Science Or Empiricism?

2007: Gemological competence requires more than reading textbooks, and the writer is right. I can imagine what was it like in the 1940s and 1950s. Despite the technological advances in gem identification, we still make mistakes. Again, he states that human senses are not always capable of analyzing their observations. Absolutely true. Here is what he has to say.

(via The Journal of Gemmology, No.1, Vol.1, January 1947) Norman A Harper writes:

Informed experience is a faculty of considerable value in any walk of life and knowledge gained by experience remains more firmly embedded in the minds of most people, than does knowledge culled from books or acquired at lectures.

Unfortunately, the human senses are not always capable of analyzing their observations, with the result that experience is frequently ill-informed, and thus of little value.

For countless centuries men experienced the diurnal journey of the sun round the world, and having a prejudice in favor of a geocentric universe, never suspected that in reality the roles were reversed, it being the earth which was the wanderer. By means of the scientific method, the measuring, analyzing and indexing of experienced observation, it was possible, however, to arrive eventually at this now almost universally known truth.

In every branch of knowledge the scientific method has proved its indispensability, and scientific instruments which measure and analyze human observations have become so numerous that a book of some three hundred pages is required to describe briefly the forms and uses of the more important of them.

There is still, however, a remarkable disinclination or reluctance among many to use such instruments, or rather to acquire the technique enabling them to be used. This may be due to a mistaken idea that these instruments require a technique that can only be achieve by long and painful practice and study. If this is so, it had better now be stated that while such study is necessary to grasp thoroughly the scientific principles underlying the use, say, of the telescope, much valuable and accurate knowledge can be gained by anyone, completely unversed in the science of optics, who knows which end to place next to the eye.

Few advances in knowledge have had such beneficent effects upon humanity as those associated with medical science, and few sciences can equal it in the number of the instruments to which its practitioners have recourse. The instruments of physics, of optics, of chemistry, of electricity—to all these the physician turns for aid.

It is hard to imagine a doctor without a thermometer, a stethoscope, and a hypodermic syringe, yet it is possible for him purely by experience and the use of his hands to tell whether or not a patient is feverish, or by his unaided ear to hear the rhonchi or rales which mark successive stages of bronchitis; it is also possible for him to introduce drugs into the body without hypodermic syringe, but who will deny that the use of such instruments makes these operations so much accurate and certain, besides their having other uses and a much wider application.

What, one may ask, is the object of this long preamble? The answer is contained in another question. Does the jewelry trade make sufficient use, in the hands of its numerous practitioners, of the scientific instruments which are available for the determination of the nature of the materials in which it deals?

The writer has within the past few weeks encountered three pieces of jewelry in which there were green stones which experience told him were emeralds, and not only his own experience, but the experience of three other jewelers of no mean capabilities, to whom they were shown. By the use of scientific methods and scientific instruments, however, these stones were proved to be extremely good imitations. As they were mounted in association with diamonds of considerable value, they might have escaped suspicion had not three very simple scientific tests been utilized to determine their true nature. Needless to say, the results of the investigations were a grave disappointment to their owners, who had vigorously asserted their genuineness.

In such cases the empirical method is generally employed, with the result that the truth is never discovered.

There are few trades where such mistakes can be more costly and few trades where accurate diagnosis is so often necessary. Every purchase from the public (and sometimes even from the trade) and every valuation, for whatever purpose, pre-supposes an exact knowledge on the part of the buyer or appraiser of the true nature of the constituent materials of the object to be bought or valued. Yet, in spite of the growing number of competent gemologists, a census of the jewelry establishments in which a bottle of dilute nitric acid and a smooth faced file were the only instruments available (and in a few enlightened cases, one Chelsea color filter), might engage a large number of enumerators.

In such establishments it is not possible to differentiate between unmarked platinum and unmarked white gold, or, for that matter, between either of those metals and stainless steel, and even an approximation of the quality of unmarked yellow gold would be with difficulty arrived at.

But when it comes to the determination of gemstones, the difficulties which beset such establishments would cause shivers of apprehension in a gemologist.

Of course, jewelers in that position can always say that it is possible to ‘play safe’, ‘when in doubt, don’t buy’, or ‘sell?’, ‘when not sure, allow nothing for the colored stone’, ‘buy it as 9 carat (or even when is obvious better than that….15 carat). But surely that is unethical and dishonest. What would be thought of a doctor who said ‘I can’t be sure whether it is colic or appendicitis, so we had better operate?’

A knowledge of gemology and the purchase of a little equipment would resolve most, if not all these doubts. In the case of precious metals, the expenditure of a few shillings and an hour of time with Selwyn’s ‘Retail Jeweler’s Handbook’ are all that is necessary to banish them for ever. Precious stones require a little more attention, but the possession of a few scientific instruments and an easily acquired knowledge of the technique of their use constitutes all that is necessary to transform an empiricist into a scientist, or one who guesses into one who knows.

The cost of these instruments might deter the individual, as it is in the region of thirty to forty pounds, but it should not, under any circumstances, deter a business, or an individual if he happens to be the proprietor of a small business, as this equipment will in a few years pay handsome dividends if used with knowledge and imagination. In any case, the increased confidence to be gained from their use will manifest itself inevitably in more and more successful sales talk.

‘I don’t want to turn my showrooms into a laboratory’ is a remark occasionally heard, but a consultation in Harley Street will be conducted in the atmosphere of a cultured 18th century salon, with gastroscopes, cystoscopes, and even such a pleasant instrument as the microscope, kept well in the background. No one doubts their existence and possible proximity, however, and the certainty that the consultant will take every advantage in diagnosis they offer, makes his advice invaluable as compared with the advice of the greatest physician of medieval times.

What equipment will benefit the jeweler? Here is a list of instruments in the order in which they should be purchased, in the opinion of the writer:

- The refractometer (Tully, Herbert Smith, or Rayner)
- Heavy liquids (Bromoform, methylene iodide, clerici solution)
- Petrological microscope
- The dichroscope
- The spectroscope

The method of their use is fully explained in textbooks written specially for the jeweler, but the first essential is a competent knowledge of gemology.

Staurolite

Chemistry: Hydrated aluminum silicate.
Crystal system: Orthorhombic; cross-shaped, interpenetrant twins at 60º or 90º;crystals display pseudo-hexagonal cross section.
Color: Transparent to opaque: reddish brown.
Hardness: 7 – 7.5
Cleavage: Poor: 1 direction; fracture: brittle, conchoidal.
Specific gravity: 3.65 – 3.78
Refractive index: 1.739 – 1.762; Biaxial positive; 0.011-0.015
Luster: Vitreous to resinous.
Dispersion: Moderate.
Dichroism: Colorless, yellow/red, golden yellow; varies.
Occurrence: Metamorphic; Switzerland, France, Brazil, Russia, Scotland, USA.

Notes
Most specimens are opaque and valued for its cross-shaped twins; also known as cross stones, fairy stones; faceted.

Tanzanite And Some Imitations

Zoisite: Blue to violet
Tanzanite (trade name)
R.I=1.688 – 1.696 (1.691 – 1.700); Birefringence=0.008 – 0.009; S.G=3.35

Heavy Pb-Glass
U.M Tanzanic (trade name)
R.I=1.600 – 1.605; Birefringence= Isotropic (SR); S.G=3.36 – 3.48

YAG
Purple Coranite (trade name)
R.I= >1.80; Birefringence= Isotropic (SR); S.G=4.58

Synthetic Corundum
Blue Coranite (trade name)
R.I=1.764 – 1.771; Birefringence= 0.007; S.G=4.02

YAG
Russian YAG (trade name)
R.I=>1.80; Birefringence= Isotropic (SR); S.G= 4.56

Ca-Phosphate Glass
R.I=1.537; Birefringence=Isotropic (SR); S.G=2.64

The House Of Mondavi: The Rise And Fall Of An American Wine Dynasty

Good Books: Here is what the description of the book The House Of Mondavi: The Rise And Fall Of An American Wine Dynasty says: (via Amazon)

An epic, scandal-plagued story of the immigrant family that built—and then spectacularly lost—a global wine empire

Set in California’s lush Napa Valley and spanning four generations of a talented and visionary family, The House of Mondavi is a tale of genius, sibling rivalry, and betrayal. From 1906, when Italian immigrant Cesare Mondavi passed through Ellis Island, to the Robert Mondavi Corp.’s twenty-first-century battle over a billion-dollar fortune, award-winning journalist Julia Flynn brings to life both the place and the people in this riveting family drama.

The blood feuds are as spectacular as the business triumphs. Cesare’s sons, Robert and Peter, literally came to blows in the 1960s during a dispute touched off by the purchase of a mink coat, resulting in Robert’s exile from the family—and his subsequent founding of a winery that would set off a revolution in American winemaking. Robert’s sons, Michael and Timothy, as passionate in their own ways as their visionary father, waged battle with each other for control of the company before Michael’s expansive ambitions ultimately led to a board coup and the sale of the business to an international conglomerate.

A meticulously reported narrative based on thousands of hours of interviews, The House of Mondavi is bound to become a classic.

Here is a review from Penguin (via Amazon):

An epic, scandal-plagued story of the immigrant family that built—and then spectacularly lost—a global wine empire.

Set in California’s lush Napa Valley and spanning four generations of a talented and visionary family, The House of Mondavi is a tale of genius, sibling rivalry, and betrayal. From 1906, when Italian immigrant Cesare Mondavi passed through Ellis Island, to the Robert Mondavi Corp.’s twenty-first-century battle over a billion-dollar fortune, award-winning journalist Julia Flynn brings to life both the place and the people in this riveting family drama.

The blood feuds are as spectacular as the business triumphs. Cesare’s sons, Robert and Peter, literally came to blows in the 1960s during a dispute touched off by the purchase of a mink coat, resulting in Robert’s exile from the family—and his subsequent founding of a winery that would set off a revolution in American winemaking. Robert’s sons, Michael and Timothy, as passionate in their own ways as their visionary father, waged battle with each other for control of the company before Michael’s expansive ambitions ultimately led to a board coup and the sale of the business to an international conglomerate.

A meticulously reported narrative based on thousands of hours of interviews, The House of Mondavi is bound to become a classic.

It's a must-read book + blood feuds + (business) split-personalities are common traits in any business + when it happens in a family, it becomes a classic thriller.

The Change Function

Good Books: (via Emergic) The Change Function is about why some technologies succeed -- and others fail. The short answer: The Change Function = f (user crisis vs. total perceived pain of adoption).

From the book’s description:
After years of studying countless winners and losers, Coburn has come up with a simple idea that explains why some technologies become huge hits (iPods, DVD players, Netflix), but others never reach more than a tiny audience (Segways, video phones, tablet PCs). He says that people are only willing to change when the pain of their current situation outweighs the perceived pain of trying something new.

In other words, technology demands a change in habits, and that’s the leading cause of failure for countless cool inventions. Too many tech companies believe in build it and they will come -- build something better and people will beat a path to your door. But, as Coburn shows, most potential users are afraid of new technologies, and they need a really great reason to change.

Here is an excerpt from the book (from Fast Company):
Technologists think we'll gladly adopt an innovation when it's manifestly smarter. But change is an emotion-laden process; disrupting, game-changing technologies. No way. Most of us despise being disrupted and don't wish to be game-changed.

The technologies that stand the best chance of winning us over are enhanced editions of products we already understand. Flat-panel televisions, for example, are much better televisions with low perceived pain of adoption. Everyone "gets" what a basic television is all about. There's nothing to learn. At the same time, flat-panel TVs address a powerful need. True, it's both subtle and self-fulfilling: It's the psychic pain we feel for not having one. Since 19% of televisions sold in 2005 were flat panels, the technology appears set to hit a societal tipping point. Anyone who doesn't have one will feel deeply embarrassed about it. If that's not a crisis, I don't know what is.

A technology's success or failure is not merely fated. Instead, it demands action of one of two varieties. Technologists can identify and intensify a customer crisis. Or they can reduce the perceived pain of adoption.

Tom Evslin wrote about the book: It’s important, says Pip, not to confuse a perceived crisis on the part of the would-be vendor with a crisis on the part of the prospect. The oft-failed Picturephone (not be confused with cell phones that take pictures) was an answer to a crisis felt by telcos, not their customers. They needed new high-margin products. TPPA (Total Perceived Pain of Adoption) for this product/service has always been high both because we aren’t used to being seen when we talk remotely and because the first users (and someone has to be the first user) can’t find anyone else to talk to?

I think it's an interesting book because it aggregates many concepts, its unique chemistry + why sometimes there is chemical mismatch between perceptions and realities.

Descendant Of The Pharaohs

Sylvia Hochfield writes about Egypt’s antiquities council's campaign to repatriate artistic icons from museums around the world + Zahi Hawass, the passionate secretary general of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities @ http://artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=2039

Dubai Topped $10 Billion In Diamond Transit Trade In 2005

Chaim Even-Zohar profiles Dubai, the tougher policies of Dubai Multi Commodities Center (DMCC), the Dubai Diamond Exchange (DDE), the Kimberley Authorities + the business angle @ http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullEditorial.asp?TextSearch=&KeyMatch=0&id=25483

Synthetic Or Artificial

2007: Even today many don't know/understand the difference (s) between synthetic and artificial gemstones. The minute you mention synthetic they will ask if it's glass or plastic; to my surprise even gemologists, jewelers and traders ask the same. I call it momentary autism. They go blank/inert. I think gemological education should be perceived as a life long learning endeavor.

(via The Journal of Gemmology, Vol.VII, No.6, April, 1960) A E Farn writes:

Most gem enthusiasts have at some time or other either attended a gemological exhibition, or proudly shown their own collection of gems to friends and relations—always to be asked the inevitable question, ‘how much are they worth?’ To the keen collector, this is an irritating question, since it indicates clearly where the interest lies and how the average person reacts to such terms as gemstones or jewelry. Seldom does one meet the true appreciation of beauty or rarity, but always the eternal ‘how much?’

Unfortunately certain elements in our society readily apply their criminal psychology to this materialistic interest in valuables so quickly evinced by the more greedy or gullible section of the public. Thus, when a new material came on to the market and displayed tremendous fire and attraction for a price low in comparison to diamond it afforded possibilities which the unscrupulous were not slow to realize. The new material’s trade name of fabulite seemed coined specially for word play—fabulous for the credulous! It was not until some fairly recent occasion that I was asked by a gem dealer, who wanted to satisfy a customer’s enquiry, whether it was intended to simulate diamond and if it was a synthetic stone.

Answering rather quickly without very serious thought, I replied that it certainly was not intended to simulate diamond but doubtless it could be so used. It was not synthetic diamond, since its formula was SrTiO3, strontium titanate, but it could be described as a synthetic stone. Since then I have had second thoughts. I began to wonder if it was correct to describe this product as synthetic, and without going into the various aspects and methods of manufacture of synthetics generally I wondered whether it was correct so to describe strontium titanate.

Being weak on etymology I could only have recourse to what I had been taught, and as far as I could remember a synthetic stone is a stone which has the same chemical composition, refractive indices and specific gravity as its natural counterpart.

If a synthetic ruby be analyzed it would correspond with natural ruby and similarly in the case of sapphire. With synthetic spinel this is not quite the same, as here there is an excess of alumina in the composition and the properties are slightly higher in R.I and S.G than those of natural spinel. It would seem to be hair-splitting, but even synthetic spinel is not a true synthesis of natural spinel. It did not intend to propound this particular case, but it slipped in as a natural sequence.

What I really wanted to focus on is: strontium titanate, is it a synthetic, since so far as is known there is no naturally occurring mineral? Certainly it is an artifact as indeed are all synthetics, whether corundum, spinel, rutile or emerald. The Concise Oxford dictionary gives synthesis as ‘combination, composition, putting together. Chemically: artificial production of compounds from their constituents.’ Jarrold’s dictionary of difficult words gives synthesis as ‘combination of parts into a uniform whole. Synthetic—pertaining to synthesis and adjectivally as artificial.’ Webster’s Compendium carefully states, ‘synthetic gems having similar chemical composition to natural corundum and spinel and which in physical and optical properties approximate to these gems are made in an oxy-coal gas furnace (Verneuil process)’. Anderson’s Gem Testing gives: ‘synthetic stones, manufactured stones which have essentially the same composition, crystal structure and properties as the natural mineral they represent.’

It would seem, therefore, that a consensus of opinion is against terming an artifact of no known natural counterpart as a synthetic from a gemological view. Incidentally, most so called synthetics which have a counterpart in nature are all certainly harder than fabulite, which has a softness too low to admit of normal jewelry usage. It would seem therefore that strontium titanate is in fact an artificial stone and should be so described.