Changing the term "semi-precious" stones

Jewelry Discussion
61 
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.

G.I.A. has two parts. education (school) and identification (lab).
G.I.A. does not have any kind of marketing strategy, implied or
expressed in any way that I am aware of. Please direct me to
something put out by G.I.A., literature or course curriculum that I
am not aware of that shows this intention.

And perhaps by having been educated as to how and why cutting affects
the beauty of a diamond, I am in the dark as to: “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.” I understand
that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I do not regret loosing
the ability to perceive a poorly cut diamond as having “more
character” With good cutting, what is brought out is the character
of a diamond. So, the worse the cutting, the more character? I do
have some diamonds broken out of old jewelry that have a lot of
“character”. I will make you a good deal on them. Some have a
premium as they are chipped which adds more character.

Richard Hart G.G.
Jewelers Gallery

62 
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

I agree with you. Perfection is not such a good thing. Nostradamus
invented parfume by adding deer musk to the rose oil. One of the best
kept secrets in baking was always to add salt, but you will never
find the recipe calling for it. In oriental cooking, the fish sauce
is used to create what japanese call “umami”. On it own, the fish
sauce is the most horrendous concoction, but in a small amounts it
allows to appreciate the other ingredients. In order to appreciate
good, we have to have a point of reference, and presence of
imperfection gives us something to compare to and that creates a
character. So called “imperfectly” cut diamonds are a good example of
it.

Leonid Surpin

63

For those of us that remember the term pique as applied to diamonds,
what happened to that term?

My understanding is that there really was no agreed upon standard
criteria for what I believe was called “first pique” or “second
pique”, ect.

Seems to me that as G.I.A.'s system of clarity grading became the
standard, the word pique became obsolete.

Although G.I.A. grading system brought clarity and standardization
to diamond grading, apparently it is just another marketing strategy
perpetrated by G.I.A. I guess by attending G.I.A., I became a G.I.A.
cyborg, and now I am part of their “market strategy” and I am
participating in indoctrinating the public “to refresh public
ignorance and confusion”.

I quess all the fine jewelry stores who have Gemologists trained by
G.I.A.not are not aware of the part they play in this perpetration.
Apparently ignorance can be an asset and education a liability.

Richard Hart G.G.
Jewelers Gallery

64 
An ethical jeweler would never sell a piece of jewelry as an
investment.

A piece of jewellery sure is an investment. Selling is when the
jeweller cashes out on their investment of metal, stones, and labour.
Only an emotional investment for the customer, no cash value.

Jeff
Demand Designs
Analog/Digital Modelling & Goldsmithing
http://www.gmavt.net/~jdemand

65

Leonid,

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 ?

There is something called reading for content. If you had carefully
read my whole post, you would have noted that I specifically
referenced stones that were truly unique and sold at auction as not
being included in the discussion with this statement:

(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.)

As wide and varied as the Orchid group is, very few, if any of them,
have actually sold million dollar plus stones (or even hundred
thousand dollar plus stones). Perhaps, in one of the few sales you do
actually make, you are selling stones in this range. It’s impossible
to tell. Certainly if you are selling them, and your retail markups
are relatively low then you can sell them as investments. But that
isn’t what most people are doing (and somehow I get the feeling that
you aren’t either), and with the normal types of retail jewelry
sales, calling them investments is unethical.

As for the GIA you said:

They dumbing down their curriculum and by doing so they are
devaluating the designation of "Graduate Gemologist"

and yet recently in a posting you complained that Gems and Gemology
had gotten too technical in their articles. G&G is produced by the
GIA. I’m confused. Which is it? Has the GIA dumbed down or gotten too
technical?

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

66 
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.

Leonid, what does it matter that diamonds are given such a place in
the industry? You are clearly in the business of making and selling
jewellery, using diamonds as the focus of your rings so how does it
harm you that the GIA separate gems into diamonds and coloured
stones? It makes more sense to me than precious vs semi-precious,
whatever the motive. You are GIA trained, you use their grading
system, why the sour grapes?

Diamonds are huge in the market place and so what? As I said, your
business is built on that and so are a great many others. If the
expression of love was made by the giving of an garnet ring, for
example, or if most other gems were set off nicely by garnet accent
stones, then it might make sense to separate garnets from all other
stones and put diamonds into the other category - but that’s not the
case.

Diamonds (for the purposes of my argument) are colourless gems. They
are beautiful, no matter whether I am conditioned to love them
because of De Beers’ campaign. I love them nonetheless. They look
good on their own and they also look good to compliment coloured
stones. No other colourless, clear gem looks as good as a good
diamond in either role. White topaz, white sapphire look very dull
when used as accent stones (IMHO). The GIA’s grading system deals
with the complexities of diamond grading admirably. It is easy to
understand and makes the buying of diamonds a manageable task rather
than a complicated chore. It works - why knock it? The same system as
works for diamonds does not really work for other, ie coloured gems,
and so they devised a system for grading coloured gems. It works -
why knock it?

Helen
UK
http://www.hillsgems.co.uk
http://www.helensgems.etsy.com

67 
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"?

Well, I hope you’re willing to sell at or below your cost. Oops, I
forgot you don’t need to make money at jewelry.

Now that we’re on this, I recall awhile back you said something
along the lines of your jewelry appreciating as much 2 to 3 times
within ten years. I might be off on the specifics but generally you
made that claim. I let it go at the time because everyone makes a
careless boast now and then. But you’ve come back to it.

While I consider the question of the retail selling of jewelry to
the public ‘as an investment’ to be borderline unethical, (Yes I
think it crosses the line but it depends on exactly how the
conversation goes), making a specific claim about return could land
you in a bucketful of legal trouble.

Besides I highly doubt anyone but the gullible would believe it.

But because the innocently unaware(new jewelers, consumers) might
read your claim and possibly take action based on the assumption
‘must be true because it I read it on a professional jewelers’ site.
I got the inside skinny’, I feel bound to point out that you stand
quite alone in your assertions.

The only retail investment context I’d feel comfortable with is when
the jewelry purchase is compared to other consumer goods. Re: the
reclaimable actual cash value after time(wear and tear, and
maintenance included) vs. personal enjoyment, of say, wall to wall
carpeting, a new car, a spiffy refrigerator.

But then my first rule of retail is to always work to my customer’s
best interest.

68 
Besides I highly doubt anyone but the gullible would believe it.
But because the innocently unaware (new jewelers, consumers) might
read your claim and possibly take action based on the assumption
'must be true because it I read it on a professional jewelers'
site. I got the inside skinny', I feel bound to point out that you
stand quite alone in your assertions.

Anybody who makes investment decisions based on what one reads on
the internet, deserves what one gets. I definitely do not recommend
buying jewellery indiscriminately for the purpose of investment. But
that does not mean that carefully selected jewellery portfolio cannot
produce nice returns.

There was a jewellery firm specializing in estate jewellery Fred
Leighton. This firm was bought by Ralph Esmerian for a 100 million
dollars. To raise capital for the purchase and planned expansion,
Esmerian borrowed 178 million dollars from Merrill Lynch. (the loan
is
in default right now). As a collateral for the loan, Esmerian used
Fred Leighton collection of 115 rare gems. 178 millions is hardly a
chicken feed and Merrill Lynch bankers probably know more about
investment than all of us. As far as I am concern, that is all the
proof I need that carefully selected jewellery portfolio can be a
viable investment vehicle.

Leonid Surpin

69 
what does it matter that diamonds are given such a place in the
industry? You are clearly in the business of making and selling
jewellery, using diamonds as the focus of your rings so how does
it harm you that the GIA separate gems into diamonds and coloured
stones?

I have been studying gemology not because it was an absolute
necessity to be in business, but for the sake of gemology itself. One
does not have to get into technicalities of diamond grading,
production and etc. Diamond can be purchased with certs and resold
to the public after adding certain percentage. As far as business
goes, that is all there is to it. I know a lot of people who do it
quite successfully, without been able to tell diamond from glass
imitation.

So we are talking from purely scientific point of view. There is
absolutely no reason why diamonds placed in such a prominent role,
except their commercial importance. For example: one of the most
interesting and complex is a garnet group, but if your only exposure
to gemology is GIA course, you would never know about it. It is not
the issue if whether or not, one is negatively influenced by a
certain policy. By concentrating only on diamonds and few other
stones, we are robbing ourselves of pleasure of working with other
There are easily over a hundred gemstones which can be
used for jewellery, but looking at what is offered for sale, one
would think that only less than a dozen of gemstones exist.

