Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Pomelo’s quest for red

Hello all, I’ve tried uncle Google and auntie Pricescope Search but neither provided much info…

I saw an old (2011) GIA cert for a ruby where it doesn’t have any indications of heating but there is wax present.

I’ve not come across wax for rubies before and read that it’s similar to oil for emeralds? I’m curious as to why we don’t see wax treatments more often for rubies?


IMG_1837.jpeg
 
My hypothesis is that glass filled rubies were a big thing back in the day. They made the news too, and received huge backlash. Wax filling a ruby is another filler method, so it's just a variant of an earlier treatment to improve rubies with fractures.
 
voce said:
My hypothesis is that glass filled rubies were a big thing back in the day. They made the news too, and received huge backlash. Wax filling a ruby is another filler method, so it's just a variant of an earlier treatment to improve rubies with fractures.
Click to expand...

Thank you @voce , and maybe I just haven’t seen enough GIA certs, but usually the GIA certs say whether there has been heat, and whether there is any residue.

Does the wax therefore count as residue (I thought this was for flux / borax)? So this specific report is saying it’s a no-heat ruby, with wax residues? :confused:
 
Pomelo said:
Thank you @voce , and maybe I just haven’t seen enough GIA certs, but usually the GIA certs say whether there has been heat, and whether there is any residue.

Does the wax therefore count as residue (I thought this was for flux / borax)? So this specific report is saying it’s a no-heat ruby, with wax residues? :confused:
Click to expand...

Honestly, I have never seen a clarity enhanced ruby without heat/flux. But it certainly makes sense, as you said. In any event, to answer your question, I would put it on the same level as emerald CE, and would not say it counts as residues. I guess the difference is, emerald oiling has been done since ancient times. They even found Egyptian cabs with oil present. So it's always been acceptable in the trade. Emeralds are also a type III clarity stone. But ruby CE has never become the standard. I suppose it's because they were not historically filled, and also because they're a type II clarity stone.
 
Here's another thought about the wax. Maybe it's used in how the ruby was stored or previously placed for setting? I use gel gem trays when placing loose gems in a pattern, but I suppose someone else might use wax to secure the gems, or maybe hide it in wax to smuggle. Hard to really know, but the wax may affect how the gem photographs. U think the wax, if not used as a clarity enhancement, should be removed so as to not affect the potential brilliance of the gem, i.e. the way the light is refracted to come out of the crown of the gem and into your eyes.
 
voce said:
Here's another thought about the wax. Maybe it's used in how the ruby was stored or previously placed for setting? I use gel gem trays when placing loose gems in a pattern, but I suppose someone else might use wax to secure the gems, or maybe hide it in wax to smuggle. Hard to really know, but the wax may affect how the gem photographs. U think the wax, if not used as a clarity enhancement, should be removed so as to not affect the potential brilliance of the gem, i.e. the way the light is refracted to come out of the crown of the gem and into your eyes.
Click to expand...

Good point... I would say for them to mention it on the report, the wax must be deep within the fissures. So perhaps not from storage/setting, per se, but maybe from polishing compound or the like? Or I suppose it could also simply be from purposeful CE. I've just never seen it before!
 
Pomelo said:
I’ve not come across wax for rubies before and read that it’s similar to oil for emeralds? I’m curious as to why we don’t see wax treatments more often for rubies?
Click to expand...

Maybe it was just detailed for the showroom? :mrgreen2:

Seriously, though, I guess it could be residual dopping wax. Hard to imagine that anything that is opaque at room temperature would improve the appearance.
 
LilAlex said:
Maybe it was just detailed for the showroom? :mrgreen2:

Seriously, though, I guess it could be residual dopping wax. Hard to imagine that anything that is opaque at room temperature would improve the appearance.
Click to expand...

I found this tidbit online... not sure if they are consistent about it though.
Idunno1.gif
You'd think they would clean off something superficial so as not to impact the stone's value with mention of it on a report. That's what makes me think it's within fissures.

