Back to Ganoksin | FAQ | Contact

Ward's case


#1

I appreciate your response about the emerald case.

I believe you are right and that rhetorical question was what
was intended. Still, I want everyone to be as clear as possible
on all the facts of this case and to understand its importance to
the trade.

Fred War


#2

These sort of problems were discussed breifly at the RV
conference at Loughborough the probelms will come to UK.

I have also come into contact with a fracture filled Emerald
that was purchased allegedly in USA somewhere. The customer was
very short of and not very explicit he told me that
he hoped to sell it in UK. I advised a Lab report which he
declined.

Is this a sign of the future? Tony H


#3

Some suggestions on the import of this case to individual
jewelers and gem dealers:

[1] Don’t sell extremely expensive gems without a GIA
report.

[2] Hire a good lawyer to write you a sales contract with a
BINDING ARBITRATION CLAUSE. Use this contract for all sales in
excess of X dollars. (X being an amount you must decide on.)

[3] Don’t be in a hurry. Whether you are a buyer, seller,
or professional dealer, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A DEAL THAT IS
"TOO GOOD TO PASS UP."

A suggestion on the import of this case to the industry:

[1] The industry needs to set up a process and structure for
the arbitration of such disputes. The securities industry has
one, why not the gemstone industry (especially since a large gem
often costs more than a small company)?

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, NOR
IS IT A LEGAL OPINION. CONSULT A LICENSED ATTORNEY BEFORE DOING
ANYTHING AT ANY TIME.

Tom LaRussa


#4

Hi Joe:

It is good to hear from you after so many years. Thank you for
your kind words about my book and I am happy that everything goes
well with you. Before, we discuss the emerald case, it may be
worth for you check my webpage at http://www.ganoksin.com/gemlab
and read my Report #4 on the “Emerald Oiling”.

I have not read the court transcript, but I know about a bit
about the case. Here is some of my thoughts:

  1. In my opinion, nobody can tell when, where, and by whom the
    emerald was infilled with some filler substance.

  2. In my opinion, nobody can determine the precise nature of the
    filler using classical gemological instruments, unless chemical
    analysis would be performed and scientifically proven. Although
    Opticon is used worldwide for many years, its presence in the
    emerald must be scientifically proven. Otherwise, it is a
    circumstantial assumption combined with good-luck.

  3. Fillers may be mixed each other before introduction into the
    emerald. After some time (nobody can tell when), the appearance
    of these “oiled” emeralds alter, sometimes considerably,
    especially when a) the fillers are not completely chemically
    compatible and b) influenced by the environmental conditions
    (heat, light, humidity, etc.).

  4. To best of my knowledge, fillers dissociate sooner or later,
    thus the emerald treatment is not permanent. However, last month,
    I read in the press that some treaters have succeeded in
    producing stable and permanent emerald filler. This is a separate
    issue and it does not pertain to Fred’s case.

In my opinion, the State Farm Insurance won a circumstantial
case. Based on the verdict of this case, all USA gemlabs are now
exposed an subject to similar lawsuits, as well as all gem
appraisers (like Ms.Steinberg in the Ward case) no matter how
many disclaimer notices will be conspicuously placed.

Perhaps the GIA, AGTA and other related non-profit associations
shall devise policies to protect the gemologist, appraiser,
jeweler and everybody in the industry from similar lawsuits.
Imagine, your customer -to whom you sold an emerald- returning
to your shop after 3-4 years and demand refund, because the oil
dried-out and now the emerald looks “cracked” or undesirable?
With best regards to an old colleague - Ted Themelis