Cultured pearls with a chocolate color have entered the market from several sources. Analytical tests indicate that the organic components in black cultured pearls may have been partially bleached to create the brown color. The treated cultured pearls can be identified by visual observation, unusual coloration, fluorescence, UV-Vis-NIR reflectance and Raman spectroscopy + trace element composition.
Useful link:
http://ballerinapearl.com
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Blue Quartz From Minas Gerais, Brazil
The amethyst mine of Montezuma in the northern part of the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais produces amethyst which can be modified to green by heat treatment. In the trade the treated gems are sold as prasiolite. If the stones are exposed to gamma ray treatment, the stones may turn blue.
The Elphick Factor
Chaim Even-Zohar writes about Clifford Elphick + the acquisition of a small diamond mine in Lesotho + behind the scene developments at the Oppenheimer family + Elphick's rising star status on the South African national business scene @ http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullEditorial.asp?TextSearch=&KeyMatch=0&id=27155
Useful link:
www.gemdiamonds.com
Useful link:
www.gemdiamonds.com
Diamonds By Linares, Gemesis May Cut De Beers, Rio Tinto Sales
Danielle Rossingh writes about laboratory-created diamonds and its impact + the natural diamond industry concerns @ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ax6nfaTs6FKg&refer=home
Monday, June 18, 2007
Schindler's List
Memorable quote (s) from the movie:
Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson): Look, All you have to do is tell me what it's worth to you. What's a person worth to you?
Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes): No, no, no, No. What's one worth to you!
Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson): Look, All you have to do is tell me what it's worth to you. What's a person worth to you?
Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes): No, no, no, No. What's one worth to you!
Vanity Fair Wants You To Love Diamonds And Africa
A correspondent from the UK notes that this month's Bono-produced pro-Africa issue comes bundled with a separate 74-page magazine devoted to diamonds and other "jewellery." It appears to be a UK exclusive. More info @ http://gawker.com/news/diamonds-are-a-magazine.s-best-friend/vanity-fair-wants-you-to-love-diamonds-and-africa-268830.php
The Synthetic Controversy
I really like the analogies. The fact of the matter is synthetic gemstones or created gemstones are going to be with us forever.
Thomas Chatham shares his views:
No other recent discovery has been given so many obstacles to overcome as gems made by man. Yet I can think of really few other commodities and contributions to our field that have given so many people so much pleasure than the millions upon millions of stones that are made by man that are used in jewelry.
The controversy really revolves around those in the business of selling natural stones. They are a bit nervous about what the synthetics may mean to their future. Will the bottom fall out? Will the value of their inventory be reduced to pennies? Should they get into this market or let it pass them by? Can natural and quality synthetics be sold side by side effectively?
There was a suggestion to declare an outright ban on the product. It is my opinion that this would only make the product much more desirable to the undesirables. The industry would go underground and the gems would find their way into natural parcels around the world more frequently with no attempt being made to market them as they are being marketed today with full disclosure as to origin.
It’s not the gemstone that cheats people, it’s the people who cheat people.
The next suggestion was to require producers to add a tell-tale element into the crystal growth that would fluoresce under ultraviolet and signal the observer as to the nature of the material. This is noble concept and one which initially satisfied the fairness of disclosure but violates the 50 + years that Chatham spent in accurately reproducing nature. To include a substance deliberately alien to the natural chemistry of that species is to the purist and the Chatham family a sacrilege. To the part time gemologist-jeweler-appraiser it would be a godsend.
Let's compare the cultivation of flowers with cultivation of crystals. The idea is that when man plants seeds and intervenes in the natural process of growing by supplying special food, adequate water, light, and ideal growing conditions in order to achieve the very best possible results and then reaps a harvest of superior flowers, ‘do you then consider these flowers to be man-made? Or are they synthetic? This is the very problem that has faced all of us with man-made gems for the last 50 years.’ What do you think?
My feelings are that the two are the same in essence, but we have other factors to consider. Should flower shows be only for those flowers plucked from the hillsides and meadows where man has not intervened? Do wild natural flowers command a higher price than those grown by the horticulturists? Is man to be denied the artistic endeavor of trying to improve upon nature by making this world a little better place than he found it? Is that not why man was put upon this earth after all? Certainly the Chatham family has come a long way in fulfilling this dream and in an ethical way.
Thomas Chatham shares his views:
No other recent discovery has been given so many obstacles to overcome as gems made by man. Yet I can think of really few other commodities and contributions to our field that have given so many people so much pleasure than the millions upon millions of stones that are made by man that are used in jewelry.
The controversy really revolves around those in the business of selling natural stones. They are a bit nervous about what the synthetics may mean to their future. Will the bottom fall out? Will the value of their inventory be reduced to pennies? Should they get into this market or let it pass them by? Can natural and quality synthetics be sold side by side effectively?
There was a suggestion to declare an outright ban on the product. It is my opinion that this would only make the product much more desirable to the undesirables. The industry would go underground and the gems would find their way into natural parcels around the world more frequently with no attempt being made to market them as they are being marketed today with full disclosure as to origin.
It’s not the gemstone that cheats people, it’s the people who cheat people.
The next suggestion was to require producers to add a tell-tale element into the crystal growth that would fluoresce under ultraviolet and signal the observer as to the nature of the material. This is noble concept and one which initially satisfied the fairness of disclosure but violates the 50 + years that Chatham spent in accurately reproducing nature. To include a substance deliberately alien to the natural chemistry of that species is to the purist and the Chatham family a sacrilege. To the part time gemologist-jeweler-appraiser it would be a godsend.
Let's compare the cultivation of flowers with cultivation of crystals. The idea is that when man plants seeds and intervenes in the natural process of growing by supplying special food, adequate water, light, and ideal growing conditions in order to achieve the very best possible results and then reaps a harvest of superior flowers, ‘do you then consider these flowers to be man-made? Or are they synthetic? This is the very problem that has faced all of us with man-made gems for the last 50 years.’ What do you think?
My feelings are that the two are the same in essence, but we have other factors to consider. Should flower shows be only for those flowers plucked from the hillsides and meadows where man has not intervened? Do wild natural flowers command a higher price than those grown by the horticulturists? Is man to be denied the artistic endeavor of trying to improve upon nature by making this world a little better place than he found it? Is that not why man was put upon this earth after all? Certainly the Chatham family has come a long way in fulfilling this dream and in an ethical way.
The Science, Not Art, Of Management
(via Business Standard) Suman Srivastava writes:
What don’t they teach you at B-school? I have a two-word answer to this question: street smartness.
Business school taught me how to read balance sheets, but didn’t tell me how to motivate people to give their best. It taught me how to structure the organisation for maximum productivity, but not how to deal with a person who thinks her boss is a creep. My management degree taught me how to create an excellent marketing strategy, but not how to sell it to a client who is insecure about his job.
Business schools tend to be very left-brained. Very analytical, quantitative and structured. Which is a good thing because the Indian education system is not very good at teaching us to be analytical, quantitative or structured. The school system basically teaches us to learn by rote. The best business schools force you to unlearn that.
In the process, they tend to put the quantitative approach to a problem on a pedestal, ignoring the qualitative and “feel” aspects of managing people. If management is both a science and an art, then B-schools teach the science but ignore the art.
Life, unfortunately, is all about art. Success comes to those who learn to deal with people best. Those who learn to understand the fears and motivations that people have, understand their joys and sorrows. The role of a leader is to inspire, provide direction and keep people motivated. Other professional skills are taken for granted.
One can argue, perhaps with justification, that nobody can teach the art. That may be true, but where business schools tend to err is in leaving their management students with a feeling that the art doesn’t really matter.
I had to wait until my hair turned grey before I understood that the art does matter. But perhaps, I am just a slow learner.
Suman Srivastava graduated from Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, in 1987
I think it was an inspiring article. I liked it.
What don’t they teach you at B-school? I have a two-word answer to this question: street smartness.
Business school taught me how to read balance sheets, but didn’t tell me how to motivate people to give their best. It taught me how to structure the organisation for maximum productivity, but not how to deal with a person who thinks her boss is a creep. My management degree taught me how to create an excellent marketing strategy, but not how to sell it to a client who is insecure about his job.
Business schools tend to be very left-brained. Very analytical, quantitative and structured. Which is a good thing because the Indian education system is not very good at teaching us to be analytical, quantitative or structured. The school system basically teaches us to learn by rote. The best business schools force you to unlearn that.
In the process, they tend to put the quantitative approach to a problem on a pedestal, ignoring the qualitative and “feel” aspects of managing people. If management is both a science and an art, then B-schools teach the science but ignore the art.
Life, unfortunately, is all about art. Success comes to those who learn to deal with people best. Those who learn to understand the fears and motivations that people have, understand their joys and sorrows. The role of a leader is to inspire, provide direction and keep people motivated. Other professional skills are taken for granted.
One can argue, perhaps with justification, that nobody can teach the art. That may be true, but where business schools tend to err is in leaving their management students with a feeling that the art doesn’t really matter.
I had to wait until my hair turned grey before I understood that the art does matter. But perhaps, I am just a slow learner.
Suman Srivastava graduated from Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, in 1987
I think it was an inspiring article. I liked it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)