Although I am pleased to have a chance to discuss the emerald
case with members of the gem trade, I am distressed that your
announcement to several thousand people has several crutial
I assume that you are concerned about the first couple of
paragraphs of the general announcement which I drafted
personally. The first section is repeated below:
He is being sued by his customer for having sold her a 3.65
carat emerald that contained a massive 10.8 mm fracture that
only became visible once she managed to hit it hard enough to
"reverse the filler process."
I hope that there was no misunderstanding as to what was
intended here. First of all, I state that the cause of action
brought against you asserts that the stone was fractured prior
to the sale - an assertion I find most unlikely. First of all,
everyone in the trade knows that neither Opticon, glass, nor any
number of natural oils (e.g., palm, balsam, cederwood, or clove
oil) will "reverse" or "fail' due to trauma. It just doesn't
work that way. I assumed that no one in the trade would believe
something like that - I was being sarcastic.
The stone as seen in the photographic evidence shows such
serious damage that I doubt anyone could have overlooked it.
Not a nieve customer; not a professional who deals with stones
for a living. I just don't see this as being possible. Simply
nobody pays $38,000 for a ring and doesn't look at it - and had
they looked at it (with an unaided eye) they most certainly
would have noticed the fracture. I just don't see how anyone
could believe that the plaintiff overlooked a 10.8 mm fracture
in the stone's crown.
The following is from the consequent paragraph in the general
How is it possible to have hidden a massive 10.8 mm
surface-reaching fracture so completely that it could get
passed microscopic, UV light, and fiber optic light exams; and
a pin test for surface breaks? Fred Ward still doesn=92t have
the answer to this question, but apparently his opponents do -
and it=92s about to cost him $380,500!
The answer is obvious - it's simply not possible to hide a flaw
of that size. The implication is clear - the stone could not
have been in that condition prior to the sale. It is totally
inconceivable that a stone so seriously damaged could have
slipped by anybody.
Again, I trust that my sarcasm here was understood albeit
perhaps not appreciated. You have been convicted of the
impossible in the company of people who were too easily swayed
by a slick presentation engineered by your opponents. Only
people outside of the trade would buy that nonsense. Fred,
you've been seriously wronged. You certainly have my sympathy.
All the best,
Michael Terence Carney Jr.
Customer Accounts Manager
Ganoksin Jewelry Co., Ltd.