World's largest emerald up for auction in kelowna

Jewelry Discussion
61 
The most significant distinction is that all beryls except emerald
are type I while emerald is type II.

True enough, though for those who aren’t familier with the GIA
colored stone grading system, it should be explained that these type
classifications are grading catagories of clarity. Those stones that
are commonly found in high clarity grades, are judged differently
from those where it’s common to find stones with more inclusions.
Thus aquamarine, which normally can be found in high clarity, is
judged differently, given a different clarity grade when inclusions
are present, than the same inclusions would cause an emerald to be
graded at. This is not an actual physical difference in aquamarine
versus emerald, since inclusions in either can have similar causes
and appearance. But emerald with minor inclusions is common only in
the finest grades, and stones with no inclusions are very rare
indeed, so the market, and the GIA grading system, judges the
importance of those inclusions allowing higher clarity grades to be
assigned to emeralds which have significantly visible inclusions.
Meanwhile, those same charateristics of high clarity are much more
common in aquamarine, so the market normally won’t accept an
aquamarine with the sorts of visible and significant inclusions that
are commonly accepted with emerald. The GIA grading system thus
assignes similar sounding clarity grades based on different
criteria, for these two gems, reflecting the fact that nature
produces different clarities in these two materials, and the market
judges them differently as a result. The key here is that, unlike the
different chemistry behind the blue color in aquamarine versus the
green color in emerald, where there is a distinct difference between
the two stones, in clarity grade types, the distinction is only in
the grading system itself, which used different standards for stones
that are commonly found very clean versus those commonly found only
with more inclusions.

Also, Leonid, thank you for reminding me of the discussion of
Vanadium colored green Beryl, and it’s being called emerald by GIA.
I’d forgotten that, and you’re correct (as usual).

Peter Rowe

62 
All emerald is beryl, as it meets those definitions. But not all>
beryl is emerald. To be emerald, it not only must be beryl, but
it> also must have trace chromium present in addition to the
basic> beryl mineral, that gives it a green color.

Several years ago at AGTA during the Tucson shows I attended a class
on use of the Chelsea filter. We were informed that some emerald did
not show red through the filter since it did not contain chromium,
the chromophore being another element. (Can’t recall which just
now). I questioned the statement at the time and was told that it is
no longer considered necessary for beryl to contain chromium to be
considered to be emerald, just as long as it was beryl and it was
green. Comments?

Jerry in Kodiak (but on the way to Thailand right now)

63 
I questioned the statement at the time and was told that it is no
longer considered necessary for beryl to contain chromium to be
considered to be emerald, just as long as it was beryl and it was
green. Comments?

You’re right. My comment, which you’ve quoted, was written too late
at night, and in trying to keep it simple I got it wrong. Chromium is
the “classic” colorant, and as far as I know, the usual one in at
least the best of the emeralds, but as you say, Chromium is no longer
considered the defining colorant for emerald. The green color itself
is. But dye, magic marker, or wearing green glasses doesn’t count…

Peter

64 
it is no longer considered necessary for beryl to contain chromium
to be considered to be emerald, just as long as it was beryl and it
was green. Comments?

This is the same type of issue like - is it ruby or pink sapphire;
or is it Siberian amethyst or just an amethyst; or my favorite
argument about what constitutes fancy yellow diamond. Right now it is
enough for diamond to have intense yellow to be called fancy yellow.
No regards to the cause of color. But before it was different. Only
type II yellow diamonds were considered fancy. One can tell them
apart from type I by their orange hue. Another name was Canary
diamonds. Canaries have the same orange hue to their breast
feathers. I actually saw video on YouTube of recent find.

http://www.ganoksin.com/gnkurl/1bg

Pay attention to unbelievable transparency and orange hue of the
crystal. This is no question type II diamond. The video is in Russian
and they mention the weight as 38 carat. It is not clear if they are
talking about rough weight or weight after cutting.

Leonid Surpin

65

There are opaque minerals. Just about every ore mineral is opaque no
matter how thin you slice it. Numerically speaking, nearly half of
all the minerals in the world are opaque but very few are rock
forming. This emerald, regardless of how poor quality it is
gemnologically speaking, is a single crystal. Analyising it wouldnt
tell you anything new but would confirm the suspicions of enhancement
if there was no Cr present.

Nick Royall

66

Beryl can be in a variety of shades of green, aquamarine being one
of them, emerald another. Generally, emeralds are graded by their
blue/green/yellow characteristics and the presence of Cr gives rise
to the preferred colour range. Now, as you say, using a chelsea
filter will show a red diagnostic colour for a Cr emerald and this
used to be the benchmark but the same can be said of trying to
differentiate between rubies and pink sapphires. I think these
changes come about because the diagnostic tools have changed and so
there is now a consensus to include things that were previously
discounted as they are provably what they are claimed to be.
Personally I think an emerald must be of the correct shade of green
and a ruby the correct shade of red and this can easily be quantified
using a spectroscope.

Nick Royall

67 
.... just as long as it was beryl and it was green.

Does everyone agree then that this defines emerald?

If yes, the only reason for possible culpability of that Kelowna
dealer seems to be that he MAY have fraudulently misrepresented the
stone, eg by dying it without disclosure. Does anyone know if he has
been charged since all I read was that he was wanted on previous
fraud charges in Ontario.

BTW I also read that a cedar oil coating is standard procedure for
emeralds. Is that usually disclosed? Michael Hill ads seem to be a
model of disclosure. Here is one advertising both created and natural
emeralds. The footnote under the jewelry pictures reads “treated by
heating (generally), diffusion (sapphires), oiling or waxing
(emeralds) to enhance the colour of the stone”.

68

No it is not agreed that because it was beryllium silicate and green
that it was an emerald. Dont try and put words into peoples mouths.
As explained and as like with sapphires emeralds are a subset of the
beryl colour types and defined (generally) by a particular colouring
agent being present. There are exceptions (likewise with rubies and
spinels) but the absence of Cr or V as a chromophore and the colour
being wrong mean that it is not an emerald (or heliodor, goshenite or
morganite). There are consumer protection laws that apply in most
countries to stop people selling common beryl as emerald or
serpentine or amphibolite as jade. if the vendor was wanted on fraud
charges then one can only say that he was wanted for a previous
crime that may have nothing to do with the veracity of this gem.

Nick Royall

69

In a much earlier post before the conversation meandered off into
what is and isn’t an emerald it was stated said he wasin custody so
I guess he’s been charged…no other info to report.

70 
In a much earlier post before the conversation meandered off into
what is and isn't an emerald it was stated said he wasin custody
so I guess he's been charged...no other info to report.

The charges were totally unrelated. Google on Calgary Herald story
which reports that Premier Gems of Calgary has said that they are
100% sure it is an emerald. What then is the definition of emerald in
FACT and in LAW in Kelowna?

71 
No it is not agreed that because it was beryllium silicate and
green that it was an emerald. Dont try and put words into peoples
mouths.

I didn’t Mr, Royall. I was pondering whether Peter Rowe’s position
is generally accepted. I am still pondering that.

If the Kelowna vendor misrepresented that stone as emerald and an
emerald IN LAW is defined otherwise, then he is in violation of that
law and that violation MAY constitute fraud. But laws depend on
jurisdiction. Provinces, states, nations etc. all have different
definitions and laws. Have you read the Xinjiang book on gems and
jades and do you know the legal definition of jade and gem in China?

Sometimes it is difficult for scientists to understand that there is
a difference in FACT and in LAW.

If I personally sell something I tell you what it is. Do not try to
suggest that I am a criminal.

72 
I was pondering whether Peter Rowe's position is generally
accepted. I am still pondering that.

Why? Did you do any research at all? Did you check the references I
supplied some time ago? Since you obviously have access to the
internet, it’s easy to discover what’s “generally accepted.” Perhaps
fruitless argumentation is more fun?

Did you, by chance, buy some stock in this “emerald”?

Al Balmer
Pine City, NY

73

Concerning your points Al, about what is “generally accepted” and
"buying shares":

I care less about what is generally accepted when I read financial
statements which intone GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles) than I care about the realities of the business and
those realities may go far beyond GAAP to intangibles in marketing,
personnel, politics etc.

What I want to see are the criteria whereby the seller is calling
this a ______ and I do not care if he calls it a Martian blueberry as
long as he gives me PROOF of its attributes. I WILL THEN DECIDE ON
ITS VALUE and buy or not buy shares accordingly.

He may sell it as an “emerald” and maybe it is not an emerald. Maybe
it is something more valuable.

74 
I was pondering whether Peter Rowe's position is generally
accepted. I am still pondering that.

Pete Rowe is one of most knowledgeable members of this forum and my
opinion is that he does not respond unless he knows the correct
and if you have to ask that question, you might not be
satisfied with any one’s answer. Some people have trouble
recognizing boundaries, and this might lead to alienation. Boundaries
are fine lines, if you get my drift…

Richard Hart G.G.
Denver, Co.

75 
Pete Rowe is one of most knowledgeable members of this forum and
my opinion is that he does not respond unless he knows the correct

Thanks Richard, but boy oh boy, have I got you hoodwinked or what…
(grin)… You should be my manager… More accurate would be I don’t
respond unless I THINK I have a useful answer, or if I just cannot
resist for some reason… Sometimes they are true and useful,
sometimes not so much, or I may miss bits…

Seriously, like anyone, I do make mistakes, and don’t know it all by
any means. My gemological training in particular may be a bit out of
date, since my current job does not involve needing more than the
usual bit of informed bench jeweler knowledge, so I’ve not kept so
current with things like Gems and Gemology subscriptions or the
like… Yes, I’ve got a G.G. diploma (1979) and an M.F.A. degree
(1988), and more than a few decades of doing this stuff. But none of
that is any guarantee that a posting I send was written while I was
fully awake… Nobody on this forum is ever always correct, simply
because all of us are at least mostly human. All of us, I suspect,
sometimes or always write a posting based on memory, perhaps without
bothering to proofread, spell check, or fact check a post.
Everyone, especially beginners, would be well advised to consider
Orchid posts (or frankly, much of the rest of the on the
internet) as a starting point, not some sort infallible holy text…
Online as with any other source, ranges from
totally false, fraudulent, and dangerously deceptive garbage, to
very well researched and verified and backed up solid facts.
Sometimes there may not be an easy way, just looking at your computer
monitor, or TV screen, or magazine page, etc, to tell just which is
which without some careful consideration, common sense, and cross
checking other sources.

Peter

76

Peter Rowe is the most knowledgeable person on Orchid. Period.

For many years I kept a fat Arch Lever file on his postings (and
James Binnion, the other genuis ).

But being left handed, I never made a copy of the file and then
someone stole the file from my workshop. ( may he or she shovel
sulfur for ever)

So I have started over again.

One day I will have a file of the jewellery theory of everything.

Cheers, Hans

77 
Peter Rowe is the most knowledgeable person on Orchid. Period.

Oh bull, Hans. I may know a good deal about this, but so do many
others. I can think of several who I’d quickly defer to, such as Jim
Binnion, or Charles Lewton-Brain, or many others. The main title I
probably CAN claim on this list or others, is my tenancy to write the
longest, wordiest posts on a given subject. Where others get it all
said in a paragraph, I seem to need to write two pages. Don’t worry,
though, it’s got a good purpose. My fingers can use the exercise
afforded by typing. Once upon a time, I was a decent classical
pianist, but those days, thanks to diabetic neuropathy, are long
past. Typing on a computer, however, keeps the muscle tone, better
than the slower jewelry work does, and in turn, helps keep my hands
useful at the bench too.

So, writer of the most and longest, most wordy-without-need and
drawn out posts? Sure. Well, maybe. But most knowledgeable? Nope. Not
in a million years. I’ve got lots of company. Don’t put me on a
pedestal folks. My balance isn’t that good. I’ll fall off.

But hey. If you all have such respect for my ramblings, perhaps
you’ll pay a little attention to a totally unrelated topic I’ve
become very interested in over the last six months or so, on the
basis that apparently some of you feel that perhaps I’m not the type
of person to be easily taken in by fads or scams. I hope that’s true.

As you may surmise, I’ve been a type 1 diabetic for a long time (44
years, now, since I was 16). And for all those years, I’ve simply
understood that what most often kills diabetics is heart disease or
strokes. That’s true for much of the rest of the population, but
even more so for diabetics. And in my own case, I needed a 6x bypass
operation back in '98, so I’m acutely aware of these risks. So when,
last summer, I saw a CNN special from Dr. Sanjay Gupta (a doctor I
respect, who seems unlikely to sensationalize an issue or promote
something he doesn’t believe in) called “The Last Heart Attack”. In
it, he reviewed the work of a number of physicians who’s research
all converged, independently, on the conclusion that the high
incidence of heart disease, stroke, cancer, obesity and type 2
diabetes, among a number of conditions, can be traced primarily to
the American/Western diet. They’ve all pretty much found that the
culprits are much too much fat in the diet, especially animal fats,
as well as almost any animal based protein (some of which, casein in
milk in particular, have been strongly linked to certain cancers,
and all of which are key in promoting the inflammatory effects on the
blood vessels that underlie cardiovascular disease. The solution
they’ve converged on, is fairly simple. Get rid of the animal
products in our diet. All of them. Reduce the fats we eat. Dr.
Caldwell Esselstyn and Dr. Dean Ornish, in particular, have studied
cardiovascular disease and diet, and have had remarkable success in
not only treating heart disease with diet alone, but in many cases,
at least partially reversing it, something that nothing in
conventional western medicine can do.

The upshot is that for the last six months, I’ve drastically changed
my diet from a typical American omnivore who tried to follow all the
various recommendations from myriad conflicting sources as to what to
eat, to a simple diet plan. Totally plant based, I’m now a complete
Vegan. And in accordance with Dr’s. Esselstyn and Ornish, since I
already have known cardiovascular disease (It’s been said that almost
anyone who’s eating the typical western/american diet has some level
of cardiovascular disease. it’s just a question of how much…), I
also eliminate anything that has any added fats or oils in it at all.
That means a lot of veggies, fruits, legumes, beans, whole grains,
and a good deal more. But it also means 90 percent of the grocery
store’s prepared and prepackaged foods are off limits. This may seem
drastic, but not compared to being laid out on an operating table
splayed open for bypass surgery to the tune of about a hundred
thousand dollars these days. Or to being dead of a preventable heart
attack or stroke, or of a preventable cancer. And this diet is
extreme only by American/European standards. A mostly Vegan diet is
standard fare for close to 70 percent of the worlds population. In
areas where diets are most strongly plant based, heart disease,
stroke, and many cancers, are almost unknown, and life spans are
longer, with people healthier further into their lives

I can tell you that a year ago, I weighed 220 lbs. Now, I’m down to
185, and it’s slowing getting lower. I’ll be happy when it’s down
another 15 lbs. My last Total Cholesterol came in at 91. My
cardiologist saw that, and promptly and happily cut my cholesterol
medication doses in half, and the levels have remained almost as low.
And frankly, I feel great. Better than I’ve felt in years, and low
level angina I had been occasionally feeling is now gone. It’s true
that I’ve had to relearn how to cook, how to shop, and how and what
to eat. Some old habits were harder to drop than others. But it gets
easier.

I won’t take up too much more “off topic” time here (though keeping
jewelers healthy shouldn’t be off topic). But if you’re interested
(and I hope many of you are), here are some links:

Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s special (including interviews with one of Dr.
Esselstyn’s most enthusiastic followers, Pres. Bill Clinton, among
others)

(youtube version) http://www.ganoksin.com/gnkurl/1pp CNN site
version, (same thing) http://www.ganoksin.com/gnkurl/1pq Descriptive
article that goes with it. http://www.ganoksin.com/gnkurl/1pr

Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn’s web site. Check out his book, "Prevent and
Reverse Heart Disease: heartattackproof.com

Dr. T.Colin Campbell, who conducted one of the most extensive
epidemiological studies of diet and health ever done, called by the
N.Y. Times the “grand prix” of epidemiological studies. His book,
detailing the study, was published in 2005, called "The China Study.
The web site is worth studying carefully. Lots of reference
material. Don’t forget to check his credentials too. Very well
respected man… Borrow or buy, and read, the book. Important info for
everyone. The China Study - BenBella VeganBenBella Vegan

Nuff for now. Feel free to follow up in off list email if you choose.
Sorry for yet another really long post. But for a change, I think
this one is important enough that I hope you’ll all check out the
references given.

Peter Rowe