"During the analysis process within the lab, GIA will clean stones using professional methods, such as heated ultrasonic cleaners with 70% isopropyl alcohol for diamonds, to ensure accurate results. Cleaning is crucial because any external impurities or coatings could interfere with the various tests and observations performed by gemologists and the specialized equipment used to identify a gem's properties and detect treatments."
 
Autumn in New England said:
You'd think they would clean off something superficial so as not to impact the stone's value with mention of it on a report. That's what makes me think it's within fissures.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree -- did not mean stuck on the outside -- more like wicked (ETA: not the musical) into some surface-reaching fissures by capillary action while liquid. Chemically, liquid wax is practically an oil.
 
I changed up the words in my Google search and came across some interesting pages.

In summary, oil/wax in rubies is a form of clarity and potentially colour enhancement, and should have disclosure - but SSEF and Lotus seem to disagree on whether it's a traditional treatment technique (SSEF says it's traditional, Lotus says it isn't). Especially when the oil is coloured to enhance colour!

What I don't understand is why the level of oiling is disclosed for emeralds (minor, moderate etc) but not for rubies. It seems like there's a case for disclosing the level of treatment here, even if it's not heat.

I'm also curious how the GIA and the other labs would grade the waxed ruby today.

---

www.ssef.ch

Rubies with Oil in Fissures - SSEF

Over the past few years, the SSEF has repeatedly seen gemstones (apart from emeralds) which contained fissures filled with oil or other fillers. These include rubies, sapphires, spinels, tourmalines, garnets and even rarities such as pezzottaite.
www.ssef.ch www.ssef.ch

"By far the most cases were encountered with rubies, especially unheated ones from Myanmar (Burma), which occasionally were found to show fissures mainly filled with oil or wax (Figure 2). Some purplish to pinkish rubies contained orange oil in fissures, with the aim of shifting the colour of the ruby into a more vibrant red (Figure 3).
1763622094710.png
...

Based on our experience and gemmological literature on the history of treatments, the concept of filling fissures with a (colourless or even coloured) substance is quite old and may even be found in antique jewellery. Therefore we consider oil or wax in fissures a traditional treatment, which however still requires full disclosure. As such, the SSEF identifies and quantifies fissure filling in any gemstone, and comments about such clarity modification are reported using very similar wording and classification than for emeralds."


---

Oiled Gems Lab Alert — Lotus Gemology | LotusGemology.com

Lab alert regarding appearance of oiled ruby, sapphire and spinel in the Bangkok market.
lotusgemology.com lotusgemology.com

"Judging from the reactions of our clients when informed that their rubies, sapphires and spinels have been subjected to oiling, this is not a "traditional" enhancement method, but rather a form of fraud, since none of them have been informed of, or expected their gems to be treated in this way. We have seen a number of stones that, upon removal of the filler, have shown significant deterioration in appearance. In certain cases, substantial amounts of money ride on the presence or absence of the filler. Thus we believe that it is imperative that the trade deals with this threat as quickly as possible."

"

Is this accidental oiling?​

Some in the "don't worry, be happy" camp have suggested that this is not deliberate oiling, but simply oil from the cutting/polishing process forced into fissures. Sadly, the evidence to date strongly suggests that this is not the case. First, oil is not commonly used in the cutting process for either ruby, sapphire or spinel. Second, we have seen filled fissures where the filler is so deep that it appears to have been applied via heating/vacuum. While we try to always maintain an open mind, the available evidence strongly suggests that this is being deliberately done to improve the appearance.

Could this be water in the fissures from the cutting process?​

Again, no. Water boils at 100°C and thus even gentle heating with the hot point would quickly vaporize it from fissures.

How can you oil a ruby, when the oil's refractive index doesn't match the gem's?​

This is a misimpression leftover from the Opticon vs. cedarwood debates a couple decades ago. The reality is that replacing air in a fissure with an oil or resin can have a significant effect on appearance, even if the refractive index match between filler and gem is not that close. Consider the following carefully: there is no reason to oil a gem and risk losing a sale, unless the appearance changes in a significant fashion."

