AGL Report vs. GIA Report - Different Grading Results

[_BUQARI_]

Hello everyone,

I sent a Ruby of mine to GIA approx. 5 months ago.
GIA graded the 3.34 carat Ruby to be "NTE - No indication of heating."
To get a better Report for it I choosed to send it off to AGL for a Full Grading Report.

AGL contacted me today regarding the 3.34 Ruby and they did confirm that the Ruby is "NTE - No indication of heating."
But AGL claim that the Ruby has been "Oiled", and I suppose AGL is correct.
GIA didn't notice this "Oiling" for some reason - why?
I really start to wonder .............

"Maybe it's another Ruby, or that it has been treated after it were graded by GIA?"
The answer is NO! I've been the owner of the Ruby since I purchased it many years ago.
I personally sent it off to GIA for a Report, and I personally sent to AGL for a Report.
It has not been in contact with any type of "Oil" or anything after I got it back from GIA - it has been locked up in a safe.
And the GIA Report is only 5 months old!

You can also read another article regarding GIA vs. AGL here:
http://online.barrons.com/article_email/SB50001424052970203511504576329081143859922-lMyQjA1MTAxMDIwMzEyNDMyWj.html#articleTabs_article%3D1

I will attach both Report's here as fast as the AGL Report has been completed!

 

[chrono]

I am sorry to hear that your ruby is oiled per the AGL report. Just a quick accidental dunking or normal exposure to natural oils isn't enough for a lab to issue such an opinion.

 

[_BUQARI_]

I am sorry to hear that your ruby is oiled per the AGL report. Just a quick accidental dunking or normal exposure to natural oils isn't enough for a lab to issue such an opinion.

Yeah .....
I think I will only use AGL for my gemstones in the future.
And only using GIA regarding my diamonds.

 

[LD]

Very very disappointing Buqari. I'm sorry to hear about this (but not surprised). As you've intimated, GIA for diamonds, AGL for coloured gemstones is the way to go.

Can you contact GIA and get them to refund you for what, in essence, is a useless report?

I would be furious if I were you.

 

[_BUQARI_]

Very very disappointing Buqari. I'm sorry to hear about this (but not surprised). As you've intimated, GIA for diamonds, AGL for coloured gemstones is the way to go.

Can you contact GIA and get them to refund you for what, in essence, is a useless report?

I would be furious if I were you.

I didn't even think of that ..
But yes, I think I will contact them as fast as I got the AGL Report on file - so I can send GIA a copy.
I dont know if they refund the money? But maybe they can do one of my diamonds for free just to make it right.
I dont want to argue too much with them either as I'm using GIA on a regularly basis for my diamonds.
But of course, I can just contact them to see what they say and/or if they come up with any solution.
I mean ... when paying approx. $450-$500 for a Report ... yeah, you know what I mean.

Another little funny thing is that I had a question regarding the 3.34 Ruby while it were under grading by GIA.
And the answer I got were something like "I know what I'm talking about as I've been a Ruby specialist for over 30 years".
Yeah .... I can see that now ....

 

[T L]

Sorry about your result, but AGL does seem to be more thorough. I think GIA is a very good lab, but when dealing with highly treated colored gems, I think AGL checks for more treatments, and they only use a couple of gemologists, which I think the bulk of the work is done by Chris Smith. I'm getting 'Mr. John Doe Gemologist' at GIA and that is fine for most gemstones, but I think Chris is trained to spot the unusual.

Thank you for reporting this.

 

[_BUQARI_]

Sorry about your result, but AGL does seem to be more thorough. I think GIA is a very good lab, but when dealing with highly treated colored gems, I think AGL checks for more treatments, and they only use a couple of gemologists, which I think the bulk of the work is done by Chris Smith. I'm getting, Mr. John Doe Gemologist at GIA and that is fine for most gemstones, but I think Chris is trained to spot the unusual.

Thank you for reporting this.

Yes, that's correct.
Chris Smith is the one grading my Ruby at AGL as well.

I dont remember who graded my Ruby at GIA, and I dont got the information anymore either.
I recognize the name John but I cant tell for 100% sure that it was him that graded it at GIA.

Whatsoever, I will send a complaint to GIA.
And I suppose they will be able to see who graded it.

 

[T L]

Sorry about your result, but AGL does seem to be more thorough. I think GIA is a very good lab, but when dealing with highly treated colored gems, I think AGL checks for more treatments, and they only use a couple of gemologists, which I think the bulk of the work is done by Chris Smith. I'm getting, Mr. John Doe Gemologist at GIA and that is fine for most gemstones, but I think Chris is trained to spot the unusual.

Thank you for reporting this.

Yes, that's correct.
Chris Smith is the one grading my Ruby at AGL as well.

I dont remember who graded my Ruby at GIA, and I dont got the information anymore either.
I recognize the name John but I cant tell for 100% sure that it was him that graded it at GIA.

Whatsoever, I will send a complaint to GIA.
And I suppose they will be able to see who graded it.

You should let Chris Smith @AGL know as well. It would be good for their records.

 

[_BUQARI_]

Sorry about your result, but AGL does seem to be more thorough. I think GIA is a very good lab, but when dealing with highly treated colored gems, I think AGL checks for more treatments, and they only use a couple of gemologists, which I think the bulk of the work is done by Chris Smith. I'm getting, Mr. John Doe Gemologist at GIA and that is fine for most gemstones, but I think Chris is trained to spot the unusual.

Thank you for reporting this.

Yes, that's correct.
Chris Smith is the one grading my Ruby at AGL as well.

I dont remember who graded my Ruby at GIA, and I dont got the information anymore either.
I recognize the name John but I cant tell for 100% sure that it was him that graded it at GIA.

Whatsoever, I will send a complaint to GIA.
And I suppose they will be able to see who graded it.

You should let Chris Smith @AGL know as well. It would be good for their records.

Yes, I know.
I already notified him regarding the AGL Results vs. the GIA Results.
And that I would be able to send him a Scan of the GIA Report upon request.

 

[AN0NYM0US]

Are rubies oiled for the same reasons emeralds are, such as surface reaching inclusions, cracks etc...?

 

[_BUQARI_]

Are rubies oiled for the same reasons emeralds are, such as surface reaching inclusions, cracks etc...?

The answer to your question is YES.
I think oil will be able to transform a Ruby as well - the same way it enhance Emerald's.
AGL also told me that "Oil" were a quite common treatment of "NTE" Rubies but that most people dont even realize it.

I've never seen such a brilliance in a Ruby before that I did with this one.
I dont know for sure but it's probably because I've never seen an "Oiled" Ruby ever before as far as I know.

And "oil" will not reduce the value of the Ruby as for example "glass-filling" or "heat" would do.
Even if there's "oil" it's still an "NTE - No indication of heating" Ruby.

 

[T L]

Are rubies oiled for the same reasons emeralds are, such as surface reaching inclusions, cracks etc...?

The answer to your question is YES.
I think oil will be able to transform a Ruby as well - the same way it enhance Emerald's.
AGL also told me that "Oil" were a quite common treatment of "NTE" Rubies but that most people dont even realize it.

I've never seen such a brilliance in a Ruby before that I did with this one.
I dont know for sure but it's probably because I've never seen an "Oiled" Ruby ever before as far as I know.

And "oil" will not reduce the value of the Ruby as for example "glass-filling" or "heat" would do.
Even if there's "oil" it's still an "NTE - No indication of heating" Ruby.

Did you find out how much oil treatment there was? In emeralds, oil and other filler treatment can be faint, minor, moderate, and strong. Since you mention this may be akin to emerald treatment, usually a high quality emerald will have faint to minor oiling. It doesn't affect the value that much in those cases. I'm not sure if this oil grading terminology is also used with rubies, but I would imagine if it were, the amount of treatment would not affect the value if it was faint to minor as well. Emeralds have lots of surface cracks, and the oil is primarily used to penetrate those cracks, and there are companies that can remove it as well, like the Arthur Groom company.

 

[Dioptase]

Are rubies oiled for the same reasons emeralds are, such as surface reaching inclusions, cracks etc...?

Yes. They put oil or/and polymers in pretty much everything nowadays: spinels, tourmalines...You have to be careful.

 

[_BUQARI_]

Are rubies oiled for the same reasons emeralds are, such as surface reaching inclusions, cracks etc...?

The answer to your question is YES.
I think oil will be able to transform a Ruby as well - the same way it enhance Emerald's.
AGL also told me that "Oil" were a quite common treatment of "NTE" Rubies but that most people dont even realize it.

I've never seen such a brilliance in a Ruby before that I did with this one.
I dont know for sure but it's probably because I've never seen an "Oiled" Ruby ever before as far as I know.

And "oil" will not reduce the value of the Ruby as for example "glass-filling" or "heat" would do.
Even if there's "oil" it's still an "NTE - No indication of heating" Ruby.

Did you find out how much oil treatment there was? In emeralds, oil and other filler treatment can be faint, minor, moderate, and strong. Since you mention this may be akin to emerald treatment, usually a high quality emerald will have faint to minor oiling. It doesn't affect the value that much in those cases. I'm not sure if this oil grading terminology is also used with rubies, but I would imagine if it were, the amount of treatment would not affect the value if it was faint to minor as well. Emeralds have lots of surface cracks, and the oil is primarily used to penetrate those cracks, and there are companies that can remove it as well, like the Arthur Groom company.

No, the Grading Report is not finished yet.
He just wanted to contact me regarding some information and questions before he finished the work.
So I suppose he'd be ready within 24-48 hours?

I suppose the amount of oil will be mentioned, I've seen that it's usually mentioned at all AGL Reports where gemstones has been oiled.

I've had this Ruby for maybe 2-3 years atleast by now.
So this isn't "something" new they've started to do, probably started years ago.
But if for example people use GIA for gemstones, they wouldn't even know their Rubies were oiled.
I'm glad I sent it off to AGL afterall.

Why did I sent it to GIA first, and then AGL some people might wonder?
I sent it to GIA because I wanted a GIA Report ...
But GIA were unable to specify the "Origin" as the Ruby are of "CMG Type I".
Therefore I sent it off to AGL to see if they could identify the "Origin".

 

[T L]

Are rubies oiled for the same reasons emeralds are, such as surface reaching inclusions, cracks etc...?

Yes. They put oil or/and polymers in pretty much everything nowadays: spinels, tourmalines...You have to be careful.

Garnets too from what I hear, and I'm sure there are others gem species.

 

[Dioptase]

Are rubies oiled for the same reasons emeralds are, such as surface reaching inclusions, cracks etc...?

Yes. They put oil or/and polymers in pretty much everything nowadays: spinels, tourmalines...You have to be careful.

Garnets too from what I hear, and I'm sure there are others gem species.

Anything with surface-reaching cracks can possibly be treated that way.

 

[chrono]

Excellent customer service from AGL to alert you to the fact that the stone is oiled even though they have not completed the write-up. Any news whether AGL is able to determine the origin?

ETA
A little off topic too but I wonder which lab "discovered" the oil treament of Paraiba tourmalines.

 

[_BUQARI_]

Excellent customer service from AGL to alert you to the fact that the stone is oiled even though they have not completed the write-up. Any news whether AGL is able to determine the origin?

ETA
A little off topic too but I wonder which lab "discovered" the oil treament of Paraiba tourmalines.

No, not yet.
But he told me yesterday that one of his colleague's would send me a scan (copy) of the Grading Report.
And he said that he would finish the Full Grading Report including Origin, so I suppose he will manage it.

 

[_BUQARI_]

Interesting .....

Measuremnts
GIA: 9.12 x 7.94 x 4.96 mm
AGL: 9.11 x 7.94 x 4.95 mm

Weight
GIA: 3.34 carats
AGL: 3.48 carats

Shape
GIA: Cushion
AGL: Oval

Treatment
GIA: None - No indication of heating.
AGL: Faint Oil - No indication of heating.

What would the cost for a Ruby like this be based upon the AGL information?
I dont wonder because of re-selling or anything, I just want to know if I paid too much or an "OK" price.

 

[LD]

Interesting .....

Measuremnts
GIA: 9.12 x 7.94 x 4.96 mm
AGL: 9.11 x 7.94 x 4.95 mm

Weight
GIA: 3.34 carats
AGL: 3.48 carats

Shape
GIA: Cushion
AGL: Oval

I really don't understand this. Why is the weight so drastically different? The cut is inconsistent also. I would be very worried by this because it's not a small difference in carat weight!

 

[_BUQARI_]

Interesting .....

Measuremnts
GIA: 9.12 x 7.94 x 4.96 mm
AGL: 9.11 x 7.94 x 4.95 mm

Weight
GIA: 3.34 carats
AGL: 3.48 carats

Shape
GIA: Cushion
AGL: Oval

I really don't understand this. Why is the weight so drastically different? The cut is inconsistent also. I would be very worried by this because it's not a small difference in carat weight!

Yes, I totally agree with you!
0.14 carats is a huge difference.

But I dont know ...
Because both GIA and another Lab as well confirmed it to weigh 3.34 carats.
AGL grade it to be 3.48 carats - so I will personally weigh it as well when it get back from AGL.

 

[T L]

So GIA
1) couldn't find faint oil treatment, but AGL did
2) has a totally different carat weight/measurements than AGL which we'll see the results corroborated when you get the stone.



Don't know what to say here.

 

[_BUQARI_]

So GIA
1) couldn't determine origin, but AGL did
2) couldn't find faint oil treatment, but AGL did
3) has a totally different carat weight than AGL which we'll see the results corroborated when you get the stone.



Don't know what to say here.

Yes, correct.
$450.00 for nothing ... total of $870.00 to get it graded by both AGL and GIA.
waste of money ...

 

[T L]

So GIA
1) couldn't determine origin, but AGL did
2) couldn't find faint oil treatment, but AGL did
3) has a totally different carat weight than AGL which we'll see the results corroborated when you get the stone.



Don't know what to say here.

None of them could determine Origin 100%.
Both could determine the Origin to "East Africa" but couldn't specify country of Origin.

The rest of what you mentioned is correct ...

I corrected what I said above, you posted at the same time as I was correcting. Thanks.

 

[LD]

Interesting .....

Measuremnts
GIA: 9.12 x 7.94 x 4.96 mm
AGL: 9.11 x 7.94 x 4.95 mm

Weight
GIA: 3.34 carats
AGL: 3.48 carats

Shape
GIA: Cushion
AGL: Oval

I really don't understand this. Why is the weight so drastically different? The cut is inconsistent also. I would be very worried by this because it's not a small difference in carat weight!

Yes, I totally agree with you!
0.14 carats is a huge difference.

But I dont know ...
Because both GIA and another Lab as well confirmed it to weigh 3.34 carats.
AGL grade it to be 3.48 carats - so I will personally weigh it as well when it get back from AGL.

Buqari - is there another lab report also? Are you saying that GIA and another lab have said 3.34ct and AGL are saying 3.48??????? If that's correct and the stone is still with AGL I would speak with them and ask them to weigh the stone again to double check. Perhaps even send them the other two lab reports stating 3.34.

 

[_BUQARI_]

Interesting .....

Measuremnts
GIA: 9.12 x 7.94 x 4.96 mm
AGL: 9.11 x 7.94 x 4.95 mm

Weight
GIA: 3.34 carats
AGL: 3.48 carats

Shape
GIA: Cushion
AGL: Oval

I really don't understand this. Why is the weight so drastically different? The cut is inconsistent also. I would be very worried by this because it's not a small difference in carat weight!

Yes, I totally agree with you!
0.14 carats is a huge difference.

But I dont know ...
Because both GIA and another Lab as well confirmed it to weigh 3.34 carats.
AGL grade it to be 3.48 carats - so I will personally weigh it as well when it get back from AGL.

Buqari - is there another lab report also? Are you saying that GIA and another lab have said 3.34ct and AGL are saying 3.48??????? If that's correct and the stone is still with AGL I would speak with them and ask them to weigh the stone again to double check. Perhaps even send them the other two lab reports stating 3.34.

Yes, that's correct.
I do no longer got the 3'rd Report because it's Asian GIT so I just threw it when I received the GIA Report in January or something.
But I recall 3.34 carats and it's also stated at my reciept (still got that one) from the seller that it is a 3.34 carat Ruby.
But as I said earlier, I will have to put it on my carat scale when I get it back from AGL just to confirm the weight.

 

[LD]

Interesting .....

Measuremnts
GIA: 9.12 x 7.94 x 4.96 mm
AGL: 9.11 x 7.94 x 4.95 mm

Weight
GIA: 3.34 carats
AGL: 3.48 carats

Shape
GIA: Cushion
AGL: Oval

I really don't understand this. Why is the weight so drastically different? The cut is inconsistent also. I would be very worried by this because it's not a small difference in carat weight!

Yes, I totally agree with you!
0.14 carats is a huge difference.

But I dont know ...
Because both GIA and another Lab as well confirmed it to weigh 3.34 carats.
AGL grade it to be 3.48 carats - so I will personally weigh it as well when it get back from AGL.

Buqari - is there another lab report also? Are you saying that GIA and another lab have said 3.34ct and AGL are saying 3.48??????? If that's correct and the stone is still with AGL I would speak with them and ask them to weigh the stone again to double check. Perhaps even send them the other two lab reports stating 3.34.

Yes, that's correct.
I do no longer got the 3'rd Report because it's Asian GIT so I just threw it when I received the GIA Report in January or something.
But I recall 3.34 carats and it's also stated at my reciept (still got that one) from the seller that it is a 3.34 carat Ruby.
But as I said earlier, I will have to put it on my carat scale when I get it back from AGL just to confirm the weight.

NOOOOOOOOOO! You really must challenge AGL on this! It's not sufficient that you weigh the stone yourself. You have 3 other bits of info stating 3.34 (the GIT the GIA and the original seller's receipt). This needs to be presented to AGL.

 

[_BUQARI_]

Interesting .....

Measuremnts
GIA: 9.12 x 7.94 x 4.96 mm
AGL: 9.11 x 7.94 x 4.95 mm

Weight
GIA: 3.34 carats
AGL: 3.48 carats

Shape
GIA: Cushion
AGL: Oval

I really don't understand this. Why is the weight so drastically different? The cut is inconsistent also. I would be very worried by this because it's not a small difference in carat weight!

Yes, I totally agree with you!
0.14 carats is a huge difference.

But I dont know ...
Because both GIA and another Lab as well confirmed it to weigh 3.34 carats.
AGL grade it to be 3.48 carats - so I will personally weigh it as well when it get back from AGL.

Buqari - is there another lab report also? Are you saying that GIA and another lab have said 3.34ct and AGL are saying 3.48??????? If that's correct and the stone is still with AGL I would speak with them and ask them to weigh the stone again to double check. Perhaps even send them the other two lab reports stating 3.34.

Yes, that's correct.
I do no longer got the 3'rd Report because it's Asian GIT so I just threw it when I received the GIA Report in January or something.
But I recall 3.34 carats and it's also stated at my reciept (still got that one) from the seller that it is a 3.34 carat Ruby.
But as I said earlier, I will have to put it on my carat scale when I get it back from AGL just to confirm the weight.

NOOOOOOOOOO! You really must challenge AGL on this! It's not sufficient that you weigh the stone yourself. You have 3 other bits of info stating 3.34 (the GIT the GIA and the original seller's receipt). This needs to be presented to AGL.

Yes, already sent them an email with a copy of both the AGL and the GIA Report.
Waiting for answer

 

[Arcadian]

I would say that you should have the stone rechecked by AGL because the discrepancy is huge.
Will post my own story about AGL in a day or 2, but even if you have to have their head scientist look at this again, its worth it because of the differences of the reports.

-A

 

[bcavitt]

This link was on AGL's website, so it is self-serving, but a very public embarrassment none the less for someone.

http://online.barrons.com/article_email/SB50001424052970203511504576329081143859922-lMyQjA1MTAxMDIwMzEyNDMyWj.html

Admittedly, the weight difference is puzzling. All labs make mistakes as the above article illustrates.