One of the most successful Mughal rulers in India was Akbar, in the 16th century. He invited clerics from various faiths to debate. Said one Muslim: "He collected the opinions of everyone, especially non-Muslims, retaining whatever he approved of." A Jesuit commented that Akbar had "the common fault of the atheist, who refuses to make reason subservient to faith, accepting nothing as true which his feeble mind cannot fathom." 350 years later Nehru commented "If this is the definition of an atheist, the more of them we have the better."
From John Rheinstein's first Index of the year 2000
We invite reader responses
Please e-mail us directly. And be sure to let us know if we may post your mail on the web site.
Visit Carbon Copies for some vigorous reader response to Richard Hughes' Digital Devil column on the new General Electric/Lazare Kaplan Inc. treatment of diamonds. The commentary follows the article. Is the author a racist who has finally shown his true colors. Read the article and comments to judge for yourself.
This letter, from Katharine Edwards, is in response to Richard Hughes' book: Ruby & Sapphire.
29 Oct., 1999
Dear Richard,
Diploma students of the Gemmological Association of Australia are in the middle of their final exams. I am studying. I open your book. Two hours later I still cannot tick off my revision topic. Your book is just too damn interesting. Can I blame you if I can't answer the question on spodumene? How about a forty page Essentials of Corundum booklet for those who mustn't get too distracted? (Is that possible) But I do enjoy the history, mystery and plain common sense of your writing. I decided to splash out for your book (and with 32% sales tax that's a big splash) because the best presented chapter in Webster's Gems (in my opinion) was by RW Hughes. I like the web site too (still too much to read… must get back to my study) Thank you for sharing, as they say at my 4-year old daughter's kindy.Katharine Edwards
Perth, Western Australia
Richard W. Hughes responds:
Thanks for the kind words. No plans to do a shorter corundum book. So sorry. Guess you'll just have to make do with insomnia.
Thanks again.
This letter, from John Tapner, is in response to Richard Hughes' article: Fun Down Under.
7 Oct., 1999
Dear Richard,
G'Day Dick, Ow are ya me old China? Fair dinkum mate, yer column in GemKey ['Fun
Down Under'] really takes the cake. Just as well our Aussies have
got the well known laid-back sense of humour or next time yer was up the
Ridge yer might have got a bunch of fives. Lay off the accent bit, Dick.
You reckon our accent is funny – strewth mate when we get a Yank in
the shop they generally need an interpreter. Californian English is OK, but
Deep South may as well be another language. Perhaps it is! Glad you enjoyed
meeting Len Cram – one of our living legends out in the bush, indeed
in our industry. The world needs more like Len to keep us all sane and bring
a bit of reality to the planet. Cheers mate,
John
Tapner
Sydney
Richard W. Hughes responds:
John, I haven't laughed so much in a long time. Considering the volume of mail I get from Australia, it must mean you Aussies have the most highly refined sense of humor on the planet. In case you only saw the print version of the article, check out the original, unedited version on-line here. I think it's much better than the original.
This letter, from John S. White, former curator at the Smithsonian Institution, is a commentary on certain sections in Richard Hughes' book: Ruby & Sapphire.July 21, 1999
Dear Mr. Hughes:
This is a very difficult letter to write and I very likely would never have
considered it had you not so earnestly and sincerely invited commentary
on your book. I stand in awe of what you have accomplished with Ruby & Sapphire and
it is with great trepidation that I presume to offer criticism of any
aspect of that monumental effort which is, in my opinion, one of the
finest gemological publications of all time. Yet I am, by nature, a
critic and it is as impossible for me to keep criticism within as it
is for cats to give up preying on birds. And, as I am sure you are
aware, much of the literature of gemology is fertile territory for
fault-finding, especially that which emanates from the GIA, but that
is another story.
I first had an opportunity to read portions of your book when visiting Si and Ann Frazier last summer. Quite frankly, I was overwhelmed and immediately devised a plan whereby, with their collaboration, I hoped to get my wife to give me a copy for Christmas. This didn't go exactly as planned but eventually all worked out and I became a proud owner of Ruby & Sapphire. In spite of my modest criticisms, the magnificence of this book is in no way compromised, at least not in my eyes. Furthermore, with the exception of the misuse of one word, the issues that concern me are not ones of your own making, they relate to theories that are, unfortunately, more or less firmly established in the literature of the gemological community, so your acceptance of them can surely be forgiven if not understood.
Issue #1. Is the "exsolved rutile" that causes asterism in corundum twinned? Whether the fine rutile inclusions in corundum are exsolved or are the product of coprecipitation, their positions within the host are determined by the structure of the host, thus they are oriented inclusions. To argue that they are both topotactic to the structure of corundum and at the same time twins (as you suggest on p. 94) seems to me to be unrealistic.
I won't develop this further but have instead included a copy of my recent letter to Dr. Gübelin on the subject. I think you will find the issue at least challenging. I note that you properly explain "parting" in corundum in your book, and yours is one of the few books to do so following the publication of my 1979 paper on boehmite in corundum. Even today most mineralogy texts describe the phenomenon as being related to polysynthetic twinning, even though any fool can look at the corundum and see that it is not twinned as that would require that adjacent planes of corundum be reversed upon their neighbors, which is not the case.
Issue #2. Are "fingerprints" really that difficult to explain? On page 96 in your book you appear to have accepted without question the GIA-endorsed multi-step theory of Roedder in explanation of the origin of "fingerprints" in corundum (and other transparent minerals as well). This complicated sequence of unlikely events has never passed my personal hee haw test and I am stunned that so many otherwise respected gemologists accept it so readily. This theory requires believing much that is unproven and virtually impossible to explain. First, the growing crystal (probably in a super-heated environment under nondirectional pressure) becomes "cracked" How this happens no one is prepared to say. Why it happens here and there, no one is prepared to say. How a crystal can crack while it is actually growing is a tough one, better to stay away from that. Next, "growing" solutions' (whatever they are) penetrate this crack and "dissolved" some of the corundum which then "begins the healing process." Come on now, are these growing solutions or are they dissolving solutions? You can't have it both ways. How do they manage to convert from growing solutions to dissolving solutions then back to growing solutions? Next, dissolved components are alleged to be deposited along the inner walls of the crack. Just how much fluid do you think this crack contains (or contained?). How much dissolving do you think that tiny bit of fluid can actually accomplish? What is the solution's saturation point and why isn't it already saturated when it penetrates the crack for it is, after all, a solution that has to this point been nourishing the growth of the crystal? How much reprecipitation do you believe that tiny bit of fluid can accomplish?
If you believe in the Law of Parsimony, as I do, then you must admit that all of this convoluted hocus-pocus is unnecessary in order to explain the origin of fingerprints. In my view fingerprints formed in much the same manner as so many other disruptions in crystal growth but don't resemble fingerprints and have, therefore, escaped this bizarre scenario. Imagine a growing crystal. Something interrupts the growth at one or more points on its surface and the crystal grows around that obstruction, probably simultaneously trapping some fluids within the hollow that forms as the crystal slowly closes. End of story, except that perhaps growth can occur within the cavity because the trapped fluids are saturated, thereby forming negative crystal surfaces. The shape and configuration of these cavities will certainly be influenced by the conditions under which the crystal is growing. If under high pressure, as many corundum crystals clearly were when forming, these cavities can be expected to be very thin and greatly elongated. At low pressures we see altogether different shapes, as in quartz, spodumene and many beryls. The origins, I would like to believe, are nonetheless very similar. This issue is a tough one to tackle because the gemological community appears to have bought Roedder's version lock, stock and barrel. However, I was rather hoping that, given your intelligence and thorough knowledge of the subject, you might have at least questioned whether or not this explanation actually makes sense. I expected that you might have opened the door of suspicion just a tiny crack. My guess is that the synthesizers of corundum might have some firsthand experience that could shed light on the origin of fingerprints, but I am not privy to their counsel and, as near as I can tell, they have kept a very low profile.
Finally, the one misused word alluded to above. It is that sneaky word "enormity" as it appears in the Acknowledgments, on page. 26. I hope that you did not mean the evil wickedness of others' contributions to this work, etc.
