Heated Sapphire question

[blueberryblue]

Hello there, I am hoping the experts on this forum will be able to help me with this question. A few months ago, I had a not so great experience with GemsNY, we actually flew to NY just to see the sapphires in person, because everyone says it is more accurate, better etc etc. My one big criteria was that it was unheated, and I was just going to pick a blue shade that I liked. So during the appointment with them, we picked out a beautiful sapphire, lovely deep blue color etc and luckily I had read enough discussions on this forum and insisted that we get a AGL cert instead of just the UGL and GIA one they offered, eventhough we have to pay for it out of pocket. I'm so glad we did, because..

Two weeks later, results came back that the stone was heated! But what followed after that was what made me really want to write a review about them on Sitejabber or Yelp, but I want to be fair, so I want to ask and clarify with the experts here first and see if their reasoning/excuse is logical. First of course, sales person said he was shocked because both GIA and UGL said untreated. Then his reason was that sapphires can get heated underground before they are mined, and so can show up as 'heat treated.'

This a direct quote from their response in the email:
" GIA is a reputed lab and generally it is a rare case where they will differ on treatment with AGL (however we have seen it multiple times in the past, both ways). There are cases where we have AGL certified untreated and GIA has given heated (has happened numerous times). Again this is an opinion of the lab if the gem was naturally heated underground or if heated above ground based on their observations. "

I can't find anything online regarding 'Naturally heated underground" showing up mistakenly in the lab report as "heat treated" , so could someone help me and see how accurate this statement is before I decide to post anything? They did refund our purchase price fully of course, but I have never heard of that reasoning before.

It didn't help that they refused to send me a copy of the AGL cert to take a look at, and also a week later, I saw the same sapphire back up on their website listed as 'unheated' with no mention of the fact that the sapphire could be heated, and of course, they still only show not GIA and UGL cert and not the incriminating AGL report.

Thank you guys!

 

[leslie1956]

Blueberryblue, that "naturally heated underground" reasoning sounds like BS to me. Hopefully, some of our more knowledgeable forum members will prove me wrong. Their refusal to send you a copy of the AGL certificate and continued marketing of the stone as "unheated" makes me suspicious.

 

[ChanterelleJ]

I would take the seller's whole story with a huge grain of salt until you actually get to see the AGL report so that you know for sure that it actually exists.

In any case, if a sapphire is unheated or not is based on interpretation of analytical facts, and it happens from time to time that different laboratories do not interpret the findings on a specific stone in the same way.

 

[digdeep]

If you paid for the AGL report, it belongs to you and the vendor needs to give it to you.......yesterday. In fact AGL should have sent it to you which makes it look like the vendor can now use it on the gem, but won't. If you have a credit card receipt for this report I'd file a complaint for the charge to be reversed due to the vendor keeping the report. This alone would be reason for me not to trust them, much less their choosing to list reports that value the gem higher than the AGL report. Lastly, you could ask AGL this question as to whether they could mistake natural heat in a sapphire vs low heat by humans. It can sometimes be difficult to know, but that's why we have labs to discern the differences!

 

[chrono]

Second Digdeep. AGL has caught mistakes GIA has made.

 

[blueberryblue]

Thanks guys, So it looks like there is no such thing as 'heated naturally underground' then, which was what I thought. Good idea to ask the AGL directly though DigDeep!

Unfortunately I couldn't demand the AGL report since they refunded the report money along with the stone, but I just thought it was really suspicious that they won't even show it to me as a courtesy of having wasted our trip and time. In fact, his reply was " There would be no use for us to send it to you." Also, initially they said if they send the stone out to AGL, then AGL can only send report to them and not to us at the same time. I guess that is not true as well then?

Yes, and the final straw was the fact that they relisted the stone without full disclosure after that, so I felt I need to inform buyers to insist on the AGL report.

