Lead-Glass Filled "Ruby" -- A Study in Misrepresentation and Deception!

Lead-Glass Filled Ruby: 

A Case Study in Misrepresentation and Deception

I find it very disturbing that there are still many people in the gem and jewelry field who do not yet understand how lead-glass “rubies” – now identified by leading gem testing laboratories such as the Gemological Institute of America (GIA) and American Gemological Laboratories (AGL) as artificial products--differ from rubies that are sold, legitimately, as “treated” rubies. Some jewelers and gemologists are even objecting to what the laboratories are calling them and continue to sell them and identify them as "treated rubies." Tragically, because of confusion about what they really are, and how they differ from treated products, these imitators are now flooding the market here and abroad, and selling at greatly inflated prices.

I felt so strongly about the unprecedented issues these lead-glass imitators present, that I added extensive information about them in the latest edition of my book Jewelry & Gems: The Buying Guide (Seventh Edition) and an entire new chapter to the Fifth Edition of Gem Identification Made Easy (which just rolled off press a month ago). Since we are now in a "social media” era, however, let me attempt here to clarify the differences, and why selling lead-glass products as genuine “treated” ruby is misleading and deceptive. It is long for a "blog" but I hope you'll read it through to the end.

As many know, heat treatment of ruby and sapphire has become the norm over the past half century, and this type of treatment is “assumed” when buying most rubies and sapphires today. In more recent years, we’ve also see more extreme levels of heating which require borax coatings, in which the borax can melt and leave “residue” in fissures. We've also seen the introduction of glass-fillings into fractures to reduce their visibility. A few years ago, however, we began to see a new ruby product at gem shows, offered for a few dollars per carat. Most were represented as being “treated by heat only.” It wasn’t long before gemologists discovered this was not the case.

Many gemologists and appraisers began receiving calls from bench jewelers who were finding out – the hard way – that these new “rubies” were not behaving like any ruby they’d ever handled! We began to realize that routine jewelry techniques caused extensive damage that was irreparable! Unlucky bench jewelers who “destroyed” one of these new “ruby” products while doing “routine” jewelry work, suffered damage to their reputations, loss of customers, and were held financially responsible by retailers and/or consumers. This type of reaction at the bench, and the consequences faced by bench jewelers, was unheard of…until the lead-glass “rubies” entered the market. 

Gemologists had to ask, what’s different about these? Why don’t they respond as ruby should respond? So beginning several years ago gemologists from the Accredited Gemologists Association (AGA), myself among them, began to purchase stones from various vendors, at various shows, and we undertook research on the stones themselves, as well as how they were being represented and priced.

Gemological examination of the stones revealed unprecedented quantities of glass – a lead-glass in particular – combined with an undeterminable quantity of corundum (the mineral known as ruby only when it occurs in a red color with good transparency, or “sapphire” when it is blue or any other color in which nature creates it); we discovered the "rubies" were actually a “blend” of two materials that are altogether different in terms of physical properties. 

The first difference noted was that the glass used in these products was not a “silica” glass – the type of glass used in traditionally “glass filled” rubies – but a formulation of lead glass. The reasons that the producers of this new product would use lead-glass became clear very quickly: lead-glass is essential because it makes it impossible to see where the glass and corundum begin and end! The high “refractive index” (RI) obtained by introducing lead into the glass is virtually identical to the RI of corundum, which means it is impossible to distinguish one from the other. Furthermore, one of the most important tests used to identify any gemstone – using a refractometer to determine a stone's RI – will give the same reading for the lead-glass ruby as for a treated or natural ruby, even if the stone is situated on the refractometer so that the part of the stone being tested is actually glass, RI reading will be the same as that of ruby! (For a full explanation of what RI actually is and why it is so important, see below – What Is RI And How Does It Affect Quality Grading). 

Subsequent research by AGA members, in association with several of the world’s leading gem-testing laboratories, revealed that the lead-glass becomes an integral part of the blended product and cannot be removed without destroying the "gem.”  This is an important difference between this product and "treated" ruby because the properties of the blended product are no longer the same as the properties of "ruby." The properties are, in fact, very different. This, combined with their inseparability, means the lead-glass “ruby” may look like ruby but it won’t act like ruby!

