|
One of the more interesting paradoxes facing the jewelry industry today, is that in our continued efforts to build a better mouse trap, we are wiping out all of the mice. Take a moment to think back to when the turquoise industry wanted to reconstitute and wax treat turquoise. Now look at how that adversely affected the turquoise market. The jade industry fought hard to obtain the acceptability of waxing. Now many dealers complain about the resulting, so?called "b?jade" category, which has dropped the price of all jade. Reconstructed amber had a similar effect, deflating the amber trade. Epoxy in emeralds helped to bring the emerald trade to a halt. And the recent revelations about super heating and in?filling of Mong Hsu ruby aren't exactly helping the ruby trade.
Today, most gems are enhanced or treated. As a result, consumers are clearly assigning a higher value to their non?treated counterparts. How much of the recent surge in popularity for the garnet group is due to the fact that garnets are typically not treated? Our research indicates that a correlation exists. The trade publications have reinforced that point by emphasizing the garnet as a non?treated alternative for many gems. Natural, non?enhanced gems are carrying the premiums in the market today. However, some notable exceptions exist, such as tanzanite, which has been the rage in gems the last four or five years. Tanzanite requires heating to transform the brownish rough into a violet blue color. Blue topaz, so popular in the 80's, owes it coloration to radiation. Many tourmaline varieties owe their color to heat, radiation and other possible treatments. Yet these are also very popular gems today.
So why do certain gem varieties flourish when everyone knows they are enhanced, and meanwhile the trade rejects other varieties because they are enhanced? Interestingly enough, our research has shown it is not the lack of disclosure of the enhancements in those popular varieties. When I was in Tucson, it was evident that the disclosure of heat treatment in tanzanite for example, in no way threatened the sales of the firms disclosing. Many gems are like this, where disclosure of gem enhancement does not make a difference. On the other hand, gems such as ruby and emerald were the subject of questions surrounding enhancement issues. The super heating of ruby had buyers asking questions and expressing their concerns. At the same time, several emerald dealers trying to avoid the problems of last year, advertised their goods as "non?opticon treated" or "cedarwood oil only."
For gems such as emeralds, the market has accepted the notion of enhancement for many years. It is the means of performing the enhancement that appears to lead to an erosion of confidence. (See Emeralds Today published in the Jan/Feb issue of Gem Market News.) Further complicating the issue is the fact that many enhancements are still not being disclosed along the full length of the "food chain," from mine to sales counter. So when the retailer buys from his sources he assumes that they treat the material unless proven otherwise with lab papers, and therefore pays less. When he turns around to sell, he is finding that informed consumers are assuming the material is treated, unless the dealer can prove otherwise with lab papers, and therefore they are paying less.
Currently the trend in the trade is to assume everything is treated, and for those retailers disclosing, to disclose every conceivable treatment for a gem variety, whether the stone has been treated with all, none or only one of those processes. In effect, few are actually disclosing the treatment, if any, for the individual gem on the sales counter. Instead we make a well polished, all?encompassing disclosure statement like "virtually all rubies are heated to improve color and appearance. Sometimes a residue of foreign substance is left in or on the stone. There may be an intensional filling of surface cavities and fractures with foreign fillers, blah, blah, blah." These blanket disclosures can erode customer confidence by indicating a lack of product knowledge.
To demonstrate the effect this can have, take a moment to change the scenario just slightly and see what effect it has on your confidence. You go to the doctor because you don't feel well. The doctor tells you "well some people that don't feel well have colds, some have the flu, some have cancer, some diabetes, etc. I don't know for sure what affliction you have, so I will assume you have all the above and treat you accordingly." This is basically the state of gem treatment disclosure in the trade today. The most troublesome part is that we do not even try to find out how or to what extent, the particular gem being sold has been treated. The erosion of confidence occurs because the customer still does not know what treatment, if any, was used to "finish" his gem!
This is a contributing factor to why treatments are bringing down the price of gems. Another is the perception of deception that is inherent anytime something can be determined but is not. Now of course submitting every gem to a lab for testing is not practical. Even if one could, often these reports yield little information about treatments. (I will revisit this shortly.) So the information must come from somewhere else, possibly the people treating the gems. In simpler times that was the case.
Some techniques for altering the appearance of a gem seem simple, or shall we say benign enough that these enhancements do not threaten the confidence of the consuming public and retail trade. Examples that come to mind are heating tanzanite, aquamarine and amethyst, or the oiling of emeralds. (Yes, I said the oiling of emeralds.) Through high school and college I worked part time for a local jewelry store. I can recall on many occasions during the sales presentations to prospective customers, the owner would mention that they oiled emeralds. He would tell his customers, "Don't clean your emerald in ammonia, it will dry the oils out. Just use a soft toothbrush with soap and warm water." There were also times when a customer would observe that their emerald looked lighter or "duller" than when they purchased it. My boss would inform the customer, "The stone has faded, the oils have dried out." He would simply explain, "It has to go back to the lapidary to be re?oiled; takes a week or so." He always charged for the service and he explained at the time of sale, that this "maintenance" would occasionally be needed. The customers were happy, they knew what they were buying, they knew what "maintenance"might be required to keep their valued emerald looking its best.
This was disclosure, pure and simple. The revelation of oil in emeralds did not lead to any large scale consumer rejection of the material. No major international crisis. No calling for a conference in Bogota. Nope, none of that. It just leads to informed customers with products that they could enjoy. Oh by the way, his disclosure policy was not the result of the great amount of "how to disclose enhancements" information proliferating the trade press in the last year or so. No. The period I am referencing was the mid 1970's. Enhancements have been around a very long time, and the proper disclosure of them is not exactly new. Although there probably were some, I cannot think of a single instance in which a sale was lost from the disclosure of an enhancement. Today however, I can cite instances from trade magazines, tv exposÈs and my own experiences working as an appraiser, where a lack of disclosure killed the sale.
However, somewhere, during the last decade or so, the industry shifted its position on disclosure. As the market became larger, and technological advances allowed the "improvement" of treatment techniques. The incentive was created to radically alter gem materials. This at least in part lead to an intertwining of detection and disclosure related issues, unlike in times past, when disclosure and detection of gem enhancements were separate, non related issues. Gemologists and Labs detected enhancements and retailer jewelers disclosed them. Not so today. As Richard Drucker often points out during his seminars across the country, today disclosure has become a "catch?22," where the industry is requiring the retailer jeweler?gemologist to perform at a higher level of expertise than the GIA. For example, if a dealer sells a 5.00 carat emerald, the dealer is expected to indicate the type of enhancing medium used to clarity finish that emerald. If the dealer sends that emerald to GIA to find out, the report will simply contain a note stating, "evidence of clarity enhancement present." (Of the major American laboratories, the AGL is presently attempting to quantify and qualify the clarity enhancing substances used in all emeralds submitted for grading. The AGTA Lab will provide information as to quantity on all reports but will qualify filler type only if requested by the client as part of the report. The GQI will list amount, but refers to type as oil/resin.)
One can understand why the labs would want to act cautiously in this area. However, the rest of the industry is not as fortunate. I think at least in part the inability of jewelers to get concrete identifications from many of the labs brought about change, whereby detection and disclosure, once separate issues, became joined. Now tightly interwoven, detection became the responsibility of the retailer jeweler. This was a task many were not ready for, so there was reluctance to disclose.
During an interview with David Federman of Modern Jeweler, Elly Rosen appraisal consultant and creator of the Appraisal Information NetworkŒ, addressed the issue in this way. "The suppliers interpreted the jeweler's reluctance to disclose as a refusal to disclose. Jewelers were to blame, too. Instead of sending the message to the suppliers that said, we can't tell, so you must tell us, their passivity said, we can't tell, so don't bother to tell us." Elly made this point more than a decade ago and it still rings true today.
Recently one segment of industry has seen a divided but a strong campaign to reverse this trend. At issue was the treatment of the best known of all gems-the diamond. When laser drilling diamond was first introduced, many feared the negative impact this would have on retail sales. Yet today we can see the impact has been insignificant. Even when the FTC ruled that laser drilling diamond was a permanent treatment and therefore did not have to be disclosed, the number of retailers disclosing this treatment grew steadily each year. They knew in reality that if the client were informed after the fact, say during an appraisal, or by another jeweler, it was not going to sit well. Of course, the retailer could legally defend himself by waving the FTC Regulations in the customer's face and simply saying "Oh, I know the diamond I sold was lasered, but the FTC said I did not have to tell you that." This failure to disclose may be legal but is is impermissible by the "laws" of common sense. Think about it. Is that customer going to come back to you in the future and spend more money on more gemstones treated in more undisclosed ways? I doubt it.
Today, the FTC still holds the position that laser drilling does not have to be disclosed. In spite of recommendations from the jewelry trade, the FTC sees laser drill holes as little more than blemishes, like "pits or naturals." So why are the major diamond dealers clubs and counsels around the country requiring mandatory disclosure of this treatment by their members? Not because of anything the FTC says, but for self preservation. Those on the front line-the retail jewelers?have demanded it. A failure to provide this information, would have lead to the inevitable loss of retail customers to buy diamond jewelry. That reaction would have been felt down the entire length of the "food chain." The dealers tell the retailers and the retailers tell their customers. This is the way disclosure should work, nothing fancy just the truth. The diamond industry is sending the message to its members that just because the FTC says we do not have to disclose a treatment or enhancement, does not mean we shouldn't.
Recently the focus of the disclosure issue has taken a side step into the realm of language. Several prominent members of the trade have proposed bringing some consistency in the terminology used to categorize treatments. Ray Zajicek, owner of Equatorian Imports, Dallas, Texas, wonders if by interchanging the terms Treatment and Enhancement the trade is in some way confusing the issue even further. It's an interesting point. The dictionary defines enhance as "To make higher or greater, as in reputation, cost, beauty, quality etc." It defines enhancement as "increase, advance." On the other hand, treatment is defined as "The management of illness, by use of drugs, dieting, or other means designed to bring about relief or effect a cure."
This is an interesting point, because by heating a gemstone, for example, one is making greater the beauty" but is one "effecting a cure?" In the case of tanzanite I would say no, but for Mong Hsu ruby, I would say yes. So maybe these terms are not completely interchangeable. And the trade may at some point want to consider that in an attempt to bring some clarity to the issue. There could be a benefit brought to the discussion of gem treatments by defining the terminology and bringing some consistency to the usage. One could adopt the term enhancement to describe a process that is normal and customary, or shall we say purifies a "potential" that is already present within the stone, without significantly altering the internal characteristics. The term treatment could be reserved for those gems such as Mong Hsu ruby that have undergone significant treatment in an attempt to purify color, and effect a major alteration to the internal and external clarity characteristics of the stones.
Continued research at Gemworld international, Inc., indicates that the retail public is not opposed to the enhancement of certain gem materials especially by means that are perceived as extensions of nature. However, opposition is strong to treatments that appear not to enhance, but in fact significantly alter gemstones. By clearly qualifying in what manner and to what extent a material has been altered to achieve its appearance, the trade will create a barometer to measure the importance that consumers attribute to the true underlying issues here. The perception of romance, rarity, fine quality and sense of precious wealth have historically been key motivators for the purchasers and recipients of gems.
However, the key does not lie completely in the language, it also lies in the motives. If the aim of the disclosure is informing, and not misleading the consumers, then we, the trade will benefit. The retailer has been given the job of educating the public about gems treatments and enhancements. Regular features appearing in the trade magazines will assist the retailer by indicating what treatments and enhancements to inquire about when purchasing from suppliers. Build confidence in your customers by disclosing what is in the gem you are selling. If an emerald for example, has been clarity finished using GematratΠthen disclose that and explain to your customer why the emerald was treated. Don't muddy the water by discussing every treatment known to man. Discuss what is in the emerald being sold and why. Artificial anything in natural gems makes for a "hard sell," but if you are confident the emerald you are selling is better off with a synthetic resin than an oil clarity finisher, share that knowledge with your client.
To disclose particular enhancements effectively the wholesale supplier must provide specific and accurate treatment information. If the supplier is unwilling, get a new supplier. Your supplier must be your partner in the retail sales you make. Supplier and retailer confidently standing behind the gemstones being sold, will rebuild the waning consumer confidence threatening the industry.
Acceptance of enhancements is not going to occur overnight and if the industry continues to hide from the reality of disclosure, acceptance will not happen at all.
Back to Main News Page
|
