shape
carat
color
clarity

eBay veterans: mystery vintage pinkish red stone

polarisfire

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Messages
75
Hey everyone, happy new year! lol
Just got this ring I’d like opinions on:

It was listed very briefly from a seller with good ratings as a vintage estate 14k gold ring with spinel (I asked and the seller said it was tested on a jzk gem tester). It was fairly inexpensive so I was like, hey it might be nice, because the color is pretty. But now that I have it it’s a lot more abraded than I thought and I don’t see a gold stamp on the inside of the ring. There’s what looks like 2 solder joints on the shank so maybe it was resized so much the stamp was removed?

I expect some facet wear sure, but there’s a strange pit on the crown? Almost like it was drilled or stabbed with something blunt

ADFB3E0D-5B18-46A5-84A3-C92561787471.jpeg

E47D8CB7-52AE-4018-AD99-3460502CAE57.jpeg

226C20FA-7237-42F4-97F0-03C2784B7B23.jpeg

I have a Mahenge spinel that I compared it to (to the right in this photo) and the UV reaction looks like a lot of nothing on this stone.

2D1A3E1E-C299-4695-ADCF-E3375851BE93.jpeg

The color looks like maybe rubellite, but from some thermal conductivity charts I found online for these gem testers, it doesn’t look like they test very similarly to spinel readings.

Even synthetic rubies fluoresce so I don’t think it’s that...

What do you think? Thanks in advance!
 

Bron357

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
6,532
Hmmm, I’d take it to a pawn shop and ask them to test the gold for you. They probably have a Presidum gem tester as well.
As for the gem, it is very very abraided and that “hole” is a chip. I doubt it’s spinel, they have a hardness of 8 and you wouldn’t expect that level of wear. Seeing as most red synthetic (spinel or corundum) gems do glow red under UV it could be garnet or tourmaline or it could be glass. If genuinely old it could be a garnet doublet. These arent common to come across but they are basically a sliver of genuine garnet attached to a glass backing. So both the top and bottom of the gem need checking if using a thermal style tester.
Also, the tester the seller used is the type that sells for under $20. Very unreliable. A Presidium gem tester is more reliable but they cost hundreds of dollars.
id get it checked, if it’s not as described, I’d send it back for a refund.
 

LemonMoonLex

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 13, 2018
Messages
2,061
The setting is lovely and looks like gold to me although I'd go get a scratch test done but to me that stone looks just like glass. Glass or some sort of simulant glasslike substance made to look like ruby.
 

polarisfire

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Messages
75
Great advice thank you! I’ll get it checked out after the holiday if I get a chance.

I thought that was too abraided to not point out specifically in the listing...I’ve started a request for return. Will probably still try to get it looked it because I’m curious if it’s glass.
 

polarisfire

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Messages
75
I took it to a pawnshop and a jeweler and they both thought that the stone looked like glass. The pawnshop had a diamond tester but not presidium, so they were just looking by eye. Neither had a laser tester for gold so since there’s no stamp, they couldn’t tell for sure as I didn’t want them to file it down for an acid test.

Sigh, but now there’s a bit of drama when I asked for a return. :cry2:

The seller is arguing that 1) all antiques and vintage gems will have wear - yes OK, I am not expecting no wear but this is quite a bit - 2) that the stone wasn’t chipped before it left their store. So, apparently, I am supposedly either lying or I am chipping stones left and right.

They’re insisting it has to be natural spinel because it had tested on a presidium and a JZK and those are “very reliable” testers, and that they don’t know where I am getting my information from. They are citing a quote from GIA that says spinel doesn’t fluoresce under shortwave UV unless it’s synthetic, claiming that the photo of my Mahenge fluorescing shows that it’s syntheti- which even if it were true, we have seen both synthetics and natural pink/red spinels fluoresce under the black light - long wave UV.

The setting, they said, has been tested twice for gold and is definitely gold.

argh I regret going on eBay again. Maybe this is my lesson that I’m not cut out for it lol.
 

arkieb1

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
9,786
They are wrong, synthetic spinel tests EXACTLY the same as real spinel on both of those "reliable" testers.....

