Changing the term "semi-precious" stones

Jewelry Discussion
41

The jewellery trade (or at least the chain store “jewellers” who
don’t even make jewellery) has told the public that there are four
precious diamond, sapphire, ruby and emerald. Everything
else is apparently “semi-precious” and therefore probably only fit
to be set in silver for a much lower price.

Helen has just hit the nail on the head. The terms “semi-precious”
and “precious” are being pushed by the big chain stores to keep the
customers in the dark about all of the other rare and beautiful
colored gemstones that are available. For the most part they only
sell the “big four”, and most of those are poor quality On
top of that, most of the sales people at those stores are kids hired
off the street, that are poorly educated about gemstones and jewelry,
and don’t even know what GIA or a Graduate Gemologist is. The terms
are being used to make the poor quality colored gemstones that they
are pushing sound better than they really are. What would you rather
have, an aquarium grade “precious” ruby or emerald or a high quality
red or green Tourmaline that would be considered “semi-precious”?
Remember Red Spinel would be considered “semi-precious” and it is
part of the Crown Jewels! “Semi-precious”? I think not!

Linda McMurray G.G., A.J.P. (GIA)
Best Cut Gems

42 
So if someone asks you if Garnet is a precious stone, the answer no
it is colored will loose this client forever.

Sorry Leonid, I have proof that this is a flat out wrong assertion.
I have told hundreds of clients that garnets and all of the other
stones formerly known as “semi precious” were colored stones or
gemstones and I haven’t lost a single sale yet on account of it. If
anything I have gained quite a few. But again this seems to come from
the fact that I’m actually dealing with customers on a daily basis
and have actually seen the results.

However, the term "colored gemstone" applied to semi-precious
material, is a term used to obfuscate the fact of lack of scarcity,
and therefore a deception.

I’m sorry but diamonds are incredibly common but they’re considered
“percious”. How is it that it is not a deception to call a diamond a
“precious” stone if it is simply because of scarcity. Certainly
alexandrite is far scarcer than diamond and sapphire, yet it is not
what was formerly known as a “precious” stone.

Daniel R. Spirer, G.G.
Daniel R. Spirer Jewelers, LLC

43

Leonid:

Actually, there are concrete examples of bad word choice blowing a
sale, with the same product later revived with different wording.
Most modern marketing books spend at least a chapter on “the fun of
international marketing”, and how it’s critical to pay attention to
the subtext of your words.

Two famous examples:

(A) the Chevy Nova. Sold like hotcakes in the states, and totally
bombed in Latin America. Why? “Nova” translates to “doesn’t go” in
Spanish. As soon a Chevy changed the name, it started selling.

(B) Coke in China. When Coke first started doing test marketing in
China, they developed packaging that had the Chinese idiograms that
’spelled’ out the sounds closest to “Cok-a-kola”. So, if you asked a
Mandarin speaker what that said, they’d come back with the sounds
’Ko- ka-kola’. Great, right?

Not so much. The bottles with the Chinese packaging didn’t sell at
all, while bottles with English packaging sold quite briskly, even
at the same stores.

Why could this be? Simple: the idiograms had the sound of “coke-a-
cola”, but they translated to “Bite the wax tadpole”. Nobody
thought to check that.

As soon as they came up with a somewhat looser transcription with a
more appetizing translation, they were off to the races.

Those are two famous examples. A decent marketing textbook could
supply you with dozens more, even in English. Take a look at some of
Galbraith’s early case studies for examples.

Regards,
Brian Meek.

44 
I assume you are not a Graduate Gemologist. Perhaps without the
G.I.A. education and the context for their terminology you do not
understand or comprehend their usage of the term colored stones.

Your assumption is wrong. I am a Graduate Gemologist with full GIA
accreditations. I do not use GG after my name because I do not want
to defined by 2 letters. But let me assure you that I am fully aware
of GIA terminology and how it applies to term colored stones.

The terms semi precious and precious do absolutely nothing to
separate gems geologically, and this is why as a Gemologist, I
would not use those terms. Basically useless and irrelevant terms
that have no place in Gemology.

What needs to be understood in this discussion is that gemstones can
be classified in many different ways, depending on the intended
purpose. If we separate them based on their crystal form, than it is
justified to present diamond and garnet as equals. If we would use
chemical composition, then there would be no difference (from the
point of classification) between pigeon blood ruby and a colorless
sapphire.

Terms precious and semi-precious are used in classification based on
gemstone value. It was not dreamed up by jewelers. When gemstone
deposit is found, a judgement is made whether or not it makes a
commercial sense to explore it further. It is from those efforts the
system was derived.

