Grain Boundary Diffusion in Tourmaline;
The Epochal Crisis, Part II; A Tempest in a Tabloid:
An Open Letter to David Federman, Editor-in-chief, Colored Stone.
David Federman, I just finished reading Joel Arem’s article Ending
Diffusion Confusion in the current issue of Colored Stone together
with your editorial titled Some Badly Needed Science. You have
written so many open letters to the gemstone industry I thought I
would try my hand at writing one to you. Given your reception of my
January letter to the editor, I decided that the wisest course was to
publish my opinion here.
First question; who is confused? For over a year you have repeatedly
published your claims that tourmaline, topaz and tsavorite are being
diffusion treated with little backup up of those claims other than
your “long simmering suspicions” and the unsupported evidence of one
man while many experts in the gemological community have been saying
that the evidence presented to support those claims is just plain
wrong. You state:
“Was there a better way to test James’ conjecture? I think
so…It’s called experimental gemology.”
I find it ironic that you are suddenly calling for “experimental
gemology.” I agree with your call, but let’s, just for a change,
accurately define our terms. Gemology is a science so when you say
experimental gemology you are really talking about experimental
science. Well David, experimental science proceeds inductively from a
series of hypotheses to a conclusion based upon the testing of those
hypotheses. Are you the the same David Federman who has published no
less than three previous editorials in this same magazine announcing
not the possibility, but the actual use of diffusion treatment in
tourmaline, topaz and garnet? Were you mistaken? In your 1/27/09
edition of CS Gem Mail you state:
“James has spent months conclusively proving that variations of
the chemical process once known as “bulk diffusion” used to turn
plentiful Madagascar corundum into so-called “padparadscha”
sapphire are now being used on numerous other gems.”
“Conclusively proving”? Is that a hypothesis or simply a conjecture?
Now I certainly agree that you are neither a scientist nor a
gemologist so I suppose you are not bound by your own call. Since
your January article you appear to have done some homework—you have
learned the three basic types of diffusion: lattice, grain boundary
and pipe. First you called it lattice (bulk) diffusion, then it was
grain boundary; pity you didn’t do a bit more research before you
wrote those unfortunate editorials. Are you now admitting that your
statement quoted above or your statement to me in an email response
to my first letter to the editor, was a mistake or was that
declaration merely experimental, to wit: “Cross-species diffusion is
now an established reality.”
Do I detect a bit of waffling? Has absolute certainty given way to
doubt? Conjecture is defined by to The American College Dictionary;
as “an opinion without sufficient evidence for proof.” Has Mr. James’
conclusive proof been demoted to mere conjecture? Has your
self-declared “epochal crisis” been reduced to what you are now
pleased call “documented but still unclassified observations of
gemologists like James”? If these observations are unclassified, what
is it that they document? Do you mean that something is happening
here but you don’t know what it is? That didn’t prevent you from
characterizing those unclassified observations as gemology’s darkest
hour (1/27/09). The fact is that experimentation has been ongoing and
no conclusions had been reached and you knew it. I guess you just
couldn’t wait and Mr. James proved to be a much more reliable source
of fodder for the screaming headlines and hackneyed hyperbole that
that has become your trademark.
You point out that “some gemologists took to calling single-crystal
diffusion by a name reserved for polycrystalline diffusion—‘grain
boundary diffusion’:” Have you forgotten who named that dog? Let me
remind you, it was Robert James. That was indeed, as you say
“unfortunate”, because it means that when he spoke about the grain
diffusion of mono-crystalline gems like tourmaline, topaz and
garnet, the afore-mentioned Mr. James was not only confused, he was
talking nonsense.
I read Dr. Joel Arem’s article aimed at Ending Diffusion Confusion
with interest. He does an excellent job of explaining basic science.
Unfortunately when he gets into the meat of the matter he begins to
stumble. Arem states, incorrectly, that the dialogue within the
industry has focused on terminology rather than substance. He forgets
his own call for “real science” and assumes proof not in evidence,
namely that the phenomena described by James at his Tucson seminar is
some mysterious form of treatment. I, along with several of the
scientists present, have consistently maintained that James so-called
evidence proved nothing at all, and that basic disagreement, not
terminology, was and is the focus of the debate within the
gemological community.
“Thus, James’ advanced testing proves, as Dr. Piretti and Dr.
Kiefert have pointed out, exactly the opposite of James’ contention.
