Nandan Nilekani, CEO and MD of Infosys Technologies writes:
A versatilist has the ability to apply skills more intensively to situations. Hence, they gain new competencies, build new relationships, and assume new roles. One should be equally at ease with technical issues as with business and strategic. You have to synthesize knowledge, experience and the context to create value.
The higher up an individual moves in an organisation, the more he needs to look at the big picture, understand more than one role and develop skills relevant to it— and the more he can be likened to an octopus with each tentacle dealing with a different aspect of the business. The need is to apply a plethora of roles and skills to create a new way of solving problems or taking decisions.
Useful link:
www.infosys.com
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Friday, May 18, 2007
Large Diamond From the USA
(via Australian Gemmologist, Vol.23, No.1, Jan – Mar, 2007)
The Crater of Diamonds State Park in Murfreesboro, Arkansas, has yielded its second large diamond in as many months. A tourist named Bob Wehle, from Ripon, Wisconsin, found a 5.47 carat canary yellow diamond in the park on October 14, 2006.
In September, Donald and Brenda Roden, of Point, Texas, found a 6.35 carat diamond at the Park, which is the only park in the world where tourists can look for and keep any diamonds they find.
Park officials said they are not in the business of estimating the value of diamonds visitors find, but a 4.21 carat flawless canary yellow diamond found in March was estimated to be worth US$15000—US$60000 by a New York diamond dealer. The park is the site of the largest diamond ever found in the United States—a 40.23 carat stone (lower LHS) dug in 1924 and dubbed the Uncle Sam diamond after it was faceted into a 12.42 carat emerald cut diamond (lower RHS).
Notable diamonds recovered from Arkansas Crater of Diamonds include:
1. Uncle Sam:
Date found: 1924
Uncut weight: 40.23 carats
Cut weight: 12.42 carats
Color: white
2. Amarillo Starlight
Date found: 1975
Uncut weight: 16.37 carats
Cut weight: 7.54 carats
Color: white
3. Star of Arkansas
Date found: 1956
Uncut weight: 15.33 carats
Cut weight: 8.27 carats
Color: white
4. Star of Shreveport
Date found: 1981
Uncut weight: 8.82 carats
Cut weight: uncut
Color: white
5. Lamle diamond
Date found: 1978
Uncut weight: 8.61 carats
Cut weight: -
Color: brown
6. Connell diamond
Date found: 1986
Uncut weight: 7.95 carats
Cut weight: -
Color: white
7. Stevens/Dickenson diamond
Date found: 1998
Uncut weight: 7.28 carats
Cut weight: uncut
Color: yellow
8. Cooper diamond
Date found: 1997
Uncut weight: 6.72 carats
Cut weight: uncut
Color: brown
9. Gary Moore diamond
Date found: 1960
Uncut weight: 6.43 carats
Cut weight: uncut
Color: canary
10. Lee diamond
Date found: 1988
Uncut weight: 6.30 carats
Cut weight: -
Color: white
11. Newman diamond
Date found: 1981
Uncut weight: 6.25 carats
Cut weight: -
Color: white
12. Fedzora diamond
Date found: 1991
Uncut weight: 6.23 carats
Cut weight: -
Color: white
13. Stockton diamond
Date found: 1981
Uncut weight: 6.20 carats
Cut weight: -
Color: white
14. Schall diamond
Date found: 1981
Uncut weight: 6.07 carats
Cut weight: -
Color: white
15. Cooper diamond
Date found: 1997
Uncut weight: 6.00 carats
Cut weight: -
Color: brown
16. Kahn Canary
Date found: 1977
Uncut weight: 4.25 carats
Cut weight: uncut
Color: canary
17. Strawn – Wagner diamond
Date found: 1990
Uncut weight: 3.03 carats
Cut weight: 1.09 carats
Color: white
This list of notable diamond from Crater of Diamonds includes all diamonds weighing six carats or more, and the much publicized ‘Strawn – Wagner Diamond’.
More info @ www.arkansasstateparks.com
The Crater of Diamonds State Park in Murfreesboro, Arkansas, has yielded its second large diamond in as many months. A tourist named Bob Wehle, from Ripon, Wisconsin, found a 5.47 carat canary yellow diamond in the park on October 14, 2006.
In September, Donald and Brenda Roden, of Point, Texas, found a 6.35 carat diamond at the Park, which is the only park in the world where tourists can look for and keep any diamonds they find.
Park officials said they are not in the business of estimating the value of diamonds visitors find, but a 4.21 carat flawless canary yellow diamond found in March was estimated to be worth US$15000—US$60000 by a New York diamond dealer. The park is the site of the largest diamond ever found in the United States—a 40.23 carat stone (lower LHS) dug in 1924 and dubbed the Uncle Sam diamond after it was faceted into a 12.42 carat emerald cut diamond (lower RHS).
Notable diamonds recovered from Arkansas Crater of Diamonds include:
1. Uncle Sam:
Date found: 1924
Uncut weight: 40.23 carats
Cut weight: 12.42 carats
Color: white
2. Amarillo Starlight
Date found: 1975
Uncut weight: 16.37 carats
Cut weight: 7.54 carats
Color: white
3. Star of Arkansas
Date found: 1956
Uncut weight: 15.33 carats
Cut weight: 8.27 carats
Color: white
4. Star of Shreveport
Date found: 1981
Uncut weight: 8.82 carats
Cut weight: uncut
Color: white
5. Lamle diamond
Date found: 1978
Uncut weight: 8.61 carats
Cut weight: -
Color: brown
6. Connell diamond
Date found: 1986
Uncut weight: 7.95 carats
Cut weight: -
Color: white
7. Stevens/Dickenson diamond
Date found: 1998
Uncut weight: 7.28 carats
Cut weight: uncut
Color: yellow
8. Cooper diamond
Date found: 1997
Uncut weight: 6.72 carats
Cut weight: uncut
Color: brown
9. Gary Moore diamond
Date found: 1960
Uncut weight: 6.43 carats
Cut weight: uncut
Color: canary
10. Lee diamond
Date found: 1988
Uncut weight: 6.30 carats
Cut weight: -
Color: white
11. Newman diamond
Date found: 1981
Uncut weight: 6.25 carats
Cut weight: -
Color: white
12. Fedzora diamond
Date found: 1991
Uncut weight: 6.23 carats
Cut weight: -
Color: white
13. Stockton diamond
Date found: 1981
Uncut weight: 6.20 carats
Cut weight: -
Color: white
14. Schall diamond
Date found: 1981
Uncut weight: 6.07 carats
Cut weight: -
Color: white
15. Cooper diamond
Date found: 1997
Uncut weight: 6.00 carats
Cut weight: -
Color: brown
16. Kahn Canary
Date found: 1977
Uncut weight: 4.25 carats
Cut weight: uncut
Color: canary
17. Strawn – Wagner diamond
Date found: 1990
Uncut weight: 3.03 carats
Cut weight: 1.09 carats
Color: white
This list of notable diamond from Crater of Diamonds includes all diamonds weighing six carats or more, and the much publicized ‘Strawn – Wagner Diamond’.
More info @ www.arkansasstateparks.com
Standards For Testing Jadeite
(via Australian Gemmologist, Vol. 23, No.2, April-June 2007)
In late 2006, The Gemmological Association of Hong Kong released HKSM/JJT-2006 titled ‘Standard methods for testing Fei Cui (jadeite jade) for Hong Kong.
This standard has been prepared in consultation with members of the Hong Kong gemstone and jewelry industries via the Task Force for Gemstone Testing—a body established under the Accreditation Advisory Board of the Hong Kong Accreditation Service. This 2006 version replaces a previous 2004 version.
The stated purpose of this standard is:
1. Definition of the nomenclature for Fei Cui.
2. Provide standardized practice and methodology for testing Fei Cui, and,
3. Provide set technical specifications for the format and comments used when issuing certificates of identity for Fei Cui.
Contents of this standard begins with a precise definition of Fei Cui, its major physical properties, and a tabulation of the various types of Fei Cui (Types A, B, C, and B+C) that are available commercially. Systematic standard testing methods are then described for shape and cut, dimensions, weight, transparency, color, polariscope examination, refractive index, specific gravity, fluorescence, Chelsea Filter reaction, VIS absorption spectroscopy, microscope examination, and FTIR spectroscopy. Chinese language versions of the definitions of Fei Cui, its properties and its various types are presented in three appendices at the end of the standard.
