Corundum conundrum - fracture filled vs. fracture healed

[the_mother_thing]

I knowingly purchased a ruby from a PS vendor that - per the accompanying AGL brief - is noted to have been heated and contain clarity residues. Why? Because 1) I like the color; 2) it wasn’t an ‘investment’ purchase nor ‘expensive’ or overpriced IMO; and 3) there is a return period if it’s not all I hope for it to be. I’ll also further note, there was no attempt at hiding the treatment by the vendor; it was a very transparent discussion and sale. Just laying all of that out up front so the conversation doesn’t cause undue worry that I was misled, that the vendor was sketchy, etc.

In the comments section of the AGL brief, it notes:


In my conversation with the vendor about this particular ruby before purchasing, it was noted to likely be from the Mong Hsu/Burma region, and that he talked with AGL awhile back (presumably when it was cert’d) specifically about the treatment, and they noted that heating with flux healing was quite common when these stones/rough were obtained in the 90s, and the flux used in heating creates the residues that are noted; that it was NOT fracture filled nor glass filled. It was noted to be a very stable treatment in my conversation with the vendor as well as on the AGL brief, and that really was my primary concern. So I bought it to see if the color really is - in person - what I’m looking for.

The treatment interested me as I’ve not really done a ton of reading about it, so I’ve done a lot of reading over the last 24 hours to understand the history on rubies from the Mong Hsu region, the treatment that was occurring there, etc. But I’ll be honest, a LOT of what I read from GIA reports, an article by Richard W. Hughes & Olivier Galibert on Mong Hsu rubies, and even excellent posts from some of our own very knowledgeable PSers while quite informative, were still quite a bit over my head. I’m not a science person, and I feel like I’d need a PhD to fully comprehend all of what I read.

Some of the articles & PS posts - which were mostly several years old - seemed a little contradictory to whether fracture healing and filling were different or one in the same from a perception perspective, so it confuses me.

My question is - aside from individuals’ personal bias/preference for untreated vs. heat only vs. heat plus other treatment:

1) Is the difference between healed vs. filled a matter of perspective/opinion or fact?
2) If the latter, is there a ‘for dummies’ explanation of how they are in fact different or the same?
3) If it’s a matter of perspective for anyone on here, can you share why you feel they are different or the same?

I appreciate any perspective & insight from the group, and hopefully this can be a good dialogue for others who might be considering a similar ruby purchase as it really is hard to piece together the input from so many different articles & threads.

 

[Rfisher]

I am no way knowledgeable to have any insight to your questions, other than are we discussing minor, moderate, or significant residues? Is that specified on the AGL brief? And if not, how would one know if it was priced 'right'?
Hope you show what you bought!

 

[Rfisher]

But I've always believed lead/glass is different than flux, as flux is a stable treatment.

 

[qubitasaurus]

I don't have an especially educated opinion about this. But as far as I understand they cook the ruby with a solution (borate? I think.) which makes some of the surface material disolve into a solution, this then deposits in the cracks and recrystslizes into ruby. So effectively you have the original ruby, now with veins of synthetic ruby in the cracks. It is permanent and irreversible, to the best of my knowledge. And yes apparently common in the burmese rubies.

This is quite different from infilling, which is done with some foreign substance (for example lead glass, which is brittle).

Both techniques improve clarity as the refractive index of air is quite different from that of ruby, so cracks are going to be distracting. Flux healing should also definitely improve stability.

The question you need to ask is 'is it minor or moderate' this tells you about the extent of the original cracks in the rough.

 

[qubitasaurus]

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/difference-between-h-and-h-a-in-ruby-treatment.209965/

I remember this thread being useful.

 

[Bron357]

The AGL ruby brief, being the budget version, doesn’t offer any details on the level of treatment (whether flux, glass, oil, other) or origin.
Unfortunately a conversation by someone else in relation to origin means nothing unless it is in writing on a report.
For a more detailed report you need the Prestige report of which there is 3 levels (of increasing expense).
If you wanted to know more about the type of clarity treatment and origin you need to submit for a Prestige Origin report which is US$220.
All that said, depending on the price of the gem and your “need to know” it’s up to you whether or not you want to spend the extra.
It’s important to note that miners, even out in the middle of nowhere, have been actively treating / heating / whathaveyou Rubies for decades to improve colour, clarity and therefore price.

 

[the_mother_thing]

@Rfisher @qubitasaurus & @Bron357. Thanks so much for weighing in! I read that thread you linked, Qub, but the downside for me is that it’s AGL cert’d vs. GRS, and the AGL brief doesn’t provide that granular of a treatment distinction.

Depending on how much I like it once it is in hand and I can assess it for the color that I’m looking for, then I may decide to get another AGL report with more details about the level of treatment as well as to confirm specific origin. But really, for the price I paid (<$400 for ~1.4 ct), it may not be worth it except for ‘the sake of knowing’ if that makes sense. I guess I’ll have to see if not knowing keeps me up at night once I have it in hand (assuming I decide to keep it). I am pretty confident that the vendor knows the ‘regional’ origin of the ruby as he knows his sources. The only reason that I noted “Mong Hsu/Burma” above the way I did was because of the conversation I had with them and the information relayed from their conversation with AGL, coupled with the reading I did about rubies “back in the day” from that area being heated & treated this way then smuggled around and resold as ‘Burmese’.

At the end of the day though, origin really wasn’t of paramount importance to me for this purchase; rather, it was the color. The only reason I specified the origin is because of the treatment and the apparent ‘known’ controversy around it from that particular region (Mong Hsu), and I felt that - for those familiar with the treatment of those particular rubies - it may be useful for the discussion. At the end of the day, if the ruby had been mined in my back yard and IF it is the color I’m after, I’m happy ... so long as the treatment is permanent, which seems to be the case.

I remain confused though by the terms fracture filled vs. healed. If the flux ‘heals’ the fractures by crystallizing into the cracks (even permanently), doesn’t that really just ‘fill’ them, albeit with a different material? It almost seems like the term ‘healed’ is used-car-salesman-speak for ‘filled’.

 

[the_mother_thing]

One other note I forgot to mention ... on the AGL brief, it notes “Natural Ruby” as opposed to “Composite Ruby”, which I read the latter of which is used when referring to older lead glass-filled rubies. Just wanted to make that distinction for the sake of the discussion.

And I am confused a bit on this designation of composite vs natural ruby. One post I read by AGL’s Christopher Smith on this topic (but on another forum) says they would call (presumably older) lead glass filled rubies ‘composite’ ruby, but later AGL published an article saying they would not call new lead glass filled rubies ‘composites’. My stone is not ‘new’, but it was cert’d in 2015.

AGL release link: http://aglgemlab.com/news/2012/11/1...treatment-as-composite-ruby?rq=Ruby treatment

 

[chrono]

Composite is when they melt bits of real ruby and reform it into a very large clean ruby. Some have glass but the new ones are all ruby.

I view flux healed the same as glass filled. Only that one is filled with ruby whilst the other is filled with lead glass. The huge advantage of flux healed is that it’s permanent and easier to care for.

 

[Nosean]

Mong Hsu rubies were heated course most of them have a dark violett or blue core - this very high heat treatment produced fine colored red stones. Adding borax and other chemicals helped to close fractures. If there are fractures....

Stones with no surface reaching fractures are heated only. Please read the very helpful article from R. Hughes in this thread.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/difference-between-h-and-h-a-in-ruby-treatment.209965/

I remember this thread being useful.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Please read the very helpful article from R. Hughes in this thread.

Thank you, I did read it and several others that were linked in that and other similar threads, but a lot of it went over my head which is why I was asking here for a ‘for dummies’ explanation.

I think where I am at right now is: 1) get the ruby in hand and decide if I like the color as much IRL as the pics; 2) the treatment per AGL & vendor is stable/permanent, so I should be fine there (as I bought it knowing it was treated); and 3) decide if I want to get the additional report with origin/treatment details.

I will circle back once I have it and share pics/observations if I decide to keep it. Thanks much to everyone for the information & feedback.

 

[Arcadian]

Basically its this:

Do you want a ruby that "has stuff in it" or do you want a natural ruby with "no stuff in it"

BTW its not a cert. AGL dosen't ceritfy anything. They offer an independent report, however brief, on the stone.

If you want the long version, you'd have to pay for it, but that would be true with any independent lab. Long versions of reports will go into the amount of flux in the stone itself + some other interesting factors. Depending on how much (or how little) you paid for it, a long version of the report might not yield much.

I personally would not buy a flux heated stone because they are of no interest to me. The seller of this stone is a very honest person, thankfully. So you know what they know.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Thanks for your feedback, Arcadian. I’ll address your questions/comments in red.

Basically its this:

Do you want a ruby that "has stuff in it" or do you want a natural ruby with "no stuff in it"
As I noted above, as long as it is stable/permanent, in this particular instance, I’m fine with the ‘stuff’. This wasn’t an ‘investment’ purchase for me; it was a size, shape, color & cut that I was after. And I don’t mean that as curtly as it probably comes across; just keeping my intentions and expectations real for the price paid and the plan I have for it.

BTW its not a cert. AGL dosen't ceritfy anything. They offer an independent report, however brief, on the stone.
Cert ... report ... I think my meaning was conveyed. I know they aren’t the same, for argument’s sake ...

If you want the long version, you'd have to pay for it, but that would be true with any independent lab. Long versions of reports will go into the amount of flux in the stone itself + some other interesting factors. Depending on how much (or how little) you paid for it, a long version of the report might not yield much.
I’m aware and may go that route just out of sheer curiousity/interest if it keeps me up at night ... we’ll see.