File a complaint with Ebay on the basis the stone was more damaged and use the words "not as described", and go back to the original listing and see if you can pick up the pit or chip in their photos to prove it was there when they sent it to you.
 

polarisfire

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Messages
75
Well, in the return case, apparently they are now straight out accusing me of making up the damage/causing the damage. Allegedly I have done this because I have spent a “lot of time” failing to prove the stone is not a spinel using my “unreliable home made tests” using lights. And while I was doing these silly activities, I have made up this damage.

Meanwhile, they have attached a message from a GIA gemmologist that proves it is a spinel. In it, it is written that there is natural carbon, and crystallization under magnification.

“When it left our shop, it was free if any damage to the stone. Upon receipt the seller never mentioned the stone had any kind of damage to It. These claims occurred after she began doing all of these unrelated test.”

At this point I almost want to send it to GIA just because. What the heck ;(
 

arkieb1

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
9,786
Do you have a link to the original Ebay listing maybe we can find the damage in the stone for you in their pics...
 

polarisfire

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Messages
75
Oh I attached the following to the return:

My photo
35895FC5-CDCE-41F1-9F8B-74930C4F9A55.jpeg

listing photo:
1DA05579-6E45-4EAB-A640-FB4BE0FAC1ED.jpeg

In the listing it just looked dirty, originally. But nope. It’s been washed in my photos and still there. I was too optimistic...
I also didn’t realize it would become this big of a deal.
 

lovedogs

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
18,029
Oh I attached the following to the return:

My photo
35895FC5-CDCE-41F1-9F8B-74930C4F9A55.jpeg

listing photo:
1DA05579-6E45-4EAB-A640-FB4BE0FAC1ED.jpeg

In the listing it just looked dirty, originally. But nope. It’s been washed in my photos and still there. I was too optimistic...
I also didn’t realize it would become this big of a deal.

Well yes, you can clearly see that there was a chip in the listing and that they are lying. The idea that only synthetic stones fluoresce is hilarious and moronic.
 

voce

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
5,161
I think that for every deal that @Bron357 is able to score, more newbies get scammed by Ebay sellers. What I appreciate about Etsy is that you can have a detailed convo linked to the item BEFORE you purchase it. With new sellers on Etsy I usually ask questions and get them to promise in an Etsy convo that I can return my purchase if the gems don't turn out as described. These convos where you can easily attach pictures make me a lot more comfortable should a seller turn out to be unethical or misinformed, and can serve as a record should you need to escalate matters. That said, if the seller isn't firm on offering me a return regardless of the stated return policy IF the gem is tested by a lab to be other than what was described in the Etsy listing, I don't purchase. With online shopping for uncertified gems and jewelry especially, caveat emptor.
 

arkieb1

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
9,786
Just lodge an Ebay dispute you can clearly see the inclusions or chip in the stone in both photos in the same place so them claiming it wasn't there is just their way of scamming you.

Both real and synthetic rubies and real and synthetic spinel both do and don't have fluorescence, it depends on lots of things like the origin and chemical composition of the stone. It's a BS argument demonstrating how little they know.
 

YadaYadaYada

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
11,840
I went through something similar, bought a ring as a lab sapphire and the jeweler claimed it was glass, it was a headache to say the least.

In the end I got my money back but this was from an Etsy seller. I understand that EBay usually sides with the buyer so hopefully you get your money back!
 

currada

Rough_Rock
Joined
Sep 25, 2004
Messages
65
It’s stressful to file these Ebay disputes and have to argue your points along with the seller. I’m positive you will prevail in the end. I’ve had to do this several times over the years and EBay will side with the buyer if your argument is valid.
 

Bron357

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
6,532
Hmmm not good. The seller is deceitful (I found the listing and all the photos are at arms length which hides the fact that the gem is abraided) and probably lying about the “gemologist report”.
The amount of damage to the gem should have been disclosed. The gem is heavily abraided and chipped. That they are accusing you of creating this damage by your testing is ludicrous of course but you probably should have asked questions up front or asked for close up photos. Not a criticism of you but what you really need to do when buying on eBay. You have to make judgements based on the sellers words and photos so it’s best to get potential issues clarified upfront.
The statement from a ”gemologist” is weird, a real report would not describe “carbon and natural crystalisation” as the identifying characteristics of spinel. The report should describe inclusions diagnostic of spinel ie minute octahedral crystals aligned in planes / swirls and that the Absorption spectrum showEd strong fluorescent between 490 and 595nm, weak band at 656 and sharp lines at 685.5 and 684 nm. Other tests such as Specific gravity can’t be done with a mounted gem.
the problem you have is that to counter their claim you will need to outlay extra money (which you won’t get back) on a real lab report. AGS does do a gem brief on mounted gems about $75 plus shipping to and back. Then of course they may counter with “you switched the gem out”! So this is an expensive argument to try and win. Personally I would have pursued them over the lack of damage disclosure. The gem is very heavily abraided and also chipped and this was not disclosed in the listing or shown in the photos.
As for gold testing, it is possible to do an acid test, this isn’t destructive. You just rub the gold shank across the test stone creating a line (it’s removing a few microns of the gold) and drop the acid concentrates to establish at what “carat” the line “disappears”.
The listing does say it’s 14kt but the ring isn’t hallmarked. How then did the seller ascertain that the ring is 14kt gold? The listing should have said “ring is not hallmarked however gold testing indicated a gold assay of around 14kt”
I dont know how eBay will decide this, despite my 16 years buying on eBay I’ve only raised two cases and both were years ago.
I hope you get an outcome in your favour, if not dont let it put your off eBay. just remember to always ask questions about condition or whether it’s natural or lab created and whether the ring is hallmarked Upfront and ask for additional photos. If the seller isn’t forthcoming, don’t proceed with purchase.
my fingers are crossed for you.
 

polarisfire

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Messages
75
Yeah, I definitely should have asked more questions up front. I was too naive and impulsive over the holiday shopping craze. Alas, lesson learned. :oops:

I thank you all so much for responding, though, it’s definitely helped me to have the moral support! Makes me feel like I’m not alone in it (since nobody in my “real life” is insane about jewelry Lolol).
Opening the return case has indeed been stressful - It doesn’t seem like it should at first thought but the messaging back and forth and being accused feels a little like being gaslit.
So glad to have this forum :)

Bron, about the gold test you suggested above, wouldn’t that only reveal what the surface gold content is, and not if it were plated?
 

Bron357

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
6,532
Yes, gold scratch tests aren’t usually effective for gold fill materials. A scratch test only tests the microns you scratch off onto the test stone. If gold fill these “microns” will be gold. Gold fill is a “thick” ie 1/10th or 1/20th gold layer. You really need to “scratch” into the metal to see if it is a coating. This is destructive. This is why gold buyers use an XRF machine, these can check gold content without destruction but can cost hundreds if not many thousands of dollars. Some pawnbrokers have them, especially if they buy / sell a lot of gold. It’s an expensive mistake to buy gold fill for solid gold value!
Simple cheap gold plate is usually easily see by louping areas of “wear”, basic gold plate wears off quickly and easily.
Your seller isn’t nice or fair. They know the gem was damaged, that’s why their photos are purposefully “distant” / “out of focus”. A good eBay seller takes time and care with their listings so potential buyers can assess correctly the item. They describe and photograph damage / hallmarks. A good seller also accepts returns if buyers are unhappy with their purchase. A good seller has very few returns because the buyer was able to make a good judgement prior to purchase.
dont feel bad, your seller let you down.
 

meely

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
1,859
I’ve only skimmed this thread but I sympathise - eBay cases are stressful. They do normally fall on the side of the buyer though.
 

LilAlex

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
3,589
Just lodge an Ebay dispute you can clearly see the inclusions or chip in the stone in both photos in the same place so them claiming it wasn't there is just their way of scamming you.

eBay is trash. I have sold there, occasionally, for many years -- but not gems. The good news is that the buyer is always right. As interest in and enthusiasm for eBay waned and it morphed away from legit auctions and more into "Amazon for new junk," they strengthened the buyer protection. There are at least as many shady buyers as shady sellers. But I think the post quoted above is on the mark. I hate to even sell now because buyers can bid and then not pay, ruin your auction from countries you don't ship to, etc., etc.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top