 In addition, the lead-glass component represents a much higher percentage of the stone than what is found in “treated rubies.” The silica glass used in traditional treatment is used simply to reduce the visibility of the fracture(s), and thus, the amount of silica glass used in the treatment of ruby or sapphire is very minimal. Even more important, silica glass has a much lower RI than lead-glass, so the fractures can be seen when the stone is properly examined; silica glass doesn’t “hide” the fractures (and if there were any question, silica glass can be removed without damage to the stone should there be any need to do so, and in the rare case where the glass comes out of the ruby for any reason, it can be re-filled).

These are critical differences between “treated ruby” and the lead-glass products: 1) It is impossible to see where the glass actually is so you cannot determine how much of the stone is glass versus ruby; 2) the two very different materials become inseparable. Without the lead glass, there is no ”ruby” in terms of color and transparency, but with the lead-glass, the physical properties are so altered that the resulting “ruby” lacks the characteristics that make “ruby” a ruby. 

The process by which lead-glass ruby is produced requires the fusion of these two very different materials, but the result is something that is no longer ruby nor glass. Instead, the product is a new type of imitation that combines the properties of two very different materials, each inseparable from the other. In short, they are a new type of “composite,” an imitation created from two or more materials being joined together in some way, to imitate a rarer and more costly gem. Composites can be formed from two or more parts of a genuine stone, or two or more parts of an imitation or synthetic, or from a combination of genuine and artificial. 

This new product is now being sold as “treated ruby,” at inflated prices, and poses a serious threat to consumers that was unknown at the time of the last FTC review over 10 years ago. 

The AGA collected numerous real-life examples of the problems created as a result of selling this product as ruby when the most important physical characteristics associated with ruby—its toughness, hardness, and overall durability, ranking it next to diamond in terms of these characteristics—is not present in this new product; these composites are not only less durable, they are very fragile. For those interested in reading about these specific cases, please go to FTC website to read the attachments to the AGA submission (the first one listed): http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/jewelryguidesreview/index.shtm

In addition, the lead-glass component has other adverse effects on the ability of anyone selling this product to be in compliance with current FTC guidelines related to: a) identity of the stone; b) carat weight; c) quality; d) disclosure related to care requirements; and e) value. 

The lead-glass products now in the market are being misrepresented specifically as to their “type,” “kind,” “quality,” “weight,” “durability,” and “value” as specified by the FTC guides:

• Kind: The lead-glass products are being misrepresented as “treated ruby” when the altered material no longer has the properties of ruby. This lead-glass product is neither ruby nor glass, but a new type of imitation that combines properties of both glass and corundum, each of which is inseparable from the other.
• They have been clearly identified by the two most highly respected gem-testing laboratories in the USA—the Gemological Institute of America (GIA) and American Gemological Laboratories (AGL) as products that are not genuine ruby, treated or otherwise. GIA identifies them as “manufactured products,” and AGL identifies them as “composite ruby.”
•  Both labs include comments pertaining to presence of significant amounts of lead-glass, and the need for unusual care. The AGL laboratory states: “the product has been heavily treated using a high refractive index lead-glass to fill fractures and cavities, vastly improving the apparent clarity and adding weight. The glass may be damaged by a variety of solvents.”
• There are devastating consequences resulting from using traditional techniques on these lead-glass “rubies” at the bench—extreme and irreparable damage—not ever associated with any other ruby that has been subjected to any type of treatment, including the use of silica glass to reduce the visibility of fractures, but which is unique to the lead-glass product. Lead-glass products may look like ruby, but they are products that lacks the durability of ruby, a very important characteristic long associated with ruby.