I personally would not buy a flux heated stone because they are of no interest to me. The seller of this stone is a very honest person, thankfully. So you know what they know.
I get it may not be others’ cup of tea to consider a ‘treated’ stone and that’s perfectly fine; but since I couldn’t find anything else in my budget in the color I wanted, I compromised and opened up my options to consider them. And yes, this seller IS honest, and that’s why I don’t mind the ‘risk’, especially considering the price ... since the reported treatment is permanent & stable. If this had been a same-priced ‘eBay find’ from an unfamiliar seller, I wouldn’t have given it a second of my time.

 

[princessandthepear]

I have been following with interest. I have a pre-embargo ruby from Myannmar also. But I do have three reports with it, including an AGL which states level of treatment. While it would be nice to have an untreated ruby the price was right and the cut, color and size are attractive and I was inexperienced. Nice to know that the treatment is stable. Though someone on my thread "it came from the sock drawer..." mentioned that acid would affect the treatment.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I have been following with interest. I have a pre-embargo ruby from Myannmar also. But I do have three reports with it, including an AGL which states level of treatment. While it would be nice to have an untreated ruby the price was right and the cut, color and size are attractive and I was inexperienced. Nice to know that the treatment is stable. Though someone on my thread "it came from the sock drawer..." mentioned that acid would affect the treatment.

If you don’t mind sharing, what exactly does your ruby’s AGL report state for treatment, and around when was it completed? The articles I read from AGL seemed to take one approach/stand on how the treatment was noted, then a couple months/years later, take a different approach. Sorting that all out without creating a timeline for it seemed so confusing to me.

Do you have a link to your thread? I’d really love to read it!

 

[voce]

Composite is when they melt bits of real ruby and reform it into a very large clean ruby. Some have glass but the new ones are all ruby.

Is composite worth any more than a lab ruby? Identifiable under magnification?

In my mind I think melting small rubies into large ones is not that different from taking a small ruby seed and cooking up a lab ruby.

 

[Bron357]

For the price, under $400 I would assume that it is “quite treated”. If you look around other vendors, even a heat only Ruby costs easily over $1,000 a carat. To my thinking if a vendor has a heat only ruby surely they’d spend $220 instead of $65 to get a more complete report so they can get more money for it.
At the end of the day only two things really matter 1. That you love the gem and 2. You paid an appropriate price for what you have.
You can’t rely on an AGL Ruby Brief to discount a high and unwelcome level of treatment ie Flux or glass filled aka composite ruby.
However examination of the gem with a quality Loupe with light reflected off the facets will reveal if it has surface reaching fractures ie they show as very fine squiggly lines. In this case it is a definite sign of the ruby also being a glass or flux filled ruby and I would think $400 is actually too much.
Beryllium treatment ie induced colour enhancement is a whole other conundrum and testing for that even more expensive.
And that’s the reason why unheated or low heat rubies are so expensive, they are very rare in a world jam packed with multiple types and variations of manmade and highly treated “rubies” and it’s because they can be relied upon to be free of unwelcome treatments and enhancements.
And if colour is your primary desire, don’t forget you can find other natural and untreated gems for this.
Here is my Tourmaline (on the left) alongside a natural ruby.
The tourmaline worth a few hundred dollars, the ruby a few thousand.

 

[princessandthepear]

If you don’t mind sharing, what exactly does your ruby’s AGL report state for treatment, and around when was it completed? The articles I read from AGL seemed to take one approach/stand on how the treatment was noted, then a couple months/years later, take a different approach. Sorting that all out without creating a timeline for it seemed so confusing to me.

Do you have a link to your thread? I’d really love to read it!

My AGL is from 2016. I snapped pics of two areas on it that I though would be of interest to this thread. My ruby lists heat treatment with clarity residues. The treatment stability is excellent according to the report. The second page is also from my report and lists definitions. AGL will identify organic :wax, resin, oil and inorganic: lead glass or heating residues and the stability of the enhancement. I just got a new phone and I am having some difficulties with downloading photos. Will try to upload photos later.

 

[the_mother_thing]

For the price, under $400 I would assume that it is “quite treated”. If you look around other vendors, even a heat only Ruby costs easily over $1,000 a carat. To my thinking if a vendor has a heat only ruby surely they’d spend $220 instead of $65 to get a more complete report so they can get more money for it.
At the end of the day only two things really matter 1. That you love the gem and 2. You paid an appropriate price for what you have.
You can’t rely on an AGL Ruby Brief to discount a high and unwelcome level of treatment ie Flux or glass filled aka composite ruby.
However examination of the gem with a quality Loupe with light reflected off the facets will reveal if it has surface reaching fractures ie they show as very fine squiggly lines. In this case it is a definite sign of the ruby also being a glass or flux filled ruby and I would think $400 is actually too much.
Beryllium treatment ie induced colour enhancement is a whole other conundrum and testing for that even more expensive.
And that’s the reason why unheated or low heat rubies are so expensive, they are very rare in a world jam packed with multiple types and variations of manmade and highly treated “rubies” and it’s because they can be relied upon to be free of unwelcome treatments and enhancements.
And if colour is your primary desire, don’t forget you can find other natural and untreated gems for this.
Here is my Tourmaline (on the left) alongside a natural ruby.
The tourmaline worth a few hundred dollars, the ruby a few thousand.

