Dear Christopher P. Smith,

I thought this topic might be helpful to others here as well. Could you please explain the Emerald Filler Type classification within AGL's standards?

While the degree of clarity enhancement is fairly clear, ranging from None, Insignificant, Minor, Moderate, Strong, to Prominent. the filler type classifications seem a bit less discussed in the Report guideline. As far as I remember, they include: Traditional, Modern, Oil-type, and sometimes no type, even with a Minor degree of enhancement.

Additionally, some common oils and epoxies used for emerald clarity enhancement include:
- Canada balsam, a natural resin with an R.I. of 1.53
- Opticon, an epoxy resin with an R.I. of 1.545
- Excel, which replaced Gematrat in 2003, with an R.I. of 1.52
- Cedarwood oil, with an R.I. of 1.50 to 1.51
- Epon® 828 or Araldite® 6010, a liquid resin with an R.I. of 1.573 (both often misleadingly referred to as “Palma” insinuating they are a palm oil)

Could you elaborate on how AGL evaluates and categorizes these filler types? Specifically, how does the filler type affect the classification when the degree of enhancement is minimal or minor?

Looking forward to your insights
thanks in advance!

From my little experience with AGL reports.

I think you are right, just need clarification about Oil Type and when there is no type

Traditional oil-type fillers are commonly associated with cedarwood oil, but the category may also include a variety of other substances such as Canada balsam, clove oil, cinnamon oil, mineral oil, paraffin, paraffin oil, Joban oil, and even baby oil. These oil-type fillers generally have:
- Lower viscosity, meaning they are more fluid and penetrate fissures more easily.
- RI in the range of approximately 1.47 to 1.52.
- Shorter durability, as they tend to dry out or degrade over time, often requiring re-treatment.
- Ease of removal, making them simpler to clean out during re-treatment or refinishing processes.

Resin-type fillers, on the other hand, include branded products such as Epo Tek ( Epon® 828 or Araldite® 6010), Permasafe, Palma, ExCel, and even Opticon (if it still exists). These fillers are:
- Higher in viscosity, meaning they are thicker and less prone to seepage from filled fissures.
- RI closer to emeralds, approximately 1.55 to 1.58, making them more effective at reducing the visibility of fractures.
- Often part of a two-step process, where the fractures are first filled with resin and then sealed with a hardener, improving stability and longevity.

Previously, I thought there were only three classifications for fillers: Traditional, Modern, and Mixed. However, I have a question regarding AGL's classifications. I am uploading three different AGL reports: one specifies "Traditional," another mentions "Oil-Type," and the third doesn’t list any filler type at all.

Does this mean they all fall under the "Traditional" category? Why do these differences exist, and how are they determined? Could someone clarify how AGL differentiates between these classifications?