• Quality:  Because of the composition of the product, and the extensive amounts of lead-glass, no one can know the true quality of the product because it is impossible to do accurate color and clarity grading—the two most critical factors involved in determining the quality and value of any gemstone. Lead-glass products cannot be accurately graded for 3 primary reasons:
•  The high refractive index (RI) of the lead-glass conceals the fissures/fractures, making it impossible to determine how many there are, how deeply they penetrate into the stone, and thus, how great a risk they pose with regard to breakage in the course of normal wear. (See below for an explanation of what the RI is and how it affects quality and clarity grading).
• The filler cannot be removed.  Another important distinction between lead-glass fillers and other fillers used routinely to treat ruby/sapphire to improve appearance—and which can rightly be sold as “treated ruby”—is seen in whether or not the filler can be removed for any reason. Other fillers, including common silica glass, oil, or epoxy resins, can be removed in cases where this might be necessary to determine whether or not a coloring agent has been added to the filler, or to ascertain how much filler—how heavily filled—the stone is (as with epoxy resins used in emerald).  In the case of the lead-glass filler used in these stones, the lead-glass used to create the product cannot be removed from the stone without destroying the stone’s structural cohesiveness; attempts to remove the lead-glass result in the destruction of the stone (it crumbles or falls apart). 
• The lead-glass filler is not colorless. The lead-glass is usually tinted. When analyzed, the lead-glass used has been tinted in order to improve the color seen in the finished product, so one cannot know what the actual color is. 

• Weight: Ruby weight is indeterminable with these products. Lead-glass weighs much more than ruby, but since the lead-glass cannot be removed, and its high RI makes it impossible to ascertain exactly how much glass versus ruby is in a particular stone without expensive, sophisticated instrumentation, it is not possible to accurately determine the weight of the ruby component. Therefore you cannot calculate the actual ruby weight, which the FTC guides already mandate. The only thing certain about the ruby weight is that it is less than the weight indicated for the entire stone, and in many cases, much less.
          This has been noted by respected laboratories around the world, and is indicated on the AGL reports on lead-glass products. One can only estimate the percentage of ruby versus glass in the stone based on the presence of characteristics found only in glass (bubbles, blue-flash, surface crazing), or only in ruby, but a precise weight cannot be known.

• Durability: Lead-glass products lack the durability of ruby:
  o  Lead-glass is much softer than ruby (and other glasses used in treatments) and wears more quickly than ruby.
  o  Lead-glass is much more vulnerable to scratching, chipping and breaking with normal wear.
  o  Lead-glass is vulnerable to acid-etching by many substances, including lemon juice.
  o  Lead-glass composites are quickly and irreparably damaged by techniques that have been routinely used for centuries on ruby or treated ruby; these techniques include the use of heat, chemicals and acids that are routine in making or repairing jewelry containing such products.
  o  The “joins”—the planes—between the lead-glass and ruby weaken the overall structure of the product, making them more susceptible to damage from an accidental knock or blow. 

• Value: Lead-glass rubies are being sold to consumers for hundreds to thousands of dollars per carat, when the cost should be 5-10 times less than what they are paying.  Within the trade, lead-glass rubies under 5 carats each originally entered the market at prices between  $1.00-5.00 per carat. Today, trade acceptance of these as “just another type of treated ruby” has resulted in sharply higher prices for the same sizes/qualities, now costing $10.00-20.00 per carat. Jewelry containing these stones is being sold by some vendors to the trade at highly inflated prices, which are then even more highly inflated when sold to consumers.
  o   Retailers purchasing jewelry pieces containing these stones are told they are rubies and are themselves paying very inflated prices for the pieces they buy, and then passing on their mistake to their customers at even higher prices. While they are easy to distinguish from rubies or treated rubies, most jewelry retailers have not taken the time to learn what the distinguishing characteristics are, and describe and price what they sell based on what they are being told by vendors, who often are doing the same thing with regard to their own sources.
  o   The unscrupulous are misrepresenting them knowingly, and selling them at huge profits.
  It is for the foregoing reasons that I have been – and remain – strongly committed to making the public and trade alike that these are not “genuine rubies” in any way and should not be sold as ruby or “treated ruby.”