@Bron357 Your tourmaline (and ruby) is gorgeous. I did look at other types of stones and even ordered a few, only to not find them to be what I really wanted. The price I paid for this ruby was ‘on sale & marked down’ quite a bit along with a lot of other types of stones. I know, that doesn’t always mean much, but just thought I’d share that tidbit. It’s also a cabochon vs faceted, which I think also makes a bit of difference in the price tag. It was never represented as ‘heat-only’ to me; it was always clear there was ‘additional’ treatment. And I imagine the vendor suspected treatment beyond heat as well, so he sprung for the brief to confirm. If I wouldn’t recoup the prestige report fee on top of my stone cost, I probably wouldn’t either, so I can’t and don’t fault him for that.

I have a beautiful, natural ruby with an AGL report stating it’s unheated & untreated, so I do get & appreciate the ‘no heat/no treatment’ thing. But for what I have in mind, I wanted a different shape, color and cut (specifically, a cab), and I didn’t want to spend a ton of money or go on a long wild goose chase as I’d already been scouting out various sources for awhile. And I decided that I’d likely have to accept some treatment beyond heat to get a decent size if I didn’t want to up my budget considerably.

 

[princessandthepear]

 

[princessandthepear]

Type: heating residues, Stability Index: very good, a common ruby according to AGL. It's a 2.19 ct oval red faceted gem with pink flashes.

 

[the_mother_thing]

@princessandthepear thanks for sharing your cert info.

Obviously different stones, different reports, etc. But I am curious - if anyone can confirm - if it says "heating residues’, that means it is NOT lead glass residues, right? That’s how I interpret the various things I have read, but again, it’s so hard to piece together all of the various writings, reports, etc., even when they are AGL’s own reports (publications).

 

[Rfisher]

A cab?
I really can't wait to see your comparison pics now!
I think I know which it is, but not that it matters.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Here’s a Mong Hsu ruby with the same treatment noted for mine that was sold by Litnon: https://www.litnon.com/index.php?page=viewgem&id=9850. Granted, mine is a cab and about half the size, but seeing the price this one was listed at I’m kinda feeling pretty good about my <$400 buy for the same material.

Did I just really say that about a heated & treated ruby?

 

[Bron357]

I hope I wasn’t sounding like a “snob”, I’m not.
I’m perfectly happy with a synthetic gem if the colour, size and price is right. And given how perfect and wonderful and so like “the natural version” I often wonder why not!
My only concern, ever, is getting fair value for money because, and quite rightly so, as the treatment level and type increases, the price should be coming down.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I hope I wasn’t sounding like a “snob”, I’m not.
I’m perfectly happy with a synthetic gem if the colour, size and price is right. And given how perfect and wonderful and so like “the natural version” I often wonder why not!
My only concern, ever, is getting fair value for money because, and quite rightly so, as the treatment level and type increases, the price should be coming down.

Nahhh, you’re good. I didn’t read your post that way at all. I don’t have an issue with a lab stone at all either, especially when ‘perfect’ is desired on a modest budget. It’s just that - for this project - I didn’t want a ‘perfect’ stone, but rather a more ‘rustic’ look with a certain color. And I am crossing my fingers that this stone is ‘it’ when I have it in hand next week.

I get that treatment isn’t highly regarded on here, and that’s fine. I wasn’t seeking ‘approval’ of my choice to accept treatment in my purchase; rather, to understand how the two treatment types (filled vs healed) are viewed as a matter of ‘fact’ or ‘perception’.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I sent several rubies to AGL-gem brief. One ruby came back heated with residues. The other came back with glass filled. AGL called it a composite. So they were different. I, like you am very happy with my flux treated ruby. I did not over pay either. The composite ruby is just set aside and will never be set. If you have good color, enjoy it.

Annette

 

[Rfisher]

The_mother_thing
Have you received?
What do you think?

 

[the_mother_thing]

The_mother_thing
Have you received?
What do you think?

So sorry for missing your post, as well as my tardiness in reporting back. I did receive the ruby but have had a hard time getting a good pic of it due to reflections (e.g., the white in the stone you see is from my window). I will try outdoors tomorrow, but in the mean time, I am happy with it. The color was spot on, IMO.