Ruby Question

[joflier]

Ok......I''m going through some boxes that I''ve aquired of vintage jewelery. Its a big mix of stuff, some costume, some fine. There are 2 pieces that I''ve run across that I''m questioning if the stones are rubies or not. The first piece is a large oval shaped reddish stone that is in a very old 14k yg bezel style setting. Its really hard to get a good look at the stone because of the setting itself. So my question with this piece......is it possible for a ruby to have scratches? There is a small scratch on the table. If I remember right, rubies are very hard, so I''m thinking that this probably makes this a synthetic....I''ll post a couple pictures. Its a gorgeous piece, even if its not real. When its on, it has a very rich red color. When its up against a light, its more of a purple/red. So if anyone has any thoughts or ideas, let me know. I don''t really want to spend the money on having a jeweler look at it right now.

 

[joflier]

....

 

[joflier]

Its such a neat piece....

 

[joflier]

Its really dirty on the underside, and I just can''t seem to get the gunk outta there. The setting makes it kinda hard to clean out...

 

[joflier]

My other question is, do rubies always have a cloudy look? I have another piece - its a heart shaped red stone that's set in a pendant with some diamonds. The diamonds are genunine, but not sure of the (ruby)? Its super sparkly and very clear. The color is super rich.......maybe too rich to be a ruby. I just don't know much of anything about colored stones. Thanks guys!

ETA - this stone is much more red irl.

 

[T L]

I highly doubt the first one is a ruby because #1) it doesn't really look right, and #2) the only thing that can scratch a real ruby is a sapphire or another ruby (corundum) or a diamond.

The heart pendant looks more like a ruby, but you need to take it into a gemologist to make sure. It could also be a garnet or some other reddish stone. If it is a real ruby, and it has not been treated in any way, that's a good thing. Just because it's a ruby doens't make it valuable, especially if it's a lead glass filled ruby. It could also be a synthetic ruby as well, and those are not valuable.

 

[mochi]

I''m new to gemstones, so I can''t really put my two cents worth but I''m really lovin the ring setting!!

 

[joflier]

Date: 11/25/2008 5:13:02 PM
Author: tourmaline_lover
I highly doubt the first one is a ruby because #1) it doesn''t really look right, and #2) the only thing that can scratch a real ruby is a sapphire or another ruby (corundum) or a diamond.

The heart pendant looks more like a ruby, but you need to take it into a gemologist to make sure. It could also be a garnet or some other reddish stone. If it is a real ruby, and it has not been treated in any way, that''s a good thing. Just because it''s a ruby doens''t make it valuable, especially if it''s a lead glass filled ruby. It could also be a synthetic ruby as well, and those are not valuable.

Lead glass filled? I''ve never heard of that

 

[LD]

Oh dear I think you'll get lots of differing opinions!!! Normally I'd agree with TL but in this case I'd say the opposite (sorry TL!). The first one looks like it could be a ruby only because of the darker areas you can see and if this were a synthetic, it'd probably be clearer and wouldn't have the darker areas. IF it's an old ring/ruby then there is every chance it's been scratched somewhere along the way. However, I do need to add that if you don't know it's age/history, it may well be a modern stone and in which case it may well be glass/lead filled. This is unfortunately fairly common now and it's a way of treating a ruby to make it look nicer than it is in it's natural state. Sometimes the fills are just along facet lines and sometimes they're elsewhere in the gemstone. The other thing that worries me about this stone is the dark ring you can see in the photo of the underside. It could just be the dirt you mentioned but the ring looks to be fairly uniform all round.

The second one however I don't think is a ruby and the setting looks modern rather than vintage. The colour (if the photograph is a true representation of colour) is a little too pink and I'd say that this, if it's not synthetic, is either from the tourmaline or garnet family.

Having said all of that, it's impossible to tell from a photograph exactly what you have. Why don't you pop into your local jeweller and see if he can test them for you?

 

[coatimundi_org]

hallo Jodi,

Impossible to tell from the photos. Is the first (oval) stone included at all? Corundum is hard but it can still be scratched--even diamonds can be abraded over time. If it's synthetic ruby it will still have the same properties as natural ruby, so it wouldn't be any softer. If it's a simulant, then it can be anything which mimics ruby.

The second (heart-shape) stone could very well be a ruby. It could be synthetic or natural or it could be another stone entirely.

In any case, I think the setting is really cool on the first ring. You could pop into a jeweler to get a quick and probably free opinion, and if you feel compelled to delve further, lab is a good idea.

From,
your (Dutch) cousin

 

[joflier]

Date: 11/25/2008 5:48:41 PM
Author: LovingDiamonds
Oh dear I think you''ll get lots of differing opinions!!! Normally I''d agree with TL but in this case I''d say the opposite (sorry TL!). The first one looks like it could be a ruby only because of the darker areas you can see and if this were a synthetic, it''d probably be clearer and wouldn''t have the darker areas. IF it''s an old ring/ruby then there is every chance it''s been scratched somewhere along the way. However, I do need to add that if you don''t know it''s age/history, it may well be a modern stone and in which case it may well be glass/lead filled. This is unfortunately fairly common now and it''s a way of treating a ruby to make it look nicer than it is in it''s natural state. Sometimes the fills are just along facet lines and sometimes they''re elsewhere in the gemstone. The other thing that worries me about this stone is the dark ring you can see in the photo of the underside. It could just be the dirt you mentioned but the ring looks to be fairly uniform all round.

The second one however I don''t think is a ruby and the setting looks modern rather than vintage. The colour (if the photograph is a true representation of colour) is a little too pink and I''d say that this, if it''s not synthetic, is either from the tourmaline or garnet family.

Having said all of that, it''s impossible to tell from a photograph exactly what you have. Why don''t you pop into your local jeweller and see if he can test them for you?

Lovingdiamonds

I know, its basically impossible to tell from a photograph. But I just wanted some opinions. I wish I had a jeweler that I was familiar with that I could talk to. The one I''ve had for several years sold his business recently and is living out of state. I don''t know why, but I''m always really intimidated by jewelers. I guess the few that I''ve been to that I don''t really know have all been very rude to me. But I''m getting off topic.

The oval piece - the setting itself appears to be very dated. That''s one of the reasons I question if it could be a ruby, is because of the setting. This style of setting, and just from the wear of it, could easily be pre-turn-of-the-century, or right around that time period. How many synthetic stones were set in gold in that era? Maybe quite a few.....I''m not sure. But not many people have modern pieces of 14k gold set with fake stones. Plus being its a bezel, its not something that a stone could be easily reset without ruining the setting itself.

The ring that you see on the underside, I believe, is from the bezel on top. thanks for your response, even though I can''t tell anything for sure, I appreciate the education from ''yal!!!

 

[joflier]

thank you, mochi - I really like the setting too. Its very delicate!

thanks for your response tourmaline lover - I really appreciate everyone''s opinons - I need to start educating myself more on colored stones!!

 

[joflier]

Date: 11/25/2008 6:47:37 PM
Author: coatimundi
hallo Jodi,

Impossible to tell from the photos. Is the first (oval) stone included at all? Corundum is hard but it can still be scratched--even diamonds can be abraded over time. If it''s synthetic ruby it will still have the same properties as natural ruby, so it wouldn''t be any softer. If it''s a simulant, then it can be anything which mimics ruby.

The second (heart-shape) stone could very well be a ruby. It could be synthetic or natural or it could be another stone entirely.

In any case, I think the setting is really cool on the first ring. You could pop into a jeweler to get a quick and probably free opinion, and if you feel compelled to delve further, lab is a good idea.

From,
your (Dutch) cousin

Hi Dutch Cuz Coati!!!

See that''s where I''m running into trouble with the first piece. It looks to be included......but its hard to tell, because there is still some grime on the underside of the stone. I have a jewel brush that I use, but I can only get right around the crevises of the basket. Any suggestions how I can get that gunk to loosen up? Maybe I''ll give it a good warm water soap soak and see if that helps. (I think the gunk is about as old as the ring) It looks more included when its on my finger, but when I hold it up to the light, it clears up a bit, but then all I can see are the shadows of the basket. I suppose its possible that it got scratched, being that its been tossed around in a bag with other jewelery for who knows how long.
I''m starting to think the 2nd piece could possibly be a tourmaline. But who the heck knows!

 

[Kelli]

I''m no help whatsoever but they sure are pretty!

 

[T L]

I think if you post a link to this thread in "Rocky Talky," some other gemologists might chime in on this. I don't know, the first one doesn't really fit the ruby bill for me, but I could be dead wrong - I don't claim to be an expert. I suspect it's some sort of glass, or synthetic stone, but the picture isn't very good. Are the facet edges sharp or full of abrasions and cuts (it's probably hard to see without a loupe). Pretty ring though, and nice setting.

 

[joflier]

Date: 11/26/2008 12:33:56 AM
Author: Kelli
I''m no help whatsoever but they sure are pretty!

lol - Thanx kelli!

 

[oldmancoyote]

Date: 11/25/2008 9:29:17 PM
Author: joflier
Lovingdiamonds

I know, its basically impossible to tell from a photograph. But I just wanted some opinions. I wish I had a jeweler that I was familiar with that I could talk to. The one I've had for several years sold his business recently and is living out of state. I don't know why, but I'm always really intimidated by jewelers. I guess the few that I've been to that I don't really know have all been very rude to me. But I'm getting off topic.

The oval piece - the setting itself appears to be very dated. That's one of the reasons I question if it could be a ruby, is because of the setting. This style of setting, and just from the wear of it, could easily be pre-turn-of-the-century, or right around that time period. How many synthetic stones were set in gold in that era? Maybe quite a few.....I'm not sure. But not many people have modern pieces of 14k gold set with fake stones. Plus being its a bezel, its not something that a stone could be easily reset without ruining the setting itself.

The ring that you see on the underside, I believe, is from the bezel on top. thanks for your response, even though I can't tell anything for sure, I appreciate the education from 'yal!!!

I don't think it's as old as that; it looks 1940s to me. However, bear in mind that the Verneuil process for making synthetic rubies (and sapphires) was perfected in the early 1900s and quite a few synthetics are found in jewellery from about 1910 to 1930 because they were the "in" thing at the time.

 

[joflier]

Date: 11/26/2008 12:41:20 AM
Author: tourmaline_lover
I think if you post a link to this thread in ''Rocky Talky,'' some other gemologists might chime in on this. I don''t know, the first one doesn''t really fit the ruby bill for me, but I could be dead wrong - I don''t claim to be an expert. I suspect it''s some sort of glass, or synthetic stone, but the picture isn''t very good. Are the facet edges sharp or full of abrasions and cuts (it''s probably hard to see without a loupe). Pretty ring though, and nice setting.

I''m getting it a little cleaner after lots of soaking. It seems to be fairly clear. I''m leaning towards it being glass. The edges appear sharp to the naked eye. I have a loupe somewhere......well whatever it is, I do really like it. Its got a cool look to it.

 

[joflier]

Date: 11/26/2008 10:50:35 AM
Author: oldmancoyote
I don''t think it''s as old as that; it looks 1940s to me. However, bear in mind that the Verneuil process for making synthetic rubies (and sapphires) was perfected in the early 1900s and quite a few synthetics are found in jewellery from about 1910 to 1930 because they were the ''in'' thing at the time.

Haha - the ''in'' thing. Funny how times change. Thats interesting - thanks for the info!

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 11/25/2008 9:29:17 PM
Author: joflier
Lovingdiamonds

I know, its basically impossible to tell from a photograph. But I just wanted some opinions. I wish I had a jeweler that I was familiar with that I could talk to. The one I've had for several years sold his business recently and is living out of state. I don't know why, but I'm always really intimidated by jewelers. I guess the few that I've been to that I don't really know have all been very rude to me. But I'm getting off topic.

The oval piece - the setting itself appears to be very dated. That's one of the reasons I question if it could be a ruby, is because of the setting. This style of setting, and just from the wear of it, could easily be pre-turn-of-the-century, or right around that time period. How many synthetic stones were set in gold in that era? Maybe quite a few.....I'm not sure. But not many people have modern pieces of 14k gold set with fake stones. Plus being its a bezel, its not something that a stone could be easily reset without ruining the setting itself.

The ring that you see on the underside, I believe, is from the bezel on top. thanks for your response, even though I can't tell anything for sure, I appreciate the education from 'yal!!!

Lots of synthetics were set in gold and in platinum - they were highly prized when they first appeared on the market.

I have quite a big collection of synthetics - including a number of early pieces from the 1880's . My gut feeling on yours is that it is NOT a synthetic because it doesn't look good enough quality. Synthetics tend to resemble the finest rubies, sapphires, emeralds etc. Fine early synthetics aren't always that cheap either!

It could be a garnet-topped doublet where the top is a garnet and the bottom is coloured glass - a bezel setting would hide the give-away signs at the girdle.

