Fake pink diamond

I have a pink faceted stone that seems to be a pink diamond and I
would like to know if this is possible. The stone weights 6.5 carats,
it doesn´t have any inclusions at a 10x loupe, no bubbles, when
checked with the diamond tester it reads as a "diamond", scratches
corundum, and when I tried to read something crown I couldn´t read a
thing. I know the largest synthetic diamond available is around 2-3
carats and the color is still yellowish. As to the scratch test, I
know the only materials that scratch a corundum is either silicon
carbide or diamond. As silicon carbide (moissanite) the only color
available is in green, light green and white. So can somebody help me
out with some clue? I would really appreciate any help.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:22:14 -0700, in Tô (Yoshiyuki
Mochizuki) wrote:

I have a pink faceted stone that seems to be a pink diamond and I
would like to know if this is possible. The stone weights 6.5 carats,
it doesn´t have any inclusions at a 10x loupe, no bubbles, when
checked with the diamond tester it reads as a "diamond", scratches
corundum, and when I tried to read something crown I couldn´t read a
thing. I know the largest synthetic diamond available is around 2-3
carats and the color is still yellowish. As to the scratch test, I
know the only materials that scratch a corundum is either silicon
carbide or diamond. As silicon carbide (moissanite) the only color
available is in green, light green and white. So can somebody help me
out with some clue? I would really appreciate any help.

it's possible. The australian mines have in recent decades produced enough pink
diamonds that they are no longer such extreme rarities. However, one the size
you mention, as clean as you mention, is indeed still very rare, and very
valuable. Given that, it's not so likely you would come into possession of such
a thing without either knowing for sure what it was, nor having paid a lot of
money. The sources are recent enough that such stones are not likely to just
turn up as forgotton wealth in some grandparents safety deposit box which the
kids didn't know about...

The simple choice is that you should take this to a competent gemologist. From
your post, you don't seem to have the needed training to safely identify this
stone. Among the clues is that you even mention the concept of scratch testing.
Please don't EVER do this sort of testing again on any stone that might be
valualbe. it's not terribly conclusive, since stones of the same hardness can
scratch each other, and sometimes, with enough pressure, you can damage the
harder stone when trying to scratch, or scratch with, the softer one. Scratch
tests belong in the realm of rough mineral testing, not cut stones. There are a
number of possibilities out there, including pink cubic zirconia covered with
thin film synthetic diamond, pink sapphire (natural or synthetic) there are
some synthetics that will fool certain lower cost testers, especially with larger
stones. since you've not managed to simply rule out diamond, it's time now to
consult a professional. Expect to pay a modest fee for an identification, which
should be less than a full appraisal (with full analysis, and value
determination). The fee should not be based on value, but on time spent. The
person you have do this should be credentialed in gem identification, such as a
graduate gemologist diploma from GIA, or similar training programs from other
organizations.

If you wish to test further on your own, careful examination with a microscope
would show a trained observer pretty much what the stone is, but without that
training, I'dI suggest first, a polariscope, to determine if it's singly
refractive or not. That can be improvised if needed from polaroid sunglass
lenses. You can also carefully measure the dimensions of the stone, and using
published wieght estimation formulas, determine what a diamond of those
dimensions should weigh. comparing that with your actual weight will give you a
rough indication of the stones specific gravity. and if you can, check to see if
you can get a refractive index reading, if you have a refractometer.

but as i said, you really should consult a professional on this question.

Peter

Yoshiyuki Mochizuki wrote:
=

I have a pink faceted stone that seems to be a pink diamond and I
would like to know if this is possible. The stone weights 6.5 carats,
it doesn=B4t have any inclusions at a 10x loupe, no bubbles, when
checked with the diamond tester it reads as a "diamond", scratches
corundum, and when I tried to read something crown I couldn=B4t read a
thing. I know the largest synthetic diamond available is around 2-3
carats and the color is still yellowish. As to the scratch test, I
know the only materials that scratch a corundum is either silicon
carbide or diamond. As silicon carbide (moissanite) the only color
available is in green, light green and white. So can somebody help me
out with some clue? I would really appreciate any help.


Very unlikely. You would own one of the largest pink diamonds ever.