The FTC is currently revising its guides for the jewelry trade, and I believe it is essential that the FTC understand how these lead-glass filled ruby products differ from other products in the market that are accurately described as “treated ruby” (or sapphire, or other gemstone name), and how selling them as “ruby” or “treated ruby” violates current FTC guides. I encourage anyone who agrees with me to send a letter to the FTC asking that the guides for the jewelry trade be revised to make it a misleading and deceptive trade practice to sell lead-glass filled rubies and sapphires as genuine ruby, treated or otherwise, as anything other that a composite product or other terminology that makes it clear they are not ruby or sapphire.  

It should be noted that you must also be very cautious about buying any blue, green, pink and yellow sapphire since this same type of product is now imitating these other colors of corundum and have different physical characteristics, a much lower value, and the need for special care to avoid breakage or severe and irreparable damage. 

Footnote:  What Is “RI” and How Does It Affect Quality Grading?

The refractive index of a stone relates to how light moves through, and between, different media—in this case, ruby and glass. The greater the difference between the RI of each substance, the more easily one can see important internal characteristics; the closer the RI, the more difficult it is to see them. If the RI is essentially the same for both substances, one cannot distinguish where one ends and the other begins. This is why other types of glasses sometimes seen in ruby (usually silica glass) are different from these lead-glass products and can be sold as "treated ruby;" they have lower RIs so one can actually see where the fracture is and properly grade the stone. 

 The RI of lead-glass is almost a perfect match to that of ruby. This means that as light moves through the stone, one cannot see where one substance ends and the other begins. This is why, in lead-glass products, one can’t see the fractures, and thus can’t evaluate the stone’s clarity. It is virtually impossible to determine how deep or wide—how dangerous—any fractures or fissures might be. Even a single fracture can be extremely dangerous and severely affect the clarity rating, depending on where it is located and how far it penetrates into the stone, and thus its longevity and value.

Below one can see how the quantity of lead present affects the RI—the more lead, the higher the RI. It is clear that the percentage of lead present in the glass used on these rubies is very high:

RI's For Various Glasses:

Glass, Fused silica:            RI = 1.459

Glass, Pyrex                       RI = 1.474



Glass, Flint, 29% lead        RI = 1.569


Glass, Flint, 55% lead        RI = 1.669


Glass, Flint, 71% lead        RI = 1.805


The RI of corundum (ruby/sapphire) is 1.76-1.77. From this chart you can see that in order to have the same RI, the lead content in the glass must be in the range of 68-69%. The amount of lead in the glass also accounts for it weighing so much more than ruby, or other glasses used in “treated” material.

Estate Jewelry: Art and Deception!

I love "estate" jewelry--old jewelry that was previously owned--but there seems to be a misconception that all older jewelry offers better workmanship and finer gems than what is made today. I recently saw something about this on one of the social media sites, and realized I needed to provide some facts to set the record straight and to add some clarity to your understanding of "estate jewelry."

Where jewelry and gems are concerned, just because something is "old" does not mean it offers a better product or better value. While this might be the case, all-too-often it is not. Where old jewelry is concerned, the more attentive one needs to be to making sure the gem(s) in the "jewel" are really what they appear to be!

In my experience, the older the piece, the more attentive one must be. Stones in old pieces are often not what they appear to be, nor what the owner believes them to be. When examined for the first time by gemologists from the Gemological Laboratory of Great Britain in London, the famous "Black Prince's Ruby" that adorns the Queen's Imperial State Crown was found to be something quite different from a ruby. It was discovered that the "ruby" was really a red spinal--a lovely, naturally occurring red gemstone, but one having a much lower value than that of ruby! If it can happen to royalty, it can happen to anyone, and I've seen numerous cases of "mistaken identity" based on a stone's color. In some cases where the stone is natural but not what the owner believed it to be, the value is usually lower, but in some rare cases, the stone is actually rarer and more valuable! 

I've also seen many garnet-topped doublets used in old jewelry, imitating stones of every color (this type of imitation is made by fusing a sliver of garnet to the top of an appropriately colored glass bottom, to create what appears to be a much more valuable gemstone). I've also seen "true" doublets in estate jewelry (as well as new jewelry) which are made by fusing together two parts of a genuine stone with a deeper-color bonding agent to create the appearance of a single, larger, much finer-color--and much more valuable--"gem." I've seen many "emerald" doublets made exactly this way: two layers of very pale, very inexpensive emerald held together by a rich, deep green bonding agent to imitate a much larger, much rarer, and much more valuable "gem" emerald! These are called "true doublets."

I've seen jewelry with colored foil between the stone and the metal backing (which is closed so you can't see the stone's underside). This was not uncommon in the 18th century, and in some cases, the period of the jewelry and other workmanship adds so much value that it hardly matters, but you can be sure the original buyers never knew the "pink" topazes in their necklace, for example, were really colorless ... and much less valuable than the pink! Last, but far from least, I've seen many synthetic gems set into old settings that were made long before the synthetic now set within...antique or old settings are often used to dupe the buyer into believing the stone is "real" even though the stone could have been put in the setting yesterday.

Having said all of this to stress the importance of knowing what you really have, there are also many wonderful estate pieces, containing rare gems, and showing intricate workmanship done by master artisans. There is also a distinctiveness in jewelry from by-gone days that makes it stand apart from what is more commonly available today, and the workmanship is often impossible to duplicate today, at any price! Certain "periods" such as the Edwardian period (turn of the 19th-20th century), and Art Deco period (following the Edwardian, from about 1910 - to approx 1930) or the increasingly popular "Retro" period (1940s) are also very collectible and one pays a premium for fine pieces from these periods, and even more if from a particular house, such as Tiffany or Cartier. Each period also reflects certain style characteristics and cutting styles/sizes in the stones used, which have a wonderful allure for many, including me.
      
For anyone who loves estate jewelry, I recommend reading the sections I've provided on estate jewelry in two of my books (available from gemstonepress.com): in Jewelry & Gems: The Buying Guide (5th and 6th editions) I talk about what to look for, and what to look OUT for when buying estate jewelry, including the different style elements in each period, the major collectible jewelry houses, questions to ask vendors, what to get in writing, and how to check it out; in Gem Identification Made Easy" I devote a chapter to the types of fraud and deception used to imitate "gems" that are often encountered in estate jewelry (such as doublets) and the ways to detect them using simple, portable tools. I also have a book that deals primarily with estate jewelry -- Jewelry & Gems At Auction. While the book was published quite a while ago, the information pertaining to the various collectible periods, the major houses, the style elements of each period, as well as information related to what to look for and to look out for, is as current today as when first published, as is some invaluable information to help you understand the inner workings of the auction houses and how they affect the "pre-sale estimates," reserves, and actual selling prices. You can find out more about each at my publishers website -- www.gemstonepress.com

In any event, I hope you'll find what I've written here useful and that after reading what I've written you'll understand why you can't take anything "for granted" about the stones in old jewelry. To quote one of my favorite historians--
     
     "To tell the truth, there is no fraud or deceit in the world which yields greater gain and profit than that of counterfeiting gems."

This was written in the year 77AD, by the Roman historian, Pliny. Throughout history this has never changed...it has only become more sophisticated and technologically advanced!

Fluorescence, Lighting & Color-Grading Diamonds: Time To Re-Examine Its Impact and The Need For Change!

A few years ago, the Accredited Gemologists Association (AGA) organized a lighting task force that investigated the impact of lighting on the grading of fluorescent diamonds. Debate ensued, there was some positive impact, but then the discussion abated and little was done. The time has come to revisit this important topic.

Whether or not a diamond fluoresces, whether or not it is a good thing or a bad thing, and how it affects what consumers are getting and paying, are all issues the trade needs to address. Fluorescence is probably the least-understand of all the factors affecting a diamond’s appearance and value, and confusion and misunderstanding are rampant.

No one can begin to understand or address the issues however without understanding the root of the problem: the lighting used to determine the color grade, and how changes over the past few decades have actually caused most of the problems we have today.

So here is a brief summary of some of the findings from a research project undertaken by the AGA (see www.accreditedgemologists.org for

for the full story and research findings/conclusions).

FACTS:

·      The color shown on many diamond grading reports issued by labs globally indicates the color seen only when exposed to sufficient UV emission to excite a fluorescent reaction.

