|
Science and technology have advanced by unimaginable leaps in my life time. I
noticed that recently when I came across my old Epson Equity in the attic while looking
for additional boxes of Christmas lights. Remembering what a great computer, it had been
for me, I decided to set it up for a cheap thrill. After assembling it and looking at the
little green cursor on the monochromatic screen, I thought to myself how much things have
changed. It amazed me that this computer, once a luxury that I used to prepare term
papers, now would only frustrate me if I had to rely on its almost non existent abilities
today. I realized what was once a powerhouse of personal computer technology, is
now only a forgotten step along the path leading to today’s sophisticated Pentium
machines. The rapid advances we have seen in the computer industry are amazing.
The computer industry is not the only area that has seen rapid advances in
recent years. One can look at the music CD, home theater DVD television, automotive and
energy industries just to name a few. And do not forget the gem industry. The gem industry
has seen major technological advances in the last ten years. Colorimeters and
Spectrophotometers allow for diamond color grading and color origin determination with
computer precision.
We also saw advances in the area of gem enhancements. However, for many, those
advancements are not appreciated. Treatment issues are currently approaching the forefront
of our industry, and must be brought out into the open for intelligent, calm and rational
debate. These issues deal with the basic question: At what point do enhancements become
too sophisticated to just be enhancements.
The Just man walketh in his integrity . . . Proverbs 20:7. The purpose of
this article is not to endorse or condemn any enhancement philosophy, but instead, to
bring the different philosophies into the open for discussion. By doing so, I believe the
trade can reach a responsible compromise that is fully inclusive of the varying opinions,
and depart from the campaigns of isolation currently under way.
The key catalyst for this new concern about the treatment of gems and their
disclosure is found in our recent past. The events of the last year and a half have been
dramatic. The decision in the Ward trial and the Dateline segments significantly
contributed to the steep decline in the emerald market. Whether or not a resin filler was
in that emerald at the time of sale, may not be the critical issue here. The process for
treating emerald with synthetic epoxy type resins was out there for years. Quietly
introduced, few knew about it. So, it really was only a matter of time before litigation
took place. (Please see author’s closing note.) If one examines the emerald market
today from the retail consumer perspective, one finds consumer confidence remains low and
the key issue is not simply one of disclosure. For the consumer, it’s a matter of
integrity.
 Looking around
one will see balanced atop a pedestal, slowly teetering toward the edge, the king of all
gems–Ruby. Yes, treatment issues now threaten the ruby trade. Why you ask? For
similar reasons to emerald. However, unlike emerald, ruby has had a history free of
significant treatments. For centuries there has been heat, but not much more. Therefore,
the trade and the retail consumers we rely on, have come to know and expect heat treatment
of ruby. However, in 1991 a new deposit of ruby was discovered in Myanmar (Burma), but
unlike the beautiful red crystals that typify Burmese ruby, these were not from the
historical Mogok stone track. This new deposit is located in Mong Hsu, a city positioned
southeast of Mogok, in Myanmar’s Shan state. By 1992 Mong Hsu ruby began appearing in
the capital of the ruby trade— Bangkok. This new Burmese source created much
excitement for the international market. Then the honeymoon ended.
Soon it was discovered that unlike its classical Mogok counterpart, the new Mong
Hsu Burmese
ruby presented a challenge for treaters. And that was making it look like Burmese
ruby. Richard Hughes, Director of the Colored Gem Division of Gem Quality Institute in Los
Angeles, made the following observation while working in Thailand. “In terms of
quality, Mong Hsu rubies cannot compete with Mogok stones.” Hughes cites a coloration
problem consisting of a strong purplish color and unusual blue core making the material
look like low grade rhodolite garnet. The color of this material could be improved by heat
treatment which removes the blue core while producing a rich clear red. Heat treatment is
an enhancement done to ruby from many sources and is generally accepted in today’s
market. However, the challenge presented by Mong Hsu ruby crystals exceeded the need to
enhance their color. The Mong Hsu rough is also heavily included with surface reaching
fractures that traditional heating would not improve.