I'm pretty certain it's not a solid garnet as the colour is too light.

There are things you could check - is the stone singly or doubly refractive? In other words, if you look through the stone with a loupe, can you see doubling of the back facets? If so, it is more likely to be a ruby. Also see if you can see any inclusions within the stone - these can help with ID.

Lots of old sapphires and rubies will have scratches and chipped facets, so yes it is possible for a ruby to be scratched.

To be honest you need to take it to be tested.


The second piece I would guess is either a garnet or a ruby.

 

[joflier]

Date: 11/26/2008 11:01:39 AM
Author: Pandora II
Lots of synthetics were set in gold and in platinum - they were highly prized when they first appeared on the market.

I have quite a big collection of synthetics - including a number of early pieces from the 1880''s . My gut feeling on yours is that it is NOT a synthetic because it doesn''t look good enough quality. Synthetics tend to resemble the finest rubies, sapphires, emeralds etc. Fine early synthetics aren''t always that cheap either!

It could be a garnet-topped doublet where the top is a garnet and the bottom is coloured glass - a bezel setting would hide the give-away signs at the girdle.

I''m pretty certain it''s not a solid garnet as the colour is too light.

There are things you could check - is the stone singly or doubly refractive? In other words, if you look through the stone with a loupe, can you see doubling of the back facets? If so, it is more likely to be a ruby. Also see if you can see any inclusions within the stone - these can help with ID.

Lots of old sapphires and rubies will have scratches and chipped facets, so yes it is possible for a ruby to be scratched.

To be honest you need to take it to be tested.


The second piece I would guess is either a garnet or a ruby.

Can you better explain what doubling back of the facets mean, or would look like? That''s interesting about a garnet doublet. Actually now that its a little cleaner, it resembles a garnet more than a ruby. Although I agree with you, that the coloring seems a bit light to be that.
What type of inclusions are in rubies? Do they have black spots like diamonds do?

 

[coatimundi_org]

Here's an example of doubling. See how the facet junctions(where the facets meet) "double?"

Rubys have a variety of inclusions, which include fingerprints (partially healed fractures that resemble human finger prints), included crystals, rutile silk (very fine needle like inclusions), larger (fuzzy looking) bohemite needles, and straight and angular/irregular growth (looks like a zigzag pattern). If a ruby has been heat treated you may see broken silk and discoid fractures/melt relics.

If it is a flame fusion synthetic it will be clean for the most part, but flame fusion synthetics may contain gas bubbles--look out for those--natural corundum won't have gas bubbles with the exception of borax filled rubies, but your stone would've been around before they started using that method. Also flame fusion synthetics may show curved striae (looks like curved bands) but you won't see that without a microscope.

Natural ruby will generally have an indicative inclusion. It may be a garnet and glass doublet, a garnet, or simply a flame fusion synthetic, but the only real way to ascertain would be to send it to a lab.

Is the oval a purplish red? Looks like it from the photo.

Whatup Cuz?

 

[joflier]

Date: 11/26/2008 11:54:45 AM
Author: coatimundi
Here''s an example of doubling. See how the facet junctions(where the facets meet) ''double?''

Rubys have a variety of inclusions, which include fingerprints (partially healed fractures that resemble human finger prints), included crystals, rutile silk (very fine needle like inclusions), larger (fuzzy looking) bohemite needles, and straight and angular/irregular growth (looks like a zigzag pattern). If a ruby has been heat treated you may see broken silk and discoid fractures/melt relics.

If it is a flame fusion synthetic it will be clean for the most part, but flame fusion synthetics may contain gas bubbles--look out for those--natural corundum won''t have gas bubbles with the exception of borax filled rubies, but your stone would''ve been around before they started using that method. Also flame fusion synthetics may show curved striae (looks like curved bands) but you won''t see that without a microscope.

Natural ruby will generally have an indicative inclusion. It may be a garnet and glass doublet, a garnet, or simply a flame fusion synthetic, but the only real way to ascertain would be to send it to a lab.

Is the oval a purplish red? Looks like it from the photo.

Whatup Cuz?

Thanks for the pic - that makes sense. I''ll have to dig around for my loupy-loupe. Thanx for bestowing some of your newfound education on me!!!!!

After getting it cleaned up - even to the naked eye, it looks too clear for a ruby.
With the camera flash it takes on a purple/red color, but just under regular light, its more red, with no purple.

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 11/26/2008 12:18:51 PM
Author: joflier
Thanks for the pic - that makes sense. I'll have to dig around for my loupy-loupe. Thanx for bestowing some of your newfound education on me!!!!!

After getting it cleaned up - even to the naked eye, it looks too clear for a ruby.

With the camera flash it takes on a purple/red color, but just under regular light, its more red, with no purple.

You're welcome, Miss! I wish I could look at it under a microscope--I love gem ident!

Oh, and clean to the eye can be misleading--examine it with the loupe. If it's a synthetic ruby, you may not be able to see minute gas bubbles with a loupe.

eta: Take it outside and view it in sunlight. Flame fusion synthetic rubies will fluoresce red under longwave uv. The uv from the sun will cause the stone to glow a little. (also, just noticed that I wrote "rubys" instead of "rubies" in my above post--please ignore my sleepy typos haHa!)

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 11/26/2008 11:23:35 AM
Author: joflier
Can you better explain what doubling back of the facets mean, or would look like? That's interesting about a garnet doublet. Actually now that its a little cleaner, it resembles a garnet more than a ruby. Although I agree with you, that the coloring seems a bit light to be that.
What type of inclusions are in rubies? Do they have black spots like diamonds do?

If you look at through the table of the stone (the flat facet on the top) you should be able to see the lines of the facets of the bottom of the stone. Does each line look clear and single or does it look like a double rather fuzzy line?

You will need a x10 loupe to look for this?

I tried to find some photos, but none of them showed the effect very clearly.

It would take a chapter - or even a whole book to describe inclusions in rubies. It's easier if you just describe anything that you can see inside the stone and that should give some indication towards an ID. Again you will need a loupe for this.

ETA: Was just about to post the photo Coati has - you beat me to it

I'm very intrigued by this one - do you have a new pics now that you've cleaned it up. If it's now very transparent, I'd probably start to lean more towards a synthetic...

 

[joflier]

Date: 11/26/2008 12:21:36 PM
Author: coatimundi


You''re welcome, Miss! I wish I could look at it under a microscope--I love gem ident!

Oh, and clean to the eye can be misleading--examine it with the loupe. If it''s a synthetic ruby, you may not be able to see minute gas bubbles with a loupe.

eta: Take it outside and view it in sunlight. Flame fusion synthetic rubies will fluoresce red under longwave uv. The uv from the sun will cause the stone to glow a little. (also, just noticed that I wrote ''rubys'' instead of ''rubies'' in my above post--please ignore my sleepy typos haHa!)

I wish you could too, that would be fun.......and believe me, I have a lot of mystery stones to keep you busy for awhile! I''ll have to try looking in the sun.......although that might not be until April around here!

 

[T L]

I just wanted to say, I love this thread. Very informative!!

 

[joflier]

Date: 11/26/2008 12:37:52 PM
Author: Pandora II

If you look at through the table of the stone (the flat facet on the top) you should be able to see the lines of the facets of the bottom of the stone. Does each line look clear and single or does it look like a double rather fuzzy line?

You will need a x10 loupe to look for this?

I tried to find some photos, but none of them showed the effect very clearly.

It would take a chapter - or even a whole book to describe inclusions in rubies. It''s easier if you just describe anything that you can see inside the stone and that should give some indication towards an ID. Again you will need a loupe for this.

Thanks Pandora.......I''m at work with no loupe, but when I find it, I''ll let ya''ll know if I see anything!

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 11/26/2008 12:37:52 PM

Author: Pandora II


It would take a chapter - or even a whole book to describe inclusions in rubies. It's easier if you just describe anything that you can see inside the stone and that should give some indication towards an ID. Again you will need a loupe for this.

True this...and how!
I was just looking through my lab manual...

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 11/26/2008 12:47:12 PM
Author: coatimundi

Date: 11/26/2008 12:37:52 PM

Author: Pandora II


It would take a chapter - or even a whole book to describe inclusions in rubies. It''s easier if you just describe anything that you can see inside the stone and that should give some indication towards an ID. Again you will need a loupe for this.

True this...and how!
I was just looking through my lab manual...

I also confess that I was feeling lazy and didn''t want to write big descriptions of all the major ones. Very bad of me I know!

What are you doing with your time now you''ve finished your GG?

I''ve got my first set of exams in June - 3 weeks after baby is due. I must be crazy!