Padparadscha - what do you think of this one?

[Frost]

Not in my case, AGL used an LA-ICP-MS to test for diffusion on my blue sapphire that I sent them. I confirmed the specific use of this machine with Christopher Smith.

I'm dying of curiosity as to why. I can't imagine AGL couldn't determine Be from the usual testing procedures. I can sort of imagine that someone wouldn't see - maybe a new lab tech - lattice diffusion under immersion (even though it's mostly really obvious, the photo in the Pala article is just one of the possible 'looks' of it), but that they couldn't tell from an elemental analysis with LIBS is very strange to say the least.

What was the stone, really? Was it diffused in the end, or not?


EDIT: And sorry for all the double posts; I couldn't find the multi-reply option (but will).

 

[T L]

I'm dying of curiosity as to why. I can't imagine AGL couldn't determine Be from the usual testing procedures. I can sort of imagine that someone wouldn't see - maybe a new lab tech - lattice diffusion under immersion (even though it's mostly really obvious, the photo in the Pala article is just one of the possible 'looks' of it), but that they couldn't tell from an elemental analysis with LIBS is very strange to say the least.

What was the stone, really? Was it diffused in the end, or not?


EDIT: And sorry for all the double posts; I couldn't find the multi-reply option (but will).

You would have to ask Christopher Smith of AGL. Above is the stone and the lab report for reference . It was not diffused, but they had to use the mass spectrometer to determine that as standard equipment would not suffice.

 

[Frost]

@T L
I just read your thread. So in fact, they did not actually have to use an LA-ICP-MS to determine that the stone had no diffusion treatment - and there were no tell-tale high heat signs under the microscope, which should already have been a clue for them to suspect just low heat. Beryllium needs very high heat to work deeply into the stone.

Maybe they sent it because you wanted to make sure down to a molecule?
In practice - a stone where you would actually have to do this would be a very rare one indeed and I can assure you beyond a shadow of doubt that AGL uses the exact same methods that everybody else does in 99.999999% of their testing (or unless required otherwise by a customer). Another simple fact is that almost every country on the planet has an LA-ICP-MS in ministries, government offices and universities. So sending it for that check is in practice just something to request from a laboratory to organise with a willing government office or university (which is exactly what the big name labs do to begin with).

But no need to explain the impulse to double check to me - I made GRS test something with every machine on record last month, LOL (and hung over their heads until they made very sure they did). Something very rare and very special and I wanted to make sure it's so safely what they said it was that any lab planet-wide would be able to agree.

 

[Nosean]

Very interesting!! But you are to fast for me.

So I will follow your arguments...

 

[chrono]

Sometimes we just need it to be 100% mind clean for us.

 

[T L]

@T L
I just read your thread. So in fact, they did not actually have to use an LA-ICP-MS to determine that the stone had no diffusion treatment - and there were no tell-tale high heat signs under the microscope, which should already have been a clue for them to suspect just low heat. Beryllium needs very high heat to work deeply into the stone.

Maybe they sent it because you wanted to make sure down to a molecule?
In practice - a stone where you would actually have to do this would be a very rare one indeed and I can assure you beyond a shadow of doubt that AGL uses the exact same methods that everybody else does in 99.999999% of their testing (or unless required otherwise by a customer). Another simple fact is that almost every country on the planet has an LA-ICP-MS in ministries, government offices and universities. So sending it for that check is in practice just something to request from a laboratory to organise with a willing government office or university (which is exactly what the big name labs do to begin with).

But no need to explain the impulse to double check to me - I made GRS test something with every machine on record last month, LOL (and hung over their heads until they made very sure they did). Something very rare and very special and I wanted to make sure it's so safely what they said it was that any lab planet-wide would be able to agree.

They didn't on the pear stone, but they had to to it on the round one I posted to you above.

 

[Rissyl]

As for labs: the NGJA is strict with padparadscha references (and all others for that matter), but just for general gemmological know-how and available instruments, certain other labs are better.

