Sydneyphoenix
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2021
- Messages
- 433
I was thinking of hijacking @DiamondDuck ‘s thread or resurrect my old thread from last year but thought I might create a new one. My purchase of a ruby last year fell through and after a few months back in the market and found two interesting rubies.
First one is a 1.02ct no-heat ruby from Burma, with GRS certificate claiming vivid/pigeon-blood status. The caveat is that back in 2006 GRS may not have given “Mogok” designation and the vendor is >80% confident it will come back as “Mogok” upon re-certification; he promises to refund the certification costs if not “no-heat Mogok vivid/pigeon blood red”. Because I understand GIA to have stricter standard gor “pigeon blood” he is happy to send to GIA after a successful GRS re-certification. It seems to have more vivid, more pure red than the second one. On check with my eyes some rutile silk and I understand one or two tiny chips on pavilion, but somehow ChatGPT is picking up a small surface-reaching fissure half the time I analyse the video (but not the other half the time…); the vendor is confident there is no surface-reaching fissure. With depth ratio of 61.5%, was worried about windowing and there may be slight windowing on the second video but not a huge one. It is priced at $12,600 USD (probably about $12,900 including certifications), for 1.02ct, 6.1 x 5.1 x 3.1mm dimensions.
The second ruby is a 1.06ct claimed no-heat ruby allegedly from Mogok, with no certification at the moment but the vendor is confident it will come back as “no-heat Mogok vivid/pigeon-blood”, with no costs to me if the satisfactory designation is not met. Assuming GRS certification is successful they will proceed to GIA to see if it meets more strict “pigeon blood” criteria for extra $85, though the vendor is not as confident of the GIA outcome. On visual check, a bit more bright with possibly pink/purple undertone compared with the first one. Other than white crystals and rutile silk, there may be a dark inclusion near the centre (especially the second video) though not as obvious in other videos. ChatGPT consistently think there are one or two surface-reaching fissures (unlike the first ruby where it thought there’s a fissures omly about half the time), but I cannot see them and the vendor insists there are no surface-reaching fissures. I do not have dimensions (will find out hopefully next week with GRS report) but the cut seems to be executed well, without obvious windowing or extinctions. The price is $10,445 USD including pending GRS and GIA certifications, for 1.06ct
So which of the two do you prefer? The 1.02ct seems to have more vivid, truer red but it may have a small windowing, hopefully not badly once set. The 1.06ct is slightly more pinkish and while probably satisfies GRS pigeon-blood designation, might struggle against GIA criteria. It also seems to have a dark central inclusion per its second video but it’s slightly heavier (might be similar face up as 1.02ct has relatively shallow depth ratio) and about 20% cheaper.
Of course both (especially 1.06ct) may suffer from surface-reaching fissures but ChatGPT is being inconsistent with its placement and severity, and doesn’t detect one in 1.02ct in 35-50% of time. Given I can’t discern any despite multiple replays on videos (aside from vendors insisting there are no surface-reaching fissures for either of them), AI might be calling things where there’s none to be found.
If you prefer one over the other, or believe both have major problems please vote and/or let me know! I think I can stretch the budget to about $15,000 USD this time so 1.02ct being more expensive in itself won’t be a disqualification. Thank you in advance!
First one is a 1.02ct no-heat ruby from Burma, with GRS certificate claiming vivid/pigeon-blood status. The caveat is that back in 2006 GRS may not have given “Mogok” designation and the vendor is >80% confident it will come back as “Mogok” upon re-certification; he promises to refund the certification costs if not “no-heat Mogok vivid/pigeon blood red”. Because I understand GIA to have stricter standard gor “pigeon blood” he is happy to send to GIA after a successful GRS re-certification. It seems to have more vivid, more pure red than the second one. On check with my eyes some rutile silk and I understand one or two tiny chips on pavilion, but somehow ChatGPT is picking up a small surface-reaching fissure half the time I analyse the video (but not the other half the time…); the vendor is confident there is no surface-reaching fissure. With depth ratio of 61.5%, was worried about windowing and there may be slight windowing on the second video but not a huge one. It is priced at $12,600 USD (probably about $12,900 including certifications), for 1.02ct, 6.1 x 5.1 x 3.1mm dimensions.
The second ruby is a 1.06ct claimed no-heat ruby allegedly from Mogok, with no certification at the moment but the vendor is confident it will come back as “no-heat Mogok vivid/pigeon-blood”, with no costs to me if the satisfactory designation is not met. Assuming GRS certification is successful they will proceed to GIA to see if it meets more strict “pigeon blood” criteria for extra $85, though the vendor is not as confident of the GIA outcome. On visual check, a bit more bright with possibly pink/purple undertone compared with the first one. Other than white crystals and rutile silk, there may be a dark inclusion near the centre (especially the second video) though not as obvious in other videos. ChatGPT consistently think there are one or two surface-reaching fissures (unlike the first ruby where it thought there’s a fissures omly about half the time), but I cannot see them and the vendor insists there are no surface-reaching fissures. I do not have dimensions (will find out hopefully next week with GRS report) but the cut seems to be executed well, without obvious windowing or extinctions. The price is $10,445 USD including pending GRS and GIA certifications, for 1.06ct
So which of the two do you prefer? The 1.02ct seems to have more vivid, truer red but it may have a small windowing, hopefully not badly once set. The 1.06ct is slightly more pinkish and while probably satisfies GRS pigeon-blood designation, might struggle against GIA criteria. It also seems to have a dark central inclusion per its second video but it’s slightly heavier (might be similar face up as 1.02ct has relatively shallow depth ratio) and about 20% cheaper.
Of course both (especially 1.06ct) may suffer from surface-reaching fissures but ChatGPT is being inconsistent with its placement and severity, and doesn’t detect one in 1.02ct in 35-50% of time. Given I can’t discern any despite multiple replays on videos (aside from vendors insisting there are no surface-reaching fissures for either of them), AI might be calling things where there’s none to be found.
If you prefer one over the other, or believe both have major problems please vote and/or let me know! I think I can stretch the budget to about $15,000 USD this time so 1.02ct being more expensive in itself won’t be a disqualification. Thank you in advance!
300x240.png)