Leonid Surpin

70 
and yet recently in a posting you complained that Gems and
Gemology had gotten too technical in their articles. G&G is
produced by the GIA. I'm confused. Which is it? Has the GIA dumbed
down or gotten too technical?

What was complaining about is that Gems and Gemology became useless
and content became zero. To conceal that fact, they are
employing technical jargon.

Leonid Surpin

71

Leonid:

Esmerian borrowed 178 million dollars from Merrill Lynch. (the loan
is in default right now). As a collateral for the loan, Esmerian
used Fred Leighton collection of 115 rare gems. 178 millions is
hardly a chicken feed and Merrill Lynch bankers probably know more
about investment than all of us. As far as I am concern, that is
all the proof I need that carefully selected jewellery portfolio
can be a viable investment vehicle.

I suppose it would be of use to point out that the current state of
the US financial system was brought about by bankers who were sure
they knew more about investment than everybody else. Turns out they
were wrong.

I suspect that when Lynch goes to try to sell off the collateralized
stones, they’ll discover that they’re not going to clear more than a
million apiece for them either. (Not knowing anything at all about
the stones in question, I could be wrong, but at least I’ll admit it
up front.)

Meanwhile: a former student of mine is working for GIA in Carlsbad.
(Doing master grading for the colored stones courses, oddly enough.)
She informs me that the “GIA Marketing Mind Control Beam” is
actually housed in that big rotating glitter-cube on the roof, over
the front door.

(“…whatever you do, DON’T LOOK INTO THE LIGHT!”)

Leonid, I’m no big fan of diamonds, and not much of a rock-hound in
general, but I did do the road-show colored stones course once upon
a time. From what I picked up, their interest was in systematizing
the grading of colored stones. All they were after was something
faintly resembling a coherent, and repeatable system. Turning it into
a cash cow (beyond the cost of the classes & gear) wasn’t their game.
Neither were they interested in stunning the students with deep
geological knowledge. The point was to get us all to the point where
any 3 of us would all rate the same stone into more-or-less the same
grade.

If you really want to get paranoid about conspiracies, ask yourself
why the clarity ratings for emeralds start off with a 2 point bump
over any other colored stone. (I can’t remember now, it could only
be a 1 point bump.) Are they trying to pump up the value of emeralds
for some nefarious profit-driven motive? Or, rather is the general
quality of emerald rough so bad these days that people are cutting
crap that they wouldn’t even consider if it weren’t emerald? (As in:
a stone that would be un-gradably included (“Declassee”) in anything
else would be a grade 1or 2 in Emerald.) What does it tell you about
the nature of the average consumer that people are still willing to
pay money for emeralds so included they’re hard to tell from jade?
(By eye, at first glance.) Personally, it tells me a lot more about
the consumer, and their education level, than it says anything about
GIA, except that they’re willing to deal with the realities of the
market as it exists, rather than wasting time worrying about what
the customer ‘should’ want, and what ‘real emeralds’ look like.

Cheers-
Brian Meek.

72

If the GIA is the policy maker in gemstone classification then it
must have the support of the various gemstone industries, or vice
versa. The consumer has no say in the matter except by purchasing a
gemstone. To me this is marketing strategy. The consumer is the
target, to be educated in every possible benefit of exchanging money
for a gemstone, and to be shielded from any negative aspect.
‘Refreshing my ignorance’ is my description of a strategy that tries
to steer me in any particular way, that may be of some benefit to me,
but is of more benefit to the author of the strategy.

I have seen old diamonds that break all the rules and somehow stand
out as spectacular, a tall poppy in a field of new diamond
look-alikes. I have also seen old diamonds that are as dull as dirty
glass; Richard, if those are the ones you are willing to toss my
way…no thanks!

‘Character’ is subjective, thus not repeatable, thus not recognised
in the system. I have no problem with that, but will not hesitate to
promote an extrordinary old on equal terms to a perfect new.