If however you do own a 6.5 ct. true pink diamond, you are a multimillion=
air.
=

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

"Peter W.. Rowe," wrote:
=

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:22:14 -0700, in T=07=F4 (Yo=
shiyuki
Mochizuki) wrote:
=

I have a pink faceted stone that seems to be a pink diamond and I
would like to know if this is possible. The stone weights 6.5 carats,=

it doesn=B4t have any inclusions at a 10x loupe, no bubbles, when
checked with the diamond tester it reads as a "diamond", scratches
corundum, and when I tried to read something crown I couldn=B4t read =
a
thing. I know the largest synthetic diamond available is around 2-3
carats and the color is still yellowish. As to the scratch test, I
know the only materials that scratch a corundum is either silicon
carbide or diamond. As silicon carbide (moissanite) the only color
available is in green, light green and white. So can somebody help me=

out with some clue? I would really appreciate any help.
=

it's possible. The australian mines have in recent decades produced en=
ough pink
diamonds that they are no longer such extreme rarities. However, one t=
he size
you mention, as clean as you mention, is indeed still very rare, and =
very
valuable. Given that, it's not so likely you would come into possessio=
n of such
a thing without either knowing for sure what it was, nor having paid a =
lot of
money. The sources are recent enough that such stones are not likely t=
o just
turn up as forgotton wealth in some grandparents safety deposit box whi=
ch the
kids didn't know about...
=

The simple choice is that you should take this to a competent gemologis=
t. From
your post, you don't seem to have the needed training to safely identif=
y this
stone. Among the clues is that you even mention the concept of scratch=
testing.
Please don't EVER do this sort of testing again on any stone that might=
be
valualbe. it's not terribly conclusive, since stones of the same hardn=
ess can
scratch each other, and sometimes, with enough pressure, you can damage=
the
harder stone when trying to scratch, or scratch with, the softer one. =
Scratch
tests belong in the realm of rough mineral testing, not cut stones. Th=
ere are a
number of possibilities out there, including pink cubic zirconia covere=
d with
thin film synthetic diamond, pink sapphire (natural or synthetic) the=
re are
some synthetics that will fool certain lower cost testers, especially w=
ith larger
stones. since you've not managed to simply rule out diamond, it's time=
now to
consult a professional. Expect to pay a modest fee for an identificati=
on, which
should be less than a full appraisal (with full analysis, and value
determination). The fee should not be based on value, but on time spen=
t. The
person you have do this should be credentialed in gem identification, s=
uch as a
graduate gemologist diploma from GIA, or similar training programs from=
other
organizations.
=

If you wish to test further on your own, careful examination with a mi=
croscope
would show a trained observer pretty much what the stone is, but withou=
t that
training, I'dI suggest first, a polariscope, to determine if it's singl=
y
refractive or not. That can be improvised if needed from polaroid sung=
lass
lenses. You can also carefully measure the dimensions of the stone, an=
d using
published wieght estimation formulas, determine what a diamond of those=

dimensions should weigh. comparing that with your actual weight will g=
ive you a
rough indication of the stones specific gravity. and if you can, check=
to see if
you can get a refractive index reading, if you have a refractometer.
=

but as i said, you really should consult a professional on this questio=
n.
=

Peter


Peter,

Your ability and inclination to say in several long paragraphs, what almo=
st
always can be said in one or two short sentences, never seizes to amaze m=
e.

;-)
-- =

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:30:04 -0700, in ,ô Abrasha wrote:


Peter,

Your ability and inclination to say in several long paragraphs, what almo=
st
always can be said in one or two short sentences, never seizes to amaze m=
e.

;-)
-- =

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

Dunno if you remember, but i can be just as annoyingly chatty in person
sometimes. At the computer, though, it's somewhat intentional. I type fast, and
find that dong a good deal of it helps me combat the diabetic neuropathy that is
ever trying to cause increasing numbness. Kind of a "use it or loose it thing:"
don't have the manual control any more to sit for an hour and play the piano in
any sort of way I'm willing to listen to, so this is the next best thing. And I
find it good stress relief, plus it serves as a great excuse to not be doing
things I really should be doing instead...

:-)

Peter