1763622328934.png

---


Here, a GIA gemmologist, Vincent, mentions that oil / wax is used either to separate out the fine vs lower quality material, or to enhance clarity.

"Interesting topic!​
​
In the photo you are showing, the circular inclusions can be described as "partially d[r]ied foreign substance filling in fissure". Such foreign substance are common in many stones that have natural fissures as you may have some liquid that penetrated naturally or by human action in these fissures and dried. When it is the result of a natural process, it is commonly called limonite or iron stain. It is very common in stones from secondary deposits.​
​
Now an issue is that sometimes and this is particularly the case for rubies, stones are oiled in order to check the color of the rough and separate the fine color rough with lower quality material. The purpose is not to fill the fissures but to enable the light to travel inside the stones for the color to show... Then oil may be present in fissures and dry partically or completely.​
Now of course you have also people (and this is a traditional practices in many markets like Jaipur in India, for many centuries) filling purposely these fissures with oil, parafin or wax in order to make the stone looks better hidding the natural fissures.​
​
Now the problem for buyers and labs with such features is to identify if it is a substance that came naturally or that was placed by people.​
​
In the case of organic fillers like wax, parafin or oil, using spectroscopy like FTIR, it is possible in some cases to identify such products in fissures. I guess that it was what was found in the stone you refer from. The difficulty when you see when a dried or partially dried liquid inside a fissure is that visually, if you are not an expert on that matter, an oil, wax, parafin or liquid that came naturally and dried, can looks very similar in my experience.​
​
When at GIA we identify coumpounds such as oil, wax or parafin filling in ruby fissures, then it is my understanding that as a policy, we mention that on our reports."​
​
​
---

And two sources from GIA, both of which point to oiled rubies.

Where a Burmese ruby was treated with bright red oil to enhance both clarity and colour

"On the basis of microscopic observation and infrared spectroscopy, we concluded that the ruby showed moderate indications of clarity enhancement—with oil, in this case. Although glass-filled rubies are common on the market today, oiled corundum is much rarer. This oiled ruby was also unusual for its size and evidently Burmese origin."
 
Sheesh you buy unheated to avoid drama and now this crops up!!!

Thanks for the heads up @Pomelo

I wonder if labs like Lotus would have mentioned it if Chansey was oiled or waxed?! Now I’m paranoid!
 
mellowyellowgirl said:
Sheesh you buy unheated to avoid drama and now this crops up!!!

Thanks for the heads up @Pomelo

I wonder if labs like Lotus would have mentioned it if Chansey was oiled or waxed?! Now I’m paranoid!
Click to expand...

What lab did Chansey come with?
Tbh it doesn’t look like it’s that common though
 
Pomelo said:
What lab did Chansey come with?
Tbh it doesn’t look like it’s that common though
Click to expand...

Lotus. I was given the option to send her to any lab I wanted but because I own and have been shown so much stock with Lotus reports, I decided to go with Lotus for ease of colour and saturation comparison. I feel like I “get” the Lotus colour scale and the colours always align with my expectations based on videos and the report. One of the crutches I need try rely on, not being able to see the stones in real life before I buy.
 
mellowyellowgirl said:
Lotus. I was given the option to send her to any lab I wanted but because I own and have been shown so much stock with Lotus reports, I decided to go with Lotus for ease of colour and saturation comparison. I feel like I “get” the Lotus colour scale and the colours always align with my expectations based on videos and the report. One of the crutches I need try rely on, not being able to see the stones in real life before I buy.
Click to expand...

Makes sense!

Lotus were the lab to call out the industry on oil/wax in corundum in 2015 so I hope they do…

Oiled Gems Lab Alert — Lotus Gemology | LotusGemology.com

Lab alert regarding appearance of oiled ruby, sapphire and spinel in the Bangkok market.
lotusgemology.com lotusgemology.com
 
LilAlex said:
Oh, I agree -- did not mean stuck on the outside -- more like wicked (ETA: not the musical) into some surface-reaching fissures by capillary action while liquid. Chemically, liquid wax is practically an oil.
Click to expand...

