Photos from Sonoma (can you believe !), raspberry sapphire ?

[beaujolais]

OK, actually a friend was over who had a camera with macro, so you have photos on the raspberry sapphire with the red fluorescence that I posted on the other day. Not great photos but - photos still.

I bought it already set, mostly for the setting. I do like the color of the stone but it's too native cut.

Now does this red fluoro say synthetic stone to you?

 

[beaujolais]

Re: Photos from Sonoma (can you believe !), raspberry sapphi

Stone is more raspberry, less pink than in the above photo.

Below: fluoro photo.

 

[innerkitten]

Re: Photos from Sonoma (can you believe !), raspberry sapphi

Nice pics. It's a pretty ring. So you bought it for the setting?

 

[beaujolais]

Re: Photos from Sonoma (can you believe !), raspberry sapphi

Thanks, I.K. How have you been? Pretty much bought it for the setting as with the gold prices new settings are crazy expensive. This was second hand. The stone is a nice color but the (very native) cutting is a little hard to handle.

The other day I was told that strong red fluoro probably means synthetic. That is what I'm sort of looking for input on with the fluoro picture.

 

[chrono]

Re: Photos from Sonoma (can you believe !), raspberry sapphi

How strong is your UV penlight? It is difficult to say for sure without knowing the strength of your UV source and the reaction of the sapphire. I do appreciate you sharing the pictures with us though.

 

[Lee Little]

Re: Photos from Sonoma (can you believe !), raspberry sapphi

Hi Sonoma,
Even in real life there is certainly no way to be sure whether or not a stone is synthetic simply by how much it fluoresces so by a photo our chances of making a proper diagnosis have dropped even more, however, were I to guess, I would lean towards it being a synthetic. Best regards, Lee

 

[beaujolais]

Re: Photos from Sonoma (can you believe !), raspberry sapphi

UV light is 400 nM. I bought it from Amazon. It's a fun thing to have.

It's about time on some photos, true, Chrono.

Thanks Lee. Why do you think so, btw? Just looking to learn?

Thanks all.

 

[innerkitten]

Re: Photos from Sonoma (can you believe !), raspberry sapphi

I'm good thanks . Yes the price of gold is crazy right now!

Chrono, can you actually tell with the UV light? Seems like it might glow either way.

It would be a nice plus if it was real even though it was purchased for the setting. What are the inclusions like?

 

[Lee Little]

Re: Photos from Sonoma (can you believe !), raspberry sapphi

Hi Sonoma,
The UV light is just an indicator, it is not diagnostic but for that color of stone to put out so much red glow under UV indicates a high Chromium content which usually is not so high in stones that color.
Innerkitten has the key question, the inclusions would be the first thing I looked at after hitting it with UV. If it is perfectly clean I would become more suspicious of a synthetic.
Still pretty no matter what. Best regards, Lee

 

[LD]

Re: Photos from Sonoma (can you believe !), raspberry sapphi

I would be VERY wary of giving an opinion based on a UV photo. The reason is that you've taken the photo with (presumably) only the light from the UV pen when taking the photo - you can tell this by the flood of blue light on your hand. Taking photos with these lighting conditions can actually makes the fluor look stronger than it may be. If you take another photo with an overhead light on at the other end of the room (so the bit of the room you're in is in muted light), then shine the UV pen on the gem and take a photo you'll see a difference. Let me see if I can get some examples to show you ........ back in a minute.

 

[LD]

Re: Photos from Sonoma (can you believe !), raspberry sapphi

Back now! Here's an example of why I would never say that fluor may indicate a synthetic.

Top photo - This is taken in muted light. You can see that the central diamond has strong blue fluor but the halo doesn't look like it has much (or the shank).

Bottom photo - This was taken with only light from the UV pen. Now look at the halo and shank, there's much much much more fluor evident.

So which one is more accurate? Well both actually. It's just that one photo because of the lighting conditions has picked up even the faintest fluor and made it more apparent. So all that these photos really tell me is that there is fluor present but NOT how strong. In actual fact I do know that the central diamond has strong blue fluor (as per the GIA report) but the other diamonds have never been assessed.

Hope that helps.

 

[beaujolais]

Re: Photos from Sonoma (can you believe !), raspberry sapphi

Thanks all. Hard to tell about the inclusions as the cut does not really have clean facets and makes it a bit fuzzy overall. I'll try to look better. I wonder if it was a synthetic - if it would have a better cut. (Some of me wants to switch out this large table, no crown height stone but I like the color.)

I have a violet sapphire from Multicolor that fluoresces red. That one should be credible, right?

L.D. - is that pear yours ? Oh-My-Goodness ! How absolutely wonderful.

Thanks Chrono, Lee, all. Very much.

 

[cellentani]

Re: Photos from Sonoma (can you believe !), raspberry sapphi

I have a pink sapphire, native cut, that DH bought from Sri Lanka a few years ago. It fluoresces red - as much as my Mahenge spinel, but I have a fairly strong UV flashlight, not just one of those penlights. Still, makes me wonder.....

 

[Lee Little]

Re: Photos from Sonoma (can you believe !), raspberry sapphi

The UV light is useful as an indicator only and cannot be taken too seriously. Mainly they are a fun toy.
I like portable UV when looking at a parcel I am going to make a selection from to weed out stones I won't even bother to look at more closely.
They are also useful in the market as they can sway you away from buying a possible synthetic. In the office I almost never use UV as it is not generally useful when you have standard gemology equipment on hand that one can trust much more. Best regards, Lee