GIA start pushing their classification in diamonds and colored ( in
my opinion ) when big gem dealers started making big contribution.
It is very profitable for a gem dealer to convince the public that
all gemstones are valuable, but quite the opposite is the case. There
are absolutely no reason behind this idiotic separation into diamonds
and colored stones. It is not based on science. It does put diamonds
as a gem above all which is not the case, but if De Beers made a
significant contribution to GIA at sometime, then it would explain
it.

What I am trying to say that the only logical explanation behind the
GIA classification is that it is based on amount of money contributed
by the interest groups to GIA purse. I bet I can make them change
classification into zircon and other I may take a billion
or two.

In my opinion, GIA traded science of gemology for contributions; and
proverbial chickens are taking their rightful places at the roost.
The story that I mentioned in my previous post is just a few chicken
feathers that were blown out of GIA windows by the internal winds. I
am sure more is on its way.

Leonid Surpin

45

Hi Linda,

The terms "semi-precious" and "precious" are being pushed by the
big chain stores to keep the customers in the dark about all of the
other rare and beautiful colored gemstones that are available.

Although I’ve always had a love of all I too was in the
dark regarding the “precious” and “semi-precious” thing until I
started to do a lot of research prior to beginning to make jewellery
myself. I guess the big chain stores and the like is the only
exposure many people get to the world of jewellery and so they know
no better. Personally I much prefer many of the so called “semi-
precious” gemstones to the big four. I love Paraibe tourmaline,
demantoid garnets, Spessartine garnets, tanzanite, kunzite,
morganite - the list goes on. Eventually, the buying public will
appreciate all gemstones for their beauty, if we promote them well
enough.

Helen (an admirer of your lovely gemstones)
UK
http://www.hillsgems.co.uk
http://www.helensgems.etsy.com

46 
I have told hundreds of clients that garnets and all of the other
stones formerly known as "semi precious" were colored stones or
gemstones and I haven't lost a single sale yet on account of it.
If anything I have gained quite a few. But again this seems to come
from the fact that I'm actually dealing with customers on a daily
basis and have actually seen the results.

I definitely defer to your expertise in selling mass-produced
jewellery. I cannot possible claim a customer base in hundreds. It is
quite humble numerically speaking, compared to yours. But a few who
patronize my establishment are more on a cerebral side, so I cannot
possibly get away with explanation which seems to be working wonders
for you business.

I'm sorry but diamonds are incredibly common but they're
considered "percious". How is it that it is not a deception to call
a diamond a "precious" stone if it is simply because of scarcity.
Certainly alexandrite is far scarcer than diamond and sapphire, yet
it is not what was formerly known as a "precious" stone.

I hate to be in position to write De Beers promos, but facts are
facts. Primary source of diamonds nowadays are Kimberlitic pipes.
There are approximately 1000 such pipes known around the world. Only
in half of the pipes diamonds are indicated, and only 50 or so are
commercially viable. Since pipe output decreased as its diameter is
decreased (the deeper pipe is mined, the smaller it becomes), and
since De Beers build an insatiable appetite for diamonds, the prices
will only be going up, and that makes it precious. While carbon is
very common element in Earth crust, crystallized carbon is another
matter. Diamonds are precious, but not rare.

Alexandrite is a name given to chrysoberyl with color change. In my
book, only stones with green to red color change should be called
alexandrite. Industry has more relax standards. Chrysoberyl is a
semi-precious gemstone and quite available. For instance: 25.2
kilograms crystal was found in Bahia. 25.2 kilograms is 126000 carat.
There was never a diamond find even remotely approaching that size.
But alexandrite, due to chromium admixture, acquires the color change
property. And it is not enough to have chromium present. It must be
in just the right amount to give green to red change, which makes
alexandrite incredibly rare and desirable gemstone.

You seem to be confused by the terms “precious” and “rare”. They are
not synonymous in gemological terms. There are common members of
precious group, and there are rare members of semi-precious group.
All
gem-quality diamonds are precious, but only ones above 100 carat are
rare. Calling 50 carat diamond rare would be a deception. It may be
shock to some people, but 20 carat alexandrite of strong color change
from bluish-green to raspberry-red is more desirable stone than
average quality diamond under 100 carat. However, that only holds for
Type I diamonds of average color and quality. Type II diamonds,
intensely colored diamond, unique combination of color and clarity,
can make the comparison nonsensical.

It is not enough to know the terms of nomenclature, they must be
applied intelligently since every gemstone is unique.

Leonid Surpin

47

I have followed this interesting and passionate discussion and still
cannot see the purpose of grouping gemstones into precious and
semi-precious or anything else.

Customers do not ask for a precious or a semi-precious stone, they
ask for things like: ‘a diamond’, ‘a nice red stone’, ‘something not
too expensive’, or ‘something absolutely stunning’. The trust comes
when the jeweller can show a wide range of options that may be of
interest, is able to explain the properties and ramifications of each
in simple or technical terms, why they are priced as they are, and
give unbiased recommendations.

If the customer uses the term semi-precious or coloured stone, so
what? To me it is the difference beween saying “g’day” and “good
morning”; it is simply a preamble to the nitty-gritty of finding the
one unique and individual stone they want, or fall in love with, and
will be happy with for a long time.

Alastair

48 
I have followed this interesting and passionate discussion and
still cannot see the purpose of grouping gemstones into precious
and semi-precious or anything else.

Grouping into precious and semi-precious nowadays does not exist.
Current nomenclature is more complex and probably would become even
more complex, as it should. But it’s roots are quite simple. Gems
like diamond, sapphire, ruby, emerald were cut to maximize the yield.
The rough was highly valued and every little bit was treated with
respect. It was less important for other gemstones and so the
division into precious and semi-precious was born.

As time went by and gems like alexandrite, some tourmalines, some
rare garnets and others were discovered, the division started to
make less and less sense. Gems were grouped into 1-st order, 2-nd
order, and etc. Than synthetic gems were introduced, gem treatment
became a de facto standard, so even upgraded classification could not
account for all the new additions to the gemstone universe.

GIA decided to take an easy way out. They did not wanted to get
bogged down in all this complexities, besides if one accepts any
system of classification, than all treated gemstones should be given
a
special category. I would call this category “Garbage”, but any other
name would do. So GIA just disposed of with all the details and
pronounced that all gemstones are colored. This carries as much
insight into gemstones as proclaiming that all water is wet and all
snow is cold.

I value gemstones on the basis of their geological origin. The
probability of formation of perfectly blue sapphire crystal big
enough to be cut into gemstone is very remote. Sapphires of good
color, untreated in any way, commanding high prices. Treated
sapphires
may look the same ( actually they are not as brilliant ), but are
available year around and should be priced only few dollars per
carat. However, if we accept GIA “colored” classification, than
current prices can be justified, since these stones are full of color
and other unmentionables, which are not a part of a polite
conversation.

To summarize: I do not support division into precious and semi-
precious. it is simply to crude to be of any use, but to accept
“colored” as a substitute is much, much worse. We have to strive to
understand and emphasize the differences between what
makes
gemstone valuable, and what doesn’t. But that implies that all
treated and synthetic gemstones should take it rightful place in a
green bin with white letters “trash” painted on it, and GIA simply
cannot allow it to happen.

To anticipate reaction to the last paragraph: this discussion is not
to indict jewellery where synthetic or treated gemstones are used.
There are much more factors affecting value of jewellery besides
However, if a client asks for something of intrinsic value
with potential of appreciation, a competent jeweler must know what
and
what not to do.

Leonid Surpin

49 
Actually, there are concrete examples of bad word choice blowing a
sale, with the same product later revived with different wording.
Most modern marketing books spend at least a chapter on "the fun
of international marketing", and how it's critical to pay attention
to the subtext of your words.

Yes, it is true, but in the context of jewellery; it is silly to
think that semi-precious would blow a sale, but colored would save
it.

Leonid Surpin

50 
What makes Emerald precious is presence of chromium.

If that is the only thing need to make a gemstone precious, what
about Chrome Tourmaline? Pollucite is the only one gemstone that has
cesium as an important element, does that make them “super
precious”? The terms “precious” and “semi-precious” have no place or
real meaning in the gemstone world. There are only Diamonds and
Colored Gemstones.

Linda McMurray G.G., A.J.P. (GIA)

Best Cut Gems

51

Leonid,

Precious, semi-precious is a mineralogical lingo to indicate
relative rarity of a mineral. 

The term simply indicates probability of encountering a minerals
randomly going through the rock. 

You seem to be confused by the terms "precious" and "rare". They
are not synonymous in gemological terms.

These are all your statements. In the first and second one you
clearly state that the terms precious and semiprecious, as used
gemologically, refer to rarity of certain minerals, yet in the last
one you refute that by claiming that precious, as a gemological term,
does not mean rare. Which is it? Make up your mind.

I definitely defer to your expertise in selling mass-produced
jewellery.

While I have had not just hundreds, but thousands of customers over a
30 year period of being in retail, I wouldn’t call my jewelry mass
produced. and yes some of my work is cast, but mass produced usually
refers to much larger quantities in much shorter periods. And yes you
should defer to those of us (not just me) who are in the business to
earn a living when it comes to questions of selling because it is
pretty obvious that most of us have had more experience with it.
Terminology does make a difference in selling whether you like it or
not and whether you believe in it or not.

But a few who patronize my establishment are more on a cerebral
side,

My shop is in Cambridge, Massachusetts. On a weekly basis I deal
with MIT professors, graduate students and undergraduates, Harvard
professors and students, biotech industry professionals, high tech
industry professionals, architects, and artists. I’ll lay the
cerebral side of any of my customers up against yours any day.

Daniel R. Spirer, G.G.
Daniel R. Spirer Jewelers, LLC

52 
Eventually, the buying public will appreciate all gemstones for
their beauty, if we promote them well enough.

Helen - and all - I said it before on this thread, but it bears
repeating. This whole question is pretty nonsensical, for the very
reason Helen writes above. The question, whether it’s GIA’s take or
some of the industry’s denial of that, is pure marketing. As many
have said, “Customer walks into store, customer sees stone they like,
customer buys stone, TYVM”. Both sides of the precious stone argument
are essentially trying to legislate morality, which is always doomed
to failure. There is some percentage of the public who actually pay
attention to precious/semiprecious- some could be called snobs and
some could be called thoroughly uneducated and a bit gullible. Almost
everybody else says, “I’ll take the blue one.”

53

Leonoid,

GIA start pushing their classification in diamonds and colored (
in my opinion ) when big gem dealers started making big
contribution.It is very profitable for a gem dealer to convince the
pubic that all gemstones are valuable, but quite the opposite is
the case. There are absolutely no reason behind this idiotic
separation into diamonds and colored stones. It is not based on
science. It does put diamonds as a gem above all which is not the
case, but if De Beers made a significant contribution to GIA at
sometime, then it would explain it.

The course I took was eight weeks of studying diamonds to learn how
to grade. The other 4 months was spent studying colored stones.

I went to G.I.A. “In Residence”, six months, five days a week, eight
hours a day.

I do not know if you went “In Residence”, but I wonder if you did,
and you did the diamond course and then the colored stone course,
what was your issue with the way the courses were taught by having
eight weeks of diamonds and sixteen weeks of colored stones?

For teaching purposes, it made sense to me as there had been a
grading system developed for diamonds, and that seemed to be a
subject in and of it self, as in, not related to colored gems. (no
system yet). The colored stone course was to learn to use
microscope, refractometer, dicroscope, fluorescence, specific
gravity, spectroscope, ect. to identify and separate colored stones
and identify synthetics and treatments.

Seems to me a logical way to separate diamonds and colored stones for
studying as most of the tools used for testing colored stones have no
use for testing of diamonds.

Just as the diamond master color grading sets are not used with
colored stones.

You make some connection between “idiotic separation into diamonds
and colored stones” and "It does put diamonds as a gem above all. To
me, that is a non-sequiter. There is no logical correlation to me.
G.I.A. does not promote diamonds over colored stones. It just uses a
teaching system which seems to be handy for those who study Gemology
with G.I.A. to use as terminology. Not prejudicial. No inherent value
system. Just identification and separation. There was never any value
of any gem mentioned or discussed. Just gem identification. Market
place determines value. I believe perception is involved. Maybe some
form of mass hypnotic field from some machine in a hidden room at
G.I.A. that controls the minds of men (and women) that confuses our
minds and allows the big gem dealers to manipulate us.

It is very profitable for a gem dealer to convince the pubic that
all gemstones are valuable, but quite the opposite is the case.

So all gemstones are not valuable?

I understand that you see it that way, feel that way. The way G.I.A.
makes a separation makes sense to me, and you sound like a conspiracy
theorist and confused.

I do understand that there might be politics between G.I.A. and
people in the gem business. I believe this was in relation to the
gem labs, not the teaching institution. I do not believe there is a
correlation between the actions of a few in the labs that can be
indicative of of a policy by the education department to teach
Gemologists to manipulate the public into perceiving something that
is not valuable as valuable. I do not know if you have been involved
in retail. If you have you would know that the market is determined
by what the public finds attractive, what they can afford, and what
is available.

As a retailer, I just unlock my door, and the customers come in
looking for goodies, they have a criteria, and they never met that
‘gem dealer that convinces the public that all gemstones are
valuable’. People come into my store because they know or soon find
out they will not get the low quality gems and jewelry that the mall
stores carry. All concepts and theories aside, all sales of
gemstones are only determined by one thing. The customer has to
believe that what they are trading dollars for is worth more to them
than the dollars they are spending for the item.

Evidently this is an emotional issue for you, and you seem to be
passionate about it. I am not sure of what your passion is related
to, something about gems or how you feel about G.I.A. As far as the
last post of yours I read, that the geological origin in important,
I’d say so what. Knowing provenance of some gem materials can make a
difference but generally once the gem is mined and cut, no test can
prove provenance. Provenance can be interesting to a collector, but
it does not mean anything financially.

Being in integrity as far as disclosure and presenting the options
to a customer as to what quality and size gem they can get for their
budget regardless of political and esoteric knowledge that is of no
importance to the customer, unless they have an issue, is all I need
to conduct business in an honest and ethical manner and that is what
I feel is important.

Trust, not stories.

And I am fine being defined by two letters. And we can agree to
disagree <>.

Richard Hart G.G.
Jewelers Gallery
Denver, Co

54 
These are all your statements. In the first and second one you
clearly state that the terms precious and semiprecious, as used
gemologically, refer to rarity of certain minerals, yet in the
last one you refute that by claiming that precious, as a
gemological term, does not mean rare. Which is it?

“relative rarity” is a term indication rarity as it relates to
groupings. “Relative” part is an indication that we trying to
emphasize that compared to some know quantity, the grouping is rare.
One example is left-handed people. Compared to the size of the Earth
population, they are “relatively rare”. But considered as absolute
quantity they are not. “rare” is a term used to describe that only
very few are known and/or available. It is an absolute term. It
would be wrong to say that left-handed people are rare. If I wanted
to employ one, I should be able to locate one within a week. As far
as the rest of your post… I mentioned before that I do not discuss
details of my business, so we are going to have to leave it at that.

Leonid Surpin

55 
However, if a client asks for something of intrinsic value with
potential of appreciation, a competent jeweler must know what and
what not to do.

An ethical jeweler would never sell a piece of jewelry as an
investment. The phrase “with potential of appreciation” is
effectively saying that the purchase is an investment and will act as
an investment vehicle. The problem with this is that, if you are a
retail jeweler with normal retail markups, your jewelry is not an
investment. The only investment in it is that you would get the great
pleasure of wearing something beautiful and knowing what you had on
your hand. Sure maybe in 30 years, if they had bought a truly
exceptional piece of sapphire, it would be worth somewhat more than
they had paid for it, but that is not what typical investments give
as a return. (I’m not talking about truly unique things that most
jewelers can never get near like a 1 ct. intense purple diamond that
will pretty much only be sold at auction.)

The other implied statement here is that only non treated stones
will appreciate in value. Well on a wholesale level (forget about
selling the stones retail here for a moment), all of the better
sapphire and ruby material on the market today has appreciated in
value in the last few years whether it’s been heated or not. While
there has been a larger appreciation in natural material, that has
primarily happened because of greater public knowledge (hence greater
demand) for the material. The general price increases have happened
for a variety of reasons however: sources have dried up, the value of
the dollar, inflationary pressures, etc., and, as I just said, have
been across the board. Fine heated (1-2 ct. range) sapphire that was
going for $2000/ct a few years ago is going for as much as $4000 in
some cases. To infer to your customers that only natural, unheated
material will appreciate is not an accurate statement.

Daniel R. Spirer, G.G.
Daniel R. Spirer Jewelers, LLC

56 
Fine heated (1-2 ct. range) sapphire that was going for $2000/ct a
few years ago is going for as much as $4000 in some cases.

I don’t know where you get your stones but I know some folks in
Bangkok that would love to sell you heated 1-2 ct sapphires for $4000
a carat. Colored stones are worth exactly as much as the customer
will pay, no stone has any intrinsic value beyond it’s percieved
value. That’s what makes the colored stone business so exciting, I
don’t know any other business w/ up to 1000% or more profit (on some
stones)… Think about it. Precious? Semi-precious? who cares…

D.

57

Leonid, your explanation on the purpose of classifying stones makes
sense to me in the history and I share your views on the present day
manouverings.

I wonder how pink and blue diamonds will fit in the classification
of ‘coloured stones’? On the subject of diamonds, my impression of
’perfect-cut hearts and arrows’ diamonds verges on boring compared to
the hand-cut irregular shaped diamonds of yesteryear. The old
diamonds may reflect less light but I have seen so much more
character; light broken into bold splashes of colour and the colours
appearing more intense because there is some darkness behind them.
Granted the old diamond cuts were hit-and-miss, while modern diamond
cuts are uniformly excellent.

I guess the whole exercise in attempting to change the
classification is to refresh public ignorance and confusion, or to
put it nicely, a marketing strategy.

Alastair

58 
So all gemstones are not valuable?

I understand that you see it that way, feel that way. The way
G.I.A. makes a separation makes sense to me, and you sound like a
conspiracy theorist and confused.

You obviously had better experience with GIA than I did. It stands
to reason to assume that headquarters are more professional that New
York office. That may explain the difference in perception.

About gemstones values. This is actually true. Most of gemstones
value lies in labor expended on them. Only very few have intrinsic
value. This is where GIA education falls flat. You say there is no
commercial motif in separating gem universe into diamonds and colored
stones, but the only way this separation makes sense if we take into
account their heft as a market participant. Most business is done in
diamonds, so diamonds have preferred position. The largest sellers
are so called big four, so most of the attention is on big four. I
remember trying to start discussion on separation of natural amethyst
from synthetic. I was told by GIA instructor that nobody cares since
prices for both are very close. How else can I interpret that but a
commercial slant in their education.

GIA played important role in gemology, but they veered of the
educational path. They dumbing down their curriculum and by doing so
they are devaluating the designation of “Graduate Gemologist”. It is
almost a meaningless title now. Every alumni of GIA must criticize
them and criticize them severely for that. It is the only way to save
this organization. There are far too many politicians and social
engineers on GIA board and very few educators, and it filters through
and infects their instructors and down the line.

When you say that I am sound confused, you are right. I am confused.
I do not understand this approach to gemology and I never will.

Leonid Surpin

59 
An ethical jeweler would never sell a piece of jewelry as an
investment. The phrase "with potential of appreciation" is
effectively saying that the purchase is an investment and will act
as an investment vehicle.

I have no problems with jewellery made for purely aesthetic reasons.
But there are situations where a bit more is required. The question
“can gemstone be an investment vehicle”? The answer is definitely yes
as long as all risks are disclosed. Collectors buy works of art.
Sometime they make money and sometimes they do not. If it is ethical
to sell Monet, why not a gemstone with the same rarity rating.
Imagine 10 carat pigeon blood ruby of perfect cut and clarity, and
untreated. How many of such rubies exist ? In one comes on a market,
it should be bought at any price. The price for such stone is only
limited by the ability to pay. Since number of billioneers is keep
increasing, so is the ability to pay, and barred unforeseen
circumstances, such a stone would only resell at much higher price
than originally bought.

Leonid Surpin

60

Leonoid,

My post got edited. And we can agree to disagree as I imagine your
response will be quite full of justification, pontification and what
I feel is condescension. The part that got left out was my opinion
is that some of your posts come across as if you are condescending.
My perception is that you donot respect those of us who do not fault
G.I.A. for the reasons you disagree with them.

Seems like you think there is some ignorance on my part as you know
or understand things as a result of your experience or knowledge that
I cannot understand. You say you cannot reveal details of you
business. What does that have to do with the discussion, unless you
are so elite or special, or that revealing would cause
you to suffer financial loss or you would compromise your customers?

How do you feel about this post:

Leonid, your explanation on the purpose of classifying stones makes
sense to me in the history and I share your views on the present day
manouverings.

I wonder how pink and blue diamonds will fit in the classification
of ‘coloured stones’? On the subject of diamonds, my impression of
’perfect-cut hearts and arrows’ diamonds verges on boring compared to
the hand-cut irregular shaped diamonds of yesteryear. The old
diamonds may reflect less light but I have seen so much more
character. light broken into bold splashes of colour and the colours
appearing more intense because there is some darkness behind them.
Granted the old diamond cuts were hit-and-miss, while modern diamond
cuts are uniformly excellent.

I guess the whole exercise in attempting to change the classification
is to refresh public ignorance and confusion, or to put it nicely, a
marketing strategy."

Do you agree “modern diamond cuts are uniformly excellent”, and “old
diamonds may reflect less light but I have seen so much more
character. light broken into bold splashes of colour and the colours
appearing more intense because there is some darkness behind them.”

Richard Hart G.G.
Jewelers Gallery
Denver, Co.