There you go appealing to my Bostonian sensibilities again.
2056438lix5fdujgn.gif
 
I just received an email back from GIA Japan about “wax is present”!

Basically, I think it’s coloured oil / wax. @Crimson brought up a similar discussion three years ago, and it’s because GIA changed the way it described this type of treatment (see below)
Crimson

Thread '“An orange foreign material is present in surface reaching fractures”'

I’ve noticed some GIA reports about ruby state that the stone is unheated but that “an orange foreign material is present in surface reaching fractures”. See, for example this: https://www.1stdibs.com/en-gb/jewel...-diamond-platinum-cocktail-ring/id-j_6749541/
Could anyone please help explain what this comment means? It sounds negative to me.
Thank you1
  • Like

Ahh I’m gutted, this stone was a strong contender… 2.0ct marquise

ETA: just removed the report number in case I change my mind about this stone haha

IMG_2195.jpeg


~~~

Dear client,

Thank you for your inquiry.

Brownish/orange stain have been observed in the fractures and it was not significant treatment level, so the report *123456789* issued in 2011 commented that it was wax in the additional comment section. This wax may improve clarity or color appearance of ruby.

https://www.gia.edu/gems-gemology/summer-2015-gemnews-unusual-filled-ruby

https://www.gia.edu/gems-gemology/summer-2017-microworld-oiled-ruby

Since 2014, this wax comment in the additional comment section has been updated to a different comment: An orange foreign material is present in surface reaching fractures.

Best regards,

GIA
 
Last edited:
Oh n
Pomelo said:
I just received an email back from GIA Japan about “wax is present”!

Basically, I think it’s coloured oil / wax. @Crimson brought up a similar discussion three years ago, and it’s because GIA changed the way it described this type of treatment (see below)
Crimson

Thread '“An orange foreign material is present in surface reaching fractures”'

I’ve noticed some GIA reports about ruby state that the stone is unheated but that “an orange foreign material is present in surface reaching fractures”. See, for example this: https://www.1stdibs.com/en-gb/jewel...-diamond-platinum-cocktail-ring/id-j_6749541/
Could anyone please help explain what this comment means? It sounds negative to me.
Thank you1
  • Like

Ahh I’m gutted, this stone was a strong contender… 2.0ct marquise

ETA: just removed the report number in case I change my mind about this stone haha

IMG_2195.jpeg


~~~

Dear client,

Thank you for your inquiry.

Brownish/orange stain have been observed in the fractures and it was not significant treatment level, so the report *123456789* issued in 2011 commented that it was wax in the additional comment section. This wax may improve clarity or color appearance of ruby.

https://www.gia.edu/gems-gemology/summer-2015-gemnews-unusual-filled-ruby

https://www.gia.edu/gems-gemology/summer-2017-microworld-oiled-ruby

Since 2014, this wax comment in the additional comment section has been updated to a different comment: An orange foreign material is present in surface reaching fractures.

Best regards,

GIA
Click to expand...

Oh no, what a disappointment @Pomelo。
Since my 2022 thread I have noticed other rubies/sapphires with the same treatment. GIA’s comment is in fine print below so some sellers crop it off the cert. Most boast of their stones being unheated :(
I would not trust a cert from 2011. In the interim, the stone could have been heated, oiled, irradiated, damaged etc.
Always insist on a recent one or get it re-tested.
 
Crimson said:
Oh n

Oh no, what a disappointment @Pomelo。
Since my 2022 thread I have noticed other rubies/sapphires with the same treatment. GIA’s comment is in fine print below so some sellers crop it off the cert. Most boast of their stones being unheated :(
I would not trust a cert from 2011. In the interim, the stone could have been heated, oiled, irradiated, damaged etc.
Always insist on a recent one or get it re-tested.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your wise words Crimson! I think what’s frustrating is that the GIA report makes it seem like an afterthought rather than a form of clarity enhancement that needs to be declared…
 
And a nail-in-the-coffin follow up to this, when I asked for the level of treatment:

“The fact that this comment is included suggests that the level is moderate to significant.”

So, when GIA states “An orange foreign material is present in surface reaching fractures”, it’s moderate to significant treatment but isn’t clear at all from the language!

I’m glad to have got to the bottom of it!

Pomelo said:
I just received an email back from GIA Japan about “wax is present”!

Basically, I think it’s coloured oil / wax. @Crimson brought up a similar discussion three years ago, and it’s because GIA changed the way it described this type of treatment (see below)
Crimson

Thread '“An orange foreign material is present in surface reaching fractures”'

I’ve noticed some GIA reports about ruby state that the stone is unheated but that “an orange foreign material is present in surface reaching fractures”. See, for example this: https://www.1stdibs.com/en-gb/jewel...-diamond-platinum-cocktail-ring/id-j_6749541/
Could anyone please help explain what this comment means? It sounds negative to me.
Thank you1
  • Like

Ahh I’m gutted, this stone was a strong contender… 2.0ct marquise

ETA: just removed the report number in case I change my mind about this stone haha

IMG_2195.jpeg


~~~

Dear client,

Thank you for your inquiry.

Brownish/orange stain have been observed in the fractures and it was not significant treatment level, so the report *123456789* issued in 2011 commented that it was wax in the additional comment section. This wax may improve clarity or color appearance of ruby.

https://www.gia.edu/gems-gemology/summer-2015-gemnews-unusual-filled-ruby

https://www.gia.edu/gems-gemology/summer-2017-microworld-oiled-ruby

Since 2014, this wax comment in the additional comment section has been updated to a different comment: An orange foreign material is present in surface reaching fractures.

Best regards,

GIA
Click to expand...
 
Pomelo said:
And a nail-in-the-coffin follow up to this, when I asked for the level of treatment:

“The fact that this comment is included suggests that the level is moderate to significant.”

So, when GIA states “An orange foreign material is present in surface reaching fractures”, it’s moderate to significant treatment but isn’t clear at all from the language!

I’m glad to have got to the bottom of it!
Click to expand...

Very interesting indeed! I'm glad you pursued it. :oops2:
 
Hello friends, me again with yet another question about ruby lab reports :geek2: By coincidence this is another marquise (not the same stone).

Is C1 basically saying the unit is glass/lead-filled?

IMG_2269.jpeg

And a Thai oval too:
IMG_2270.jpeg
 
Pomelo said:
Hello friends, me again with yet another question about ruby lab reports :geek2: By coincidence this is another marquise (not the same stone).

Is C1 basically saying the unit is glass/lead-filled?

IMG_2269.jpeg

And a Thai oval too:
IMG_2270.jpeg
Click to expand...

So with AIGS, "TE" stands for "thermal enhancement." They distinguish between fissures and cavities, the latter of which is represented by a "C." The number 1 next to each designation means the extent of residues present. So these stones are both heated with minor residues in their fissures as well as cavities. I have the wording somewhere... I'll see if I can find it.
 
Autumn in New England said:
So with AIGS, "TE" stands for "thermal enhancement." They distinguish between fissures and cavities, the latter of which is represented by a "C." The number 1 next to each designation means the extent of residues present. So these stones are both heated with minor residues in their fissures as well as cavities. I have the wording somewhere... I'll see if I can find it.
Click to expand...

Thank you Autumn!
Where I’m getting stuck is whether TE1 C1 is equivalent to eg “minor residues” at GIA? So the C1 is not as concerning as I thought it might be?
 
Pomelo said:
Thank you Autumn!
Where I’m getting stuck is whether TE1 C1 is equivalent to eg “minor residues” at GIA? So the C1 is not as concerning as I thought it might be?
Click to expand...

Exactly... this is along the same lines... heat with minor residues. GIA just doesn't distinguish between cavities and fissures.
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP

Featured Topics

Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top