Now that I think of it; GRS and Lotus also have branches in Sri Lanka. If you ever buy something larger and are really concerned about it, you could have it sent to either of those two for a 100% safe, 100% sure answer on anything and everything regarding a stone (GRS has a full suite of practically everything in use in modern gemmology on-site, and Lotus sends their stones to BKK for Dick Hughes to check - which is about as safe as you're ever going to get on a sapphire).

Thanks for sharing! I did consider GRS, but they didn't have a price list available, and the seller mentioned that a report from GRS would be significantly more expensive than what the stone is worth (low-value). I also did some googling previously when deciding and found some comments on PS and in general about how GRS is not super trustworthy, especially in Europe? But I'm not sure. I'll be sure to check out Lotus next time

Those look incredibly uniform, almost like a synthetic. I've never bought one even simply for collection/to check, but I have seen some and they are a bit weird. In any event, a good lab will do a Be check as a part of their routine on any heated sapphire, so you should be safe.

In the later post, @TL mentioned the thread on the blue sapphire with AIGS' lack of indication of additional treatment equating to uncertainty, hence going to AGL for further checks, and even then having to call them up to ensure diffusion testing is done?

In this case, can we still be certain that reputable labs (because I thought AIGS' was reputable enough) that come back without any statement on additional enhancements equate to an absence of diffusion, or does it just mean that they didn't check, and I need to request (and pay) for further checks? I think this was my concern with sending to NGJA as well, because the seller assured that an absence of reference to additional enhancement means there's none. But I wasn't sure whether they would even check for diffusion in the first place for basic reports, or they if they only do so if you pay more and specifically request for specific checks to be done, and that adds a layer of complication to things...

 

[Nosean]

@ Rissyl

If you are not sure about the color ( pad or not) and treatment you should not buy. 800$ for 1,5 ct with a good cut is quite cheap.

I would not spend additional money in this price range.

This is maybe helpful - look at figure 11.

http://ruby-sapphire.com/padparadscha-sapphire.htm

So many different definitions...

I bought these stones ( terrible windowed I know!) for 120-250 Dollar each - unheated and untreated - just for the color range. With a better dept and cutting they would be quite expensive. Best color is the small one - the pinkish is less pink in real life - this color many vendor from Sri Lanka say is the typical pad color... again ten vendor ten opinions...

 

[Frost]

They didn't on the pear stone, but they had to to it on the round one I posted to you above.

Can't for the life of me figure out why you'd even suspect it - I mean, the stone looks very beautiful, but blues like this aren't that uncommon in the gem trade (the thing making it uncommon is more the nice cut). I'd feel something is off if it was offered for a suspiciously low price (say, $700-800) - but if bought from a reputable dealer and for a normal price (by that I don't mean a high one - just average), there's really no reason to suspect it to begin with.

It depends on who you buy from, and how much for, to some degree. Of course the tons of "natural mined" things polluting eBay aren't natural and unheated; but a legit company with a legit business? Just one incidence of selling something undisclosed or selling something wrongly - whether knowingly or not - is enough to bury a business online in this day and age. I don't know who'd be insane enough to attempt that for even a 10-20-50 carat stone, never mind a normal, more practically useful size.

I think people in general perhaps give in to the lab hysteria and scares a bit too much for their own good. I don't remember when I've last seen something beryllium diffused - having seen thousands of stones in this past year alone - and I get a feeling that the members of this forum believe it's a lot, lot more common than it actually is.

Not everybody is out to get you, people! Remember that gem labs are very big and very profitable businesses. They're not there for your "protection" - they're there for your wallets. And they do profit much more than most large gem dealers. There's no 'golden standard' lab for anything; all of these guys use the same equipment and contrary to what some labs would obviously like you to believe, gemmology isn't rocket science when it comes to interpreting whatever graphs the machines spat out. Especially not in straightforward everyday tests like heat, beryllium, dyes, etc. That's simply the truth - there's nothing 'mystic' about it.

Aside from that, for every one quick scammer there's hundreds of dealers trying to do a legitimate deal with you. Trust your instincts - if something looks to good to be true and it can't be backed up by sufficient proof and a reasonable attitude, and on top of that the person obviously wants to offload it fast, then you know what time it is. But at the same time, understand that many of these genuine dealers juggle gems by hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars and don't need to waste time certifying and re-certifying something for you; they do have other clients who will buy on their word and do their own tests later and deciding how far they want to go in assisting you is their own discretion. For you, it's a rare and unusual object of desire; for some of them, it's just a normal thing that they see a lot of every day. Not pandering to a customer's every whim doesn't make someone a scammer.

Thanks for sharing! I did consider GRS, but they didn't have a price list available, and the seller mentioned that a report from GRS would be significantly more expensive than what the stone is worth (low-value).

Erm, no. The minimum is $130-150 and your sapphires would probably cost 200-ish, I don't know exactly. But the catch is that that takes four weeks to arrive (of course, they helpfully offer to expedite that for you for another couple hundred, LOL). So I think the person maybe just wanted to sell it without having to wait that long.

I also did some googling previously when deciding and found some comments on PS and in general about how GRS is not super trustworthy, especially in Europe?

I think I know what this refers to - color. Their standards in assigning prestigious color grades (in just my opinion) went down a bit between 2012-2015 when the Chinese gem market exploded and prices and demand went up manyfold. But when it comes to actually testing, the proper testing and telling you what they're looking at, they're one of the best I could think of. If, for example, I had a mineral specimen that I couldn't identify or something rare that's inconclusive on treatment, I'd send it to Dr. Peretti without a second thought.

But I'm not sure. I'll be sure to check out Lotus next time

Richard Hughes is the author and researcher behind the most extensive, authoritative corundum guide ever written. Probably has the most extensive library (and knowledge) of corundum on the planet. He's American, but obviously not that well know in the States because he's based in Bangkok and they opened a lab only recently, a few years ago or so - previously it was all research and gemmology.

In this case, can we still be certain that reputable labs (because I thought AIGS' was reputable enough) that come back without any statement on additional enhancements equate to an absence of diffusion, or does it just mean that they didn't check, and I need to request (and pay) for further checks?

That depends on the lab - but despite the pervasive and (in my opinion completely unjustified) paranoia about beryllium on here, I can tell you just my experience: I've spoken to various lab owners, big and small, and most of them do actually see beryllium on their results if it does occur. They will do it as a part of standard tests along with heat, but they leave it up to the customer whether they actually need something like that mentioned or not (and some of them will require additional payment for that even though the test itself wasn't done additionally).

The only sure way to know if a lab checked something for your stone is simple: call, give them the report number, and ask.

P.S. One other thing I forgot to mention yesterday - while I think it's ridiculous to believe that gem sellers half a planet away should offer you the lab of your choice and send the stones on a very long and expensive journey to whichever lab you tell them to, it's far from ridiculous to ask them to give you whatever certificate they do have, and agree to refund you if your lab of choice comes up with different results.

That's only normal, and it's accepted within the gem trade itself too. OP - you can, for example, tell the seller that you would buy the stone under the condition that AGL/GIA/whoever issues a report and finds that the stone is indeed unheated padparadscha. The cert is done on your own money and time because it's only fair, but sellers absolutely need to provide that integrity and assurance if they want to be taken seriously as honest businessmen.

A note here is that labs can disagree on results, but I don't think any two well-equipped labs would disagree on beryllium status in a hundred years. It's not rocket science. Disagreements will happen on things like color (which is somewhat subjective and different labs employ different scales) and occasionally - rarely - on low heat, but on something as obvious and in-your-face as beryllium, no.

 

[T L]

I asked AIGS if they checked for diffusion, and they never got back to me with a definitive answer, and they kind of danced around my question. This is why I sent my stones to AGL.

Please note at the time, AIGS did not have access to an LIBS or an LA-ICP-MS. In retrospect, would I send a garnet or a spinel to AIGS, sure! I have many AIGS reports on stones that have easily detectable treatment or detectable synthetics. Corundum is a whole different ball of wax, and that's why I tout labs that have access to highly specialized equipment.

I know I always tout AGL, but they are an extremely superior lab. They've even detected treatment on stones that other famous labs did not detect, like irradiated emeralds. They are extremely thorough, and they refuse to use metaphors to describe color and quality. I like that they use scientific techniques instead. I have nothing but praise for AGL, and there's a reason why the most famous gems and pieces of jewelry in the world go to that lab.