Concentrations of manganese and iron in tourmaline prove that the
color is natural.” (GemWise: Drama in The Desert…
GemWise Moved to http://www.thefrenchblue.com/rww_blog: Drama In The Desert: ISG Seminar---A Dry Hole! )
Dr. Arem further states:
“Robert James also offered photographic evidence of a new
treatment process being employed to enhance the color or
tourmaline, precious topaz and tsavorite garnet.”
I attended the Tucson presentation and although James did offer
photo-micrographs depicting what he called grain boundary diffusion
in tourmaline, he offered absolutely no images showing any sort of
treatment in tsavorite. James did make the claim that they were
being treated, but he offered nothing beyond the logically contorted
argument that there mere presence of larger tsavorite in the market
suggests that it must be treated. When I queried him on that point,
he told me he had a report from a German lab, back in his hotel room.
Dr. Arem goes on to consider visible halos around some of the growth
tubes in the tourmalines photographed by James. He failed read
either John Koivula’s article in G&G or Dr. Mary Johnson’s article
posted on the AGTA website that pointed out that those halos were the
result of naturally occurring radiation. Was this due to an overly
zealous concern with terminology or is he confused? He goes on,
echoing James, to offer the quaint but untested hypothesis that
irradiation “might” somehow expand the size of tubes creating a
passageway for enhancing coloration.
And finally what according to Dr. Arem is the real culprit here. Is
it one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse or one of the three
types of diffusion. Well, turns out it is neither. Arem dismisses,
one by one, each of the three types of diffusion as the cause of the
still unproven treatment and reaches the final startling conclusion.
“In all these cases, the mechanism of coloration appears to be a
simple variation of dyeing.”
Dyeing, not diffusion? What a revelation! That certainly justifies
all those blistering headlines and all the talk of “gemological end
times”. A simple variation of dyeing! Still, Dr. Arem didn’t quite
get it right. While reaching for this conclusion, he never asks one
simple, obvious and very important question. No one has denied that
the delightful crud is colored red and brown. Cuprian tourmaline is
normally heat treated. Heat up naturally occurring reddish brown
lateritic clay that is caught in surface breaking growth tubes and
you get, you guessed it, dry encrusted crud. Why, then, would anyone
want to artificially widen those growth tubes then pack that ole crud
into those tubes and make inclusions more visible in a gemstone like
cuprian tourmaline and in the process, dramatically reduce the gem’s
value. Dr. Adolph Piretti did however pose the question: “Why would
anyone want to turn a green tourmaline brown?” What sort of
enhancement is that?
Yes, David Federman, your premature, irresponsible, overheated
statements were, in the end, little more than a tempest in a
tabloid. What was badly needed in this case was restrained,
responsible journalism but we got you instead. “Long simmering
suspicions” are no substitute for facts. The science is now rolling
in like a series of waves breaking against the shore and with each
new verified conclusion, the hyperbolic sand castles you built are
being slowly washed away leaving nothing behind but sand.
Robert James has some excuse for his conduct. He is just a good ole
boy from Texas trying to grab the brass ring of fame along with a
little barbecue and sign up a few students, but people expect more
from Colored Stone, that is, they used to. You, on the other hand,
have been around long enough to know better. You studiously avoided
asking the hard questions and you knew where to go and who to ask.
Serious objections were raised, you knew about them, you choose to
ignore them? Even your hand-picked expert couldn’t completely avoid
the facts. Your “new order of mutant minerals” was it just old
fashioned dyeing or just a byproduct of heat treatment? Thanks David,
for ending the confusion.
Those hollow self-righteous feder-rants you so gleefully doled out
hurt a lot of innocent people, miners and dealers whose only sin is
trying to make an honest living. To those miners and dealers together
with the gemologists and research scientists you so blithely
dismissed as part of a cover up, you owe a sincere apology. Not that
they will ever get one. No, the self-righteous are always the first
to find fault with others but last to recognize their own. You will,
no doubt, continue to sit up upon your high-horse and preach down to
the industry. The only thing that has changed is that your
credibility is shot and David, no one will be listening.
…
References:
Diamond World, GIA Reports on Pink Tubes in Tourmaline:
Johnson, M. L. The Complicated History of Mozambique Cuprian
“Paraiba-like” Tourmalines
Saeseaw, S. The Potential for diffusing Copper into Tourmaline,
Preparation for initial experimentation:
Wise, R. W. Copper Diffusion, Is It Gemology’s New Worst Nightmare,
Part II:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/rygtzt
…
Richard W. Wise, G.G.
Secrets Of The Gem Trade: