bigscoop
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 13,541
- Reaction score
- 9,086
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Wherever there be treasure!
- Detector(s) used
- Older blue Excal with full mods, Equinox 800.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Well, I don't know if I need to apologize or not.
But here's the short of it. Since my "jeweler assured" post that the diamond was real, two other jewelers have since looked at the stone and, well, they just can't all agree. Two testers have been put on the stone and one says yes and the other no, the third and most recent jeweler did not put a tester on the stone but simply looked it over through a glass and said, "Nope. It's too perfect to be real." So, I'm thinking it's time to buy my own tester.
But basically, here is what is at the center of the issue; (I am not a stone authority so while I understand the debate, I'm not sure I understand the debate.)
When found, the ring was very tarnished and scaled, so I gave it a quick cleaning just to get rid of the majority of the scale and tarnish. Right away you could see that the ring had a fair amount of age and wear on it, the silver being nicked and scratched, and now here comes the issue that is apparently at the center of the debate. The stone doesn't have the slightest scratch, chip, or inclusion, etc., which apparently, given the obvious condition and wear on the ring, is highly unlikely. So, while I do understand the issue, I don't understand why it has become so difficult for anyone to be certain if the darn thing is real or not.
Anyone ever been in one of these "yes - no" debates before? At this point i can live with the stone being fake, if I could just be certain it was in fact fake. If it turns out to be fake I assure you it was never my intention to mislead anyone.
If anyone has a great deal of experience with diamonds could possibly please explain, or shed some light, on the issue at hand.


When found, the ring was very tarnished and scaled, so I gave it a quick cleaning just to get rid of the majority of the scale and tarnish. Right away you could see that the ring had a fair amount of age and wear on it, the silver being nicked and scratched, and now here comes the issue that is apparently at the center of the debate. The stone doesn't have the slightest scratch, chip, or inclusion, etc., which apparently, given the obvious condition and wear on the ring, is highly unlikely. So, while I do understand the issue, I don't understand why it has become so difficult for anyone to be certain if the darn thing is real or not.

If anyone has a great deal of experience with diamonds could possibly please explain, or shed some light, on the issue at hand.
Last edited:
Upvote
0