Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:29 pm Posts: 1047 Location: Paris
What will happen if somebody purchases a piece of that stuff and all the gemologists who know nothing about it can check through this piece that it is by no means natural red apatite, and make it public ?
Maybe we'll find out. As-is, nobody seems to be volunteering to pony up the cash. That said, even if it's treated, is there any way a gemologist could say for sure just by looking at a stone? Apatite is heated at low temperatures, and gamma irradiation isn't likely to leave any signs.
Was watching the gem shopping show 2 days ago & watched one of their suppliers show a new stone he says was discovered 3 yrs ago off the african? coast. He found a very small vein of this material & purchased almost all from the mine, he says. He has just finished cutting & mounting the stones for the gem shopping network & they are the sole supplier of the total collection. The stones are colored a dark pinkish red, look clean, & good sizes from @2cts to 30cts a stone, the hardness is same as blue apatite, @5 on the Mohs scale, since there is a finite amount for sale, this is a collector item but mounting should be done in a pendent because its easy to mar the material. Anybody heard of this before?-
The burden of proof should be on the seller. Here one guy says this material was found 3 years ago off the African coast and GSN says it's from Minas Gerais, Brazil. I provided a GSN clip where Kogen stated that all the major labs were getting samples. GSN won't disclose any results or answer any questions. The reason is simple, they sold more than 500 pieces between 2-10K. That's a fortune in refunds if this turns out to be something other than natural untreated red apatite. We had fun a while back when on of our members found a new discovery of natural untreated blueberry quartz. That turned out to be irradiated Prasiolite. The dealer was sorry offered a refund a there were no hard feelings. Right now if you go to the Gem France website - he is selling andesine as natural untreated . There is a 14.5 ct. stone selling for $115,000. It has an old AIGS report before they had the equipment to detect the treatment. It seems that some gemstone dealers can say and do anything they want and nobody questions them.
Attachments:
20170613_211238-500x500.jpg [ 63.44 KiB | Viewed 2776 times ]
What will happen if somebody purchases a piece of that stuff and all the gemologists who know nothing about it can check through this piece that it is by no means natural red apatite, and make it public ?
Probably another multi- million dollar class action lawsuit like JTV in 2008.
Question for our GIA gemologist's? On a GIA colored stone report, if stated Comments:None, does that mean no treatments were done to that stone? Can someone request that treatments be left off a report? Thanks, Nick
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:22 pm Posts: 21602 Location: San Francisco
Nicky Newark wrote:
Question for our GIA gemologist's? On a GIA colored stone report, if stated Comments:None, does that mean no treatments were done to that stone? Can someone request that treatments be left off a report? Thanks, Nick
No. That would defeat the purpose of the report. No?
Comments are usually reserved for diamond reports: Examples:
-Additional clouds are not shown / Additional pinpoints are not shown – This indicates the presence of inclusions that are plotted on the diagram because of their sheer number or minute sizes. Typically, these comments will usually not impact appearance and are already accounted for when a rating is assigned for clarity. -Surface graining is not shown – This statement refers to the presence of irregularities in the diamond crystal during the growth process. Surface grain lines are usually transparent and faintly detected even under 20-30X magnification. -Internal graining is not shown – Like surface graining, the distortion of growth planes in the crystal lattice can result in faint lines within the diamond. Internal graining is a feature that is hard to observe even under magnification. Detection usually depends on the viewing angles and lighting conditions. -Minor details of polish are not shown – A typical remark found in the Internally Flawless grade, this is a non-issue and serves to differentiate a flawless from an internally flawless diamond. -Additional twinning wisps not shown – Typically found in slightly included (SI) diamonds, twinning wisps are caused by changes in direction during a crystal’s growth.
The reason I asked this question in the red apatite thread is because every time GSN and Kogen say that you will never see this material again, it reappears.This time Kogen stated that he is being bombarded with disbelief from gemologists world wide. He quickly flashed a report with a lot of whiteout and showed the comments : none line and told the audience ,this proves the material is untreated. I snapped a photo and did a GIA report check. It appears to be a reddish apatite (certainly not top ruby color as stated) and in my opinion an unnatural, treated stone.
Attachments:
20170620_201951-500x500.jpg [ 40.3 KiB | Viewed 2719 times ]
20170620_202349-500x500.jpg [ 38.87 KiB | Viewed 2719 times ]
The top photo is the GIA report check, it just distorted badly when I shrunk it for the forum size. The report # is 2175679300. The bottom photo ( with all the White Out) is what they showed on air. I just happened to catch the report # when they quickly flashed it.
The GIA report check site states the all the information on the original report may not be on the checked report. I was just wondering if what was whited out on the original was the treatment?
How would they even tell? I think it's fair to say it likely isn't a surface coating as the report would definitely mention that, and there isn't a big sample of material from this locale (as far as we know) to compare with.
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:29 pm Posts: 1047 Location: Paris
Still, I am surprised that the GIA would issue such reports without even mentioning the possibility of a treatment, or without looking for it, well knowing that this kind of material will obviously be subject to controversies. But then of course, I know nothing about the GIA report policy.
I just find it hard to believe that if the GIA had a rare natural new find discovery that they tested, it wasn't mentioned in G&G or any publication anywhere. I'm thinking another hard to detect treatment developed in Thailand. Don't forget AIGS issued positive reports before the Andesine treatment was discovered.
Still, I am surprised that the GIA would issue such reports without even mentioning the possibility of a treatment, or without looking for it, well knowing that this kind of material will obviously be subject to controversies. But then of course, I know nothing about the GIA report policy.
Well Isi- I Just sent a letter to the GIA trying to get more information on their report. I asked them why the only one who knows anything about this new find natural, untreated facet grade red apatite is the guy selling it. Hopefully a dumb collector can get to the bottom of this.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum