13 tests for a real diamond

[kenny]

Can the pros here tell us if they agree with all 13 of these?

Do you take issue with, have any comments on, or have anything to ad to, any of these?

Link

 

[denverappraiser]

God I hate Wikipedia. What twaddle. Xray it to see if it’s a diamond? They’re kidding, right? There are so many errors and distortions here that it’s not even worth editing. Fakes float in water?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Todd Gray]

Wow... Yup, I feel kind of sorry for anybody who reads that and tries to go diamond shopping off of the myths and lore of diamond-ology!

All of that should be re-stated with "buy from a recognized, verifiable, legitimate diamond vendor AND have the characteristics of the diamond VERIFIED by a qualified independent appraiser"...

 

[coati]

Quickly I would add...

1. Know your vendor and their company policies. Really, the relationship with a reputable vendor should assuage worries concerning imposters. And, when in doubt, send any questionable stone to an independent appraiser.

2. The Wiki #2 states that diamonds have a high refractive index, well so do cubic zirconia and synthetic moissanite, and those are the two most likely used to fool people, so refractive index is not an indicative test for separating diamond imitators. Also, most questionable imitators will be mounted, so tests that require a diamond be un-mounted will not apply.

3. Looking for double refraction is a good idea--it will indicate synthetic moissanite. Look for the “doubling” of facet junctions. Synthetic moissanite often has a fuzzy appearance from doubling. Pic of doubling below.

4. Dispersion—Synthetic moissanite and cubic zirconia have higher dispersion than diamond, so that can help with a mounted stone. If you see an inordinate amount of fire, then alarm bells should sound in your mind. ☺

5. The Wiki #5 suggestion of a diamond tester will generally not work on “diamond coated” cubic zirconia.

6. The Wiki #6 suggest that you test the heft of the stone, but this only works on un-mounted gems. Cubic zirconia is about twice as heavy as diamond, but synthetic moissanite has low heft, similar to diamond.

7. The Wiki #7 suggests that metal will be an indicator of a fake, and yes this is true in some cases, but natural diamonds can be set in many metals, so I’d opt for other tests.

8. Approximately 30% of all diamonds fluoresce, so if you’ve got some degree of blue fluorescence, then that is a good indicator.

9. Inclusions-look for any natural inclusions

10. The “fog test” is inconclusive for reasons stated in the Wiki article

In essence, I’d research vendors and their policies extensively, look for characteristic inclusions, buy stones with accompanying laboratory reports, and understand the visual properties of the two biggest imitators, cz and synth moissanite.

X-rays and "float" tests are not realistic (or even logical) for the average consumer.


doubling in synthetic moissanite

 

[tallchickbarbara]

Number 10 really is my favorite, though, I wonder if my HMO covers that or if I can even get a referral from my general practitioner for that particular X ray.

I agree that it really should just say "have it inspected by an independant appraiser and be sure they use at least *these* tools" with some of the examples such as a diamond tester, etc.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 2/16/2010 3:32:40 PM
Author: coatimundi
Quickly I would add...

1. Know your vendor and their company policies. Really, the relationship with a reputable vendor should assuage worries concerning imposters. And, when in doubt, send any questionable stone to an independent appraiser.

2. The Wiki #2 states that diamonds have a high refractive index, well so do cubic zirconia and synthetic moissanite, and those are the two most likely used to fool people, so refractive index is not an indicative test for separating diamond imitators. Also, most questionable imitators will be mounted, so tests that require a diamond be un-mounted will not apply.

3. Looking for double refraction is a good idea--it will indicate synthetic moissanite. Look for the “doubling” of facet junctions. Synthetic moissanite often has a fuzzy appearance from doubling. Pic of doubling below.

4. Dispersion—Synthetic moissanite and cubic zirconia have higher dispersion than diamond, so that can help with a mounted stone. If you see an inordinate amount of fire, then alarm bells should sound in your mind. ☺

5. The Wiki #5 suggestion of a diamond tester will generally not work on “diamond coated” cubic zirconia.

6. The Wiki #6 suggest that you test the heft of the stone, but this only works on un-mounted gems. Cubic zirconia is about twice as heavy as diamond, but synthetic moissanite has low heft, similar to diamond.

7. The Wiki #7 suggests that metal will be an indicator of a fake, and yes this is true in some cases, but natural diamonds can be set in many metals, so I’d opt for other tests.

8. Approximately 30% of all diamonds fluoresce, so if you’ve got some degree of blue fluorescence, then that is a good indicator.

9. Inclusions-look for any natural inclusions

10. The “fog test” is inconclusive for reasons stated in the Wiki article

In essence, I’d research vendors and their policies extensively, look for characteristic inclusions, buy stones with accompanying laboratory reports, and understand the visual properties of the two biggest imitators, cz and synth moissanite.

X-rays and ''float'' tests are not realistic (or even logical) for the average consumer.


doubling in synthetic moissanite

OMG! You not only took the time to read that drivel, but also to comment on it.

You ARE a saint! I read the first few and like Neil I became disgusted. I never understand when someone uses Wiki any thing as a reference. The few things that I know anything about and read about there are so wrong that I do not trust any of it at all. Even the things they get right they surround with such wrong that it just makes no sense to me why any one trusts any of it.

Nice to see you!

Wink

 

[kenny]

Perhaps I''m naive but can''t you guys submit corrections to Wiki?

Isn''t that the whole idea?

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 2/17/2010 10:13:21 PM
Author: kenny
Perhaps I''m naive but can''t you guys submit corrections to Wiki?

Isn''t that the whole idea?

Perhaps, but who has the time to rewrite all that is wrong with that place? I have a sixty to seventy hour a week job already that I love and that does not frustrate me with some one coming along behind me and "correcting" my corrections.

I would rather spend the time here when I have it, and enjoy my conversations with the wonderful people here!

Wink