 

[digdeep]

There is natural heating in the earth, but there is also low heat from human hands which is where the issue of "heat" comes in. Clearly the vendor wants the "unheated" label and are choosing to support that with the selective use of lab results--which means they can charge a much higher premium if buyer's don't double check that lab result. That by itself is not a good policy IMO since you know there is a dispute as to the gem's status......good for you to check with AGL!!! Have you looked at this vendor (not knowing what shape/price you were looking for):
https://www.johndyergems.com/
or the vendor list on this board? John Dyer has some great gems and is known world wide........so it wouldn't hurt to reach out to him with what you are looking for in color, size and price. Someone recently bought a gorgeous stone at a reasonable price--although I think it was heated. Good luck........

 

[Bron357]

I’m studying Gemology.
Ok, so “heated” isn’t uncommon, the miners out in the middle of nowhere aren’t adverse to heating the stone to improve clarity.
“Heated” is detected using a microscope. The “level” of heating is seen in the gems inclusions ie rutile needles. Heat breaks them up / dissolves them and this can be seen as “broken dots” instead of “full needles”. High heat ie “nuking the gem basically” can dissolve nearly all rutile and even “explode” other crystal inclusions within the gem. Again, visible under the microscope.
Now, when gems forms, conditions can alter the gem ie twinning (a second crystal growing) so yes, rutile needles can be disturbed is broken but it’s a complete over view of the gem considering all internal aspects that decides “heated or unheated”.
So technically saying the evidence of heat ie crystal lattice disturbance happened underground has a “sliver” of truth but I’d say GIA gave the gem too quick a look and missed the overall picture. I’d say your gem has “mild heat” as done by the miner. That some rutile needles are broken up but no other crystals within the gem are disturbed.
In my opinion people can get “too hung up about” unheated vs heated BUT there is a considerable price premium, so if you paid for “unheated” you want “unheated”.

 

[blueberryblue]

Thank you Digdeep, I didn't look at John Dyer before this, but did check out Jeff White. We decided to go with retail just because initially my bf wanted to get engaged when he was suddenly called up for deployment, so there was a time crunch. In the end we went with Natural Sapphire Co eventhough theirs were pricier, but at least both GIA and AGL came back untreated for that one.

Thanks for the detailed explanation Bron357, yeah I think my main problem with them is that they didn't want to show me the AGL report and didn't change their listing after, that was what made me decide to look into leaving a review. Definitely not right to charge a premium for a heated stone. As for my preference for unheated, it's gonna seem like a strange logic, but I grew up being regaled by tales my grandma surviving WWII, so a lot of the survival stories had to do with them selling family jewels to get by. So I guess mentally, I just want to make sure if we are going to spend that amount of money, I want to have something that can hold its value or even go up over time "just in case". Which was also why I chose Sapphire instead of Diamond. Too pragmatic maybe

 

[ChanterelleJ]

“Heated” is detected using a microscope.

For the sake of completeness I would like to add that both GIA and AGL will, after initial examination under the microscope, look for the respective telltale peaks in the FTIR spectrum. That's the main tool that all major labs rely on in order to determine heat treated vs. unheated.

 

[digdeep]

CONGRAT'S that you found the gem you wanted!! And thanks for sharing your experience..........

 

[blueberryblue]

Thank you Digdeep, and thanks everyone for your help!

 

[leukolenos]

Thank you Digdeep, and thanks everyone for your help!

Can we ask for pictures? I’m glad you got it resolved and found something you loved.

 

[blueberryblue]

I don't have a picture of it right now as it is being mounted, but it is the top left one on the sale lady's hand, I like the blue the best out of all four in the budget range

 

[PrecisionGem]

Labs do make mistakes, and their results are their opinion often. I have sent in Lake Baringo rubies to the AGL, and they have reported the stones heated, when I know for a fact no human has heated them. The Baringo rubies long ago were spewed out of the earth, and heated naturally on the way out. I have had stones picked up on the ground by the local Masai people after the rains, that the AGL has reported as heated. Now I suppose these stones could have been taken to Thailand, heated, then brought back to Africa and buried shallowly, so that after the next rains they would be exposed and found by the Masai.
Or AGL could just be wrong.

