Natural vs Synthetic Indicators
Distinguishing natural gemstones from synthetics using inclusion evidence.
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
| 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. Gübelin, E.; Koivula, J. (1986). Photoatlas of Inclusions in Gemstones, Vol. 1. ABC Edition Zürich. ISBN: 978-3-7281-2202-3.
- ↑ 2. Read, P. (2014). Gemmology (3rd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. DOI: 10.4324/9780080507224.
- ↑ 3. Gübelin, E.; Koivula, J. (1992). Photoatlas of Inclusions in Gemstones, Vol. 2. ABC Edition Zürich.
- ↑ 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. 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.