Natural vs Synthetic Indicators

Distinguishing natural gemstones from synthetics using inclusion evidence.

By Fabian Moor Last updated
microscopy identification synthetics authenticity

Introduction

Inclusions provide the most accessible evidence for distinguishing natural gemstones
from their synthetic counterparts. Although a laboratory-grown ruby shares the same
refractive index, specific gravity, and chemical composition as a Burmese stone,
its formation conditions differ profoundly, leaving characteristic internal signatures
readable under the microscope. Natural crystals grow slowly in complex geological
fluids, accumulating mineral guests, multi-phase fluid inclusions, irregular colour
zoning, and healing fractures that no synthetic process replicates faithfully.
Synthetics carry the hallmarks of their growth method: curved striae and spherical
gas bubbles in flame-fusion corundum; wispy flux veils and platinum platelets in
flux-grown ruby; seed plates and chevron zoning in hydrothermal emerald [1].
The practical stakes are high: flame-fusion synthetic sapphire may retail for
under a dollar per carat, while a fine Kashmir natural commands tens of thousands.
Microscopic examination at 40–60× under darkfield and immersion is the first and
most cost-effective step before committing to spectroscopic analysis.

Natural Indicators Overview

Natural Indicators

  • Mineral crystal inclusions
  • Three-phase inclusions
  • Fingerprint patterns
  • Irregular colour zoning
  • Natural growth patterns
  • Trigons on diamond naturals (prove natural origin; synthetics lack these) {cite:read-gemmology-3ed}
  • Stress fractures around crystals

Synthetic Indicators

  • Curved striae (flame fusion)
  • Gas bubbles (flame fusion)
  • Flux inclusions (flux growth)
  • Chevron/zigzag zoning (hydrothermal)
  • Seed plates (hydrothermal)
  • Platinum/gold flakes (flux)

Flame Fusion (Verneuil) Synthetics

Flame fusion is the oldest and most common method for synthetic corundum and spinel.
Curved striae are the most diagnostic feature [2]:

Characteristic inclusions:

  • Curved striae - Curved growth lines (most diagnostic) [2]
  • Gas bubbles - Round or elongated bubbles, often in strings
  • Unmelted powder - Rare, small grains of starting material

Observation tips:

  • Curved striae best seen with immersion and polarized light
  • Bubbles may be very small - use high magnification
  • Striae follow the curved boule shape

Flux-Grown Synthetics

Flux-grown synthetics crystallize from a molten flux solution. Key features include
platinum/gold flakes, fine feathers, and wispy veils [1]:

Characteristic inclusions:

  • Flux inclusions - Wispy, veil-like, or fingerprint-like patterns [1]
  • Platinum/gold flakes - Metallic crucible remnants
  • Flux residue - Glassy or crystalline flux material
  • Seed remnants - If grown on a seed crystal

Important distinctions:

  • Flux inclusions can resemble natural fingerprints
  • Look for metallic flakes (not present in nature)
  • Flux has distinctive appearance different from natural fluids
Flux Inclusion Characteristics
Feature Flux Synthetic Natural
Fingerprint pattern Often present Often present
Metallic flakes Pt, Au, Ir possible Never present
Mineral crystals Rare, only flux Various species
Three-phase inclusions Never Common in emerald

Hydrothermal Synthetics

Hydrothermal synthetics grow from aqueous solutions at high pressure.
Chevron/zigzag zoning and seed plates are diagnostic [3]:

Characteristic inclusions:

  • Chevron/zigzag zoning - Distinctive angular growth patterns [3]
  • Seed plate - Remnant of the seed crystal
  • Breadcrumb inclusions - Small, white, scattered particles
  • Nail-head spicules - Elongated, pointed inclusions

Common hydrothermal synthetics:

  • Synthetic emerald (Biron, Tairus, Russian)
  • Synthetic quartz (most common method)
  • Some synthetic corundum

CVD and HPHT Diamond

Lab-grown diamonds require special attention. CVD and HPHT diamonds cannot be
identified without spectroscopic analysis [4] [5].

HPHT (High Pressure High Temperature):

  • Metallic flux inclusions (Fe, Ni, Co)
  • Cross-shaped or irregular patterns
  • Strong magnetism possible
  • Distinctive fluorescence patterns

CVD (Chemical Vapor Deposition):

  • Often very clean
  • May show strain patterns
  • Point defects from process
  • Distinctive spectroscopy features
Feature Natural Diamond HPHT Synthetic CVD Synthetic
Mineral inclusions Garnet, olivine, etc. Metallic flux Rare, if any
Growth patterns Octahedral Cuboctahedral Layered
Fluorescence Variable Often unusual Often unusual
Magnetism No Often yes (flux) No

Synthetic Spinel Indicators

Synthetic spinel is commonly produced by flame fusion:

Key features:

  • Gas bubbles - Very common, often in clouds or strings
  • Curved striae - Similar to synthetic corundum
  • Anomalous double refraction (ADR) - Strong strain patterns
  • High clarity - Often cleaner than natural

Natural Spinel

  • Octahedral negative crystals
  • Fingerprint patterns
  • Zircon haloes
  • Mineral crystal inclusions
  • Irregular colour zoning

Synthetic Spinel

  • Gas bubbles
  • Curved striae (flame fusion)
  • Very high clarity
  • Strong ADR under polariscope
  • No mineral inclusions

Examination Protocol

When Inclusions Aren't Enough

Some cases require advanced testing beyond microscopy:

Challenging scenarios:

  • Very clean natural stones with few inclusions
  • High-quality flux synthetics
  • CVD diamonds (often very clean)
  • Treated naturals with altered inclusions

Additional testing methods:

  • Spectroscopy (FTIR, Raman, UV-Vis)
  • Fluorescence imaging
  • Trace element analysis
  • Photoluminescence mapping

When microscopic evidence is inconclusive, always recommend advanced testing
by a qualified gemmological laboratory.

References

  1. 1. Gübelin, E.; Koivula, J. (1986). Photoatlas of Inclusions in Gemstones, Vol. 1. ABC Edition Zürich. ISBN: 978-3-7281-2202-3.
  2. 2. Read, P. (2014). Gemmology (3rd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. DOI: 10.4324/9780080507224.
  3. 3. Gübelin, E.; Koivula, J. (1992). Photoatlas of Inclusions in Gemstones, Vol. 2. ABC Edition Zürich.
  4. 4. Martineau, P. (2004). Identification of Synthetic Diamond Grown Using Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD). Gems & Gemology, 40(1). DOI: 10.5741/gems.40.1.2.
  5. 5. Fisher, D.; Spits, R. (2000). Spectroscopic Evidence of GE POL HPHT-Treated Natural Type IIa Diamonds. Gems & Gemology, 36(1). DOI: 10.5741/gems.36.1.42.