Yet another Burmese ruby comparison thread

[Sydneyphoenix]

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.

https://imgur.com/a/4QKOisn

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

https://imgur.com/a/0YHdydB

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!

 

[Autumn in New England]

Oh this is an easy one! The first stone all the way!! That is a fantastic ruby, my friend. The only issue I see is some windowing. But really... if the stone looks anything like it does in that video/photo, you have a very nice stone there at a great price.

P.S. I wanted to mention, and I may be wrong, but I don't believe GIA certifies Mogok origin (just Burma).

 

[Sydneyphoenix]

Oh this is an easy one! The first stone all the way!! That is a fantastic ruby, my friend. The only issue I see is some windowing. But really... if the stone looks anything like it does in that video/photo, you have a very nice stone there at a great price.

P.S. I wanted to mention, and I may be wrong, but I don't believe GIA certifies Mogok origin (just Burma).

Thank you. You are right about GIA, that’s why I am pursuing GIA + GRS dual certification; if GIA did Mogok designation, no need to spend money on GRS, I believe GRS has a broad accepted spectrum for pigeon-blood designation compared to GIA.

 

[Avondale]

I wouldn't go to chatGPT with this. It lacks the ability to understand what you're showing it, it just concocts up a word salad that's often only a hallucination and has no foundation in reality. ChatGPT creates the illusion that it knows what it's talking about, but it's only an LLM, it does not possess any understanding about any of the things it says.

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

Yeah, because GRS will slap "pigeon blood" on anything even remotely red. Their PB designation has all but been rendered useless.


The first stone has a window, yes. It's quite obvious. But everything else about the stone is great. Colour is lovely, it's clear and crystalline. It's the obvious winner.

The other stone is more raspberry red which I usually fawn over but somehow something about the cut makes it dark and lifeless.

 

[mellowyellowgirl]

Definitely the first! The first is much fresher looking! I can see dark patches on the second too so the window in the first doesn’t bother me that much.

 

[Crimson]

@Sydneyphoenix The first looks brighter and more true red. Can you get a side-by-side comparison?
The second one seems to have a dark heart - maybe more included(?)
Yes, go with GIA.
In any case, the cert from 2006 is way too old, and unacceptable.
The stones may have been heated since then, for example.
In 2006 the ability to detect low temperature heating may not have been developed yet so the stones may have passed for unheated then, but not now.
So definitely get them tested.

 

[dk168]

I voted for the second stone as the first one is too orange for my liking for the colour alone.

DK

 

[Sydneyphoenix]

I wouldn't go to chatGPT with this. It lacks the ability to understand what you're showing it, it just concocts up a word salad that's often only a hallucination and has no foundation in reality. ChatGPT creates the illusion that it knows what it's talking about, but it's only an LLM, it does not possess any understanding about any of the things it says.




Yeah, because GRS will slap "pigeon blood" on anything even remotely red. Their PB designation has all but been rendered useless.


The first stone has a window, yes. It's quite obvious. But everything else about the stone is great. Colour is lovely, it's clear and crystalline. It's the obvious winner.

The other stone is more raspberry red which I usually fawn over but somehow something about the cut makes it dark and lifeless.

Yeah, I think AI is finding surface-reaching fissure as I asked it to grade and value the stone “with attention to colour, eye-visible inclusions, surface-reaching fissures, possible windowing or extinctions”, going into tunnel vision to find fissures where there’s some reflective lighting.

Only use of GRS these days is to check Mogok origin, otherwise its PB standard is only marginally better than AIGS. If GIA did Mogok designation would’ve just gone with that all the way. The first stone’s windowing is more obvious in one video than the other, and given the stone is well-saturated, hopefully not as obvious once set in gold (when the gold price comes down a bit…). I thought second stone’s cut is its strength, but looking at it again after reading your take, yeah bright but maybe not very vibrant…

Definitely the first! The first is much fresher looking! I can see dark patches on the second too so the window in the first doesn’t bother me that much.

I took the still photos of the rubies where the 1.02ct show one of its more crystal while the 1.06ct distinctly show that dark inclusion under the table. Don’t mind little bit of windowing (hopefully can improve with setting), thank you for your take!

@Sydneyphoenix The first looks brighter and more true red. Can you get a side-by-side comparison?
The second one seems to have a dark heart - maybe more included(?)
Yes, go with GIA.
In any case, the cert from 2006 is way too old, and unacceptable.
The stones may have been heated since then, for example.
In 2006 the ability to detect low temperature heating may not have been developed yet so the stones may have passed for unheated then, but not now.
So definitely get them tested.

Two stones are from different vendor so can’t do side by side view. The first stone’s colour and clarity scores higher except for windowing (hopefully can be masked to an extent with good setting) and price, while the second one does have dark inclusion under the table (somehow not obvious in one of three videos, but still caught in two). Glad you like the colour in first one, you think it’s a fair price?

A great point about possibility of heating since 2006 or low heat passing undetected, should get re-tested by GRS for that, not just Mogok origin. But then GIA for PB status.

I voted for the second stone as the first one is too orange for my liking for the colour alone.

DK

Thank you! Yeah maybe a touch of orange or maybe pure stoplight red has a tinge of orange component? I wish the person who voted to stay away from both stone elaborated on why…

 

[VividRed]

Number one has better color but I don’t like the shape, too stretched for my taste. Number two looks a bit messy, and probably is.

The prices seem right.

Either way, you need WAY more pictures in natural daylight, not too zoomed in, and a few videos. And this is even before any certification.

Keep us posted

 

[Sydneyphoenix]

Number one has better color but I don’t like the shape, too stretched for my taste. Number two looks a bit messy, and probably is.

The prices seem right.

Either way, you need WAY more pictures in natural daylight, not too zoomed in, and a few videos. And this is even before any certification.

Keep us posted

Thank you. My plan (if gold price ever comes down) is to make Narya ring from LOTR movie, where Gandalf wore an elongated octagonal ruby. So the 1.02ct is a bit elongated oval (6.9 x 5.1mm) but doesn’t bother me so much.



The vendor for 1.02ct ruby sent some more still photos and videos but it was an overcast day, I will ask him to send more taken in bright daylight.

 

[VividRed]

Thank you. My plan (if gold price ever comes down) is to make Narya ring from LOTR movie, where Gandalf wore an elongated octagonal ruby. So the 1.02ct is a bit elongated oval (6.9 x 5.1mm) but doesn’t bother me so much.



The vendor for 1.02ct ruby sent some more still photos and videos but it was an overcast day, I will ask him to send more taken in bright daylight.

Overcast weather (i.e. scattered light) is perfect. If the ruby does not look good in these conditions, it likely won’t otherwise. That’s my experience with rubies anyway.

Bright daylight is “only” a test to check if it dies, many rubies do

 

[Sydneyphoenix]

Overcast weather (i.e. scattered light) is perfect. If the ruby does not look good in these conditions, it likely won’t otherwise. That’s my experience with rubies anyway.

Bright daylight is “only” a test to check if it dies, many rubies do

Not the best performer under the overcast weather without extra light I fear @VividRed, and the videos mostly focusing on the pavilion but some table-up segments too. Do other rubies perform better in this condition?

https://imgur.com/a/W95piFg

 

[Autumn in New England]

Yeah maybe a touch of orange or maybe pure stoplight red has a tinge of orange component? I wish the person who voted to stay away from both stone elaborated on why…

I'm pretty sensitive to orange tones in rubies, and I really don't see any in that first one. It looks fairly pure to me!

 

[Autumn in New England]

Not the best performer under the overcast weather without extra light I fear @VividRed, and the videos mostly focusing on the pavilion but some table-up segments too. Do other rubies perform better in this condition?

https://imgur.com/a/W95piFg

It's difficult to tell whether it's performing badly here (and it certainly doesn't look great), or if this is simply a poor/too dark video. But one thing you definitely need to consider is that window. I don't know how tolerant you are of them, but it's there. The trade off with my ruby was a bit of silk... there always seems to be one with rubies. But if you can limit it to just one, you're doing well. Don't compromise on the color though.

 

[Sydneyphoenix]

It's difficult to tell whether it's performing badly here (and it certainly doesn't look great), or if this is simply a poor/too dark video. But one thing you definitely need to consider is that window. I don't know how tolerant you are of them, but it's there. The trade off with my ruby was a bit of silk... there always seems to be one with rubies. But if you can limit it to just one, you're doing well. Don't compromise on the color though.

Yeah windowing is there but doesn’t distract me so much, given the intensity of the colour, at least in good lighting. Hopefully can mask it a bit in good setting anyway.

I'm pretty sensitive to orange tones in rubies, and I really don't see any in that first one. It looks fairly pure to me!

I don’t see much orange either but @dk168 sees something. Wouldn’t orange be accentuated in yellow gold setting btw?

 

[Autumn in New England]

Yeah windowing is there but doesn’t distract me so much, given the intensity of the colour, at least in good lighting. Hopefully can mask it a bit in good setting anyway.



I don’t see much orange either but @dk168 sees something. Wouldn’t orange be accentuated in yellow gold setting btw?

I agree... a well-saturated stone definitely helps hide cutting defects, and mounting it will close the window even further. In my opinion, setting it in yellow gold could actually downplay any warm tones. The opposite of orange is blue (which would enhance each other). I see no problem with setting it in YG (and I really don't see orange anyway, although our eyeballs are all different).

So I think what you really need to decide on is color. Without driving the seller crazy, I might ask for another video outside in the shade. I really feel that last video itself is horrid.

 

[Sydneyphoenix]

Found another video going in the other extreme, full blast on UV light, and what made the vendor reasonably confident about Mogok origin to have it re-certified.

https://imgur.com/a/fXsINNp

Interesting that no one commented on surface-reaching fissures thus far while AI kept on harping on about it, I guess no significant fissures on either ruby?

P.S. any examples of good-performing rubies on overcast indoor setting with minimal extra light?

 

[VividRed]

1.01ct Mogok, unheated.

Overcast weather, indoor shot, 5m from the window. White background, no tricks.

This was 10k. It would probably cost 20k (retail) today.

 

[Autumn in New England]

Found another video going in the other extreme, full blast on UV light, and what made the vendor reasonably confident about Mogok origin to have it re-certified.

https://imgur.com/a/fXsINNp

Interesting that no one commented on surface-reaching fissures thus far while AI kept on harping on about it, I guess no significant fissures on either ruby?

P.S. any examples of good-performing rubies on overcast indoor setting with minimal extra light?

Yeah, she's glowing quite nicely there! You know, this may be a scenario where you need to get it home. As you're already aware, just be sure you have a generous return/refund policy.

We're kind of spoiled by all the fine rubies we see here, but I try to remind myself that what most people think of in terms of ruby, are those pink/purple, nearly opaque, dark, often heavily-treated monstrosities. So to answer your question about any clarity features that would give me pause in this stone... nope. It looks very clean for this material!

 

[Autumn in New England]

1.01ct Mogok, unheated.

Overcast weather, indoor shot, 5m from the window. White background, no tricks.

This was 10k. It would probably cost 20k (retail) today.

She's positively gorgeous! Do your natural light photos often look this warm/yellow? Mine are always so blue/cool, which sucks the life out of everything but, well, blue stones!

 

[Autumn in New England]

3.12ct, Mozambique, unheated, strong fluorescence. This is my dream stone... except for the silk. That was my compromise. It's eye clean otherwise, and the silk is not so heavy as to cloud the stone or obscure pavilion facets, but @VividRed's looks more crystalline, which I prefer. I guess the silk does give her a glow though. Some folks even prefer it... I like my stones crystal clear.

This is near a picture window, no indoor light, on a mostly cloudy day.

 

[VividRed]

3.12ct, Mozambique, unheated, strong fluorescence. This is my dream stone... except for the silk. That was my compromise. It's eye clean otherwise, and the silk is not so heavy as to cloud the stone or obscure pavilion facets, but @VividRed's looks more crystalline, which I prefer. I guess the silk does give her a glow though. Some folks even prefer it... I like my stones crystal clear.

This is near a picture window, no indoor light, on a mostly cloudy day.

Well, this as good as it gets. It’s that simple

 

[Autumn in New England]

Well, this as good as it gets. It’s that simple

And I feel the same about yours... plus it has the provenance. Our rubies should get together some time for a cocktail.

 

[Sydneyphoenix]

1.01ct Mogok, unheated.

Overcast weather, indoor shot, 5m from the window. White background, no tricks.

This was 10k. It would probably cost 20k (retail) today.

3.12ct, Mozambique, unheated, strong fluorescence. This is my dream stone... except for the silk. That was my compromise. It's eye clean otherwise, and the silk is not so heavy as to cloud the stone or obscure pavilion facets, but @VividRed's looks more crystalline, which I prefer. I guess the silk does give her a glow though. Some folks even prefer it... I like my stones crystal clear.

This is near a picture window, no indoor light, on a mostly cloudy day.

They are lovely photos of beautiful rubies. I asked the vendor of 1.02ct ruby to put up some more videos in daylight and in shadows. Hopefully this turn out to be good too.

 

[Sydneyphoenix]

Yeah, she's glowing quite nicely there! You know, this may be a scenario where you need to get it home. As you're already aware, just be sure you have a generous return/refund policy.

We're kind of spoiled by all the fine rubies we see here, but I try to remind myself that what most people think of in terms of ruby, are those pink/purple, nearly opaque, dark, often heavily-treated monstrosities. So to answer your question about any clarity features that would give me pause in this stone... nope. It looks very clean for this material!

