Mr.Surpin, this is the second time I agree with you and my point
about the conglomerate mineral Bertrandite ! You put it well- that
there are collector’s stones and jewelry stones, they are not always
appropriate for cutting by the lapidary ( certainly without proper
protection) and definitely not for wearing…and yes GIA will
identify just about anything for a price, but that doesn’t mean their
id is worth the cost of obtaining it. Thank you for helping make this
point clearer and for backing up my mineralogical explanation of the
beryllium group minerals…rer
Guess i didn’t make that point clear- GIA may certify that it is part
of a conglomerate for identification’s sake, but they won’t, or don’t
recognize Tiffany Stone" as a certifiable gemmy material as it does
not occur on its own in nature but is found in a conglomerate
mineral… GIA is not the sole certifying body in the world either. My
point was more regarding “satin flash opal” as it is not really
opal, and tiffany stone is opalized purple fluorite, so there it is,
as clear as it gets. I don’t agree with much of what GIA is or does
regarding certification of gemologists stones etc. realizing that
many people can just as effectively learn to grade stones and use
specialised equipment to correctly identify mineral, gem and
crystallographic material on one’s own without paying them, or their
competitors for that matter, unless the individual wants to work for
a non-independent retail jewelry firm- which sadly usually only
recognize GIA “degrees”, or equivalent. In fact most of the corporate
owned jewelry chains will pay for or subsidize employee’s
certification and education processes which perpetuates their
monopoly, - which is why i don’t have high regard for GIa…anyway I
wanted to clarify this on this thread as well… Their are marketing
gimmicks out there, rainbow calsilica being one, mystic topaz ( and
all the related vapour deposition coated stones as well) and other
minerals like bertrandite included in my original point with “satin
flash opal” being in the same realm of salesmanship based misnomers-
Satin flash opal is not opal material though but another mineral…if
the stone doesn’t exist as is in nature it is probably being called
"x" for the sake of selling it- Cubic zirconia and other man made
simulants or lab grown gem/mineral material being an exception to
this- as they may be man made but are clearly identifiable…and
generally have commonly accepted nomenclature for marketing the
material(s)… look at Charles and Colvard’s “Moissanite”- a good
example of a man made certified gem material- is it worth the hype
and marketing- no, in fact in recent years a few batches have had to
be replaced over and over because of flaws ( inclusions) that were
apparently missed by the cutters or just not inspected, is the cost
rationalistic? in my opinion the C&C grown " gem material" is a
prime example of a marketing gimmick, a waste of money compared to
fair trade or old/ “non blood” diamond material, and cz looks as good
and, may be superior to Moissanite, An individual’s favorite stone
is purely a matter of personal preference. I don’t want people to
think that a stone like mystic topaz occurs naturally, or that satin
flash opal is opal, or that tiffany stone is widely available or only
from one mine in Utah- my point is that marketing is marketing, I
think, even if you like something, you should at least, be told what
it is, where it’s from and whether or not it occurs naturally or is
man made or synthetic so that you don’t pass along misto
someone buying your jewelry with a potentially toxic material in it-
simply because orpiment, or vanadium may be your favourite stone !
Yeah one is a great orange red crystalline material, but wearing it
close to your skin may be a bad idea… and there are people out
there with belief systems that dictate a stone must touch one’s skin
to receive the benefits ( metaphysical) the stone “possesses” - that
doesn’t make wearing naturally occurring asbestos safe, does it?
Therein is the point- if you sell something to someone but have no
idea what you are really selling them, is that ethical? Like old
pewter if you want to use metal as an example…Sure you may get a
great deal on some old pewter that contains lead, but is really easy
to work with your spiffy new mill… If you don’t know the alloy is
lead containing should you still be selling or working it…I guess my
point is also to educate yourself about anything you use to make
jewellery? It’s a good idea, and while many may not care at all if a
stone is coated by vapour deposition process, or dug from pits that
held run off from pottery glazes that contined lead and were built up
over time, the factory bulldozed and/or forgotten and the material
"discovered" and marketed at Tuscon… you should get clear cut
telling you, at least to your own satisfaction, what it
is and if it’s safe to work or use. Not all lapidary material should
be used just because it’s one’s favourite stone… rer
If the GIA issues what is marketed as a certificate is that not then
"certified"…good god, my point is that they will id anything for a
price…what do you call it if not certified as “x” by GIA…look on
auction sites, they seem to use the same terminology so the masses
that use those types of sites will understand what they are
supposedly going to get… Even Macy’s claims “each of our diamonds
over .50 ct. is certified by GIA”. So for the sake of correctness
you may want to go to Macy’s website look up “certified diamonds” and
you will see that they advertise GIA certified diamonds… so your
info is apparently incorrect… Again, people I am not being negative
just wanting you to have correct or rather be able to
identify marketing gimmicks… which apparently according to, is what
even Macy’s is doing!!! Please! in common conversation GIA
certifies diamonds and other for you to disagree is, well,
not only perpetuating the negative…but apparently just plain
uninformed. You may want to check their site: it clearly
reads"…macys.com/…*/gia-certified-loose-diamonds". *I do
check my facts before I post things…;)…rer
Leonid, Tiffany & Co. probably has nothing to do with so-called
"Tiffany Stone." While T & Co. does not own the exclusive right to
the name “Tiffany,” this might be a cause of action in a suit for
trademark infringement. It does seem likely to cause confusion in
the mind of the consumer, but there isn’t anyone for them to sue. If
there were a “Tiffany Stone Marketing Board” I’m sure they’d go
after them in a pinch. But as it’s a designation being used by
hundreds of small firms on an ad hoc basis, it’s not worth the
expense to pursue since they’re likely not losing money over it. As
to whether it’s diluting the brand, my guess is that corporate
counsel has looked at it and decided it’s not doing any real harm.
Elliot
You may want to check their site: it clearly reads"....macys.com/......
I would hardly consider Macy’s to be the source for confirmation of
the use of the word “certified”. I think a more appropriate term is
grading report, lab report.
One reason is that when I went there we were taught that there could
be a 10% difference between those doing the grading.
I can see that some would consider it splitting hairs, but the
certificate is not an absolute definitive. It is an opinion.
It was said that “they will identify anything for money.” They have a
lab, and the point is to help people identify for the purpose of
knowing whether a material is natural, man made, treated, ect.
They do not provide any kind of value. Identification is the purpose.
Sticky point, E.G.L. recognizes SI3, G.I.A. does not. would you
consider an E.G.L. lab report a certificate, and if so, how would you
compare two certificates for one stone that would be graded by one
lab as SI3 when the other lab grades as a I1? Common usage does not
determine or verify correctness of usage.
I have run across too many diamond salespersons that were using
G.I.A. terminology that did not know what they were talking about.
Richard Hart G.G.
Denver, Co.