All, As you can read the disagreement on gemstone treatments and
natural is a hot button topic. I will not get into the arguement
with Steve Green over whether his stones are natural and unheated or
radiated or not. The reason for this is that it becomes an arguement
that no one can prove. GIA nor any gem lab I know of can prove if a
gemstone has been heated or radiated if there is no indicators of
radiation or heating in the stone. Heating or radiation treatments do
not leave indications in most As stated by EGL - We know
that gem treaters are making amethyst out of clear quartz, but we can
not prove it nor identify it. We do know that from experience this
amethyst does not occur naturally in this quantity and quality.
Here is how I handle the situation. I tell my customers that I can
not tell if the stone is heated or radiated unless I know for sure. I
do know that the stone is natural and not produced by man. I also do
not put a premium on the stone being natural. There is no difference
in my pricing between stones that are treated and those which are
not. As a cutter I sell my expertise and artistry in cutting and not
the providence of the stone. I do not use words like Imperial,
Oxblood, etc - as I have found that they have no meaning.
I do have a suggestion for all that have anything at all to do with
My suggestion is that we call natural any stone that has
not had anything added to the stone. That means that heating and
radiating a stone still makes the stone natural. Even blue topaz
would be a natural stone under this definition. Dyed, diffused,
impregnated, etc stones all will be called “treated”. Doing this
will eliminate the current deception of pricing based upon whether
the stone is natural or treated by radiating or heating. Cutting
will be put on the same level as heating or radiating. They will
become necessary processes to produce a marketable stone. That’s my
suggestion.
I ask Steve Green - How do you know for sute your stones have not
been he ated or radiated?
Gerry Galarneau