Glad to get a vote of confidence on 1.02ct’s clarity. The windowing is in acceptable range for me, and colour in first batch was lovely (not sure what happened with second batch in overcast weather). I asked the vendor for more videos, and then he will get it re-certified by GRS then go to GIA too. Only certification cost to be billed for GRS, then only if assuming it’s satisfactory (otherwise refund the certification cost) pay deposit prior to sending to GIA, half the deposit to be returned if not Burmese no-heat pigeon blood. Only after satisfactory GRS and GIA certifications I pay and have the stone sent to Australia. The vendor has a return policy but for store credit rather than refund.

 

[DiamondDuck]

I prefer the red one because I'm biased towards brighter red

Not very related, but while I'm not an expert about gems, but I happen to be well-informed about ChatGPT because computer science is my research master degree.

Basically, NEVER use ChatGPT for things that require factual and precise conclusions. ChatGPT make up things ("hallucinate") that isn't there, or doesn't recognize things that are there, it will just make paragraphs that SOUND correct, but can be completely wrong. When asked to "point out in the photo where is the black inclusion", it can make up a new image with a fake inclusion inserted and put a red circle around that.

So ChatGPT is essentially worthless when it comes to professional gem grading.

 

[Sydneyphoenix]

I prefer the red one because I'm biased towards brighter red

Not very related, but while I'm not an expert about gems, but I happen to be well-informed about ChatGPT because computer science is my research master degree.

Basically, NEVER use ChatGPT for things that require factual and precise conclusions. ChatGPT make up things ("hallucinate") that isn't there, or doesn't recognize things that are there, it will just make paragraphs that SOUND correct, but can be completely wrong. When asked to "point out in the photo where is the black inclusion", it can make up a new image with a fake inclusion inserted and put a red circle around that.

So ChatGPT is essentially worthless when it comes to professional gem grading.

You mean you like the first one, 1.02ct? Thank you for your input on ChatGPT, indeed it makes fuss about surface-reaching fissures where I can’t see one after many replays, and doesn’t think much of windowing (maybe not severe but it’s there) in the last clip for the 1.02ct. Also not making much fuss about the central dark inclusions in 1.06ct ruby. Its output in gemological evaluation should be taken with a pinch of salt it seems.

 

[Avondale]

3.12ct, Mozambique, unheated, strong fluorescence. This is my dream stone... except for the silk. That was my compromise. It's eye clean otherwise, and the silk is not so heavy as to cloud the stone or obscure pavilion facets, but @VividRed's looks more crystalline, which I prefer. I guess the silk does give her a glow though. Some folks even prefer it... I like my stones crystal clear.

This is near a picture window, no indoor light, on a mostly cloudy day.

This is the only thing I don't understand about you. How can you dislike silk? Silk maketh ruby! And all corundum really. Silk is queen! Everything is better with silk. You are in possession of one of the most spectacular and perfect rubies I've seen on this board, and you dislike one of the attributes that make it so perfect! Why, woman? Why?

@Sydneyphoenix No one is talking about surface reaching fractures because the presence of those is evaluated through utilising a loupe and a torch (to create surface reflections off the facets). It is objectively impossible for anyone to discern whether such fractures are present by relatively low quality photos and videos such as shared on the internet. The same applies to any general LLM you as a regular citizen might have access to. I honestly don't know why you're so hung up on the things chatGPT is writing when you can see the inconsistencies yourself. It's feeding you nonsense, just ignore it and don't bother worrying about it.

 

[Sydneyphoenix]

This is the only thing I don't understand about you. How can you dislike silk? Silk maketh ruby! And all corundum really. Silk is queen! Everything is better with silk. You are in possession of one of the most spectacular and perfect rubies I've seen on this board, and you dislike one of the attributes that make it so perfect! Why, woman? Why?

@Sydneyphoenix No one is talking about surface reaching fractures because the presence of those is evaluated through utilising a loupe and a torch (to create surface reflections off the facets). It is objectively impossible for anyone to discern whether such fractures are present by relatively low quality photos and videos such as shared on the internet. The same applies to any general LLM you as a regular citizen might have access to. I honestly don't know why you're so hung up on the things chatGPT is writing when you can see the inconsistencies yourself. It's feeding you nonsense, just ignore it and don't bother worrying about it.

Fair enough. Just hung up about surface-reaching fissures after previous ones I viewed last year got pinged for obvious fissures. AI also provided what appeared to be interesting assessment of gemstones that sounded plausible but guess they still have a way to go, gemologists not going out of jobs anytime soon!

 

[mellowyellowgirl]

I’m with @Avondale on this. Sparkly corundum doesn’t do it for me. I want glow!

That said I’m not into the opalescent stuff which ain’t silk and looks like someone contaminated the stone with spilt milk.

Your ruby is glorious @Autumn in New England.