Translate

Monday, May 21, 2007

A Question Of Origin: A Different View

2007: Here is an interesting perspective on the question of origin from the father of inclusion studies.

(via Gemological Digest, Vol.3, No.1, 1990) Dr Eduard Gubelin writes:

The pros and cons of origin reports have been discussed on so many occasions during numerous conferences that I do not wish to repeat the arguments. Yet my strongest arguments in favor of origin reports are:

a) The fact that gemstones are very valuable and rare objects, and as such are entitled to be compared with objects of art and antiquity. It is customary that art and antique collectors request and receive a certificate of origin and authenticity. I see no reason why buyers of gemstones should not have the same right to ask for and obtain a certificate of origin and genuineness. The request for a certificate of origin need not necessarily be limited to the few precious gemstones (alexandrite, emerald, diamond, black opal, ruby and sapphire) but could be extended to the less expensive gemstones (beryls, chrysoberyls, peridot, quartz, topaz, tourmaline, spinel, etc). I have the feeling that my quite representative and comprehensive gem collection has been admired by all those prominent gemologists who have seen it because each individual specimen is marked with its origin. Why shouldn’t other buyers and collectors of gemstones be entitled to know the origin of their collector’s items? You know just as well I do that gemstones are among the items least commonly collected. Definitely much less than paintings, antiques, weapons, stamps or even such odd objects as hats, scarves and uniform buttons. Personally I am convinced that origin reports honestly and correctly stated would help a great deal to stimulate many more people to collect gemstones.

(b) My next argument in favor of origin reports is scientific: Of what value are the more recent and very profound investigations of, and publications on, original gem deposits such as those by Dr Hanni (about the emerald mines at Santa Terezinha da Goias, the emerald mine of Belmont near Itabira or the emerald deposit of Ankadilalana on Madagascar), or Dr Peter Keller’s research (on rubies from Mogok and those from Thailand), or my studies (of gem deposits of Sri Lanka, at Mogok, the jade occurrences in Northern Burma, and the gem deposits in Pakistan, and so son and so forth), if afterwards neither the authors of these studies nor other learned gemologists are allowed to profit from their intrinsic knowledge and experience? After all, the details in these very valuable articles about old and new gem deposits serve the purpose that gemstones occurring in the described deposits may be recognized as such by their particularities of origin. Thanks to Dr Hanni’ publications about emeralds from Santa Terezinha and those from Belmont, numerous interested gemologists are definitely capable of recognizing and distinguishing the emeralds from these two sources at first sight without any difficulty, and even discerning them from those originating, for instance, from Chivor or the Muzo area. Without bragging, I may emphasize that the staff of the Gubelin Laboratory under the directorship of Mr C A Schiffmann, as well myself, could very easily undertake such a distinction under the condition that the gemological properties agree with one or other of these well-known emerald deposits.

Your argument concerning the uranium pyrochlore inclusions in Pailin sapphires which have also been observed in Australian sapphires may seem to be correct, but it is not quite so, because in any scientific work, progress and new observations are made. Yet whenever a publication is made, the author can only state his knowledge at the time of writing. It is not his mistake if later on new discoveries are made, but he must be ready to correct his previously made incomplete or incorrect statement. Mr John Koivula did so in the Photoatlas of Inclusions In Gemstones. As a matter of fact, the text had already been typed when I learned that pyrochlore is also present in Australian sapphires. Consequently I not only corrected this statement, but presented further detailed knowledge by stating that urnanium pyrochlore is a frequent guest mineral in sapphires originating from a basaltic environment. Perhaps these arguments may enrich the discussion about this problem of origin reports.

No comments: