GIA Report vs. GIA Report

[LimitedGems]

The reports and pictures are not mine but I want to share the information as this is akward to me. I find it quite strange, as far as I know, there has to be 3 persons (graders) to grade one single gemstone. Three GIA graders have to agree with eachother when it comes to clarity and color, to even issue a GIA Report. Two individual reports will have a total of 6 graders.

When it comes to Padparadscha's, it has to consist of only Pink Orange or Orange Pink. But at the reports it were firstly graded as pink and then suddenly, a year later, the orange just "popped" up or what?

Three people see it as pink and three other can see orange in it? At the same Lab? If I read the reports correctly, it were even graded in Carlsbad both times. Dont them all follow the same strict rules and guidelines when it comes especially to Padparadscha's or Rubies?

Even the color in the pictures are different

 

[T L]

The reports and pictures are not mine but I want to share the information as this is akward to me. I find it quite strange, as far as I know, there has to be 3 persons (graders) to grade one single gemstone. Three GIA graders have to agree with eachother when it comes to clarity and color, to even issue a GIA Report. Two individual reports will have a total of 6 graders.

When it comes to Padparadscha's, it has to consist of only Pink Orange or Orange Pink. But at the reports it were firstly graded as pink and then suddenly, a year later, the orange just "popped" up or what?

Three people see it as pink and three other can see orange in it? At the same Lab? If I read the reports correctly, it were even graded in Carlsbad both times. Dont them all follow the same strict rules and guidelines when it comes especially to Padparadscha's or Rubies?

Even the color in the pictures are different

That's why I like AGL, more consistency. GIA has been known to grade color differently on the same gem.

 

[cm366]

I'd be very, very curious as to why it was resubmitted in the first place - I note that it was heated in both and I'd wonder if maybe it had been re-heated or more invasively treated between submissions. Lots of pink/orangey pink stones will show different blends in different lighting, too, but you'd like to think the lab would use standardized lighting rather than depending on natural light (which has different temperatures at different times of the day and year).

 

[minousbijoux]

My first question is whether it in fact is the same stone. It is hard to tell because I find the type on the report to be less than perfectly legible, but it looks like the dimensions are slightly different, as might be the weight as well. Apologies if its just my bad eyes. Also, I couldn't make out the years of the reports - could those be posted as well?

On the face of it, it appears quite puzzling if it is the same stone why anyone would resubmit.

 

[LimitedGems]

I'd be very, very curious as to why it was resubmitted in the first place - I note that it was heated in both and I'd wonder if maybe it had been re-heated or more invasively treated between submissions. Lots of pink/orangey pink stones will show different blends in different lighting, too, but you'd like to think the lab would use standardized lighting rather than depending on natural light (which has different temperatures at different times of the day and year).

The heating part also struck my mind, but who would ever bet a highly transparent pink sapphire (as it appears to me on the GIA report) without knowing the outcome?

 

[LimitedGems]

My first question is whether it in fact is the same stone. It is hard to tell because I find the type on the report to be less than perfectly legible, but it looks like the dimensions are slightly different, as might be the weight as well. Apologies if its just my bad eyes. Also, I couldn't make out the years of the reports - could those be posted as well?

On the face of it, it appears quite puzzling if it is the same stone why anyone would resubmit.

I used GIA's "Verify Report" and both reports are authentic as they both came up in their system.

Padparadscha Sapphire
August 11, 2009

4.98 carat
9.45 x 8.48 x 7.10 mm

Pink Sapphire
December 15, 2008

4.98 carat
9.45 x 8.48 x 7.09 mm

 

[pregcurious]

That's upsetting if someone bought that stone as a pad.

 

[minousbijoux]

I would love to hear GIA's explanation for this - assuming its the same stone.

 

[Edward Bristol]

Somebody with extra-good knowhow gave it a 'shot of orange' and then resubmitted to have a padparadscha and treble the price.

The orange might come from some new type of treatment that is not yet known.

Seeing the exact same dimensions in both certs makes it highly unlikely that it is a different stone. Near impossible.

 

[LoversKites]

Weird...

I wonder if this will resolve and how.

 

[cm366]

Somebody with extra-good knowhow gave it a 'shot of orange' and then resubmitted to have a padparadscha and treble the price.

The orange might come from some new type of treatment that is not yet known.

Seeing the exact same dimensions in both certs makes it highly unlikely that it is a different stone. Near impossible.

This. And 2008-2009... did GIA Carlsbad routinely test for beryllium? Because I think it's more likely that something happened to the stone between reports to trigger a resubmission than the lab just losing their minds and not noticing it was a Pad (or had any tiny hint of orange, even) on the first go-round....

 

[cm366]

The heating part also struck my mind, but who would ever bet a highly transparent pink sapphire (as it appears to me on the GIA report) without knowing the outcome?

Someone who was willing to bet $5-10k to make $50k?

 

[Marlow]

Maybe radiation

pink --> pink-orange

color is not stable - will fade in light or heat.

( Dr. U. Henn / "Praktische Edelsteinkunde" page 80 / Deutsche Gemmologische Gesellschaft)

 

[chrono]

I suspect something extra has been done to the stone in that 1 year period to make it more orange to pass over into padparadscha territory, which GIA could not detect back then. As always, new treatments are always one or two steps above lab's ability and methods of detection. I would be more puzzled if the stone was untreated initially but given that it was already heated makes it more suspicious.

 

[LimitedGems]

Lets say the first time they heated the stone, they wanted to get rid of some feathers and silk. The kiln would be placed close to 1000-1800'C. Placing the sapphire in the kiln at normal temperature (20-25'C) before turning the kiln on, letting the sapphire heat up together with the kiln. Meaning the sapphire will reach all temperatures from 20'C to 1800'C. To change the sapphire from Pink to Padparadscha it's only needed a heat of approx. 500'C. So I find it very very very unlikely it's transformed into an Pad' by regular re-heat.

I bet GIA didn't recognize its new type of treatment (what ever that would be). Or they might graded it under different lighting conditions.

 

[Marlow]

I think they first heated the stone to get a better color - "lavender" to pink.

I am not sure somebody would heat a 5 ct pink with a bit silk course the silk is a sign for an unheated corund ( or max. low heat!) and desirable.

The heated 5 ct pink is nice so if I want to fake a padparadscha I would radiate the stone. Be treatment is easy to detect for GIA - radiation is uncommon in pink sapphire and difficult** to detect. The result is a pad and get a good second certificate try to sell it as a pad and if the color fades after a while I still have the first certificate - same WEIGHT.

BE treatment - maybe you have to repolish the stone and reduce the weight.

Criminal!


** difficult means more expensive for the owner and the lab - does anybody knows the exact procedere GIA will do ( measurement, RI, and ....)

 

[T L]

I think GIA should be able to detect BE treatment, but if not, that's rather scary. It also could be as simple as using a different light source to view the gem, although, it should be consistent throughout the locations.

 

[chrono]

I don't know about back in 2008/2009 but GIA tests for diffusion as part of their usual gem treatment routine.

 

[Marlow]

Be treatment is no problem for a lab. Radiation is a problem - think of green diamond, red tourmaline ....

My conclusion:

You need a "fresh" certificate if the gem you want to buy could be treated!!!


And THANK YOU limitedgems for this

I learned something new - unfortunately!!!

 

[T L]

If one really wants to know what's going on with that gem, we can speculate all day, but it should be sent to AGL for all proper color identification and all possible treatment (including possible irradiation).

 

[chrono]

TL,
How definitively can AGL detect irradiation (natural versus enhanced)?

 

[Marlow]

@TL

Yes - and if it is irradiated send the bill to GIA!

 

[T L]

TL,
How definitively can AGL detect irradiation (natural versus enhanced)?