This precise, standardized approach to testing Fei Cui deserves to be copied for testing other major gemstones.
In late 2006, The Gemmological Association of Hong Kong released HKSM/JJT-2006 titled ‘Standard methods for testing Fei Cui (jadeite jade) for Hong Kong.
This standard has been prepared in consultation with members of the Hong Kong gemstone and jewelry industries via the Task Force for Gemstone Testing—a body established under the Accreditation Advisory Board of the Hong Kong Accreditation Service. This 2006 version replaces a previous 2004 version.
The stated purpose of this standard is:
1. Definition of the nomenclature for Fei Cui.
2. Provide standardized practice and methodology for testing Fei Cui, and,
3. Provide set technical specifications for the format and comments used when issuing certificates of identity for Fei Cui.
Contents of this standard begins with a precise definition of Fei Cui, its major physical properties, and a tabulation of the various types of Fei Cui (Types A, B, C, and B+C) that are available commercially. Systematic standard testing methods are then described for shape and cut, dimensions, weight, transparency, color, polariscope examination, refractive index, specific gravity, fluorescence, Chelsea Filter reaction, VIS absorption spectroscopy, microscope examination, and FTIR spectroscopy. Chinese language versions of the definitions of Fei Cui, its properties and its various types are presented in three appendices at the end of the standard.
This precise, standardized approach to testing Fei Cui deserves to be copied for testing other major gemstones.
Indo-US Jewelry Business Development Conference
The Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council of India will be hosting the first Indo-US Jewelry Business Development Conference for jewelry retailers on October 1-5 at Mumbai's Marriott Renaissance.
Top U.S and Canadian senior business development executives and directors of merchandise are invited to attend the all-expense paid, jewelry business development event. The event is being organized by GJEPC, and R&B Partners, LLP, a Stamford, Conn.-based branding, marketing, and special event consulting firm.
Top U.S and Canadian senior business development executives and directors of merchandise are invited to attend the all-expense paid, jewelry business development event. The event is being organized by GJEPC, and R&B Partners, LLP, a Stamford, Conn.-based branding, marketing, and special event consulting firm.
A Question Of Origin: A Different View
(via Gemological Digest, Vol.3, No.1, 1990) Grahame Brown writes:
Your well documented arguments against using origin reports to support price premiums for selected colored stones, should stimulate gemologists to think this very real problem through, rather than dismissing your arguments as being commercially unrealistic, or worse still, acquiescing to the rather dubiously based status quo.
Personally, I fully support the general thrust of your arguments, and wish to raise several additional points for consideration.
1. Researchers, species collectors and investors, excepted, why do human beings purchase colored stones? Surely the major factor influencing the desirability and subsequent purchase of a colored stone must be those visual characteristics contributing to the particular gem’s beauty and rarity. It is a fact that geography has little proven influence over the appearance of a colored stone.
2. Why should the presence of any visually detectable inclusion (s) in a colored stone not logically degrade, rather than sometimes upgrade, the value of the stone? Clarity should be a significant determinant of value; the country of origin of the gemstone’s inclusion should not practically influence its global value.
3. If origin reports are of such significance to the value of colored stones, why are these not routinely prepared for all colored stones?
4. If the gemologist wishes, or is forced by perceived necessity, to issue an origin report for a particular colored stone, then what data does he or she have to support their assignment of origin to that colored stone? The factual answer to this question is……precious little. Certainly, several most useful photoatlases of gemstone inclusions have been published, but none of these present an exhaustive review of characteristic inclusions found in colored stones from all past or present mines. This comparative information is essential if the origin of a colored stone is to be determined with any degree of accuracy. Yes, systematic collections of colored stones do exist, e.g. the GIA’s reference collection, but this collection is not readily accessible to an antipodean gemologist, who may be attempting to determine the origin of a troublesome colored stone. Excellent though the GIA reference collection is….is still incomplete. Perhaps the most striking inadequacy of gemology’s knowledge of characteristic gemstone inclusions is the fact that less than 50 per cent (author’s estimate) of the world’s colored stone deposits have been described, in any way, in the gemological literature. Simply put, insufficient data exists to allow error-free origin reports to be issued by the majority of gemologists.
Origin reports for colored stones may be economic necessity for some gemologists, but to me (for the reasons expressed above) they mostly represent quasi-scientific gemological humbug.
Your well documented arguments against using origin reports to support price premiums for selected colored stones, should stimulate gemologists to think this very real problem through, rather than dismissing your arguments as being commercially unrealistic, or worse still, acquiescing to the rather dubiously based status quo.
Personally, I fully support the general thrust of your arguments, and wish to raise several additional points for consideration.
1. Researchers, species collectors and investors, excepted, why do human beings purchase colored stones? Surely the major factor influencing the desirability and subsequent purchase of a colored stone must be those visual characteristics contributing to the particular gem’s beauty and rarity. It is a fact that geography has little proven influence over the appearance of a colored stone.
2. Why should the presence of any visually detectable inclusion (s) in a colored stone not logically degrade, rather than sometimes upgrade, the value of the stone? Clarity should be a significant determinant of value; the country of origin of the gemstone’s inclusion should not practically influence its global value.
3. If origin reports are of such significance to the value of colored stones, why are these not routinely prepared for all colored stones?
4. If the gemologist wishes, or is forced by perceived necessity, to issue an origin report for a particular colored stone, then what data does he or she have to support their assignment of origin to that colored stone? The factual answer to this question is……precious little. Certainly, several most useful photoatlases of gemstone inclusions have been published, but none of these present an exhaustive review of characteristic inclusions found in colored stones from all past or present mines. This comparative information is essential if the origin of a colored stone is to be determined with any degree of accuracy. Yes, systematic collections of colored stones do exist, e.g. the GIA’s reference collection, but this collection is not readily accessible to an antipodean gemologist, who may be attempting to determine the origin of a troublesome colored stone. Excellent though the GIA reference collection is….is still incomplete. Perhaps the most striking inadequacy of gemology’s knowledge of characteristic gemstone inclusions is the fact that less than 50 per cent (author’s estimate) of the world’s colored stone deposits have been described, in any way, in the gemological literature. Simply put, insufficient data exists to allow error-free origin reports to be issued by the majority of gemologists.
Origin reports for colored stones may be economic necessity for some gemologists, but to me (for the reasons expressed above) they mostly represent quasi-scientific gemological humbug.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Colorado Rhodochrosite
The Sweet Home mine in Colarado's Alma mining district has been known since 1872 for silver, but more recently the mine has become famous for producing top quality rhodochrosite crystals. The best qualities are well-formed, translucent to transparent rhombohedrons with intense orange red color. The colors are stunning red like some of the top quality rubies.
Rhodochrosite is soft and has perfect cleavage in three directions so faceting the stone is difficult. The cut yield can range between 5% and 20% depending on the size and shape of the rough and the experience of the cutter. The smaller sizes may be calibrated in 0.5mm increments as oval, round, princess, cushion, emerald and trilliants. Cabochons both calibrated and free sizes can also be polished based on the quality of the rough. Cabochons displaying chatoyancy with four rayed stars have also been found. It is believed that most faceted stones are untreated, while some of the cabochons may be stabilized during the cutting process.
The cut rhodochrosite is being sold by Mr Van Wagoner, Beija-flor Gems, Haiku, Hawaii. They expect the stocks to last for two or three years, after which few stones will be available in the market.
Rhodochrosite is soft and has perfect cleavage in three directions so faceting the stone is difficult. The cut yield can range between 5% and 20% depending on the size and shape of the rough and the experience of the cutter. The smaller sizes may be calibrated in 0.5mm increments as oval, round, princess, cushion, emerald and trilliants. Cabochons both calibrated and free sizes can also be polished based on the quality of the rough. Cabochons displaying chatoyancy with four rayed stars have also been found. It is believed that most faceted stones are untreated, while some of the cabochons may be stabilized during the cutting process.
The cut rhodochrosite is being sold by Mr Van Wagoner, Beija-flor Gems, Haiku, Hawaii. They expect the stocks to last for two or three years, after which few stones will be available in the market.
Australia’s Quota System For Cultured Pearls
I wish the colored stone industry had similar quota systems to protect natural environment + long term sustainability plan.
(via Arafura Pearls Holdings Ltd (2006) Prospectus/ The Australian Gemmologist, 2007, Vol.23, No.2, April-June 2007) Australian Gemmologist writes:
Unlike the rest of the world, the Australian pearl culturing industry is highly regulated through the use of a government controlled ‘oyster’ quota system. Each producer must hold a pearl license from the relevant state government body. Presently quotas are set for both wild and hatchery bred Pinctada maxima.
This quota system limits the number of shell that can be seeded and can be put into cultivation each licensing year. The sole purpose of this rigidly enforced quota system is to protect naturally occurring stocks of P. maxima, allow their natural regeneration, and so maintain the long term sustainability of the Australian South Sea pearl industry and its markets.
Presently the annual quota of shell for all licensed produces is 1,432,000 shell of specified size (120mm minimum diameter).
Wild oyster quota: 572,000 (WA); 120,000 (NT); Total: 692,000
Hatchery quota: 350,000 (WA); 300,000 (NT); Total: 650,000
Total oyster quota: 922,000 (WA); 420,000 (NT); Total: 1.342,000
The oyster quotas in the Northern Territory and Western Australia are closely held by a small number of producers. The three largest quota holders in Australia are the Paspaley Group, the Kailis Group, and Arafura Pearls who have access to approximately 75% of the available quota either directly or indirectly. The remaining quota is spread amongst several other pearl farmers.
An independent review of the Western Australian Pearling Act 1990 was completed in 2000 within the framework of the National Competition Policy. This review confirmed that the existing regulations and restrictions associated with wild stock oysters were justified. The State and Territory governments are currently completing a five year review of their hatchery policies to determine any update in hatchery quota regulation.
Pearling is Australia’s second largest aquacultural activity by gross value of production. Subject to currency and price movements, the Australian cultured pearl industry produces approximately $A180 - $220 million pearls in wholesale value each year; of which Western Australia contributes approximately 80% and the Northern Territory 20%, Queensland production is minimal. By volume, Australia produces approximately 2.5 – 3 tonnes of South Sea Pearls per annum.
(via Arafura Pearls Holdings Ltd (2006) Prospectus/ The Australian Gemmologist, 2007, Vol.23, No.2, April-June 2007) Australian Gemmologist writes:
Unlike the rest of the world, the Australian pearl culturing industry is highly regulated through the use of a government controlled ‘oyster’ quota system. Each producer must hold a pearl license from the relevant state government body. Presently quotas are set for both wild and hatchery bred Pinctada maxima.
This quota system limits the number of shell that can be seeded and can be put into cultivation each licensing year. The sole purpose of this rigidly enforced quota system is to protect naturally occurring stocks of P. maxima, allow their natural regeneration, and so maintain the long term sustainability of the Australian South Sea pearl industry and its markets.
Presently the annual quota of shell for all licensed produces is 1,432,000 shell of specified size (120mm minimum diameter).
Wild oyster quota: 572,000 (WA); 120,000 (NT); Total: 692,000
Hatchery quota: 350,000 (WA); 300,000 (NT); Total: 650,000
Total oyster quota: 922,000 (WA); 420,000 (NT); Total: 1.342,000
The oyster quotas in the Northern Territory and Western Australia are closely held by a small number of producers. The three largest quota holders in Australia are the Paspaley Group, the Kailis Group, and Arafura Pearls who have access to approximately 75% of the available quota either directly or indirectly. The remaining quota is spread amongst several other pearl farmers.
An independent review of the Western Australian Pearling Act 1990 was completed in 2000 within the framework of the National Competition Policy. This review confirmed that the existing regulations and restrictions associated with wild stock oysters were justified. The State and Territory governments are currently completing a five year review of their hatchery policies to determine any update in hatchery quota regulation.
Pearling is Australia’s second largest aquacultural activity by gross value of production. Subject to currency and price movements, the Australian cultured pearl industry produces approximately $A180 - $220 million pearls in wholesale value each year; of which Western Australia contributes approximately 80% and the Northern Territory 20%, Queensland production is minimal. By volume, Australia produces approximately 2.5 – 3 tonnes of South Sea Pearls per annum.
