-
Archives
- April 2024
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- December 2022
- August 2022
- June 2020
- April 2020
- December 2019
- March 2019
- October 2018
- August 2017
- July 2017
- February 2017
- December 2016
- October 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- November 2015
- September 2015
- June 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
-
Meta
GIA v EGL certs
With respect to the GIA v EGL cert issue:
GIA (Gemological Institute of America) www.gia.edu, a non-profit educational institution, invented a diamond grading scale in the 1950s. This scale describes diamond quality in terms of color on a scale of D to Z, with D being colorless and Z a highly yellow color and clarity from Flawless to Included (Fl-VVS-VS-SI-I). The color scale was set against a master set of color comparison diamonds held by the GIA. The clarity scale is based on examination of a stone under 10x magnification by a trained grader under the correct lighting conditions for grading. These grading scales have been adopted and accepted worldwide as the standard for judging diamond quality.
CIBJO (World Jewellery Confederation) www.cibjo.org is a non-profit international organization established in 1972 with the aim of standardizing jewelry and gemstone descriptions world-wide in order to protect consumers and maintain confidence in the jewelry industry. Their diamond quality scales align with the GIA’s in terms of color and clarity although the terminology differs. The CIBJO diamond color master set matches the GIA set.
GIA standards in general are the most widely accepted by jewelry businesses and organizations around the world, whether they are aligned with CIBJO or not.
Unfortunately, when GIA invented the grading scales they neglected to register a patent or trademark for them. This means that there is a loophole that legally allows some for-profit Laboratories such as the European Gemological Laboratories (EGL) to set their own standards but use the GIA terminology. It also means that some retailers of diamonds can use EGL reports in order to give the appearance of a competitive edge. Bear in mind that some retailers are honestly unaware of this situation and might themselves be characterized, in my opinion, as “victims” of this situation. My understanding of consumer law is that the discrepancy between EGL and GIA grading should be pointed out at the time of sale.
The following reports provide further background on this ongoing issue:
http://www.jckonline.com/2013/12/17/diamond-lab-issues-land-on-local-newscasts
http://www.jckonline.com/2013/05/20/labs-grade-diamonds-but-who-grades-labs
And the report referenced in the previous article:
http://www.jckonline.com/article/282725-Diamond_Grading_Reports_Flawless_Or_Imperfect_.php
Kenneth W. Burchell, Ph.D., G.G. – Appraisal Associates is GIA trained and grades in conformity with GIA terminology and definitions.
© Kenneth W. Burchell — 2014 — All Rights Reserved.
[Acknowledgment and thanks to Paul Nilsson of GemLab Jewellery Valuers for assistance with the text]
Posted in Uncategorized
Leave a comment
Trigon formation in a natural pink diamond from Mirny, Republic of Sakha, Siberia, Russia.
Posted in Uncategorized
Leave a comment
FTC Terminology for gemstone treatments
GLASS FILLED AND COMPOSITE GEMSTONES:
There are a number of “composite” and other varieties of treated stones on the market; perhaps most notably composite “ruby.” Nor is is unusual to find gems incorrectly or misleadingly described in advertising venues of all kinds. FYI: the FTC gives the following guidelines as of the date of this posting:
§ 23.22 Disclosure of treatments to gemstones
It is unfair or deceptive to fail to disclose that a gemstone has been treated if:
(a) the treatment is not permanent. The seller should disclose that the gemstone has been treated and that the treatment is or may not be permanent;
(b) the treatment creates special care requirements for the gemstone. The seller should disclose that the gemstone has been treated and has special care requirements. It is also recommended that the seller disclose the special care requirements to the purchaser;
(c) the treatment has a significant effect on the stone’s value. The seller should disclose that the gemstone has been treated.
Note to § 23.22: The disclosures outlined in this section are applicable to sellers at every level of trade, as defined in § 23.0(b) of these Guides, and they may be made at the point of sale prior to sale; except that where a jewelry product can be purchased without personally viewing the product, (e.g., direct mail catalogs, online services, televised shopping programs) disclosure should be made in the solicitation for or description of the product.
§ 23.23 Misuse of the words “ruby,” “sapphire,” “emerald,” “topaz,” “stone,” “birthstone,” “gemstone,” etc.
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the unqualified words “ruby,” “sapphire,” “emerald,” “topaz,” or the name of any other precious or semi-precious stone to describe any product that is not in fact a natural stone of the type described.
(b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “ruby,” “sapphire,” “emerald,” “topaz,” or the name of any other precious or semi-precious stone, or the word “stone,” “birthstone,” “gemstone,” or similar term to describe a laboratory-grown, laboratory-created, [manufacturer name]-created, synthetic, imitation, or simulated stone, unless such word or name is immediately preceded with equal conspicuousness by the word “laboratory-grown,” “laboratory-created,” “[manufacturer name]-created,” “synthetic,” or by the word “imitation” or “simulated,” so as to disclose clearly the nature of the product and the fact it is not a natural gemstone.
Note to paragraph (b): The use of the word “faux” to describe a laboratory-created or imitation stone is not an adequate disclosure that the stone is not natural.
(c) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “laboratory-grown,” “laboratory-created,” “[manufacturer name]-created,” or “synthetic” with the name of any natural stone to describe any industry product unless such industry product has essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as the stone named.
§ 23.24 Misuse of the words “real,” “genuine,” “natural,” “precious,” etc.
It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “real,” “genuine,” “natural,” “precious,” “semi-precious,” or similar terms to describe any industry product that is manufactured or produced artificially.
Posted in Uncategorized
Leave a comment
Alert: Ebay so-called crystal carbon
A new gem-like product has recently appeared on eBay that claims to be a “crystal carbon” replacement for diamond/moissonite.
http://stores.ebay.com/Crystal-Carbon-Laboratories?_trksid=p2047675.l2563
Note that it does NOT say CZ and that when inquiries have been sent to the seller asking as to whether it might BE CZ, the reply:
“NO. CZ is composed of zircon only. Crystal carbon laboratories comprise of 8 elements and the outcome is a more brilliant stone compared to CZ and much more durable (harder). It will never scratch or change color.”
And in the reply above the seller does NOT deny there is CZ or zircon in this product.
Another red flag is their use of the term “investment quality.” In my opinion, this is virtually ALWAYS a tip-off that it’s a rip-off. As I explain to clients all the time, just ask yourself “if I were to sell this stone today, how liquid is it for me? How many gem buyers do I have in my ‘little black book?'” The answer is “none” and even if you had a hundred, any gem dealer would tell that it’s still no guarantee of liquidity. Even a good stone my lay in a gem-dealer’s wallet for months or years before it is sold.
The maker also claims this diamond imitation (note, NOT a diamond) is:
“The closest diamond substitute ever created by Crystal Carbon Laboratories.
Characteristics that on the surface seem just as beneficial as having a real
diamond without the expense. While the process that created the Crystal
Carbon lab created stone remains under wraps, the benefits that this lab
grown stone are well documented.”
Preliminary surmise on the part of this appraiser: in my opinion, this is most likely a CZ with diamond coating or a CZ with some sufficiently carbonized stabilizer to make the above claims. Stabilizers are used to get zirconium dioxide to form in the cubic rather than monoclinic system. Either way, caveat emptor !
Posted in Uncategorized
Leave a comment