The diamond was offered to several gemological laboratories in Moscow. The initial information was not reported to the experts. One laboratory defined the diamond as natural, modified by the thermobaric annealing method. The rest successfully coped with the task, defining the diamond as synthetic. All experts immediately paid attention to the color of the diamond ("there is no such thing in nature", "color is insolent", "color is defiant") - this was the initial identification sign. The second and main criterion for identification was the pronounced cruciform zoning of the color, characteristic for diamonds made from single crystals grown using the "BARS" technology. This characteristic is established if the diamond is cut "center" of the original synthetic crystal, If a peripheral part of the crystal was taken for cutting, the definition of this feature would be difficult or impossible at all.
According to thermal conductivity, electrical conductivity and refraction, the diamond did not differ from natural. Spectrophotometry did not determine the presence of nickel and iron - catalysts used in the "Adamas BSU" technology.
None of the experts could identify the manufacturer, some uncertainly assumed the Novosibirsk or Israeli origin of the diamond.
The quality of the cut was all rated as "good." Spectrophotometry did not determine the presence of nickel and iron - catalysts used in the "Adamas BSU" technology. None of the experts could identify the manufacturer, some uncertainly assumed the Novosibirsk or Israeli origin of the diamond. The quality of the cut was all rated as "good." Spectrophotometry did not determine the presence of nickel and iron - catalysts used in the "Adamas BSU" technology. None of the experts could identify the manufacturer, some uncertainly assumed the Novosibirsk or Israeli origin of the diamond. The quality of the cut was all rated as "good."

http://rough-polished.com/ru/analytics/18020.html