Just what is fine jewelry?

Jewelry Discussion
81 
Just because they aren't written down doesn't mean they don't exist

John a standard must be written down that is the whole point. If it
is not then it is just a matter of opinion .0808 The whole point of a
standard like the GIA diamond grading standard is so that everyone
knows exactly what is being described. So that an item can be
measured against the standard to determine if it meets the parameters
of the definition in the standard. Without tools and definitions to
measure against then I could say I am selling you a fine diamond but
not much more and depending on my reputation in the trade you might
or might not agree with me and buy the stone sight unseen. But with a
written standard you don’t have to know the reputation of the
individual or company. With the standard I can say it is graded by
GIA as a D color VVS1 with Very Good Symmetry, Very Good Polish, Very
Good Cut etc. and you and anyone else with the knowledge of those
terms will have an excellent idea of how good that stone is.

James Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts

82 
I'll define fine jewelry if you define fine wine, hows that?

It’s a deal.

" Please allow me to introduce myself, I’m a man of wealth and
taste…"

I define fine wine by three weighted criteria: colour, aroma and
taste.

These criteria are both subjective and objective.

There are robots today which can do a much more refined job than me
when it comes to measuring each of the three OBJECTIVE scales and no
doubt other wine drinkers could choose additional criteria and even
delete one or more of mine because the selection of these objective
criteria is SUBJECTIVE choice. After all, should those who are
olfactory-challenged be denied the enjoyment of fine wine? And should
the citizens of Planet Exo be denied the application of senses which
we Earthlings do not have?

I WEIGHT each of these SCALES and though the weights are objective
and can be robotized, that too is a subjective choice.

Nevertheless I can write a program in C language (the language which
has run Vancouver’s Sky Train since Expo 86) so that Sky Train can
tell customers in luxury class coaches what the ABSOLUTE scales and
weights are for the fine wines they have chosen by both subjective
and objective measures using a VIVO program (VoiceIn-VoiceOut) if
you can tell me what they are. A robotic Canada Arm will serve the
wine. (Then it will carve a fine piece of stone for you applying the
same logic).

83 
Let me see if I can provide a general answer to all questioning
the existence of standard.

To truly summarize your rather voluminous reply there is no standard
but rather each organization, company and goldsmith applies their own
judgement as to what is fine jewelry.

So there is no standard.

James Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts

84

Hi Leonid,

Let me see if I can provide a general answer to all questioning
the existence of standard.

[snip]

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said " I know it when I
see it". He was talking about obscenity, but the principle equally
applies to fine jewellery.

I will address the two points that are supported by the rest of your
post.

…

First of all, consider that we have many institution specializing
in jewellery education. If there were no standard, than how
students attending such schools are judged? So there is obviously
has to be a standard!

This is an incorrect assumption. Institutions are run by individuals
or an amalgum of people that “do not” represent the industry as a
whole. If you go to various institutions, you will at best find best
practices of jewellery fabrication, but there will only be tutors
opinions of what “fine jewellery” actually is. Jewellery is governed
by trends, and what some people consider a polished turd today will
be considered fine jewellery tomorrow.
…

Quite often, reputable jewellery houses have their own standards,
exceeding generally accepted ones. And even among these higher
standards, there are even further distinguished categories."

Thank you for making my point, in that “their own standards”. This
is not an industry accepted standard, domestic or international, but
a standard for that company alone. You further make my point by
stating “even among these higher standards”. A standard is not a
sliding scale, it’s heavily documented, and agreed upon by all those
concerned.
…

You make mention of an “accepted standard” or a standard even higher
than the “accepted standard”. No one has accepted anything. As to US
body that gives you a rating, that would only be recognised in the
US, and I suspect that once they have given you your certificate
there is no policing to ensure that level of craftsmanship is upheld.

So how would we define a standard for “fine jewellery”… simple…
well sort of. The process would be undertaken by the standards
organisation of your country. There would be years of bitching an
moaning, and when an agreed upon standard is in place… there would
still be moaning.

You’re half right when you say “Goldsmithing is so complicated and
so varied discipline, that to actually sit down and document
requirements for every type of technique would be an impossible task.
Or, at the very least, it would produce a tome so huge that nobody
would care to memorize it”. The techniques can be quantified, as the
techniques are finite, and in any case of exceptions contingencies
can be put in place in a standards document. Personally if there were
a tome defining/outlining fine jewellery I would own it as a
reference, especially in these days where you can come under
litigation for ridiculous things (imo). E.g. The ring was too shiny,
and it dazzled me, that’s when I crashed the car.

Your last point is very pertinent :-

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said 'I know it when I
see it'

This is his opinion “only”, this is not a standard. Please refer to
my earlier quote about “a polished turd”.

Regards Charles A.
P.S. I am occasionally asked do deal with legal bodies when it comes to
definitions of knives… the rigmarol (and it’s a lot) that very simple
needs is far less than the definition of “fine jewellery” would require.

85 
And of course we have fine jewelry, just as we have fine linens
and fine wine and fine dining and fine women and fine cars. I'll
define fine jewelry if you define fine wine, hows that? It's simple
English, and it's how we communicate with each other - good,
better, best, fine, finer, finest.

But what are the criteria? How is it measured? Without a true
standard it is all opinion. From what is read from Leonid and a few
others in this thread base metal items cannot be fine jewelry no
matter what the level of craftsmanship. Go to any mall jewelry chain
and they will tell you they are selling fine jewelry to which I would
probably disagree in 80 percent or more of time given what most of
them sell. But that is my opinion. If you go to ask that hypothetical
person at the table next to you at the restaurant as you suggest you
will likely get an answer that is different than your or my opinion
of what constitutes fine jewelry. This is the problem with a nebulous
term like “Fine Jewelry”. Can a simple band ring be fine jewelry? If
so, why? If not then why not? What makes an item fine jewelry?

James Binnion
James Binnion Metal Arts

86

Fine jewelry has nothing to do with pure gold nor with diamonds or
emeralds or rubies etc. nor with perfection in the execution, but
with one thing and with thing only: the sheer mastery in execution of
a pertinent design. Hermann Junger made pieces with crooked bezels
and it’s art. The Japanese metalsmiths made the mokume gane without
using gold and it’s art. However, the one billionth coronet ring with
diamonds and a ruby in the middle, even perfectly made, is not art
and not the fine jewelry either because it is a cliche. It’s just
jewelry. The rest is the shallow bourgeois thinking ruined by the
capitalist commodification. As to criteria, there is only one. At no
time in history did people agree on such definitions. According to
Michelangelo, da Vinci had little talent. It is not important. Their
work is still being valued - others are forgotten. That is the
criterium: the ability of the work to withstand time and to shine
through it - be it jewelry or painting or music, it’s not important.

Jacques Pinaud

87

Hi Dinah and all,

I guess I expressed my pov really poorly! I wasn’t putting down
costume jewelry AT ALL. I meant to express my affection for jewelry
in general. The expression “junk jewelry” is one we (sisters and I)
made up as little kids, and I was using it here, tongue in cheek. You
needn’t, for my sake, stick up for all your examples of non-precious
jewelry designers. As an enamelist, I know that I had to work harder
to achieve acceptance for the value of my work. My hero above all
jewelry heroes is R. Lalique. His work is unquestionable fine
(finest) and he used many humble materials. I brought up Tom Mann’s
work to express that jewelry doesn’t have to be “fine jewelry” to be
appreciated and valued.

I have no need for a defining of what is fine jewelry and what is
not. None of us know our legacy, how our work will be viewed 50, 100
years from now (if there are still people). Make what you love. Make
it better than you thought you could. Keep challenging yourself. Use
whatever material inspires you. If you can design something, even
out of modest materials, that that thrills you, that is so
exquisitely wonderful the world scrambles to own it even at great
cost, you have done yourself proud. If you can purchase the most rare
precious stone and set it perfectly in a precious metal, but
unimaginative design, do you have more reason for pride? You’ll
certainly get more publicity! In my opinion, the value of materials
is secondary to it’s beauty, appropriateness and usability. Good
design and execution will be valued in the long run… unless
you’re buying by the carat/karat.

88 
The whole point of a standard like the GIA diamond grading
standard is so that everyone knows exactly what is being described.

No definition of fine wine, yet, much less fine women ;}

Jim wants it written down, that’s OK. Jim comes from an engineering
background so it’s undersrtandable. GIA developed what amounts to,
in today’s world, a RETAIL standard of diamond quality. Those
standards, again, actually come from several centruries of the
diamond trade, and diamond traders used it quite successfully, which
is why Liddicoat adopted it. All he did was make up his own language
to describe the same things. If you involve yourself more deeply in
the trade, you’ll find that GIA - the public GIA,- only scratches
the surface of what diamonds are about. If Jim or others object to
the use of the term “standards” for the dialogues that diamond
traders have, then let’s call it a common language and
understanding.

Certainly to say that all of these professional people are just
wafting in the breeze is, well, ignorant of the realities of the
trade.

As for fine jewelry, it’s just not that complicated and I already
said it but I’ll spell it out - call it a common language, if you
prefer. Fine jewelry is determined by inspection. Fine jewelry is
defined as perfection by a trained eye under 10x magnification. That
includes polish and finish and craftsmanship such as that circles
are round and squares are square and centered thiings are on-center.
And I could go on with attributes but it just means that a trained
eye can find no~objective flaws. And this is the common language
that the trade uses and understands every day. I make work to that
quality under the ~assumption~ that the recipient is going to do
just that inspection. And they do.

And yes, a plain wedding band can qualify as fine jewelry, it just
needs to pass inspection - 6mm wide all around, 1.6mm thick all
around, etc. That’s the criteria the industry uses, and thoughts
about style are not relevant in that part of the picture. There are
people who know this and still put out product with crooked stones
or porosity - we would calll that “sub-standard” in fact. And Graff
takes those standards and insists on a higher level of excellence
than average, as is their prerogative.

I think that some on this thread are looking at the trees instead of
the forest - a bewildering ;array of products and craft and design
and “what is fine and what is not, who’s to know?” But within the
industry it’s just not complicated. It’s determined by inspection
and how nearly, for better or worse, a piece comes up to the
“standard”. And then after that things like design and saleability
come into play. And it’s really just that simple.

I think some are mistaking something else, too. I am a fine jeweler
when it’s called for. It’s hard to get to that place but once you
know it, it’s just a routine job, and yes it’s what Zales and
Tiffany’s do. There is another place, though, and that is High
Jewelry. That’s the world of ten million dollar diamonds and
hundreds of hours of labor on a single piece. That’s an entirely
different world, and the level of perfection there is
other-worldly…But it’s all about craftsmanship - quantifiable,
measurable, objective standards of craftsmanship that come from
5,000 years of goldsmithing heritage. One of the other things you
learn when you actually have an apprenticeship.

89

But what are the criteria? How is it measured? Without a true
standard it is all opinion.James - I have an observation, I would
like to point out that since here i find a great deal of truth in the
"standard" being based on opinion. I would also like to point out
that over many decades before todays technology there have been
periods of time in jewelry making history like ancient Egypt for
example when the metal work was beautiful but not quite in the same
way as jewelry made by machines like lets say todays CAD jewelry. My
point is this for thousands of years humans have strived for
perfection. Anything that did not look home made but left one
pondering the question of " how did they get it to look so perfect ?"
was a sort of criteria of the definition of " fine ".

Allow me to repeat my self, most of what people used on a daily
basis by people in their daily lives was home made, people did not
use money to go out and buy things the way we do today be it food,
spoons, knives, furniture, clothing etc… Today antique dealers call
all this home made stuff “folk art”. Social Status and perfect stuff
went together, perfection in anything was admired and
respected.please allow me to continue, Modern art jewelry and
academia in an effort to broaden ideas and concepts has allowed
students to pursue the "imperfect perfect " this is an oxymoron that
gets people confused . In an effort to comeup with something " New "
Students ( inexperiened )are allowed to make all sorts of things
according to their own desires and set their own definitions of
standard. I find myself of the opinion that unless a majority of us
are willing to sacrifice political correctness and set some
standards and stick to them we wont have the ability to come up with
a definition of " fine ". Further more severe consequences over lack
of courage on our parts to be willing to set some standards will
leave no foundation or future for others who follow behind us in the
craft or art of Jewelry who are attempting to base their careers on
perfection. A good place to star would be the Websters or Oxford
dictionary of the English language for the definition of "fine "
respectfully - goo

90 
I'll define fine jewelry if you define fine wine, hows that?

Comparing fine wine and fine jewellery is a very good idea. I do
believe that both have the same mechanism of appreciation. In some
way taking a look at fine wine should help us to understand how to
deal with fine jewellery.

The first step is to ged rid off personal preferences. Likes and
dislikes have nothing to do with quality of wine. To make fine wine
one needs good soil (vineyard), good weather, care in picking and
selection of grapes, care in juice extraction, barrel preparation,
and patience to allow wine to mature. If all is right, the resulting
wine is a fine wine and frankly no winemaking skills above basics is
required.

Skills come into play when one or more conditions not rights, so
winemaker have to compensate. Fine jewellery is very much the same
with one exception. Given the best stones and metals, role of
goldsmith is still critical. Jewellery does not make itself. However,
we should learn from winemakers and allow nature to play as large
role as possible, given a particular set of circumstance. That means
using natural metal properties, enhancing appearance of gemstones.
Goldsmith must allow components to show off that they got and use
skills only when it absolutely necessary. Jewellery constructed that
way is a fine jewellery regardless whether one likes it or not.

Going back to fine wine. Fine wine is evaluated not on taste, ( that
will be subjective) but on absence of flaws. The same goes for
jewellery. There are no perfect wine and there are no perfect
jewellery. But if it takes me more than a minute to find a flaw,
than I know I am looking at fine jewellery.

Leonid Surpin

91 
Hermann Junger made pieces with crooked bezels and it's art. The
Japanese metalsmiths made the mokume gane without using gold and
it's art. However, the one billionth coronet ring with diamonds and
a ruby in the middle, even perfectly made, is not art and not the
fine jewelry either because it is a cliche

It may be an art, but it is not fine jewellery. To say that
something is not jewellery because it is a cliche, is a sheer
nonsense. To do something just because it is not a cliche is one of
the cardinal sins of good design, - originality for the sake of
originality.

Leonid Surpin

92 
But what are the criteria? How is it measured? Without a true
standard it is all opinion

The standard is absence of flaws. Let’s use “concept jewellery” as
an example. Suppose we have a ring with crooked bezel. Goldsmith who
made it, saying “I wanted it that way”. I am saying that whoever made
it, simply does not know how to make straight bezel. The question
becomes who is right? If crooked bezel can be justified from point of
view of design, or may be some stone characteristics, that it can be
called fine jewellery, but that is were it becomes subjective. I
would say if stone requires it, do not use such stone. However, some
may find it interesting and may even purchase it. But if
justification cannot be made, than the label “concept” is just an
excuse for lack of skill.

The argument can continue by saying that accepting or rejecting
justification is a matter of opinion and we are back where we
started. The circle is broken by using functionality of design as a
measure. In other words, - if bezel is crooked, what is the function
of it’s crookedness? How does it contribute of overall ownership
experience? Why crooked bezel is better than straight bezel?

In one of the previous discussion I used “chamber pot with the
handle inside” as an example. We can revisit it. If it made out of
silver is it a fine silverware? Is it original? - yes. Is it
conceptual? - yes Can position of the handle be justified from
function viewpoint? - resounding No!

Leonid Surpin

93 
GIA developed what amounts to, in today's world, a RETAIL standard
of diamond quality. Those standards, again, actually come from
several centuries of the diamond trade, and diamond traders used it
quite successfully, which is why Liddicoat adopted it. All he did
was make up his own language to describe the same things. If you
involve yourself more deeply in the trade, you'll find that GIA -
the public GIA,- only scratches the surface of what diamonds are
about. There were no written > standards, really, for diamond
grading until Liddicoat devised the GIA system, but all he did was
codify the system that had been in place, in the diamond trade, at
least since Tavernier.

John, I think you are good at rhetoric, not that good on fact. You
appear to be muddled in your thinking.

First, G.I.A. has absolutely nothing to do with RETAIL standard of
diamond quality. If they do not provide any as to the
dollar value of a diamond, what they do cannot relate to a WHOLESALE
or RETAIL standard.

To me, learning how to separate diamonds based on clarity, color,
and fluorescence was the most important criteria that allowed a
critical perspective to help judge the beauty of a diamond when
comparing diamonds of similar cut and weight. Stated goal when I
attended the diamond course was that the students would be within
10% of color and clarity grade.

Again, there was no relationship to value of diamond.

When I first became interested in gemology I was aware of some
prejudice toward the G.I.A. diamond grading system. This was in 1977.
There were people in downtown Los Angeles jewelry center that
resented the system.

At that time I was aware that there was a system using terms first
pique, second pique, ect. which meant different things to different
people and there was no standardization until Richard Liddicoat
established the G.I.A. system.

Google history of diamond grading and you get:

"HISTORY OF THE GIA CLARITY SCALE Before the development of the
Gemological Institute of America’s diamond grading scale, many
companies were using their own grading methods. There was a growing
need for a common language. Then, in the early 1950’s, the president
of GIA, Richard T. Liddicoat, Jr., developed and taught a new scale.
It became the foundation for the modern diamond grading scale as we
know it today. "

I know you cannot believe everything on the internet, but when it
agrees with what I believe…

Actually, from my experience as a student “In Residence” for 6
months, and as Gemologist for 35 years, that is correct. What does
being a student “In Residence” have to do with it? My experience is
that there was discipline, structure, and depth in that environment.
There were also some raging arguments between students and
instructors. One revolt by students resulted in a revision to what
was taught in one part of the colored gem portion of the course.

Over the years I have met many diamond sales people who used the
G.I.A. nomenclature. If I asked them if they had attended G.I.A.,
none of them had. They usually were the brother of cousin of someone
who had a diamond business and they relied on what they were told.
Misapplication of the terms was common place. Over time I have seen
less misand more diamond dealers with better
understanding of the G.I.A. system.

Those standards, again, actually come from several centuries of
the  diamond trade, and diamond traders used it quite
successfully, which is why Liddicoat adopted it. All he did was
make up his own language to describe the same things. If you
involve yourself more deeply in the trade, you'll find that GIA -
the public GIA,- only scratches the surface of what diamonds are
about.

As a student in residence I was aware at the time that G.I.A. was
using an electron microscope to study composition and structure of
diamonds. I am sure over the 35 years since I attended, they have
pursued their investigations continuously. That hardly seems as if
they “only scratch the surface of what diamonds are about.”

Mission statement by G.I.A.:

" GIA exists to protect all purchasers of by providing
the education, laboratory services, research, and instruments needed
to accurately and objectively determine gemstone quality.

Ensuring the Public Trust

A nonprofit institute, GIA’s mission is to ensure the public trust in
gems and jewelry by upholding the highest standards of integrity,
academics, science, and professionalism through education, research,
laboratory services, and instrument development. GIA attained its
leadership role through decades of integrity and ingenuity, and
everything we do is still driven by this mission."

I doubt you could name a scientific process that can be used to
determine about a diamond that G.I.A. does not use I have
no idea what you are talking about as far as how involvement in the
trade would lead anyone to find out that the “public” G.I.A. only
scratches the surface. Please enlighten me as to what you know that
I do not.

Richard Hart, G.G. in Residence…

94 
the sheer mastery in execution of a pertinent design. Hermann
Junger made pieces with crooked bezels and it's art.

Jacque, I think unwittingly.makes an important point. I think
there’s something very important being missed by some of this
discussion - that is that it doesn’t really matter what you think,
and I include myself in that, and I mean that most gently. Put
another way, it’s hard to have a dialogue if you don’t have anybody
to talk to.

The jewelry industry, the jewelry trade, in which I include all
jewelry that anybody makes, is centuries old. One of the great
benefits of working in shops with other people is learning how to
work to a higher standard.

That comes both from a trade off with co-workers and from the boss
saying, “this isn’t good enough, do it again.” Outsiders, such as
consumers, might see some great mysteries in goldsmithing, but the
goldsmithing art does not. We, all of us who are a part of it, have
a tradition and heritage of knowing which end is up, and there is
definately a language that’s a part of that - a language of
craftsmanship and what I still prefer to call standards, whether
those standards are local or global. Yes, the industry DOES have
criteria by shich it says this is good, that is not so good. These
are things you learn by being a goldsmith, and a part of the jewelry
community. I have no problem with having “standards” that aren’t
written in a book by a lawyer, but Jim and Charles seem to have a
problem with that so we’ll call it a common language. That it exists
is only a mystery to those who don’t speak it, but the world of
goldsmithing simply isn’t stumbling around blindly - perhaps it has
more focus than most trades, in fact.

Back to Jacques quote - no, the idea that fine jewelry is made with
technical proficiency does NOT mean that it’s mechanical. A common
misconception. What it means is exactly what the quote says -
everything is made with will and focus and everything is crafted to
high “standards.” A free-flowing flower like something in a brooch
can certainly be called fine jewelry, it just needs to be crafted to
a high level of willfullness and execution. If your bezels are made
crooked intentionally, that’s just fine, it just needs to be willful
and finely executed. We jewelers are not fools, we know the
difference between jaunty and just plain crooked.

I think there’s another, kind of outsider, thing going on here, and
that is that “fine jewelry” is some sort of cliche and we “fine
jewelers” are just hacking out the old standards, but at least
speaking for myself that is simply not true. To me and a great many
others in this world, fine jewelry is simply jewelry that is finely
made. It makes no difference that it’s in some genre or style.
Probably I would balk at calling something copper that name, but I
would recognize the merit of it if there was merit there, too.

I had someone wanting a stainless steel wedding band, and I pointed
out to him that he could just buy one for $20 instead of paying me
to make it. He bought it at Zales, the quintessential “fine jewelry
store” cliche. All it takes is quality, it’s not about snobbery.

95

Jacques, well said.

James Binnion

96

Absolutely you are right Jacques I agree with you 100% Respectfully

Raffi

97

Hi Leonid,

I’ll define fine jewelry if you define fine wine, hows that?

Comparing fine wine and fine jewellery is a very good idea. I do
believe that both have the same mechanism of appreciation. In some
way taking a look at fine wine should help us to understand how to
deal with fine jewellery.

I don’t agree, wine encompasses more senses than sight and touch. To
determine the character of a wine requires taste, smell, as well as
sight and touch.

Even with wine tasting… it’s an opinion.

The wine producers will “tell” you that it’s a fine wine, and will
charge you X amount of dollars.

The wine I like is a Cabernet Sauvignon from a Western Australian
winery, and relatively modest in price $44 AUD a bottle, but worth
every cent (they also make a nice Liquor Muscat).

They will use the term “Fine Wine”, and in this case (imo), they can
justify using the term. However I have had wine from a reputable
vineyard in France (whom I wont name) that sold me a “Fine Wine”,
that was what I imagined to be Ox urine… this was far from fine
wine :frowning:

Back to Jewellery.

It appears that the term “Fine Jewellery” is a marketing term, or a
nebulous term that students have to be familiar with if they want to
score higher grades.

We know there’s no official standard, but a very loose industry
perception on what “fine jewellery” is. And when asked, a Jeweller
will give you their opinion of what “fine jewellery” is, whether it’s
a crafting standard, or the fineness of the materials used.

If you review the posts for this thread, you’ll see that everyone’s
opinion of what “fine jewellery” is, is different.

If you are after grades, find out what the marking teacher “thinks”
fine jewellery is, and make your pieces like that definition.

If you want to make fine jewellery for “sale”, then make your best
and title it “fine jewellery”.

Because you say “it is fine jewellery”, then someone else will think
that too.

Regards Charles A.

98 
It appears that the term "Fine Jewellery" is a marketing term, or
a nebulous term that students have to be familiar with if they want
to score higher grades.

Like everything else in this world, every terminology is misused and
abused, and “fine jewellery” is no exception. When someone who spent
40 years at the bench uses it, it has quite different meaning from
usage by a salesman. Nevertheless, the term does have a universal
meaning, even if at times it is difficult to express.

Take a term “pure water”. For a chemist it means distilled water.
For a bottled water salesman it means anything he sells. But when
average person reads a book and encounters the term, it is taken in a
universal sense. It conjures a feeling of taking a sip of water from
cold mountain spring with all the feelings associated with that. The
term “fine jewellery” is of the sensorial roots. It encapsulates
human emotions when one handles a piece of jewellery. The interplay
of fine gemstones with masterfully crafted settings. The feeling how
such piece caresses the skin upon contact. The dizzying array of
colour and light which hypnotizes at the first sight. A good writer
would not use term “fine jewellery” unless he wants to invoke that
type of a extrasensory response.

Fine jewellery must be greater than the sum of it’s parts. The
difficulty in pinpointing precise definition, based on material
factors is exactly that. A goldsmith must succeed in combining the
parts to transcend the boundaries of measured reality and impart
meta-phisical meaning to it. When that happens, such jewellery can be
rightfully called fine. The jewellery becomes “fine” exactly at a
point when you can no longer describe why you like it.

Leonid Surpin

99 
I was aware of some prejudice toward the G.I.A. diamond grading
system.

i don’t think there’s any reason to pursue Richard’s sideline,
myself. GIA is a fine outfit, and Liddicoat devised a fine system.
Like any essentially academic enterprise, it gives you a general
framework to prepare you for the real world, but that’s all. Read a
cert and think about how much (how little) info is actually there.
Plenty for most circumstances, yes. Enough to give ~the retail
customer~ comfort. They don’t do rough… The diamond industry is
vast and ancient.

100

“The standard is the absence of flaws”… I’d call that best work
practices, but hardly “fine jewellery”.

If you base a piece on function and precision of construction, I
still don’t think this hits the mark of “fine jewellery”.

No one has provided anything that could be described as a solid
definition, and it’s probably not possible.

I think that this discussion could go on forever without resolution.

The only time it would ever be solved is if a government body
produced a “fine jewellery” standard.

Regards Charles A.