AGL identifies irradiated Colombian emeralds

[T L]

http://www.aglgemlab.com/News/AGL IDENTIFIES IRRADIATED EMERALDS-3 Jan 2012.pdf

 

[Aoife]

Thanks for posting that, TL. Considering the number of posts we've had recently on this forum about emeralds, this is important consumer information.

 

[chrono]

Just be thankful it is detectable by the labs unlike tourmalines!

 

[T L]

Thanks for posting that, TL. Considering the number of posts we've had recently on this forum about emeralds, this is important consumer information.

Don't thank me, but Jamey Swisher, a trained gemologist who sometimes posts here. I obtained the information from him. Its' scary as I've recently noticed some fine colored and pretty clean emeralds, with inclusions, going for low prices. Now we have to worry about not just signficant treatment like a strong amount of fillers, but synthetics and now irradiation.

 

[kenny]

Fascinating.
Thanks for the heads up TL.

Interesting that radiation improves green in emeralds and creates green in diamond.

 

[JewelFreak]

How depressing. Thanks, TL, good information.

--- Laurie

 

[T L]

Fascinating.
Thanks for the heads up TL.

Interesting that radiation improves green in emeralds and creates green in diamond.

Quartz too. They have been irradiating beryl to make yellow, but perhaps it can be used to make greener beryl as well, as emerald is green beryl.

 

[pregcurious]

Thanks, TL. Sigh, this is getting so complicated.

 

[T L]

Another scary article about a synthetic alexandrite that the GIA first deemed as natural, but AGL proved synthetic.

http://online.barrons.com/article_e...MTAxMDIwMzEyNDMyWj.html#articleTabs_article=1

"To estimate the value of my alexandrite, I needed to know its country of origin because gems from certain mines are especially pricey. Only a few labs are willing to make this determination for alexandrite, and the GIA is not one of them. But five floors above the GIA lab, in the same building on New York's Fifth Avenue, is American Gemological Laboratories, founded in 1977 by C. R. "Cap" Beesley, a world-renowned gemologist with nearly half a century of experience. The opinion of this lab can change the price of a gem by tens of thousands of dollars, particularly for rare varieties such as alexandrite."

This person is lucky to have taken it for a second analysis at AGL. GIA later retracted its initial findings on the gem.

 

[Aoife]

Another scary article about a synthetic alexandrite that the GIA first deemed as natural, but AGL proved synthetic.

http://online.barrons.com/article_e...MTAxMDIwMzEyNDMyWj.html#articleTabs_article=1

"To estimate the value of my alexandrite, I needed to know its country of origin because gems from certain mines are especially pricey. Only a few labs are willing to make this determination for alexandrite, and the GIA is not one of them. But five floors above the GIA lab, in the same building on New York's Fifth Avenue, is American Gemological Laboratories, founded in 1977 by C. R. "Cap" Beesley, a world-renowned gemologist with nearly half a century of experience. The opinion of this lab can change the price of a gem by tens of thousands of dollars, particularly for rare varieties such as alexandrite."

This person is lucky to have taken it for a second analysis at AGL. GIA later retracted its initial findings on the gem.

Did you link that before, recently? I remember reading it here a while ago, and being horrified, so thank you for posting it again. I think it's really important to have this kind of information easily available on the CS forum, since I think a lot of people who are new to colored stones have no idea of what they are getting into re: treatments.

 

[T L]

Another scary article about a synthetic alexandrite that the GIA first deemed as natural, but AGL proved synthetic.

http://online.barrons.com/article_e...MTAxMDIwMzEyNDMyWj.html#articleTabs_article=1

"To estimate the value of my alexandrite, I needed to know its country of origin because gems from certain mines are especially pricey. Only a few labs are willing to make this determination for alexandrite, and the GIA is not one of them. But five floors above the GIA lab, in the same building on New York's Fifth Avenue, is American Gemological Laboratories, founded in 1977 by C. R. "Cap" Beesley, a world-renowned gemologist with nearly half a century of experience. The opinion of this lab can change the price of a gem by tens of thousands of dollars, particularly for rare varieties such as alexandrite."

This person is lucky to have taken it for a second analysis at AGL. GIA later retracted its initial findings on the gem.

Did you link that before, recently? I remember reading it here a while ago, and being horrified, so thank you for posting it again. I think it's really important to have this kind of information easily available on the CS forum, since I think a lot of people who are new to colored stones have no idea of what they are getting into re: treatments.

No, never linked to it, but I do go and check out various places to learn about the latest treatments, and I did want to post it on PS. As a consumer forum, I do think it's extremly important to talk about these things. I will keep an eye on AGL, GIA and other various lab websites too, as they sometimes discuss new treatment.

 

[Aoife]

I'm sure I'm not the only CS regular who would appreciate it if you would post links here when you come across information on treatments!

 

[LD]

I linked to the Alexandrite article before. It's fairly old. I linked to it because somebody was saying they could tell without lab testing that an Alex was real and I was reinforcing the point that no, to be sure, lab testing was the only way of conclusive proof.

Thanks for the info about irradiation of Emeralds TL. In all honesty, I think this is the (unfortunate and upsetting) forecast of the future. I think untreated stones are going to become much rarer.

Irradiation is used so often now that I am wondering if it's something we need to be concerned about or not? My reasoning is that it's stable (for most gems although Kunzite may be the exception?????) and in some cases is undetectable. So, presumably it doesn't affect value - although one would assume it should. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating buying irradiated gemstones but I can't quite put it in the same box as BE diffusion that I abhor. Of course natural or mild heat is always preferable but I'm less inclined to worry about irradiation but don't feel the same way about fillers, dyes, etc.

 

[T L]

I linked to the Alexandrite article before. It's fairly old. I linked to it because somebody was saying they could tell without lab testing that an Alex was real and I was reinforcing the point that no, to be sure, lab testing was the only way of conclusive proof.

Thanks for the info about irradiation of Emeralds TL. In all honesty, I think this is the (unfortunate and upsetting) forecast of the future. I think untreated stones are going to become much rarer.

Irradiation is used so often now that I am wondering if it's something we need to be concerned about or not? My reasoning is that it's stable (for most gems although Kunzite may be the exception?????) and in some cases is undetectable. So, presumably it doesn't affect value - although one would assume it should. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating buying irradiated gemstones but I can't quite put it in the same box as BE diffusion that I abhor. Of course natural or mild heat is always preferable but I'm less inclined to worry about irradiation but don't feel the same way about fillers, dyes, etc.

LD,
I detest irradiation, but that's JMO, unless you know what you're getting. You also have to be careful because neutron bombardment can leave dangerous levels of radioactivity, while electron bombardment does not, so not all types of irradiation are created equal. Also irradiation does affect value in some stones like FCD's, in particular green diamonds where it is very difficult to detect, and can mean the difference in megabucks of value.

 

[LD]

I linked to the Alexandrite article before. It's fairly old. I linked to it because somebody was saying they could tell without lab testing that an Alex was real and I was reinforcing the point that no, to be sure, lab testing was the only way of conclusive proof.

Thanks for the info about irradiation of Emeralds TL. In all honesty, I think this is the (unfortunate and upsetting) forecast of the future. I think untreated stones are going to become much rarer.

Irradiation is used so often now that I am wondering if it's something we need to be concerned about or not? My reasoning is that it's stable (for most gems although Kunzite may be the exception?????) and in some cases is undetectable. So, presumably it doesn't affect value - although one would assume it should. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating buying irradiated gemstones but I can't quite put it in the same box as BE diffusion that I abhor. Of course natural or mild heat is always preferable but I'm less inclined to worry about irradiation but don't feel the same way about fillers, dyes, etc.

LD,
I detest irradiation, but that's JMO, unless you know what you're getting. You also have to be careful because neutron bombardment can leave dangerous levels of radioactivity, while electron bombardment does not, so not all types of irradiation are created equal. Also irradiation does affect value in some stones like FCD's, in particular green diamonds where it is very difficult to detect, and can mean the difference in megabucks of value.

I understand the green diamond issue - clearly disconcerting and very very very much changes the value but realistically it's different from irradiating a tourmaline for example. With diamonds, it's done to deceive. Tourmalines don't have their value affected significantly in the same way so I'm not sure that it's an equal comparison. Is the value of these Emeralds affected significantly?

The scandal of "hot" London Blue Topaz hasn't been forgotton by me but surely we've moved on from there? I know in the US there were rigorous testings of irradiated stones to ensure they were safe and not hazardous to health (got to say that I've never bought London Blue Topaz thankfully as this put me right off)!

I very much understand all the pitfalls but if I look at this realistically, this is the face of the future. Do I like it? No. What can we do? Nothing short of only buying natural stones and hoping that testing advances so that all treatments are detected but that's a pipedream to some extent as treatments will always be ahead of testing. So, I wonder if we have to reconsider what our personal acceptable parameters are when buying gemstones? That's really my point. I'm not advocating irradiation but merely saying that it will get to a point where we're saying don't buy this, don't buy that until we run out of things TO buy!

From a purely selfish standpoint I don't buy even a fraction of what I used to and have no inclination to do so. I only buy gems that I can't resist and they're few and far between now which is why I am slightly less concerned than I may have been several years ago.

 

[T L]

Truth be told, I have stopped buying tourmaline because irradiation is not detectable, neither is heat (although heat treatment bothers me less). I would probably stop buying a gemstone species once that particular treatment becomes undetectable. I guess in that regard I'm a purist, but I understand why it doesn't bother others as much. I recently spent more on treatment testing for a stone than what the stone cost itself, so for me, it really matters to know. I love the beauty that Mother Nature can create, and when it's tampered with too much by man, that disturbs me. However, I do understand why treatment can be a positive thing, as it makes some beautiful colors more affordable. Undisclosed or non-detectable treatment is what truly bothers me.

 

[LD]

Fully understand and agree with everything you've said. I guess if I was buying as much as I used to, I would be more perturbed. If I were to buy a sapphire I would be testing it to within an inch of its life also.

One thing that I need to understand - and I know we've discussed this occasionally - does irradiation of tourmalines and perhaps Emeralds as this is the topic subject, affect value? It should but I don't think (specifically thinking of tourmalines) that it does. So, if that's the case, if it's disclosed and the gem is looking more beautiful should we be discouraged from buying?

I appreciate that for purists it's a simple case of no, we shouldn't buy, but we are few and far between. So should the "average" punter be concerned? I'm not so sure and this is where I struggle!

 

[T L]

Fully understand and agree with everything you've said. I guess if I was buying as much as I used to, I would be more perturbed. If I were to buy a sapphire I would be testing it to within an inch of its life also.

One thing that I need to understand - and I know we've discussed this occasionally - does irradiation of tourmalines and perhaps Emeralds as this is the topic subject, affect value? It should but I don't think (specifically thinking of tourmalines) that it does. So, if that's the case, if it's disclosed and the gem is looking more beautiful should we be discouraged from buying?

I appreciate that for purists it's a simple case of no, we shouldn't buy, but we are few and far between. So should the "average" punter be concerned? I'm not so sure and this is where I struggle!

Irradiated emeralds are not "color-stable," as it is with tourmaline, so I would think it would affect value. Who wants to buy a beautiful deep green emerald one year, to find it in ten years, it has faded in color? It is also not as easy to retreat, as for example, reoiling an emerald. Also, I think it depends on the potential value of the stone. Deep green emeralds are highly prized and very expensive, whereas some indicolite (non-cuprian) and pink tourmaline, which are commonly irradiated, are not. Like rubies, the treatment can really affect value significantly.

 

[LD]

Is it proven that irradiation isn't stable in Emeralds? If so, then I agree but I didn't see that in the AGL report and it appears to be stable in Tourmaline??????? I'm not trying to be argumentative and hope you don't think so - am really just trying to understand.

 

[T L]

Is it proven that irradiation isn't stable in Emeralds? If so, then I agree but I didn't see that in the AGL report and it appears to be stable in Tourmaline??????? I'm not trying to be argumentative and hope you don't think so - am really just trying to understand.

LD, I don't think you're being argumentative at all.

See Fig 1 of that article, it states that depending on the type of irradiation, it may be stable or not. I should have said that, as there is a "possibility" it could fade, and if that is the case, then I don't think the emerald would be as valuable. My apologies. In any case, any gem significantly enhanced by man should not be as valuable as the non-treated gem, at least IMHO. I think the only cases where that wouldn't apply would be tanzanite and paraiba tourmaline, which are almost always heated.

 

[Richard M.]

In any case, any gem significantly enhanced by man should not be as valuable as the non-treated gem, at least IMHO. I think the only cases where that wouldn't apply would be tanzanite and paraiba tourmaline, which are almost always heated.

Out of curiosity, why do you make exceptions for Paraiba tourms and Tanzanite? Certainly both are "significantly" enhanced by man. Why, in your view, should they be valued any differently than other heat-only stones like many sapphires? I know this may be interpreted as confrontational but as a vendor I really want to understand the thought process involved.

Richard M.

 

[distracts]

In any case, any gem significantly enhanced by man should not be as valuable as the non-treated gem, at least IMHO.

I agree with this. There are many treatments I have no problem with, as long as the item is priced accordingly. I suspect that as my collection grows, I may become more of a purist about treatments, but right now I'm not there.

I also find the links you post about treatments to be really interesting. Thanks for posting them!

 

[T L]

In any case, any gem significantly enhanced by man should not be as valuable as the non-treated gem, at least IMHO. I think the only cases where that wouldn't apply would be tanzanite and paraiba tourmaline, which are almost always heated.

Out of curiosity, why do you make exceptions for Paraiba tourms and Tanzanite? Certainly both are "significantly" enhanced by man. Why, in your view, should they be valued any differently than other heat-only stones like many sapphires? I know this may be interpreted as confrontational but as a vendor I really want to understand the thought process involved.

Richard M.

I'm not really making those exceptions, it's the trade that determines the pricing structure.

I have found that unheated tanzanites are really not more expensive than their heated counterparts, and in fact, heating them sometimes makes them more valuable since they turn from grey or brown to the highly desirable violet and blues. I have never seen anyone tout an unheated tanzanite as super desirable either, but perhaps there are some very saturated and unheated stones that do command a premium. It's also pretty abundant, as the shopping channels sell them in droves, and quite nice ones too. I think with more rare and valuable gems, treatment affects price points much more, such as fine sapphires, rubies or emeralds.

As for paraiba, if they can be proven to be unheated, they are more valuable than heated ones (from what I've heard). However, so many require heating to get that neon glow. Also, it's virtually impossible to prove which ones are unheated. Therefore, since the treatment is pretty much undetectable, the stones are valuable despite the heating.

 

[mastercutgems]

Thank you TL

I think it is great to post this TL as everyone should know the playing field on gemstones and their enhancements; even though many would love for us to not know what they are doing to gems out there...

I know even with my expensive small laboratory I can only test things like; basic heat, diffusion, and sometimes irradiation; and Be heating if the component/element that needs to make the sapphire yellow or red is not there; you can pretty much say Be... but you are very correct not all radiation is safe or equal and even some labs cannot tell everything as some are too new; remember Andesine; yikes ... how many billions were lost on that scam??? AGTA and several other labs got duped on that one; so labs do make mistakes also; some you may not find out about; but your relatives may...

I know when Mark Liccini was alive he and I were friends and he was irradiating beryl back 18 years ago making them green, gold, fine yellow, and super blue; and yes they were stable and yes i do have some of each. Fully tested as safe; but... I have to mark them aside as treated as I do not want anyone getting something like that and not know what they have... But back then I thought everything was so cool and bought anything that was neat and unusual... But I was with people that disclosed everything; even like the Kashan (sp) ruby from Research triangle Park; as that was reconstituted ruby and I got the rough from the Ladies back then ; but I had to sign a paper saying I would disclose it was reconstituted as it was very difficult to tell from natural as it was grown from natural ruby...

I know even buying back 20 years ago; you still tested stuff; imperial topaz was left on the window seal for weeks to make sure it was not treated as the treated stuff would fade like pale kunzite and the treated green spodumene...

I really wish more people would use this forum as you get so much useful information; as with You Ladies and Gentlemen you are really taking this serious as this is your money and your fingers these minerals grace; I applaud you all for taking on the interest like us cutters; as we too have to know what we are dealing with or our investment is lost just like you that do not do your homework as well.

As for value of heated vs non-heated... Oh well it depends on how much of a purest you are; some clients only want un-treated and some just want modestly treated; and some do not care as long as it is cheap and looks pretty ??? So I guess there is not a right or wrong; it just depends on what you like ; but above all; just make sure everything that can be disclosed is...

Most respectfully;

Dana M. Reynolds, csmg

 

[Aoife]

I linked to the Alexandrite article before. It's fairly old. I linked to it because somebody was saying they could tell without lab testing that an Alex was real and I was reinforcing the point that no, to be sure, lab testing was the only way of conclusive proof.

Thanks for the info about irradiation of Emeralds TL. In all honesty, I think this is the (unfortunate and upsetting) forecast of the future. I think untreated stones are going to become much rarer.

Irradiation is used so often now that I am wondering if it's something we need to be concerned about or not? My reasoning is that it's stable (for most gems although Kunzite may be the exception?????) and in some cases is undetectable. So, presumably it doesn't affect value - although one would assume it should. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating buying irradiated gemstones but I can't quite put it in the same box as BE diffusion that I abhor. Of course natural or mild heat is always preferable but I'm less inclined to worry about irradiation but don't feel the same way about fillers, dyes, etc.

I knew I'd seen it posted on CS! Thanks for posting it, both LD and TL.

 

[minousbijoux]

One of the things stated in the article or alert put out by AGL is that the irradiated stones have been stabilized by a polymer resin as well, or at least the samples they looked at were. So my follow up question to AGL would be to ask whether they have seen this irradiation in the absence of fillers as well? If not, it could be that the consumer who is worried about irradiation can avoid it by avoiding resin filled stones?

 

[LD]

One of the things stated in the article or alert put out by AGL is that the irradiated stones have been stabilized by a polymer resin as well, or at least the samples they looked at were. So my follow up question to AGL would be to ask whether they have seen this irradiation in the absence of fillers as well? If not, it could be that the consumer who is worried about irradiation can avoid it by avoiding resin filled stones?

The resin is a common clarity enhancement so avoiding those stones would be problematic!!!

 

[T L]

One of the things stated in the article or alert put out by AGL is that the irradiated stones have been stabilized by a polymer resin as well, or at least the samples they looked at were. So my follow up question to AGL would be to ask whether they have seen this irradiation in the absence of fillers as well? If not, it could be that the consumer who is worried about irradiation can avoid it by avoiding resin filled stones?

Fillers can be removed though.

 

[T L]

Thank you TL

I think it is great to post this TL as everyone should know the playing field on gemstones and their enhancements; even though many would love for us to not know what they are doing to gems out there...

I know even with my expensive small laboratory I can only test things like; basic heat, diffusion, and sometimes irradiation; and Be heating if the component/element that needs to make the sapphire yellow or red is not there; you can pretty much say Be... but you are very correct not all radiation is safe or equal and even some labs cannot tell everything as some are too new; remember Andesine; yikes ... how many billions were lost on that scam??? AGTA and several other labs got duped on that one; so labs do make mistakes also; some you may not find out about; but your relatives may...

I know when Mark Liccini was alive he and I were friends and he was irradiating beryl back 18 years ago making them green, gold, fine yellow, and super blue; and yes they were stable and yes i do have some of each. Fully tested as safe; but... I have to mark them aside as treated as I do not want anyone getting something like that and not know what they have... But back then I thought everything was so cool and bought anything that was neat and unusual... But I was with people that disclosed everything; even like the Kashan (sp) ruby from Research triangle Park; as that was reconstituted ruby and I got the rough from the Ladies back then ; but I had to sign a paper saying I would disclose it was reconstituted as it was very difficult to tell from natural as it was grown from natural ruby...

I know even buying back 20 years ago; you still tested stuff; imperial topaz was left on the window seal for weeks to make sure it was not treated as the treated stuff would fade like pale kunzite and the treated green spodumene...

I really wish more people would use this forum as you get so much useful information; as with You Ladies and Gentlemen you are really taking this serious as this is your money and your fingers these minerals grace; I applaud you all for taking on the interest like us cutters; as we too have to know what we are dealing with or our investment is lost just like you that do not do your homework as well.

As for value of heated vs non-heated... Oh well it depends on how much of a purest you are; some clients only want un-treated and some just want modestly treated; and some do not care as long as it is cheap and looks pretty ??? So I guess there is not a right or wrong; it just depends on what you like ; but above all; just make sure everything that can be disclosed is...

Most respectfully;

Dana M. Reynolds, csmg

Very nice post Dana. Thank you.