How is this emerald?

[RRfromR]

It's vintage, so i don't know a ton about it other than being natural. The old cut diamonds in the halo are nice quality and the emerald is nice and glowy. I'm planning to send it to GIA and wanted a collective opinion first Thank you in advance!
Tons of pics in different lighting

 

[Autumn in New England]

I really love the ring! The stone is nice... Russian or Zambian, perhaps? I say that because it has that bluer hue with medium saturation, and it is quite clean. I do see a chip on the table facet joint, so that's something to consider. And then naturally you'll want to know about treatments. But I think it's quite a handsome piece!

 

[LilAlex]

Certainly a lovely gem and a lovely ring!

Hard to say too much without knowing how faithful the photos are to the hue. Phones exaggerate, yet greens are often undersaturated -- so not sure where this one lands. For example, I just tried to take some "accurate" phone photos of a nice but perhaps "sub-PS" emerald and I failed. Will need to get out the real camera.

Sounds like you own it now? Can you say more about how you acquired it and how it was represented to you? (Mine I've had for 15 years and my curiosity finally got the better of me.)

 

[RRfromR]

@Autumn in New England and @LilAlex yep, this old lady is mine and has a little chip, nothing structural. It doesn't look edwardian to me, so maybe from the 30s? Russian would be wild. It's very transparent but with great color saturation.

 

[lovedogs]

I love the color!

 

[Autumn in New England]

@Autumn in New England and @LilAlex yep, this old lady is mine and has a little chip, nothing structural. It doesn't look edwardian to me, so maybe from the 30s? Russian would be wild. It's very transparent but with great color saturation.

I'm a sucker for a milgrain bezel halo! Also, I'm an idiot... I didn't realize you already HAD the piece. I thought you were looking for opinions before purchasing. Well big congrats are in order! I hope the old broad brings you a lifetime of happiness. Let us know what the lab report says. Are you going to request origin? I'm invested now!

 

[Saphir]

Saturation looks great, im a big fan of darker stones. Can you made a pictures without the ring on finger on white background and from the bottom of the stone

 

[RRfromR]

Saturation looks great, im a big fan of darker stones. Can you made a pictures without the ring on finger on white background and from the bottom of the stone

@Saphir please see below. I have a very similar one (I know I know) but with modern cuts, which are crystal clear and so white and sparkling, but I'm an old cut girl at heart, so i never wear it.

 

[RRfromR]

@Saphir this is my other one with modern cuts

 

[RRfromR]

@Saphir this is my other one with modern cuts

@Autumn in New England which one has the better emerald? Thank you in advance. Will absolutely ask for origin, i need to drop several to them.

 

[Autumn in New England]

@Autumn in New England which one has the better emerald? Thank you in advance. Will absolutely ask for origin, i need to drop several to them.

Hmm... that's tough. They're both lovely! Just judging by the photos you posted, I would say your other ring's stone may edge this one out. But seeing them in the same photo might be more helpful. Now, personally, I do like the new ring a bit better just because of the milgrain and old cuts. Gives it some extra panache. On the other hand, I like the mixed metals of the older ring. I don't know... I'm an indecisive Gemini.

 

[RRfromR]

Hmm... that's tough. They're both lovely! Just judging by the photos you posted, I would say your other ring's stone may edge this one out. But seeing them in the same photo might be more helpful. Now, personally, I do like the new ring a bit better just because of the milgrain and old cuts. Gives it some extra panache. On the other hand, I like the mixed metals of the older ring. I don't know... I'm an indecisive Gemini.

Lol. These are all of mine and what I know about them. Zero clue so far about origin
Top row: the one in discussion, 50s vintage, art deco insignificant oil
Bottom: edwardian/art deco cusp from England, 50s (?) vintage
I know, too many

 

[Eli22]

It's vintage, so i don't know a ton about it other than being natural. The old cut diamonds in the halo are nice quality and the emerald is nice and glowy. I'm planning to send it to GIA and wanted a collective opinion first Thank you in advance!
Tons of pics in different lighting

I love everything about it! The style of the halo is dreamy and the emerald is bright and clean. Also: you can never have too many emeralds, haha

How about running it by ChatGPT?

I used the following prompt + photo:
“Analyze origin and color of this emerald”

Reply:
This image shows a close-up of a vivid green emerald set in a white metal ring (likely platinum or white gold) and surrounded by diamonds.

Emerald Color Analysis:​

• Hue: Rich green with bluish undertones, a characteristic of high-quality emeralds.
• Tone: Medium to medium-dark.
• Saturation: Very strong and vibrant, which is highly desirable in fine emeralds.
• Clarity: The image shows internal inclusions, which are typical of natural emeralds and often referred to as the "jardin" (French for "garden"). These are not usually considered flaws, but rather a fingerprint of authenticity.

Possible Origin (based on visual clues only):​

While precise origin determination requires advanced gemological testing (e.g., spectroscopy, inclusion analysis, trace elements), some general observations can be made:

1. Colombian Emeralds:
   
   • Known for their pure, intense green color with slight blue overtones.
   • Often have fine, thread-like inclusions or "three-phase" inclusions (gas, liquid, and crystal).
   • This stone’s vibrant color and fibrous inclusions resemble those typically seen in Colombian emeralds.
2. Zambian Emeralds:
   
   • Usually darker and more bluish in tone.
   • Tend to be cleaner than Colombian stones.
   • This stone appears slightly too bright and vivid for most Zambian stones.
3. Brazilian Emeralds:
   
   • Can vary greatly, often lighter or more yellowish.
   • Not typically as vibrant as Colombian emeralds.

Conclusion (Visual-Only):​

• Likely Origin: Colombian (with some probability; not definitive without lab testing)
• Color Grade: Vivid green with bluish undertone (high-quality)
• Clarity: Natural inclusions present; consistent with untreated or lightly treated emeralds

If you'd like a lab-grade assessment (origin confirmation, treatment detection), I recommend submitting the stone to GIA, AGL, or Gübelin Gem Lab. Would you like tips on what to ask for in a lab report?

Another one:
“Analyze additional photos”


Reply:
Thank you for the additional photo. Here's a detailed visual analysis of both emerald rings:

Top Ring (Smaller Oval Emerald with Side Diamonds)​

Color:

• Bright, vivid green with a slightly bluish undertone.
• Appears slightly lighter and more transparent than the lower emerald, possibly due to both cut and clarity.

Clarity:

• Very good transparency from this angle.
• Inclusions, if present, are minimal or well-hidden by the oval cut and lighting.

Cut:

• Oval brilliant cut, enhancing brilliance and perceived clarity.
• Side diamonds add to the ring’s elegance, likely set in platinum or white gold.

Possible Origin:

• Given the brightness, transparency, and slightly lighter green, it may be Zambian or Brazilian origin—but high-quality Colombian is also still possible.
• Zambian emeralds often have higher clarity and a slightly bluish tint, which fits this profile.

Bottom Ring (Large Rectangular Emerald with Diamond Halo)​

Color:

• Deep, vivid green with slight blue undertones — a classic Colombian emerald color.
• Rich saturation and medium-dark tone give it a luxurious look.

Clarity:

• Internal inclusions ("jardin") are visible, typical of natural emeralds and consistent with Colombian origin.
• Still has excellent transparency and glow, especially in natural light.

Cut:

• Rectangular emerald cut with large step facets—classic for showcasing color over brilliance.
• Surrounded by a large halo of round brilliant diamonds, giving it a vintage or high-jewelry feel.

Possible Origin:

• Strongly suggests Colombian origin, given the color, inclusions, and traditional emerald cut.