·      This is NOT the color usually seen when worn by consumers; a fluorescent reaction is usually only excited when the diamond is worn outdoors, during daylight hours. Given today's lifestyles, most people spend most of their time indoors during the day. 

·      This is NOT the color that will be seen when worn at night, whether indoors or outdoors.

CONCLUSION: 

·      UV emissions should be eliminated from the lighting in which diamonds are being graded because failure to do so results in over-grading of diamonds with "medium," "strong," and "very strong" blue-fluorescence--which account for close to 10% of all diamonds sold

·      UV emissions should be eliminated from the lighting in which diamonds are being graded because failure to do so results in under-grading of the inherent body color – the color most often seen when worn today – in yellow fluorescent diamonds. 

         Blue and yellow are the two fluorescent colors most often present.  Today, diamonds that fluoresce yellow will show their inherent – and whiter – body color in most environments in which diamonds are worn today; and in outdoor daylight, when fluorescence is stimulated, yellow diamonds often look more fiery and possess a “warmer” color, that may be desired by many diamond buyers.

·      Over-grading results in over-pricing, even with discounts. The time is not far away when this will be the center of another media exposé charging consumer fraud.

·      Grading in a UV-free lighting environment will provide the color that best reflects the color most often observed, and as was done historically, is in the best interest of consumers.     

·      Diamond grading reports that indicate the "stable" color of the diamond as its grade (that is, when no fluorescence is excited,) with a comment that the diamond may look whiter in some lighting environments will remove the negative association now connected with fluorescent diamonds.

             A strong negative association to fluorescent diamonds is pervasive because of information on the internet and elsewhere. Retailers already see consumer avoidance because consumers believe there is "something wrong" with them, and that prices are inflated for what they are getting.  Currently prices are too high because the price is based on an inflated color-grade. Grading the inherent body color (the color seen when the diamond’s fluorescence is not excited) will eliminate over-grading and over-pricing, and with this we will also see a reversal of the negative bias.

             In summary, fluorescence in any fluorescent diamond is not being excited when it is worn in most indoor environments--which is where most people see their diamonds, most of the time, given today's life styles.

             Regardless of indoor lighting conditions, there is insufficient UV emission to stimulate the fluorescent response of a diamond. Just think about it: if indoor lighting produced enough UV emissions to excite a fluorescent reaction, and we exposed to them all day, every day, we'd all be dying from cancer!

        The color indicated on a grading report for a fluorescent diamond graded under UV emissions is not always representative of the color seen outdoors.  Sometimes the color is even whiter than indicated, even when the grade on the report is "D"; a couple diamonds in the AGA study that had been graded D and E actually appeared “light blue" oudoors in daylight!          [This results from a number of variables affecting the intensity of the UV radiation to which the diamond is being exposed – which is affected by such variables as time of day, altitude, air pollution, and so on – and the strength of the diamond’s fluorescent reaction. Thus, the fluorescent reaction can be stronger or weaker than the conditions present in the diamond-grading light unit under which the color was graded.] 

            Industry organizations continue to argue about this, but the science is irrefutable. There are insufficient wavelengths of UV to stimulate a fluorescent reaction in fluorescent diamonds when worn indoors; regardless of whether or not the room is flooded with light, even daylight, the UV emissions present are negligible at best. When a consumer/retailer is only a few inches from a glass windowpane (even plain untreated glass) the UV is greatly diminished; when only a few inches away from a UV-emitting light source, the same is true.

             And last, but not least, another factor that can't be ignored is that more and more homes and offices are moving away from fluorescent bulbs to LED lighting, which contains insufficient UV emission to stimulate any fluorescent reaction in any stone. This means that any rationale that some have used at one time – however flawed* – to justify allowing UV emissions in a diamond-grading light source will soon be obsolete.

* When indoor lighting moved from incandescent to fluorescent lighting, some believed that the fluorescent lighting present in any indoor environments containing them were sufficient to stimulate a fluorescent reaction in any diamond that fluoresces. Thus, any diamond that fluoresced blue, would look whiter, and any that fluoresced yellow would look more yellow. Thus, it was thought that allowing UV emissions in the diamond-grading lighting units would be more representative of the color that would be seen most often. This flawed logic resulted from a lack of knowledge pertaining to the physics of light.