Cheers, Alastair

73 
There is absolutely no reason why diamonds placed in such a
prominent role, except their commercial importance.

I attempted to put into clear, English words why I think diamonds
are given such a prominent role. They are colourless, they are
beautiful, no matter that that’s what De Beers tell us. They stand on
their own as a beautiful stone and they compliment other, coloured
gemstones beautifully. As an accent stone that will stand next to ANY
other stone, you MUST have a colourless stone, and NO other
colourless stone does it as well as diamond. What’s not to
understand?

For example: one of the most interesting and complex is a garnet
group,

I even used garnet as an example in my post. I said that if they
complimented other coloured stones the way a good diamond does, then
GIA’s main focus would be on garnets - but that’s not the case
because garnets are coloured gems and only stand well either on their
own or with other, complimentary coloured gems, NOT next to ANY gem.

I’ve not taken any GIA courses obviously, but I’m sure they teach
about many coloured gems on the market. Their course is geared to
the gem market but that doesn’t mean that one has to limit oneself to
just a few coloured I was under the impression that their
coloured stone grading system caters for any coloured stone out
there, covering every clarity grade from eye clean, through included,
heavily included to opaque and that their colour grading covers every
saturation of colour. That therefore caters for everything from
sapphires, rubies and emeralds to tanzanite, kunzite, every form of
garnet one can think or, etc, etc.

As I said, you yourself clearly like diamonds or you wouldn’t use
them in your rings. Anyone wanting to get a GIA education and work in
the gem business can do that and have a very successful career as a
result. But if GIA doesn’t cover every coloured stone you want to
work with, that doesn’t mean that you have to only sell the stones
you learned about in class. They’re all out there wanting to be set
into beautiful jewellery.

Helen - who loves virtually every gemstone out there, but can still
appreciate what the GIA do.

UK

74 
178 millions is hardly a chicken feed and Merrill Lynch bankers
probably know more about investment than all of us.

Given the current state of the economy and of almost all of the
investment firms in America, this is a pretty ridiculous statement.
Apparently most investment firms DON’T know a good investment from a
bad. Nonetheless, my comments (and the other ones regarding this
subject) were not dealing with “exceptional” (auction only) type of
pieces. To say that the jewelry you make is an “exceptional” auction
only type piece is both incredibly egotistical, inaccurate if you’re
using normal retail markups, and pretty silly unless your name is
Harry Winston or Faberge. If it’s not an “exceptional”, auction
only, type of piece then to infer that it is a solid investment is
still unethical.

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

75 
If the GIA is the policy maker in gemstone classification then it
must have the support of the various gemstone industries, or vice
versa.

Completely inaccurate statement as to G.I.A. as “policy maker”. Also
untrue that there is any connection between the gemstone market and
G.I.A. that results in how a gem is classified.

Gems had been separated and classified by chemical composition prior
to the existence of G.I.A. Refractive index is also used to identify.
Hardly a “policy”. Think of it like oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen
are separated by chemical composition. These gases are not classified
by a policy.

This is how gem materials are identified. Please read about G.I.A.
on wikipedia to have a more accurate perception of what G.I.A.
Classification is done by scientific testing. Where is this
miscoming from that G.I.A. is the policy maker? Kind of
strange to have people making up misin a time where
accurate info is so easily available.

Richard Hart G.G.
Jewelers Gallery
1505 S.Pearl St.
Denver, Co. 80210

76 
I suspect that when Lynch goes to try to sell off the
collateralized stones, they'll discover that they're not going to
clear more than a million apiece for them either. (Not knowing
anything at all about the stones in question, I could be wrong, but
at least I'll admit it up front.)

Actually when Esmerian defaulted on the load, Merrill wanted to put
up for sale. Christie’s was salivating to auction it. It was
estimated at 34 million dollars, but that is a fire sale. Anyway
Esmerian filed for chapter 11 so collection is protected now from
sale.

One of pieces of the collection is the diamond necklace which
Napoleon gave to his wife Josephine. I heard that almost all diamonds
are type II A. This is a rare jewel indeed. Right now, the market is
not right, but in time I suspect it would sell for a lot of money.

Leonid Surpin

77

Just tilting at windmills here…

Diamonds are not the only white gemstone that is beautiful and
capable of accenting colored stones. Diamonds are not the only white
gemstone that can stand alone and look beautiful.

