T) so maybe it was from 2006? Still couldn't find the report. What a pain that they require the date and the weight of the stone as well as the report no to check.

I don't know if it's necessarily a case of testing greatly improving, maybe a gemmologiest can weigh in on this (if there's anyone here). But it's possible I guess for there to have been a well made synthetic with new technology that gem labs later became aware of.

I wondered how I would feel wearing that ring. Would I be thinking, oh it's a synthetic, or oooh it could be natural?

It would have been interesting for that reason alone - if I felt oh it's nice but it's synthetic and I liked it less, I would be thinking yes but if the reports all said it was natural, you'd feel differently wouldn't you? I'd be questioning what I really liked, gemstones or a piece of paper?

If I liked it thinking it could be natural, but it may not, I would be thinking, so I could be wearing 100k on my hand, but how on earth could I insure it for the value

If I liked it either way, I'd be thinking, so it's not such a big dream to one day get a 4-5 carat ruby as you kind of have one already and you can't tell the difference!

 

[Autumn in New England]

Oh didn't notice that it was dated the same - good spot. But the reference number says 2006 (GRS2006-112550T) so maybe it was from 2006? Still couldn't find the report. What a pain that they require the date and the weight of the stone as well as the report no to check.

Yes, very inconvenient!

I don't know if it's necessarily a case of testing greatly improving, maybe a gemmologiest can weigh in on this (if there's anyone here). But it's possible I guess for there to have been a well made synthetic with new technology that gem labs later became aware of.

This is a salient point. If I purchased that ring, I would write GRS to see if they'd have any interest in examining the stone again, this time with the AGL and SSEF certs as reference points. I'd be intrigued to see the results. I don't think GIA would entertain the idea, unfortunately. Their operation is way too big at this point. If the stone came back as synthetic from GRS this time, we'd likely have a definitive answer. If they still felt it was natural, I'd then head over to AGL and ask if they'd reexamine it with all of the other "natural" reports as a reference. I wouldn't be able to rest without a consensus. lol But if that ruby is indeed natural, someone absolutely stole it!

Is anyone familiar with GCS gem lab? I've never heard of it. I wonder what their reputation is, because they're the only recent lab still identifying it as natural. If it's synthetic, that's a problem.

 

[thirdrock]

thank you , l am just trolling, that"s all l know on internet. i need some time to settle down. I shared almost all of my gems, waiting for my vendors to see what is new. l never know what they have , really unpredictable . Last time it was smokey quartz and some colour change gems. I don't know why is smokey quartz neglected. It also changes colour in different lights.

Please try not to stress over this forum. I don’t think there are any rules stating you need to have only one thread. I just wanted to let you know that if you chose to go that route you wouldn’t lose any of your previous threads or posts.

Smoky quartz is an interesting gem. I have one pendant that I purchased many years ago. Some believe that it transforms negative energy into positive energy. Seems like a good gemstone to have around.

 

[JewelledEscalators]

Yes, very inconvenient!



This is a salient point. If I purchased that ring, I would write GRS to see if they'd have any interest in examining the stone again, this time with the AGL and SSEF certs as reference points. I'd be intrigued to see the results. I don't think GIA would entertain the idea, unfortunately. Their operation is way too big at this point. If the stone came back as synthetic from GRS this time, we'd likely have a definitive answer. If they still felt it was natural, I'd then head over to AGL and ask if they'd reexamine it with all of the other "natural" reports as a reference. I wouldn't be able to rest without a consensus. lol But if that ruby is indeed natural, someone absolutely stole it!

Is anyone familiar with GCS gem lab? I've never heard of it. I wonder what their reputation is, because they're the only recent lab still identifying it as natural. If it's synthetic, that's a problem.

Haha, great minds think alike! Though I don't know how gem labs would take to that.

In my case though, I would do it the other way around - contact the ones that said synthetic to establish what made them think it is. There are always new types of gems and unusual specimens that are natural, and I wouldn't think gem labs would decide something is synthetic because they hadn't seen it before, but base it on something that is a known synthetic characteristic.

GCS has a good reputation. We don't know enough to think they're wrong.

If you're selling it, I guess the issue is that even if you went to 10 labs, and 8 said natural, 2 said synthetic, you couldn't sell it as 'natural', and there's no price for 'probably natural' or 'could be natural'.

 

[JewelledEscalators]

If it is in fact synthetic, perhaps testing greatly improved from 2007 to 2021?

Also, if we went with this theory, ALL OF US with certified stones would have to allow for the possibility that in the future, say in 2035, our stones may come back as synthetic