The Allure Of Gemstones – Keeping The Sparkle In Your Asset

Article orginally posted on chubbcollectors.com on August 21, 2012.

"To tell the truth there is no fraud or deceit in all the world which yields greater gain and profit than that of counterfeiting gems." From The 37th Book of the Historie of the World by Pliny, 77 AD.


Whenever stock markets fluctuate widely and global economic forecasts are uncertain, there is stronger interest in tangible assets. Diamonds and colored gemstones are among the rarest and most desired of all things and have also performed well historically, so it is no surprise that they are again gaining the attention of investors, who have an unusual opportunity today. Changes in the types of gemstones now on the market also put investors at greater risk however; the term “natural” is used only to distinguish gems created by nature from “synthetic” gems made in labs or factories. Today, most “natural” gems are, in reality, treated in some way.

 









Left: Exceptionally rare, naturally beautiful, 5.42 carat flawless Zambian emerald. Center: Exceptionally rare color and clarity in 10.00 carat natural Afghan Ruby. Right: Superb 21.25 carat natural Burma Sapphire. Photos by David Nassi of 100% Natural Ltd. www.supernaturalgems.com

For many decades most sapphires and rubies have been heated to improve color and clarity, and most emeralds contain some type of filler to reduce the visibility of fractures typical of the extreme geological conditions under which they form. With each passing year we find new treatments and a wider variety of gemstones being "improved." Unless a gemstone is accompanied by documentation from a respected gem testing laboratory stating that the gemstone is both “natural” and has not been treated in any way, one must assume the gemstone could have been treated.





















Exquisite antique Tiffany brooch centering 8.32 carat natural Burmese Sapphire, with natural pearls and diamonds. Photo by David Nassi of 100% Natural Ltd. www.supernaturalgems.com


There is nothing wrong with buying or selling treated gemstones. In fact, were it not for the use of treatments, only the wealthiest among us would be wearing gemstone jewelry today. But it is still possible to find natural gemstones that have not been enhanced; it is these that are becoming rarer and rarer, and these that investors should be seeking.


In the diamond industry, people are paying close attention to the rate at which prices for large diamonds (over five carats) of very fine quality (D-F color/FL – VS2 clarity) have been escalating over the past year, with no indication of reversal. All of the major auction houses are seeing record-setting prices: at a recent Sotheby’s auction in Geneva, five diamond lots—with stones ranging from 10.69 carats (D/VVS1) to18.00 carats (G/VS2)—sold for over $1,000,000! The historic 34.98 carat Beau Sancy diamond, a stone with a royal history going back over 400 years, fetched $9.7 million dollars, almost five times its pre-auction estimate, and it is not of exceptional quality; its color is very tinted (K) and it is slightly included (SI1 clarity). The following month an 8.01 carat fancy-color vivid blue diamond with VVS1 clarity fetched $13 million in Hong Kong.









Historic "Beau Sancy" pear-shape double-rose cut diamond weighing 34.98 carats. From the Royal House of Prussia. Photo: Courtesy Sotheby's. Reprinted with permission of Sotheby's.






There are also unusual opportunities for fine, rare, colored gemstones with documentation that no enhancement has been used; for the finest quality natural gemstones, documentation of origin (such as Burma for ruby, Kashmir for sapphire, Colombia for emerald, and so on) can also affect value. Demand for such stones is rapidly outpacing supply, and I see this gap widening over the next 10 years as wealth continues to spread to more people globally and the markets for precious stones expands in Southeast Asia and China. Demand and appreciation for rare, naturally beautiful colored gemstones will probably outpace diamond performance. Record-breaking auction prices for emeralds, rubies and sapphires are driving up prices dramatically. At Christie’s in Geneva, a brooch centering a 47.15 carat natural sapphire of Burma origin brought $3.6 million dollars, almost six times its pre-auction estimate of $482,000-$590,000. At Sotheby’s Geneva sale, a ring with a natural ruby weighing 7.66 carats reached $1.12 million dollars, almost twice the pre-auction estimate. At Christie’s Hong Kong sale a month later, a ring containing a 6.04 carat ruby of Burma origin hit $3.3 million, a record $551,000 per carat, well over its pre-auction estimate.