Regardless of feelings, diamonds have been marketed well. To show
the comparison…

A diamond that is graded well and hardly included but is lab-grown
is considered worth significantly less (practically worthless in
comparison) than a mined diamond of the same carat weight, size,
shape…even if the stone is significantly flawed. If the stone
itself is the be all and end all, then why would it matter if it’s
mined or not? Because we’ve been sold on it culturally. A diamond is
forever. And it’s what people want. But if no one was billing it as
the symbol of your love, who would pay that much attention? The
irony…if diamonds are the be all and end all because they are the
only white stone to set off everything and be beautiful on its own as
well, how is it champagne-colored diamonds make it? Those used to be
the castoffs that were graded low. Now they’re champagne diamonds and
so are worth great amounts of money even though they are not even
close to white? Now that’s what I call spin.

Kim Paluch
http://of-the-earth.org

78

Great point about emeralds.

This is another thing that I disagree with GIA.

According to GIA there is no such thing as a perfect colored (their
terminology) stone. They classify gemstones into types and slightly
included type 2 is not the same thing as slightly included type 1.
The
explanation for this is that gemstone formation is different and we
can expect an amethyst to be inclusions free, but it would be
unreasonable of emeralds. In another words, according to GIA, we have
to accept what french poetically call “jardin” because there are no
perfect emeralds. I alway have had trouble with that logic.

Suppose I want a perfect emerald, and let’s assume that money is no
object. I can buy huge emeral crystal and employ gem cutter to carve
out a perfect stone. I would not care how much material will be
wasted, I would not care what it cost, and I am positive that it
should be possible to come up with a perfect emerald. So to say that
perfect emeralds do not exist is obviously false.

They may be expensive, even very expensive, but they do exist. I am
sure that GIA can follow the same logical path. Then why all that
nonsense. Because, if public expectations are low, than it is easier
to move sub- standard merchandise. It is really hard to explain from
any other point of view. If it is sounds conspiratorial, so be it.

Leonid Surpin
www.studioarete.com

79 
If the GIA is the policy maker in gemstone classification then it
must have the support of the various gemstone industries, or vice
versa.

Since this seems to be a perpetual thread, I guess it must be
perpetuated ;}

Even though Alastair’s quote is more appropriate, this also
addresses something Helen said today. That being what is GIA and
what is a GG?

The real answer to both is that GIA trains for, and GG’s are
hopefully trained in, gemstone identification. Meaning lab tests to
say whether a stone is a ruby or a spinel. What it does not do, or
pretend to do, is create gemstone experts in terms of buying or
selling, quality and the rest. Many GG’s are gemstone experts, but
it’s not because of GIAs schooling - they are experts who are also
GGs. One case in point is a GG who I know who identified a stone
(without test - she just “knew”) as a precious topaz - a $2000 stone,
when I took one look and knew it was a smoky quartz - a $5 stone. I
know a bright young woman who’s poised on the edge of getting a GG,
and she knows little about stones beyond the testing she is learning
in the classroom - that’s what GIA provides on the educational side.

There are many here on Orchid who are not GGs who know a great deal
about what stones are about, from buying and selling and rockhounding
and just a lifelong love of rocks and gems. I took the diamond course
because I wanted the shingle - the fact that I have seen 100,000
diamonds is far more valuable. So, yes, GIA is important to the
industry, and yes GGs are invaluable for what they do. But it doesn’t
necessarily mean that they are good at evaluating stone quality - the
things that experience brings. If they are it’s because they would be
anyway, not because of what the colored stone course taught them.
That course is just the framework around which knowlege and
experience are built.

80 
I know a lot of people who do it quite successfully, without been
able to tell diamond from glass imitation.

A fool trades solely on certs. Kinda like derivatives investors.

There is absolutely no reason why diamonds placed in such a
prominent role, except their commercial importance.

Sounds like a darned good reason. Commercial importance equates to
the public’s demand. GIA didn’t cause that demand.

There are easily over a hundred gemstones which can be used for
jewellery, but looking at what is offered for sale, one would think
that only less than a dozen of gemstones exist.

I agree, the world needs many more flourite engagement rings. Overly
tall, spindle pronged, flourite engagement rings. Now THAT’S the
place for a “lifetime guarantee!!!?”