I agree with you that a vendor should offer a return policy if the buyer wants to send the stone to the lab of their choice, and it does not come back as advertised. So for example if I buy a sapphire, and I decide myself to send it to AGL, the vendor should allow time for a refund if it does not come back as advertised. This is particularly true for very expensive stones or rare colored diamonds. I would not spend a fortune on a rare colored diamond, without a GIA report for example.

 

[Frost]

I asked AIGS if they checked for diffusion, and they never got back to me with a definitive answer, and they kind of danced around my question. This is why I sent my stones to AGL.

Can't blame you. I send stuff to certify on a regular basis and completely expect to have questions answered if any arise. Anyone who says "err, we don't know if it was tested for it"... Pretty unprofessional.

Please note at the time, AIGS did not have access to an LIBS or an LA-ICP-MS.

I really, really don't think you need an LA-ICP-MS for that on a general basis - and also, I don't know if any of these mentioned labs actually own one (maybe, even probably, GIA? They're more than big enough). And any lab - including AIGS - could have simply sent the stone to government science-related ministries or universities to have it checked on that if it was requested (just like AGL itself did).
That much I am sure about, that any government does own one because the instrument is used for far more important things than testing gems; it has a wide field of use and that's why it costs that much.
But for practically every single pad or anything else that you see from AGL or anyone else for that matter, you can rest assured they use LIBS and the rest of the standard instrumentation. If I was in the States I'd visit and actually ask them to confirm that.

Also, something else just occurred to me... It happens sometimes that you can't conclusively tell whether something has had treatment applied to it or not because the elemental or spectroscopic signatures that you get out of the normal advanced instruments don't really exactly fall within standard/expected parameters.
Perhaps your sapphire was such a case; maybe the stone had no evidence of beryllium with standard testing methods (no melted crystals, no funny colouring in line with facets on the inside or out, nothing under immersion, looked slightly suspicious/out of line under LIBS). But maybe it naturally had beryllium in its structure (like some Malagasy sapphires did, from what I remember) which would have shown up on LIBS but the exact quantification of it wasn't possible so they actually needed to send it to a more powerful spectrometer to quantify the trace elements inside your stone.

How I got to that - GRS discovered Be treated cobalt blue spinels which weren't that easy to detect a few years back. The way the stones were separated from their natural counterparts was by trace element analysis via mass spectrometry; certain small trace elements were present in more or less the same quantities throughout the stone, while others like cobalt increased the further out from the centre you went - suggesting they penetrated the crystal structure from the outside and weren't a part of the original crystal as it grew. It's possible that your sapphire was such a case; maybe they saw it contained beryllium, but weren't sure how much and where exactly and therefore needed to go for more advanced tests to give you a definite answer. And the way to do that was by doing what they did.

Corundum is a whole different ball of wax, and that's why I tout labs that have access to highly specialized equipment.

What I'm trying to say is that all of them have access to the same equipment. All of them use an FTIR, Raman, PL, Uv-Vis(-Nir), (ED)XRF, LIBS and the works. And all of them can actually send stuff for further analysis if they aren't certain. I've personally seen (maybe I even have a photo somewhere, I'll check) a report from a Lankan lab PSers would sniff at which incorporated an EDXRF finding from some nuclear ministry or another because they weren't sure about trace elements in a tourmaline. The same thing goes for LA-ICP-MS and so on. Science is science, numbers are the same for everyone and gemmology really isn't demanding compared to most other fields.

They are extremely thorough, and they refuse to use metaphors to describe color and quality. I like that they use scientific techniques instead. I have nothing but praise for AGL, and there's a reason why the most famous gems and pieces of jewelry in the world go to that lab.

Not overly commercializing colour is definitely admirable, although it's not very scientific as such (it's a collection of hue/tone/saturation scales, yes, but multiple such scales are in use in the gem and gemmology trade/industries and there aren't 'right' or 'wrong' ones). Most labs try to put these things together but until (if) the colored gem trade decides to actually make a uniform scale like that for diamonds, any color grades on certs will always be opinions. I remember a few years ago some attempt was made to reach a standard; it involved AGL, GRS and someone else that I can't remember right now. Not sure where that went, didn't follow up.
Maybe the best overall advice is to simply trust your eyes on colour. The lab may say this or that but if a stone looks pleasing, vibrant, vivid to you, perhaps that's all that really should matter in the end. Because otherwise, we're all buying and selling more certificates than gemstones.

Regarding "prestige"... I was under the strong impression that Gubelin and SSEF rule that market. I mean, practically anything of note in Christie's/Sotheby's in the last five to ten years sells with a blessing of one or both of those labs. Gubelin was pretty much the father of modern gemmology, it's the oldest lab on the planet... And they do bank on that (their certs run into thousands of $ for even medium-sized stones of a few carats).

Anyway - just my opinions. I see a lot of stones every day and to me these things are standard; I have trusted suppliers and don't get burned. But if I was to put myself into the shoes of a final customer who has to try to determine how a stone looks and whether a seller is actually honest just through the Internet, and if I lived in the States, AGL would hands down be my first strongly preferred choice too.

So in that regard, I've been playing devil's advocate throughout this thread not because I'm disputing their capabilities or trustworthiness - but merely because lab 'elitism' is largely marketing and smoke and mirrors and the insides of all of these big name labs look largely the same when it comes to equipment and standards. But of course, it's up to the person to decide what they want for the stones they buy. I could try to convince you that GRS or Gubelin or SSEF hold every bit as high standards as AGL or higher; or I could try to convince someone in for example China that AGL really is more trustworthy and much higher quality than GRS or GIA or their local labs. I'd fail in both of these attempts, but all I'm saying is that the reason for that failure would largely be good marketing and not necessarily carved in stone truth.

 

[T L]

Chris Smith told me that he could not test my sapphire with standard equipment for diffusion. I will say that the stone is very uniform in color, and does not have a discernible color shift in various lighting. I don't know the exact details of why he could not use standard equipment to test for diffusion. I also don't want to open a can of worms here, but I heard that the
LA–ICP–MS was better then the LIBS for detecting diffusion. I have to look up where I heard that since it's been a while, and of course it could be incorrect.

I''m not saying that GRS, SSEF or Gueblin are inferior labs. My issue is that they use metaphors to describe color, or at least I know that Gueblin does last I checked. I really appreciate that AGL uses standard techniques under specific lighting to properly assess hue, saturation and tone in their prestige report.

To me, Padparadchas are the most difficult stone on the market to buy, because the color is so unusual and a premium is attached to that color. Add to that the myriad of treatments, and the fact that origin is so specific and important for purists, you really have to be very careful when purchasing one, especially a very expensive stone.

Thanks for your input and detailed replies.

ETA: This is where I heard that the LA-ICP-MS is better then LIBS for testing. See the fourth post down in this thread link.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/slp-gem-laboratory.196727/page-2

 

[T L]

I also want to note that I don't think people should always trust their eyes when it comes to vibrant color, and that's why objective lab reports are so important. When I first started collecting gemstones, my choices were awful as a novice. I even opened a funny thread thread about my "learning gemstones." At the time, I thought they were magnificent specimens. Decades later, I cringe.

I think it's OK when you're not spending a lot of money, but when I see people spending thousands of dollars on a ruby they think is gorgeous, and it looks like a pyrope, it gets rather scary. In the end, the consumer makes the ultimate choice, we just hope that it's an educated choice.

 

[Frost]

Chris Smith told me that he could not test my sapphire with standard equipment for diffusion.

Probably was a borderline stone which was inconclusive under LIBS - I imagined one possible scenario in the post above.

But...

I also don't want to open a can of worms here, but I heard that the
LA–ICP–MS was better then the LIBS for detecting diffusion.

LA-ICP-MS is absolutely better, we've never disagreed on that as far as I recall.
The point I tried to make was that in most cases it simply isn't necessary because 99.99% of corundum tests well within established LIBS and microscope parameters and as such needs no further testing for a confirmation of whether or not it has been Be treated. Let's say as an example that the microscope, liquids, LIBS, FTIR all together form a scale. If you have that scale with reference points stating 10 for natural heated sapphire and 0 for beryllium heated one and you test a stone as 10, further testing simply isn't necessary - it's overkill. LA-ICP-MS won't give you a different result on that 10; it may give you a different result on a 2, or 3, or a 5 - and those stones are very, very few and far between. That was my point: that most stones test clearly enough on that scale that further testing simply isn't necessary or actually done in any of all the labs we mentioned because past a certain point on that (imaginary) scale, it won't change the outcome.

I''m not saying that GRS, SSEF or Gueblin are inferior labs. My issue is that they use metaphors to describe color, or at least I know that Gueblin does last I checked. I really appreciate that AGL uses standard techniques under specific lighting to properly assess hue, saturation and tone in their prestige report.

.. and that's why AGL is more trustworthy on color as mentioned previously in my opinion too - not to mention more useful.
If you have two royal blue sapphires from xyz world renowned lab, both stating "vivid royal blue", the certs don't really tell you which one is better; your own experience with gems does. But if you have two on a standardised scale of color factors, that's a lot easier to compare.
For most people in the trade and with enough experience looking at these things, this isn't necessary because you develop a feeling for color and determining quality takes literally just a glance. But for consumers, this does offer some point of reference when comparing or shopping around.

I also want to note that I don't think people should always trust their eyes when it comes to vibrant color, and that's why objective lab reports are so important. When I first started collecting gemstones, my choices were awful as a novice. I even opened a funny thread thread about my "learning gemstones." At the time, I thought they were magnificent specimens. Decades later, I cringe.

Completely agree, I think we've all been there. I still have some of mine in some dark drawer somewhere. I sometimes operate on the wrong subconscious assumption that everyone around me is a gem dealer and knows what they're looking at. Clearly not the case, people aren't born grading sapphires - and knowing how to tell things apart takes time, education, patience and investment.

 

[T L]

Frost, thanks again for all your replies, and welcome to our forum.

 

[Frost]

Thank you @T L.
I apologise to everyone if I came across as a bit opinionated - it was really with good intentions at heart.
And I've learned a lot from this discussion already - to be much more careful and ask the labs many more questions with some gem types, for example.

 

[Nosean]

Even labs make mistakes - I remember a thread on GO - a tsavorite was send to the lab ( waste of money imo) for an AGL gem brief and came back as a demantoid (!!). Big discussion!! What is it...

What happened - staff member choose "demantoid" in the computer instead of "tsavorite" printing the gem brief. S**t happens.

With a simple neodym magnet for a few cents you would know the answer in a second - demantoid jumps to the magnet - tsavorite not.

 

[minousbijoux]

I remember that! I think it happened to one of the PS regulars, Arcadian.

 

[minousbijoux]

Nosean: please read the policies, as links to other websites, and that one in particular, are not allowed. Please ask the Mods to remove it. Thanks!

 

[minousbijoux]

And yep, that's the thread I thought you were referring to. It was Arcadian and maybe she'll stop by to tell us more. I think she also discussed it here at the time it was happening, iirc.

 

[Nosean]

Yes - found it.

So please remove the link dear mod....

 

[minousbijoux]

Yes - found it.

So please remove the link dear mod....

Its your responsibility to notify the Mod by clicking on the "Report Concern" button.

 

[Nosean]

Done

 

[minousbijoux]

Thanks for being so responsive!

 

[Rissyl]

Thank you @T L.
I apologise to everyone if I came across as a bit opinionated

Not at all! My thanks to you and @TL and others for providing such comprehensive information from differing viewpoints. For a new consumer like myself, it's really very helpful to hear from both a trade dealer's(?) perspective, as well as a well-informed consumer's one, to strike a more balanced perspective as to how much I can trust a vendor and at the same time carry a healthy dose of caution with me

 

[Frost]

Trust is okay... With certificates.
So it's not trust. And it shouldn't be.
Suspicion is an instinct anyone considering gems has to evolve. It's right there on the top of natural selection's favourite traits for a gem dealer or buyer. "Evolve or kiss your wallet goodbye", as they say.

Seriously though - first and foremost make very sure you're covered. And if you have to err, unless you're very well trained and up to date, err always on the side of caution. Many of us have made costly mistakes; there's at least some catharsis in preventing others doing the same.