A Question Of Origin
2007: I think John Koivula was right. The laboratories have no need for origin, and in some cases there is no way of knowing where the stones came from.
(via Gemological Digest, Vol.3, No.1, 1990) John Koivula writes:
With regard to your article, “A Question of Origin,” I agree with your basic premise that where determining country of origin in a gem is concerned, there is some truth in the saying ignorance is bliss. The more knowledge one gains on this subject, the more complex the problem of geographical origin becomes. While an experienced, knowledgeable inclusion expert can identify country of origin for some stones, in most cases it is impossible to determine the precise country of origin. The inclusion identification work that is done by a few colleagues and myself at GIA is done as a scientific endeavor to expand our knowledge of gems—not to prepare country of origin reports.
Your statement that ‘consumer could then be told honestly that these (origin reports) are intended for collectors and researchers’ is part incorrect, because most researchers have no need for origin reports of the type produced by the various gemological laboratories that issue them. Most inclusion researchers study the stones themselves and draw information from the various professional gemological and other earth science publications. In the 25 years that I have done research in this field, I have never found a need for an origin report.
With regard to your comments on there being more than one sapphire mining area in the State of Montana, please be assured that when Dr Gubelin and I discuss inclusions in sapphires from Yogo Gulch in the Photoatlas, we are most definitely referring to stones from that specific locality. Also, in your discussion of Kashmir sapphires you state: “Since the mine is (and has been for many years) off-limits to foreigners, the question arises as to where gemologists got the study samples.” You fail to mention or reference, however, a relatively recent major article on the Kashmir deposit in which the authors obtained their information and samples first-hand at the mining area (D. Atkinson and R. Kothawala, “Kashmir Sapphire,” Gems & Gemology, Vol.19, No.2, 1983, pp 64-76). For some interested in scientific research on Kashmir sapphires, a 1983 article would seem to be at least as valuable as one published in 1890—especially considering the technological advances that have occurred in the interim. I am sure the gemological community is also looking forward to the results of your research on the 1 kg (5000 carats) of known Kashmir sapphire rough you had the good fortune to obtain.
(via Gemological Digest, Vol.3, No.1, 1990) John Koivula writes:
With regard to your article, “A Question of Origin,” I agree with your basic premise that where determining country of origin in a gem is concerned, there is some truth in the saying ignorance is bliss. The more knowledge one gains on this subject, the more complex the problem of geographical origin becomes. While an experienced, knowledgeable inclusion expert can identify country of origin for some stones, in most cases it is impossible to determine the precise country of origin. The inclusion identification work that is done by a few colleagues and myself at GIA is done as a scientific endeavor to expand our knowledge of gems—not to prepare country of origin reports.
Your statement that ‘consumer could then be told honestly that these (origin reports) are intended for collectors and researchers’ is part incorrect, because most researchers have no need for origin reports of the type produced by the various gemological laboratories that issue them. Most inclusion researchers study the stones themselves and draw information from the various professional gemological and other earth science publications. In the 25 years that I have done research in this field, I have never found a need for an origin report.
With regard to your comments on there being more than one sapphire mining area in the State of Montana, please be assured that when Dr Gubelin and I discuss inclusions in sapphires from Yogo Gulch in the Photoatlas, we are most definitely referring to stones from that specific locality. Also, in your discussion of Kashmir sapphires you state: “Since the mine is (and has been for many years) off-limits to foreigners, the question arises as to where gemologists got the study samples.” You fail to mention or reference, however, a relatively recent major article on the Kashmir deposit in which the authors obtained their information and samples first-hand at the mining area (D. Atkinson and R. Kothawala, “Kashmir Sapphire,” Gems & Gemology, Vol.19, No.2, 1983, pp 64-76). For some interested in scientific research on Kashmir sapphires, a 1983 article would seem to be at least as valuable as one published in 1890—especially considering the technological advances that have occurred in the interim. I am sure the gemological community is also looking forward to the results of your research on the 1 kg (5000 carats) of known Kashmir sapphire rough you had the good fortune to obtain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)