I would ask them, but I would include a background to them, including the background information for these two reports. I know they discovered irradiated emeralds that GIA didn't detect. I simply have a lot more confidence in AGL.

I don't believe corundum is ever colored by natural irradiation (I could be wrong). Therefore, I don't think you can determine the difference between artificial/natural irradiation, especially in two green FCD's, but if a stone is not normally enhanced by natural irradiation, it's safe to assume it's artificial.

 

[chrono]

I'm not sure whether AGL could detect natural vs enhanced irradiation back in 2008 and 2009 so that would be an unfair comparison. If sending the sapphire to a lab today, I would go with AGL for the reasons you stated. Is irradiation one of AGL's routine/standard testing?

 

[sparkleismyfavcolor]

I've heard one vendor say that they frequently send the same FCD to GIA several times in an attempt to get a better color grade in an attempt to charge a premium on it.
That being said, the fact that the pictures on these reports show what appears to be two different colored stones makes this one highly suspect!

I would think it's a good thing that there are multiple graders on one lab report for an expert consensus? And I guess you have to have 3 so the third can break any "ties".

 

[LimitedGems]

Guess who sold it ... The Natural Sapphire Company
And as everyone can see, they listed only the Padparadscha report, and dont mention the GIA 2008 report.

It's sold, I really feel bad for the buyer ... especially as their asking price were approx. $22,000 for the piece.

Link to the actual stone:
http://www.thenaturalsapphirecompany.com/sapphires/c-8-padparadscha-sapphires/p-34029-cushion-padparadscha-sapphire-pa211/

 

[Marlow]

Another vendor selling overprized Gems! A shame!! The "Authority" in Sapphires!!!

Upppss!!

IF I open the link there is a german banner which tells me that I get a discount on german taxes.

Btw that this could be a problem in Germany ( a crime) - is this Natural Sapphire Company ( NSC) or NS....?

 

[T L]

Another vendor selling overprized Gems! A shame!! The "Authority" in Sapphires!!!

Upppss!!

IF I open the link there is a german banner which tells me that I get a discount on german taxes.

Btw that this could be a problem in Germany ( a crime) - is this Natural Sapphire Company ( NSC) or NS....?

Not an excuse, but they have high overhead, an expensive office in NYC, lots of employees, etc. . .

$22K is not too much for an attractively colored 4.98 carat padparadscha, heat only, but we don't know what's going on here exactly.

It's just disconcerting to me, no matter the retail price, if a vendor has erroneous lab reports for highly suspect types of stones, padparadschas included in those types. I would always get an AGL prestige report for any expensive padparadscha, ruby, sapphire, emerald, or alexandrite.

 

[LimitedGems]

Another vendor selling overprized Gems! A shame!! The "Authority" in Sapphires!!!

Upppss!!

IF I open the link there is a german banner which tells me that I get a discount on german taxes.

Btw that this could be a problem in Germany ( a crime) - is this Natural Sapphire Company ( NSC) or NS....?

Not an excuse, but they have high overhead, an expensive office in NYC, lots of employees, etc. . .

$22K is not too much for an attractively colored 4.98 carat padparadscha, heat only, but we don't know what's going on here exactly.

It's just disconcerting to me, no matter the retail price, if a vendor has erroneous lab reports for highly suspect types of stones, padparadschas included in those types. I would always get an AGL prestige report for any expensive padparadscha, ruby, sapphire, emerald, or alexandrite.

As far as I'm concerned they only use their own certificates and only GIA reports. Even for million dollar gemstones they dont got AGL reports. I've never purchased any gems from them and probably never will.

 

[deskjockey]

I'm a total newbie in terms of reading reports, etc, but how do we know for certain they are the same stone? The dimensions are ever so slightly different - is there something on the report that I can't see that positively IDs them as being the same? (again, I basically don't know anything about this stuff and am looking to learn).

From the photos I think the stones do look identical or nearly so, in terms of the way the light reflects out/cut, but I'm curious if there is some other way to tell for sure (though I'm assuming you have some inside information on this!)