 

[digdeep]

Gene, Had you not had contact with the Masai and knew the "whole story" you may not have been so sure they were unheated. I'm glad you have the opportunity to travel and buy gems at the source, however most people do not and therefore, do not have that information and need to rely on lab reports/analysis. Any lab can make mistakes......the situation here was that labs were saying opposite things and the seller was choosing to only display the unheated lab reports....with the appearance of a profit motive.

 

[Bron357]

I think the biggest problem with “heated” vs “unheated” is that, whether rightly or wrongly, a significant premium is charged for “unheated” gems. Whether or not labs make mistakes, dollars matter, so if you’re paying top dollar for an unheated gem, you definitely want any /all lab reports to agree.

 

[LilAlex]

Just like drugs and drug-testing, the bad guys will always be one step ahead of the good guys. So if a stone is unheated, you can be much more confident that it has not been adulterated in other ways. Not perfect, I know (e.g., emerald, of course), but I think there will be lots more lattice-diffusion type treatments that may be increasingly hard to detect and heat is a component of these treatments.

I actually like the look of a tiny bit of silk in unheated corundum -- not enough to make it sleepy, per se. But it can seem to make a stone glow from within in direct sunlight.

 

[Anne111]

While sneaking in top$$$ rubies, and sapphires, I noticed that some 'serious' gems had two or even three reports attached, or that the seller offered to add a 2nd report to confirm the 100% 'unheated' label. It seems that some gems are obviously unheated and can get several labs to confirm it, while others depend on the eye of the tester.
In a similar case, I read about topaz being 'certified' (for the lack of a better word) as untreated by GRS though the scientific community says that such a test is currently not possible.
Before dropping extra premiums on no-treatment gems, it might become more and more necessary to demand a 2nd opinion.

 

[PrecisionGem]

The only stones that there is a premium for untreated are Sapphire, Ruby and Emerald. Anything else treated and untreated sell at the same price, all things equal.

 

[Kevin Bryant]

It happens have seen 3 reports on the same stone all saying different. Have seen diamonds grade in Carlsbad as one way and in New York another. If it was something over 20K send it to gubelin lab or Lotus.

 

[Anne111]

The only stones that there is a premium for untreated are Sapphire, Ruby and Emerald. Anything else treated and untreated sell at the same price, all things equal.

Uhm, not sure, with all respect, but on the above mentioned forum, the public pro-opinion was that the blue topaz in question, if proofed to be 100% untreated, would be worth a fortune, while after normal radiation and heat, it would be just another blue topaz for a $ a carat.

 

[PrecisionGem]

I have never seen natural blue topaz at any premium above treated material. The deeper blue treated colors sell for more than lighter tones, treated or not. No pricing guides used by professionals make any distinction between treated and untreated prices for topaz.

I'm sure that are people who will pay more, and I have seen it here on this site, but in the mainstream it's not true.

 

[Anne111]

The only stones that there is a premium for untreated are Sapphire, Ruby and Emerald. Anything else treated and untreated sell at the same price, all things equal.

yes, sure, the mainstream jewelry buyer in a department store has no clue, but that should be still the same, even with sapphire and others.
I was thinking collectors and people educated like here. The blue topaz in question if untreated would have been a one-in-the-world miracle. There would be a collector premium on such an ultra rare gem.

 

[chrono]

I’m afraid not. As a collector, I would not pay a premium for untreated blue topaz, given how common it is and how incredibly pale untreated material is. Thankfully there are honest and reputable vendors who sell faceted untreated blue topaz without such markups!

 

[Anne111]

the gem in question was deep blue and had an GRS no-treatment report. that's why the fuss