- Joined
- May 14, 2018
- Messages
- 994
Hi CS PSers! This is my first post in the CS forum and I'm looking for input from emerald experts. I am on the hunt for a untreated/no oil emerald and have several I am considering. Most options have GIA reports noting "no indications of clarity enhancement". One option is accompanied by a CDTEC certificate stating "Enhancements: None" and "Comments: Contains residue from the cutting process" as well as a GSR report with the comment "CE(O): Insignificant", but the seller claims it is free of any treatment and claims the GSR comment is common and is due to microscopic fissures reaching the surface that contain residues from the cutting process that the lab cannot distinguish. So my questions are:
i) are emeralds with GIA reports considered untreated/no oil if they are noted as having "no indications of clarity enhancement", or are they only considered untreated/no oil if the comment is "none"?
ii) would it be an accurate assumption that the GSR comment of "contains residue from the cutting process" is equivalent to GIA "no indications of clarity enhancement"?
iii) how reliable are CDTEC certificates?
iv) are the seller's claims regarding the GSR comment vs. the CDTEC comment valid?
I have read until my eyes are bloodshot (on this forum and the web) trying to get a better understanding of this. Seems like most sellers market emeralds having GIA reports with the comment of "no indications of clarity enhancement" as being untreated/no oil despite the fact that there is a classification of "none" by GIA standards. And I couldn't find much info on GSR and how their grading compares to GIA. If I went with that emerald, I would probably send it to GIA for peace of mind, but I don't want to go down that rabbit hole if it isn't likely to come back as "no indications of clarity enhancement" at a minimum.
TIA!
i) are emeralds with GIA reports considered untreated/no oil if they are noted as having "no indications of clarity enhancement", or are they only considered untreated/no oil if the comment is "none"?
ii) would it be an accurate assumption that the GSR comment of "contains residue from the cutting process" is equivalent to GIA "no indications of clarity enhancement"?
iii) how reliable are CDTEC certificates?
iv) are the seller's claims regarding the GSR comment vs. the CDTEC comment valid?
I have read until my eyes are bloodshot (on this forum and the web) trying to get a better understanding of this. Seems like most sellers market emeralds having GIA reports with the comment of "no indications of clarity enhancement" as being untreated/no oil despite the fact that there is a classification of "none" by GIA standards. And I couldn't find much info on GSR and how their grading compares to GIA. If I went with that emerald, I would probably send it to GIA for peace of mind, but I don't want to go down that rabbit hole if it isn't likely to come back as "no indications of clarity enhancement" at a minimum.
TIA!