Summary (Visual Comparison)​

Feature	Top Ring (Oval)	Bottom Ring (Rectangular)
Color	Bright vivid green	Rich deep green
Tone	Medium	Medium-dark
Clarity	Cleaner	Visible inclusions ("jardin")
Cut	Oval	Emerald cut
Likely Origin	Possibly Zambian or Colombian	Likely Colombian
Visual Appeal	Lively, elegant	Regal, classic, museum-worthy

Would you like help drafting a gemologist request for certification or a lab report to confirm origin and treatment (e.g., oiling)?

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

WOW! Look at you go! Your green gorgeousness collection has us all envious!

cheers--Sharon

 

[Autumn in New England]

Lol. These are all of mine and what I know about them. Zero clue so far about origin
Top row: the one in discussion, 50s vintage, art deco insignificant oil
Bottom: edwardian/art deco cusp from England, 50s (?) vintage
I know, too many

Gahhh! Now I think I like the new ring AND stone better!! But can you lose either way? lol I love the guy on the lower right too.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

Lol. These are all of mine and what I know about them. Zero clue so far about origin
Top row: the one in discussion, 50s vintage, art deco insignificant oil
Bottom: edwardian/art deco cusp from England, 50s (?) vintage
I know, too many

To me, the new ring is the Belle of the box! She has tough competition, but look at her.

 

[Starstruck8]

How about running it by ChatGPT?

We are all out of a job! Who needs PS anymore? Just ask ChatGPT...

But seriously, this raises so many questions. I've always been impressed by how good PSers (but not me!) are at reading photos. Even photos of emeralds, which notoriously don't photograph well. All the more in that photos vary wildly, with different lighting and backgrounds, and different cameras, exposure, white balance, processing and editing. But clever PSers seem to be able to look though these differences to see the quality of the stone itself. How is it done? What are the clues? Clearly not just the individual pixel RGB values, but the whole gestalt. Somehow...

And what do AIs do? Something similar, or something different? No doubt general purpose AIs would have 'seen' many gemstone photos in their training data, but I doubt that they would have had special training.

On the AI's answer itself:

The right answer to questions of origin is, 'If it matters, get a report.' Granted, the AI did in effect say that, but it could (should?) have been much more direct and forceful. But AIs tend not to be direct and forceful; they politely answer the question asked, in that annoying mechanical neutral tone.

The answer is well written, simply explained, and easy to follow. (I wish I could say the same for my own comments. ) The template the AI used is obvious but appropriate.

Typically for AI, the answer accentuates the positive. 'Lively, elegant', 'Regal, classic, museum-worthy'. Granted, this is all true! But it's not directly relevant to the question.

It's not always right. I thought the lighter emerald in the second stone looked like a cushion (not oval), not brilliant cut, and likely Colombian (because of the glow). So I searched and checked. I was right. Granted, the AI hedged on origin. But it was definitely wrong on oval. As usual with AI, you get no indication which statements are right and which wrong; everything is written in the same neutral tone.

My conclusion: For now, I'm sticking with PSers' well-trained eyes. But I'm impressed the ChatGPT can read photos as well as it does.

 

[LilAlex]

^ But this is a complete hallucination! @Starstruck8, you are our expert on how lighting influences the appearance of gems. Like us, ChatGPT can not tell how oversaturated the photo is or how over-lit the stone is, or even how accurate the exposure or white balance is. And, like me, it can not tell if there is jardin visible in this view of the gem or if it's just the basket showing through a very transparent gem. It is doing exactly what we do in that it is saying, "Ooh pretty" without really knowing what it is looking at -- and then it connects some semi-random emerald facts to these observations: "large step facets—classic for showcasing color over brilliance."

I think this is like your know-it-all friend who is utterly wrong with complete and unshakable confidence. The fact that zero uncertainty makes its way into the assessment is laughable.

But it is authoritative. Perfect for nearly half of the population..

 

[Autumn in New England]

We are all out of a job! Who needs PS anymore? Just ask ChatGPT...

But seriously, this raises so many questions. I've always been impressed by how good PSers (but not me!) are at reading photos. Even photos of emeralds, which notoriously don't photograph well. All the more in that photos vary wildly, with different lighting and backgrounds, and different cameras, exposure, white balance, processing and editing. But clever PSers seem to be able to look though these differences to see the quality of the stone itself. How is it done? What are the clues? Clearly not just the individual pixel RGB values, but the whole gestalt. Somehow...

And what do AIs do? Something similar, or something different? No doubt general purpose AIs would have 'seen' many gemstone photos in their training data, but I doubt that they would have had special training.

On the AI's answer itself:

The right answer to questions of origin is, 'If it matters, get a report.' Granted, the AI did in effect say that, but it could (should?) have been much more direct and forceful. But AIs tend not to be direct and forceful; they politely answer the question asked, in that annoying mechanical neutral tone.

The answer is well written, simply explained, and easy to follow. (I wish I could say the same for my own comments. ) The template the AI used is obvious but appropriate.

Typically for AI, the answer accentuates the positive. 'Lively, elegant', 'Regal, classic, museum-worthy'. Granted, this is all true! But it's not directly relevant to the question.

It's not always right. I thought the lighter emerald in the second stone looked like a cushion (not oval), not brilliant cut, and likely Colombian (because of the glow). So I searched and checked. I was right. Granted, the AI hedged on origin. But it was definitely wrong on oval. As usual with AI, you get no indication which statements are right and which wrong; everything is written in the same neutral tone.

My conclusion: For now, I'm sticking with PSers' well-trained eyes. But I'm impressed the ChatGPT can read photos as well as it does.

So well put! I don't think anything will ever take the place of the human eye in the gem world. We not only see an object with our eyes, but we then interpret the image with our brains. And that is so nuanced... knowledge, consultation, experiences, and even emotions play a part. That's not even counting holding the gem in our hands. This is why, even with how standardized and technological the diamond industry is, they're ultimately still examined and graded by the human eye.

 

[Starstruck8]

^ But this is a complete hallucination! @Starstruck8, you are our expert on how lighting influences the appearance of gems. Like us, ChatGPT can not tell how oversaturated the photo is or how over-lit the stone is, or even how accurate the exposure or white balance is. And, like me, it can not tell if there is jardin visible in this view of the gem or if it's just the basket showing through a very transparent gem. It is doing exactly what we do in that it is saying, "Ooh pretty" without really knowing what it is looking at -- and then it connects some semi-random emerald facts to these observations: "large step facets—classic for showcasing color over brilliance."

I think this is like your know-it-all friend who is utterly wrong with complete and unshakable confidence. The fact that zero uncertainty makes its way into the assessment is laughable.

But it is authoritative. Perfect for nearly half of the population..

I mostly agree with this. (Maybe my post was not direct enough...) The confident tone and the padding-out with irrelevant factoids are annoying, and typical.

But... It's not complete hallucination. At a minimum, it has 'seen' that the second picture shows two stones, the top one lighter and round-ish and the lower one darker, emerald cut and with a wide white surround. That's not nothing, especially since (I think, may be wrong) it hasn't been specifically trained to analyse jewellery.

In the first photo, I'm seeing parts of the basket (light trapezoid top right) and fascinating wavy jardin. It's at least possible that the AI has spotted this too.

In its comments on the second photo, talking about the big EC, the AI says, 'Still has excellent transparency and glow, especially in natural light.' I had inferred from the skin tone and the hard shadows that the photo was taken in direct sun. It seems that the AI 'thinks' likewise (though I may be misinterpreting it). So it seems to 'know' at least a bit about lighting.

So yes, the AI is totally not to be trusted. But it does seem to have some ability to read photos. It exceeded my (very low) expectations.

 

[RRfromR]

I have such a love / hate relationship with AI, because I work in technology and use it a lot. It will hopefully never replace the human eyes, especially quality wise. It can churn insane amount of data for comparison, so a guess about the origin is data driven and could be accurate. I asked the machine to rank them for quality and it failed, because emeralds are finicky.
@LilAlex I have an old android phone that's incapable of filtering, so that's pretty much the stone
I like old things and I like digging through flea markets, small dusty stores, estate sales, weird auctions. I like the process of discovery as much as a I like the jewelry, it's very soothing to me. This came from a Floridian family, from a nice area that gets a lot of former Midwesterns, via an auction. So could be originally from Chicago/Detroit area from the 20s and 30s. The diamonds are mostly European cut with some mine cut.

 

[autumngems]

It's vintage, so i don't know a ton about it other than being natural. The old cut diamonds in the halo are nice quality and the emerald is nice and glowy. I'm planning to send it to GIA and wanted a collective opinion first Thank you in advance!
Tons of pics in different lighting

Just to say, I am ever so jealous, I have been looking for an emerald ring.

 

[Eli22]

Haha yes ChatGPT tends to be overly positive in its descriptions - I do find it useful as “another eye” (or is it lens?) sometimes.

Nothing can ever replace the human eye/experience (or the PS knowledge base) when it comes to evaluating gems. I believe ChatGPT even noted this, with a lot of “likely origin” answers, as well as prompts to use a lab for definitive ID/info.

As @Starstruck8 mentioned, it was incorrect on the origin & cut of the cushion. Lol @LilAlex - the know-it-all friend is such an apt description!!

I’ve used it to evaluate secondhand luxury bags I’m thinking of purchasing, but I always get the bag authenticated professionally for a purchase. It has helped weed out some (likely) replicas.

I’d say it’s a good “first filter” for some items. If anything, it’s highly entertaining!

 

[Eli22]

Lol. These are all of mine and what I know about them. Zero clue so far about origin
Top row: the one in discussion, 50s vintage, art deco insignificant oil
Bottom: edwardian/art deco cusp from England, 50s (?) vintage
I know, too many

If you hadn’t already run it through AI:

The image showcases five rings featuring vibrant green emeralds, each surrounded by diamonds and set in a variety of vintage or antique-inspired designs. Here’s a detailed analysis of the emeralds and their potential characteristics:

​

Color:​

• The emeralds display a vivid green to bluish-green hue, a highly desirable trait.
• Most of them show medium to slightly deep saturation, which is characteristic of high-quality stones.
• The bottom-center emerald is particularly vibrant and evenly colored—potentially the finest of the group.

Cut:​

• Shapes vary:
  
  • Three emeralds are emerald cut (rectangular with step facets).
  • One is a cushion cut (top right).
  • One (bottom center) appears to be a rectangular mixed cut, possibly modified brilliant.
• The faceting enhances their transparency and brilliance but also reveals internal inclusions typical of natural emeralds.

Clarity:​

• Most stones show visible jardin (natural inclusions typical in emeralds), especially the bottom-center and top-right stones.
• The inclusions suggest natural origin and not synthetic, though some may be oil-treated—a common industry practice.

Likely Origin (Visual Estimate Only):​

While visual alone isn't conclusive, here's a speculative breakdown:

• The rich bluish-green hue and visible inclusions are highly characteristic of Colombian emeralds, especially those from Muzo or Chivor mines.
• Colombian emeralds often have this “cooler” green tone with good translucency and silk-like inclusions.

​

• The top-left and top-center rings feature cluster-style old European or rose-cut diamonds, likely from the Edwardian or Art Deco revival styles.
• The top-right ring has a simpler, cleaner modern bezel, possibly contemporary.
• The bottom-center ring is a classic cocktail design with baguette and round diamonds radiating outward—popular in mid-20th-century jewelry.
• The bottom-left ring has a more delicate, filigree-style setting, evoking vintage design.

Conclusion:​

• These are natural emeralds, likely Colombian origin, featuring medium to high quality in terms of color and moderate clarity.
• The settings suggest a mix of vintage and vintage-inspired craftsmanship, potentially collectible.
• If value or certification is needed, it’s worth having these stones tested for origin and treatment (oil/resin) by a lab like GIA or AGL.

Would you like help estimating their value range or creating descriptions for selling purposes?