Red sapphire

[fiona00004]

This is labelled as an estate item; red sapphire 10k gold ring. Seller says it was tested by presidium duotester. Could this stone still be synthetic? What are everyone's thoughts?

 

[Niel]

Based on the setting I would almost certainly assume it's synthetic. But if course, that's an assumption

 

[chrono]

I think some vendors call Songea diffused rubies Red Sapphires.

 

[Nsmike]

If you could get it under a microscope it should be easy to identify whether it's synthetic. Some sellers label all rubies with orange undertones as red sapphires. There is an off chance it's a natural stone depending on the actual age of the ring. Here's the problem, most synthetics produced in the early years tended to be more pinkish, at the same time orange undertones, weren't desirable in natural rubies. Also at that time, synthetic stones did not sell at a huge discount to natural stones, kind of like the man made diamond market is today. What I trying to say is that, with the orange undertones, the chances that it's a natural stone go from near zero to possible.

 

[stracci2000]

Being that your setting is 10k, I feel that it must be synthetic.
Fabulous stones are usually set into high carat gold.

 

[Nsmike]

Being that your setting is 10k, I feel that it must be synthetic.
Fabulous stones are usually set into high carat gold.

Here's 9 KT https://www.etsy.com/listing/277017624/large-genuine-natural-colorful-opal-and?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=art
Sterling https://www.etsy.com/listing/178837168/vintage-sterling-silver-fancy-scrolled?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=art%20deco%20ruby%20ring&ref=sr_gallery_13
10 KT ttps://www.etsy.com/listing/232271297/vintage-1960s-10k-solid-yellow-gold?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=art deco ruby ring&ref=sr_gallery_34
The OP's ring likely was made at a time (20's to 30's) proper color was very important and designers would choose a proper colored synthetic stone over an off colored natural stone. It doesn't mean your wrong, but an orangish synthetic, was just as likely as a large natural stone in a low Karat setting. The two synthetic processes used at the time can easily be seen under a microscope.

 

[arkieb1]

I kind of wondered if it is a ruby as well, depends if the setting is a true antique or not. They did make synthetic orange sapphires years ago but they tend to be a lot browner in colour than this one or if they are orange/red they often have this weird sparkly stuff in them that looks a bit like glitter....

They did however make a LOT of synthetic rubies back then that are that colour, and according to this in the 50s they made lab grown Pad sapphires this colour....

https://www.rubylane.com/item/746504-30x20caratx20sapphirex20pendant/Vintage-10K-Yellow-Gold-30-00?search=1

 

[Nsmike]

I kind of wondered if it is a ruby as well, depends if the setting is a true antique or not. They did make synthetic orange sapphires years ago but they tend to be a lot browner in colour than this one or if they are orange/red they often have this weird sparkly stuff in them that looks a bit like glitter....

They did however make a LOT of synthetic rubies back then that are that colour, and in the 50s they made lab grown Pad sapphires this colour....

I've looked at a lot of vintage rings, the one thing I've figured out, is that from about 1900 to 1940 you can't make assumptions. The finest designer setting could have a synthetic stone. On the flip side a low karat setting could have a natural stone especially if it's off color or sleepy. I haven't seen that many orangish red synthetics from that era, but then dealers may just avoid them.

 

[cm366]

Presidium says right on their website that their product does not distinguish between natural and synthetic gemstones, nor could it because corundum is corundum whether it's naturally formed or lab-grown. They have exactly the same chemical properties. The seller's test proves nothing about the stone's origin and if they think it does, that should be a HUGE red flag.

 

[Nsmike]

Presidium says right on their website that their product does not distinguish between natural and synthetic gemstones, nor could it because corundum is corundum whether it's naturally formed or lab-grown. They have exactly the same chemical properties. The seller's test proves nothing about the stone's origin and if they think it does, that should be a HUGE red flag.

That's true but under a microscope both flame fusion and crustal pull process stones are distinctive. The flame fusion leaves unique inclusions sometimes called finger prints The pull method creates curved striations. I was in the insurance business, after seeing many hail damaged cars, I notice if it's present on any car I walk by. A gemologist is the same way, once trained, the classic finger prints of a man made stone are obvious once magnified. Some of the newer processes are tougher to see, but on a vintage piece, being able to get it under a microscope is the biggest problem.

 

[arkieb1]

I kind of wondered if it is a ruby as well, depends if the setting is a true antique or not. They did make synthetic orange sapphires years ago but they tend to be a lot browner in colour than this one or if they are orange/red they often have this weird sparkly stuff in them that looks a bit like glitter....

They did however make a LOT of synthetic rubies back then that are that colour, and in the 50s they made lab grown Pad sapphires this colour....

I've looked at a lot of vintage rings, the one thing I've figured out, is that from about 1900 to 1940 you can't make assumptions. The finest designer setting could have a synthetic stone. On the flip side a low karat setting could have a natural stone especially if it's off color or sleepy. I haven't seen that many orangish red synthetics from that era, but then dealers may just avoid them.

You haven't seen many because they are fairly rare, they did however exist, so even if the stone is lab created (or not) if it sells for a bargain and the OP likes, provided the prices is right then it's probably worth buying. I understand what you are saying but the majority of sellers don't bother to even look under a scope, they just use a tester and it will test the same for real and synthetic sapphire, so unless it's taken either to a lab or someone who knows what they are looking at IRL we have no way of knowing for sure. Add to that the fact it looks very much like an Antique piece but it could be a really good replica from China with a $5.00 stone in it. I don't think that is the case but I've seen some pretty good copies too.

 

[cm366]

Presidium says right on their website that their product does not distinguish between natural and synthetic gemstones, nor could it because corundum is corundum whether it's naturally formed or lab-grown. They have exactly the same chemical properties. The seller's test proves nothing about the stone's origin and if they think it does, that should be a HUGE red flag.

That's true but under a microscope both flame fusion and crustal pull process stones are distinctive. The flame fusion leaves unique inclusions sometimes called finger prints The pull method creates curved striations. I was in the insurance business, after seeing many hail damaged cars, I notice if it's present on any car I walk by. A gemologist is the same way, once trained, the classic finger prints of a man made stone are obvious once magnified. Some of the newer processes are tougher to see, but on a vintage piece, being able to get it under a microscope is the biggest problem.

I suspect most experienced gemologists would say they're usually easy to identify, rather than always being obvious. That said, the OP's question is whether a stone tested with a Presidium machine can still be synthetic, and the answer is that A) Presidium testers do not separate synthetic sapphires from natural, with context B) that there are tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of synthetic rubies/red sapphires for every natural eye-clean 2+ct stone. I presume this stone has not been examined in person by an experienced gemologist trusted by the OP.

 

[fiona00004]

I have not purchased this ring, but the stone looks gorgeous. I wonder about synthetic vs natural because the sleepiness makes me wonder....wouldn't a synthetic be a lot more clearer? Why make a sleepy synthetic stone??

 

[OTL]

Looks like synthetic or heavily treated ruby to me.

 

[Nsmike]

It may very well be synthetic and probably should be priced as such without proof otherwise. The one assumption I make is that it's a pre 1940's ring. My argument is, that it's old enough to discount treatments, the color is outside the color range of synthetics for the era, then take into consideration that orange tones, were not popular, there is a reasonable chance it's a natural stone. It's an outlier, it doesn't fill well into any explanation, assume synthetic, but if you can get it under a microscope, don't be shocked if it turns out to be a natural stone.

 

[fiona00004]

It's being offered to me for $200...I dunno...Maybe I'll try to talk it down some more...