Thai burners rise to the occasion
Much of the Mong Hsu rough headed across the border into Bangkok, Thailand where
traders and treaters of ruby gather. It was in Bangkok that burners were able to
successfully address the issue of the surface reaching fractures plaguing these crystals
by modifying a technique developed in the mid 1980’s to fill cavities in ruby. This
new heat treatment involved heating the crystals to their melting point while they were
insulated with a borax flux. As a result, a crystal synthesis occurred filling or
“healing” the fractures. This also was done with apparently no disclosure to the
international trade. In his article Fracture healing/filling of Mong Hsu ruby,
Richard W. Hughes comments “Unfortunately, monkeying with stones and not telling the
buyer has been business as usual in Thailand for years.”
The bigger they are the harder they fall
 Once the treated material started traveling toward inventories across the globe, the process was quickly
detected. This lead to a significant backlash. The Japanese and other important markets
rejected the filled material outright. The price of these rubies fell by half and a ripple
effect was felt by ruby of other sources as well. By the mid 1990’s, the American
Gemological Laboratory in New York began issuing a notation on their colored stone reports
informing clients that a foreign material had been detected in some ruby from Burmese
origin. This lead to the decision by AGL’s president C. R. “Cap” Beesley to
differentiate Mong Hsu ruby from the ruby of the classical Mogok locations when issuing
Lab reports on ruby of Burmese origin. Beesley stated in part, “There is a clear
difference between the Mong Hsu and Mogok materials. To Lump both together as Burmese will
only demean the integrity of the origin call.”
By the mid 1990’s news of this in-filling process circulated the industry.
The impact lead to a decrease in the price of ruby. This was attributable to concerns
expressed by the trade over the perception that rubies may contain glass fillings. Richard
Hughes, who spent a significant part of his professional career in Thailand, studying ruby
and sapphire, made the following observations during a trip to the Mae Sai ruby market in
April of 1996. “There were upwards of 500 people engaged in selling rough ruby from
Mong Hsu . . . ” One year later Hughes found the market virtually empty with only a
few sellers and a few kilos of rough on display. Uncertainty had crept into the trade as
Mong Hsu ruby proliferated the market, destroying the perception that Burmese ruby was rare.
This frustrated many dealers who saw the radical treatment of Mong Hsu ruby as an attempt
to exploit the fabled position of Burmese ruby in the marketplace.
So what is the big deal anyway?
The big deal is not the heat. It is the super heating that breaks from
tradition, creating a significant risk to consumer confidence. Much of this material has
sold and continues to sell today without any disclosure of the in-filling. The residue
from the process is not a major amount, but it is still a filling. It was after all, only
logical that we would one day be able to improve upon nature’s creative work. The
emerald market had relied on such intervention for centuries. So now trying to
“heal” fractures in fissure ridden ruby rough seems like the natural
progression. The results, have some marveling at the possibilities, while at the same time
looking for a way to disclose in soft language.
As the public learns more about gem treatments from television exposÈs, we will
see that if there is a sense the trade has done anything other than clearly and fully
disclose the treatment of this material, the backlash will be severe. That is why in my
opinion, terminology such as “an unintentional byproduct of the heat treatment”
is short sighted. Experts who have spent considerable time researching the properties,
crystal growth and treatment of ruby and other gemstones, immediately suspected the
process was by design. Hughes reported in 1996 after addressing the issue of in-filling of
Mong Hsu ruby with one of Chanthaburi’s best known burners that they deliberately
sought the result (filling the fractures). Because, as Hughes recounts, the burner told
him, “Mong Hsu material is garbage without such treatment. We must use borax.”
The authors of the article Rubies from Mong Hsu, published in GIA’s
Gems & Gemology spring 1995, also noted the following. “Some of the rubies that
have fractures filled with a foreign substance have been treated for both clarity and
color enhancement. In these cases, glass or other foreign fracture fillers are not simply
an ‘inadvertent’ by-product of heat treatment conducted to remove the blue color
component in the samples, as some in the trade have claimed.” There is no legitimate
reason not to disclose this treatment. Some who recommend calling this an unintentional
by-product of heating may be leading the ruby market down the same dismal path the emerald
market is currently wandering.
Solutions?
 To predict the
future one does not have to look any further than the immediate past. The emerald trade
suffered its current setback due to the public’s perception (whether right or wrong),
that Opticon was created to deceive buyers and that an emerald treated with Opticon could
sell for much more than the same stone would have before the Opticon treatment. This
perception is the result of treated material entering the marketplace (initially at very
high prices) before the miners told anyone. In the gem industry, perception is important.
Segments of the trade are failing to recognize that for centuries the gem industry has
survived based in large part on the sale of a perception of rarity. Rubies, sapphires and
emeralds are not things people need. They are treasures people want, that are unattainable
by others.
Enhancements have been a part of the industry for an equal amount of time.
Certain gems such as emerald and tanzanite needed to be enhanced but others historically
like sapphire and ruby have not, and I think maybe that figures in here somehow. The lure
of gems is softened with each step away from nature we take during their enhancement. It
is time to stop playing disclosure word games and simply say what we do, and do what we
say. In this day and age, to think segments of the trade can dictate the acceptability of
any treatment to the retail public is misguided. Instead of investing so much time
thinking up clever ways to sidestep the issue of treatments and disclosure, efforts are
better placed toward the education of the public and trade to those enhancements that are
in use and why, while at the same time, educating ourselves as to the traits and special
qualities retail consumer attribute to gems. Only then can the marketplace decide the
acceptability of any treatment.
The gem industry today, is a global trade. What is done at the source must be
disclosed at the sale counter, in clear accurate language. We must understand that in the
eyes of the retail consumer, the super heating and borax flux “healing” or
in-filling of Mong Hsu ruby is not a treatment equivalent to the cutting and
polishing of the stone. Yet this type of comparison continues to appear in trade
publications designed to help retail jewelers disclose treatments to their clients. In my
opinion, this is dangerous because it insults the intelligence of retail consumers and
dealers alike. Now, I am not saying anything is inherently wrong with the heating and
in-filling of Mong Hsu ruby. But should we then try to sell it as fine Burmese
ruby? Is that the industry’s decision? I suggest we give the public the information
before Dateline does. And then let the market decide.
Terminology designed to suggest that somehow two-ice cubes melting in a glass of
water and then re-freezing into one block of ice as being similar to the induced
crystallization that occurs during super heating of this material is a reckless means
toward disclosure. (See “Red Baiting” November 1998 Modern Jeweler). References
to Pliny’s heating of gem materials, somehow implying that this process goes back a
couple thousand years only supports the views of those that claim the true intent is to
disclose without actually disclosing. It is clear, that no convoluted analogy is
going to lead to a reasonable disclosure of gem treatments.
As Tom Chatham wrote in his response to the article Red Baiting, “.
. . Treaters are taking junk corundum, adding, subtracting, or altering color with various
elements not found within the stone. To get rid of the cracks they’ve added some flux
and alumina and copied crystal growers. They are growing synthetic ruby or it may be just
a glass, almost like a flame fusion ruby. You can’t heal cracks without adding
something. . .” In my opinion, We should defer to Mr. Chatham’s knowledge of
crystal growing and reconsider the manner in which we disclose the treatment of this type
of in-filled material. But for those who are more comfortable quoting Pliny to their
clients, one might try “ ...To tell the truth there is no fraud or deceit in the
world which yields greater gain and profit than that of counterfeiting gems.”
Author’s closing note: I have not intended to suggest that the time line
for the introduction of a synthetic resin into the emerald featured at the Ward trial, was
not important to the individuals involved, or the industry at large. Clearly it is. I am
only suggesting that their involvement was beyond their control. Fred Ward suffered
financially trying to defend his reputation as the expert gemologist he is, and whether
one believes the emerald contained the resin at the time of sale or not, I doubt that
anyone thinks Ward knowingly would have sold a treated stone without disclosure. So given
these facts the judgement against Ward was unquestionably inappropriate.
“Cap” Beesley, serving as an expert offered an opinion that he
feels is true and accurate. This opinion relied in part on the premise that the fracture
resided in the gem at least at the time of the last polishing, a position supported by the
Gemological Institute of America. For his involvement with the case, Beesley appears to
have lost favor with many who publish in the trade. Often quoted in the past, Beesley has
disappeared from trade discussions of treatments and their disclosure, which is
unfortunate. Beesley, in spite of his overbearing passion for this topic, has been at the
forefront of the treatment debate for years.
Back to Main News Page
|
