January 24 Through February 4—TUCSON, ARIZONA: Annual show
Welcome to the GemologyOnline.com Forum
A non-profit Forum for the exchange of gemological ideas
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:27 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Ruby Inclusions
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:16 pm 
Offline
Established Member

Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:47 pm
Posts: 46
Hello! I have a .63, deep-cut (bellied) round pink ruby here. (The RI+SG+optic character+dichroism confirm it is a ruby.) It is UV inert SW/LW. I would like the forum's thoughts on what the inclusions may indicate as to it be synthetic or natural, and or what treatments it may have undergone.

I apologize that the photos are so poor. I am no photographer, nor do I have microphotographical equipment.

This is top illumination 20x. The small lines I think are polish marks not silk. But what is the dark mass to the left of center? Under room illumination it appears whitish.

Image

Another view of the same "honeycombish" inclusion; it appears lighter or reflective. Also notice the fingerprint or raindrops to its left.

Image

Various inclusions, darkfield illumination

Image

Image

Diffused illumination, 20x, immersion cell (soybean oil)

Image

Image

Image

Your thoughts, comments, guidance is appreciated. Thank you!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ruby Inclusions
PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:37 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 2049
Location: Sweden
Sorry, the images are not very clear and not of much help. One not so good sign is what do appear to be gas bubbles seen in the second image. That is a indication of heating with glass filling. Can not be sure from your images. To be sure I recommend you bring the stone to a qualified gemologist and have it thoroughly examined. At least no synthetic I have encountered has been totally inert to UV, on the contrary. Even natural, dark and iron rich, stones usually have some reaction to LW though it might be very weak.

_________________
_____________
Conny Forsberg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ruby Inclusions
PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:55 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 11:24 am
Posts: 7523
Location: Rome, Italy
hi,

i'm on the same side of Conny here, too difficult to have a guess by your pictures, sorry......neverthless....

according to my experience, is very difficult to find "small" glass filled rubies in my market....the material doesn't worth the cut for a .63 ct, however this may not exclude the possibility...(especially considering i see something that could be interpreted as flash effect in pics 2 and 3... :roll: ).
the main inclusion resemble the typical flux pattern.......but you have to consider the UV reaction...... :roll:
I fear you wouldn't have a consistent guess about your stone here.....sorry..
ciao
alberto

_________________
GemmoRaman-532 - GemmoFTIR - GemmoSphere - EXA


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ruby Inclusions
PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:54 am 
Offline
Established Member

Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:47 pm
Posts: 46
Thanks to all for looking!

I apologize that the photos aren't the greatest.

With reference to the honeycomb or multi-circle blob inclusion: I feel it looks unnatural, and looks like flux residue--what should I look for that might help indicate it is synthetic v. natural? I've not seen an inclusion in a ruby like it, it's white and opaque, but not wispy. Does shape matter?

How much does the UV reaction contribute to a determination? It is absolutely 100% dark under both short and long wave.

I understand hesitancy to comment on unclear pictures, so any general guidance is sincerely appreciated.

Chris


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ruby Inclusions
PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:21 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 11:24 am
Posts: 7523
Location: Rome, Italy
we're in a dead end circling around this inclusion. we have too much controversial guesses about that we cannot actually solve, seems flux? definitely Yes, it could be flux? possible. I think you're too obsessed by that, let's forget it for a moment, clear your mind and start searching for other features inside the stone, a crystal, for example, even if partially corroded by heating could be another useful indicator.
dunno if we can add more, IMHO.
ciao
alberto

_________________
GemmoRaman-532 - GemmoFTIR - GemmoSphere - EXA


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ruby Inclusions
PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:55 am 
Offline
Established Member

Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:47 pm
Posts: 46
Thanks, Alberto.

If I can find another useful inclusion AND take a decent photo of it I will post more.

thanks again

C.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ruby Inclusions
PostPosted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:45 pm 
Offline
Valued Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:50 pm
Posts: 299
Location: Virginia, USA
Sorry for the late post; I just saw the thread. :(

As to the synthetic vs natural question, synthetic ruby would not even be cut if it were as badly included as the stone in question. It is just too inexpensive to waste the time on a bad piece of rough. So a synthetic might show some curved growth stria if made by the flame fusion process, or perhaps other odd inclusions if flux grown.

R. Davies
Sometime Faceter in Virginia, USA


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ruby Inclusions
PostPosted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:10 pm 
chevalier wrote:
Thanks to all for looking!

With reference to the honeycomb or multi-circle blob inclusion: I feel it looks unnatural, and looks like flux residue--what should I look for that might help indicate it is synthetic v. natural? I've not seen an inclusion in a ruby like it, it's white and opaque, but not wispy. Does shape matter?

How much does the UV reaction contribute to a determination? It is absolutely 100% dark under both short and long wave.

I understand hesitancy to comment on unclear pictures, so any general guidance is sincerely appreciated.

Chris


What a nice little puzzle :)

It does seem to be too 'dirty' to be any synthetic Ruby cut commercially and yet it does not look 'right' for a natural stone. You seem to have a large swirl of gas bubbles and a large opaque inclusion that no one seems to have seem anything like it before (other than flux in some synthetic rough). The fact that you get *no* UV fluorescence is also very strange. Do you use a light box, work under blackout conditions or both?

The whole thing is so odd as to make me wonder if the diagnosis of 'Ruby' has to be correct...... In some parts of the world, stonecutter fathers teach their children how to cut by having them practice on scrap glass of all sorts, including old marbles. I was shown one such piece the other day and the quality of the cutting and finish was really good I thought. Just an 'off-the-wall' thought.....

Given what you've shown thus far, I'd guess that an SG close to spec for Ruby would be a matter of chance and thus unreliable. Optic character and sign are not as easily shrugged off though. By what method did you establish these? Essentially nil variance in RI for multiple readoffs of the ordinary ray RI at different stone rotations and with the ordinary ray RI value higher than that for the extraordinary ray?

Be a devil and, in the advancement of knowledge, try a small scratch test with a Mohs 8 tip?? :twisted: :twisted:


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ruby Inclusions
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:50 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 2049
Location: Sweden
I would just like to add two things.

Alberto: Small glass filled composite rubies are not at all uncommon.

Kerensky: The idea of scratch test is a bad idea. Cut stones are NOT to be abused in that way. Also the internal of the stone is much more resembling Composite Ruby/Glass than any of the red glass I have encountered as imitations.

_________________
_____________
Conny Forsberg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ruby Inclusions
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:25 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 11:24 am
Posts: 7523
Location: Rome, Italy
Conny,

i said "according to my experience" which doesn't mean they can't be available somewhere. you'll be in big trouble if you're looking for that material in <1 ct size in italian wholesalers inventories. I saw those stones only in indian booths at Vicenza and Basel fairs, but the precentage compared to the >1 ct sizes was 1/1000......
ciao
albé

_________________
GemmoRaman-532 - GemmoFTIR - GemmoSphere - EXA


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ruby Inclusions
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:34 am 
Conny Forsberg wrote:
The idea of scratch test is a bad idea. Cut stones are NOT to be abused in that way. Also the internal of the stone is much more resembling Composite Ruby/Glass than any of the red glass I have encountered as imitations.


As general rule,that's certainly true enough. But 'rules are a guide to wise men and laws unto fools'. If the owner understands the value he puts at risk and chooses to do so in the hope of some advancement of his knowledge, I find it hard to say it is wrong to do so. People have risked damage even to certain Diamonds and moved the frontier of knowledge forward thereby. Without such potentially destructive means of inquiry, there'd be no treatments by heat, irrradiation, acid bleaching etc..

Of course C might first choose to test for Composite Ruby by using something like Albeto's 'etch with lemon juice' test. That too might cause damage, though again I'd guess that C stands gain more than he would put at risk. I confess that getting hold of a faceted Composite Ruby for the specific purpose of running such tests on it is somewhere on my personal 'things to do' list.

Experience is the best school but the fees are high?


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ruby Inclusions
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:09 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 2049
Location: Sweden
I do just not recommend anyone to do damaging tests unless the purpose is true research. I do not count identifying a gem as research. Even though a small composite ruby is of low value does not mean you should render it close to totally worthless by scratching it. It does have a beauty value if well polished and so does a well cut piece of glass. When scratched it does not.

This is my opinion and I actually do not care if some idiot scratches a 50K $ ruby or splinters a expensive diamond trying to determine its identity by stupid actions. That renders me and other cutters some more work. What I say is that I do not encourage such actions and there are many non destructive ways of determining the same thing.

_________________
_____________
Conny Forsberg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ruby Inclusions
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:08 am 
Conny Forsberg wrote:
I do just not recommend anyone to do damaging tests unless the purpose is true research. I do not count identifying a gem as research. Even though a small composite ruby is of low value does not mean you should render it close to totally worthless by scratching it. It does have a beauty value if well polished and so does a well cut piece of glass. When scratched it does not.


Fair enough. I broke my first stone the other day by a clumsy dropping of it. I swear I felt a moment of pain, even if it was shot through with growth tubes and contained a fracture so large as to make its eventual breakage at that point only a matter of luck and occasion.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ruby Inclusions
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:18 am 
Offline
Established Member

Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:47 pm
Posts: 46
Thanks to all for the further comments, and I apologize for my absence/tardy reply.

Kerensky: It is inert under blackout conditions (think London during the Blitz :). I even compared it to a known natural ruby (unknown origin) which fluoresced red / red and a flux fusion which IIRC fluouesced weak to mod orange / pink SW/LW. The gem in question stayed dark.

It is corundum, either synthetic or natural. The RI range was something like 1.771 hi to 1.763 low with the lower number fluctuating. SG was 3.96 or so.

I cannot perform any destructive tests. I do not own this stone, and agree with the comments that it should only be done in extremo.

If I find out more about this stone I will let the group know.

Thank you all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ruby Inclusions
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:19 pm 
Offline
New to the Forum or The Quiet Type

Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:16 pm
Posts: 7
The honeycomb inclusion is interesting. Take a look at this Glass filled and healed fissure in Mozambique ruby:
http://www.palagems.com/gem_news_2010_v2.php
Search for honeycomb. Though far from identical, it does have many similarities to my eye. Do you know the origin of the stone? (sorry if I missed that).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Gemology Style ported to phpBB3 by Christian Bullock