There have also been significant price increases in less-well-known natural gemstones such asalexandrite, spinel and tsavorite. An amazing red spinel necklace (an Indian Moghul piece) set a world record for spinel in 2011, at $5,210,902. In Christie’s recent Hong Kong sale, a ring with a 15.58 carat alexandrite sold for $934,480. (Alexandrite has been sought by connoisseurs for many years, but never at such prices). Spinels and tsavorite (a rare emerald-green variety of the garnet family) used to sell for a few hundred dollars per carat in the finest quality; these natural beauties are now several thousand dollars per carat.


Most experts agree that prices will go much higher. Supporting this are gloomy predictions about the fact that mine production has been decreasing and extraction costs increasing. Since diamonds and gemstones represent a very small percentage of their total profits, it is expected that many leading mining companies will withdraw from gemstone mining and focus much more heavily on more profitable minerals and metals. Minor players will not have the resources to invest in expensive exploration and extraction.


These predictions, if accurate, combined with increasing demand from emerging economies, point to continued price increases, as well as far more artificially enhanced material entering the market. We're already seeing it; the character of the gem industry is changing. Many treatments can be easily detected by experienced gemologists, but some require sophisticated testing only available at major gem testing laboratories such as the American Gemological Laboratories (New York, NY) or the Gemological Institute of America (New York , NY and Carlsbad, CA). When considering any gemstone investment, having a report from a respected gem-testing laboratory is essential.


A sound investment in gemstones also requires the ability to obtain what you want at prices as close as possible to "wholesale" or below. You cannot buy “retail” and then sell back to a jeweler and expect to make money. Other sources of fine, rare gems, include auctions, estate sales; even flea markets and pawnshops.


We are also seeing a re-emergence of private diamond and colored gemstone investment funds, and I can’t overstate the importance of taking time to learn before considering investment. In the late 1970s, when Wall Street “discovered” “diamonds and gemstones, virtually all of the popular investment publications such as Business Week, Fortune magazine and others began to recommend them to investors. Investment houses specializing in diamond and gemstone funds sprang up across the country. Many of them succeeded in conning buyers out of tens of thousands of dollars or more. Investors knew nothing about the products or the market dynamics. There were no books to help lay people understand the ways in which gemstones could be created, duplicated or altered to look better than they really were. With the Wall Street impetus, it didn’t take long for diamond prices to strengthen. In 1978, the wholesale price of a 1-carat diamond of the rarest quality (D/FL) was around $6,100; by March of 1980 the wholesale price of such a stone had soared to $62,000! In September, 1981, the price for that same quality stone plunged to $23,000, and by 1985, it bottomed out at about $9,600 per carat. Some investors, conned into buying fakes, lost everything they’d invested. Some purchased stones in sealed containers, with warnings—if the seal was broken, all buy-back guarantees were voided. Shockingly, many didn’t realize that if you couldn’t remove the stone from the sealed container there was no way to know if it was what it was represented to be! The same scenario occurred with colored gemstones, where the absence of universal grading standards made it even easier to exploit investors.


There are still many pitfalls, but in my opinion, the world of diamonds and gemstones has changed in ways that provide unique investment opportunities for the serious investor. It is still true that investment risk is greater with diamonds and gemstones because of the scientific complexities. As with other specialty investment areas, successful investment requires extensive knowledge, or the availability of expert counsel to guide you in making a careful selection, one stone at a time.


Today however, there is also much more information available about what to look for and how to avoid the risks. There are quicker, easier ways confirm the facts. There is greater awareness of the quality factors that affect rarity, desirability and value. There is greater due diligence with regard to verifying facts before money changes hands.


The best advice I can offer? The wisest initial investment in diamonds or gemstones is to take the time to learn as much as possible about their sparkling history and allure, about the factors that set one apart from the other, and about the hidden dangers as well as the delights!