4 replies to this topic

[ronk15a]

Dear community,

Please let me know your opinion on using the GIA – Gemolite-Mark V darkfield/brightfield scope to help in identifying synthetic diamonds. Specifically HPHT and CVD synthetic.

Regards Ron

[davidelevi]

Ron - there is NO safe/certain way to identify a synthetic diamond other than through the use of expensive and sophisticated lab equipment. A microscope is not it.

[ronk15a]

Dear David,

Thank you for your prompt response. Yes I know that for a diamond dealer/tradesman there is no definitive way to tell if a diamond is synthetic without a lab report from a top notch lab such as GIA, AGS, or Gueblin. However do you think that if I accumulated a hpht syhehethtic, hpht treated, and a cvd diamond and analyzed them using a darkfield/brightfield scope ie: Gemolite mark-v, super magnet, a 10x loupe, common sense, synthetic diamond information. I can conclude “this doesn’t look right” It needs to be checked out further; for %100 Origin certainty.
I’m not looking for the impossible; definitive! I’m looking for (this does NOT look right) Conclusion.Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

Regards Ron

[davidelevi]

Of all the paraphernalia you mention above, I'd keep the microscope, common sense and research about synthetics/treated diamonds. The magnet is useless (see our previous conversation on the topic) and the loupe is superseded by the microscope, although it's the only thing you can reasonably hope to carry with you at all times.

The samples of treated/synthetic stones are also of limited value - except as examples of one (or more) particular type of revealing inclusion/graining/fluorescence, but it is going to be impossible to have all such characteristics in one stone per type, and most of those characteristics are going to be invisible without much more sophisticated tools than a microscope and UV light.

As part of common sense, I'd say the two best principles to apply are:

1. Know your suppliers, and apply your filters accordingly.
2. TANSTAAFL. If something looks to good to be true, it probably isn't.

And frankly, I'd say those 2 account for 90%+ of the discrimination. The microscope may be fascinating to use, and the research interesting to read, but I doubt either is going to help you make any calls based "on evidence".

[ronk15a]

Dear David,

You have a great sense of humor! McGyver, Heath Robinson, TANSTAAFL. All used absolutely perfectly in the context they were written!

Back to Diamonds: Thanks for your insight and expertise; they are all greatly appreciated.

Regards Ron