"Misleading" Appraisal, or Not?

[TooMuchInformation]

So, some of you may or may not have been following my thread in the colored stones forum:

My Mothers "Emerald" Ring is a Fake?

I''ll spare the details. The short version is this. My parents brought in a ring that my father had purchased in South America, which is 14K gold, with an emerald cut... emerald

stone. Upon close inspection with the loupe, and about 15 minutes of my time, I came to the conclusion with a fair amount of certainty (I''m still a beginner) that this stone was in fact a dublet, consisting of an emerald top-stone with a glass-like bottom stone (I won''t bother to venture a guess as to what it might be, as it would simply be a guess).

Now, the interesting part. This ring was appraised by a local GG, and the appraisal line contains the following information:

1 X 1.25 ct Rectangular Emerald / Trap Cut Emerald, Colour Bright Green/Good, Clarity Medium. The stone measure approx. 7.22mm X 5.81mm X 4.53mm.

However, the appraisal value of $3,500 CDN may actually reflect the correct value of the small portion of emerald on the stone (though I don''t know this yet; anyone know emerald pricing). The $3,500 CDN value, however, reflects the appraisal of this ring as well as another peice of jewelry (I can''t recall what, specifically).

Is this not blatantly misleading? The appraisal was worth (a shockingly low) $30 CDN. Could it be that with such an inexpensive appraisal the GG took very little time looking at the stone, and didn''t notice that it was a dublet?

Would it be misleading if the appraisal value correctly stated the value of a doublet stone? I would think that regardless of the value, the appraiser would note the fact that it''s a doublet?

Note that, I could simply be totally wrong about it being a doublet, though I feel somewhat strongly (as a beginner ) that it was.

 

[oldminer]

IF the stone is a doublet, there is NO emerald that is any part of it. It can be all glass with a green dyd center layer, it could be colorless beryl on top to trick a GG with a refractomer and have green glass or a green synthetic, genuine or green glass material on the bottom. Likely as not it is green glue coloring the entire stone if it is a doublet. There was a time where slightly red garnet was used on the top for durability and the rest of the stone would be green glass. You could put the loose stone on its table, shine a bright light on it and se the red ring from the garnet around the edge of the stone....A neat rick.

The value of the stone is negligible if it is a doublet, or triplet. It would be a mistake and probably entitle you to a refund of your appraisal fees although it was pitifully inexpensive. You have a right to expect accuracy.

Immerse the stone is a clear glass of water, look from the side. Do you see a thin green central layer and colorless crown and pavilion? Do you see a flat layer of gas bubbles where the glue meets the glass? DO you see the red ring effect? Those are all pretty good indications.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

If it is a doublet, the appraiser missed it.

It's pretty tough to imagine a GG missing a simple ID like that.

 

[TooMuchInformation]

Oldminer & Richard,

I was hoping to hear from you two.

You suddenly make me doubt my less-than-amateur diagnosis of the "stone". Take into account for a moment that I'm not *sure* that the stone is in fact a "doublet", but that was my conclusion after putting together the information that I collected during my 15 or 20 minutes ob obvservation. From my other thread, here is what I saw:

----------
Anyways, I'm having a close look at this ring (because I'm now at the point where I need to look at any peice of jewelry that I see with the loupe), and something strikes me as odd, but I can't place it. I washed the ring in hot water with a toothbrush, and brought it back to the loupe.

I almost died. What was previously a deep green now shows many areas of VERY dull green to the point of white/transparent; perhaps similar to glass. Intruiged, but a little frightened that I might have damaged the stone, I continued to look at it with the loupe for about 10 minutes. What I saw was VERY interesting - it looked like a doublet/triplet (thanks for the reminder on this term mogok)!

- When viewed from the top/table, it looked like a diamond through a green ideal-scope showing a LOT of leakage (sorry for this crazy analogy), this was after washing the stone, and as it dried, this effect seemed to lessen somewhat, though never appearing to go away completely.
- The only visible inclusions were at the surface level; before the girdle. The bottom of the stone (girdle down) seemed fairly clean, though the view was cramped.
- When viewed from below, the cut was stange; the culet was totally off center, and it appeared VERY white/transparent, as if it was simply made of glass at the bottom.
- The girdle area had a visible line (I'm almost positive that it wasn't a facet edge) all the way around it, as if there was a "seam" there. It even seemed to be uneven, though the line was perfectly straight.
- I can't remember what the major area of inclusion looked like; I was too focued on the other tidbits.
- I have no idea what was paid for this item, but typically, my father seems to get items for a fairly inexpensive price in columbia/equador, and they're appraised at much higher values.

That's all I can recall at the moment, and although I hate to say it, I have NO experience doing this and might just be way out to lunch, but I feel as though so many signs adding up, there is NO way that I could have made this all up.
----------

See the thread "My Mothers "Emerald" Ring is a Fake?" in the Colored Stones forum for more information.

If I have the chance to look at the stone again (and I'm sure that I will), I'll be sure to immerse it in water. I'm actually dying to try it now.

Could there be any chance that the top of the stone was legitimate, and it was simply glued to a "glass" or like bottom with some sort of clear adhesive (isn't this also a doublet) - I thought that I had read about this somewhere. As with Richard, I'm almost positive that there would be no way that a GG could miss a "complete" fake.

Also oldminer, I'm sorry to use the term "doublet" if it's not correct in this situation; what would you call a legitimate stone with a false glass (or other different material) extension as the pavilion? Does this sort of configuration indeed exist?

Maybe I can convince my mother to send it away to one of you two.