Respectfully,
John S. White
Richard W. Hughes responds:
I like letters like this. First, because they are written by
someone with far more intelligence than I will ever attain. Thus
praise from such quarters is quite welcome, and I will bask in its
glow as long as it shines. Second, and most important, because it
is a thinking letter. It questions some basic assumptions and Lord
knows we need more of that. Finally, anyone who calls my book one
of the finest gemological publications of all time is high on my
list of swell people. That said, I do have a response…
In
case some readers missed it, the reference to your parting
paper, which I thought was an important one, is:
White, J.S. (1979) Boehmite exsolution in corundum. American Mineralogist, Vol. 64, Nos. 11–12, pp. 1300–1302.
Bottom line? Parting in corundum is not caused by twinning, but by exsolution of boehmite (on the rhombohedron) or hematite (on the basal pinacoid). As the digitization of Ruby & Sapphire progresses, we will see more of such technical information on this site.
Exsolved rutile: I can't comment on the science of that one, being over my head. But I do know what I've seen, which is knife-shaped crystals with little re-entrant angles at the broad end. Are these rutile? I cannot say that for a fact. But others have tested them and their findings were that they were rutile. Are they really twinned? Again, I cannot say that absolutely, but their morphology suggests it to be the case.
Healed fractures: Here, I do believe you are in error. Roedder's theory has been proven to a certain degree by what is done with the flux-healing of fractures in Möng Hsu ruby. See this article on my web site for details:
My good friend, Gerry Rogers, a Bangkok burner, told me shortly before his death this year (1999) that he burned without flux and often produced substantial healing of fractures. I also recall a paper that Eppler did whereby he took a fractured synthetic ruby and healed it by extended heating in water:
Eppler, W.F. (1966) The origin of negative crystals in gemstones. Journal of Gemmology, Vol. 10, No. 2, April, pp. 49–56.
[note: I first reported the reference incorrectly as: Eppler, W.F. (1959) The origin of healing fissures in gemstones. Journal of Gemmology, Vol. 7, No. 2, April, pp. 40–66.]
So there is a large body of both literature and anecdotal evidence that would tend to support Roedder's theories on fracture healing. Check those out and let me know what you think.
Thanks again for writing. I really do appreciate it. You've raised a number of interesting points.
This letter, from Sean de Stadler, is in response to Richard Hughes' article: Digital Devil – Romancing the Stone.
Dear Richard,
Hi, my name is Sean and I manage a jewellery store in South Africa . I am
presently studying diamonds and diamond grading through the GIA and
I have really enjoyed the selling and marketing side of the business
for five years now. I subscribe to GemKey [the web site] and read GemKey magazine
periodically. I was reading your article on how to sell a gem ('Romancing
the Stone,' July-August 1999, p. 66). In all this time I have
never heard of such a ludicrous approach to selling. If you believe
that you can close a sale with that approach, I have to see it. I respect
your expertise in rubies and sapphires but that method of selling would,
in my opinion, never close the sale.
Sincerely,
Sean de Stadler
Diamond Factory Sales
Cape Town S.A.
Richard W. Hughes responds:
Sean, thanks for writing. I think you are missing an important point of our business, and in doing so, possibly missing potential sales. We are not selling gemstones, something that has no value to anyone. What we are selling is illusion. The only value a precious stone has is the illusion in the buyer's mind. People do not buy a stone, they buy a story, a vision of a mine or country, a bit of history, something they can tell their friends about. De Beers knows this, which is why they don't sell diamonds (they sell love). In May 99, I attended the ICA congress in Italy, where one speaker was a German marketing expert analyzing gem trade marketing. His conclusion? 99% of it sucks, because there is too much emphasis on the product, and not enough on the lifestyle or feeling surrounding the product. Example: Does Pepsi sell sugar water? No. They sell a lifestyle to the "Pepsi Generation." Thanks again for writing.
The following mail from Edward Boehm and Jeffery Bergman is relevant to the article Cloak and Dagger: The Politics of Opticon…
I BELIEVE IT is the initial deception created by the Opticon treatment process that has soured the industry and the public on this process. Had the miners not been so zealous in their attempts to initially deceive buyers by overcharging for emeralds that, prior to treatment, would have cost thousands per carat less, then we would have had a smoother transition into this new treatment process.
The same fatal blow was handed to the diffusion sapphire treaters because too many stones appeared on the market prior to consumer awareness. Admittedly, awareness and knowledge of new treatment processes requires time, which most dealers do not have, but the ultimate damage on an entire gem variety such as with our beloved emerald can be minimized by proper disclosure and fair pricing based on the original material value.
Better communication with dealers, labs, and publications along with fair disclosure and pricing practices will alleviate such disasters in the future.
Regards,
Edward Boehm
Richard W. Hughes responds:
I agree with you that disclosure is important, crucial in fact. As a friend of mine (Ron Vock) has said, our business should be like the real estate business, full disclosure being the norm. You don't disclose, you go to jail (or pay for your mistake with a fine).
However, I don't believe that Opticon represented the same revolution in emerald treatment that surface-diffusion treatment did with corundum. It was an evolutionary change, producing just a slight improvement in quality relative to the oil treatments of the time.
A FRIEND WHO has been dealing strictly in Colombian emeralds for the last decade, fluent in Spanish and traveling to the mines several times a year, reports that certain treaters in Colombia have been mixing their "Palma" (Epoxy 828; sometimes incorrectly translated as 'palm oil') with something they call "Arandile". Could this in fact be Araldite, a member of the Epoxy resin family, to which Opticon belongs? My friend has promised me a copy of the label so we will know soon.
He says it has been going on for at least 5 years. The story is that the "Arindile" mixed with the Palma improves the clarity better than plain Palma, and the stones "dry out" at a much slower rate. The problem seems to be that after a few years, or even months, a gradual cloudiness develops, requiring a complete cleaning and re-treatment of the stone.
This weird stuff was encountered by my partner and I early last year. We brought a sample stone to Ken Scarratt and Gary DuToit at AIGS to run some X-ray diffraction and Raman tests, and they confirmed that it was not Opticon and not cedarwood oil, but they did not know what the heck the stuff was.
Enter twist #2. We had several emerald dealers bringing these problem stones to us for cleaning and re-treatment. We were using standard, off-the-shelf acetone as our primary solvent for non-Opticon treated stones. The label said 100% acetone, but in fact, since its major use is as a nail polish remover, it actually had a small amount of lanolin added to prevent total skin dry out of the nail polish crowd.
After a cleaning attempt, little did we know that lanolin residue was left in the cracks, and that this Arindile stuff is only partially soluble in acetone. The cloudy stones actually got WORSE after our normally spectacular treatment results. After weeks of banging our heads against the wall, and with threatened law suits from dealers whose stones we had "ruined", we finally figured out the lanolin connection. Switching to an ethanol/methanol mix solved the problem.
I'll send on the details of this Arindile stuff as soon as I get my hands on the label.
Cheers,
Jeffery Bergman, Gemsource, Bangkok
And this note from James Jolliff, regarding Richard W. Hughes' Devil's Advocate column, Thailand After the Fall, published in the Winter 1997 edition of Cornerstone, Journal of the Accredited Gemologists Association…
IT'S ONE THING to verbally let a curse word slip in anger – it's another to put it in our journal. It is unprofessional in a quality newsletter. To say [Richard W. Hughes is] controversial is insufficient. We do not need this – if necessary – edit it! That's what editors are for!
Sincerely,
James Jolliff
Member AGA
The editor's response:
Thank you for taking the time to write in, Mr. Jolliff. We appreciate input from our members.
Richard W. Hughes responds:
Damn right! I get so sick of this shit where people think they're being assertive just by using a lot of profanity. But seriously, isn't is amusing that someone becomes more incensed over the use of an individual word or words (I believe 'shit' was the word in question), rather than the real profanity of a military oligarchy/civilian elite totally fucking a nation. Hmmm…
Postscript:
Reader Lyn Sanny has suggested the following for a few tips on verbal propriety: http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/index.html
Another letter – from Scott Montgomery – follows Richard W. Hughes' Devil's Advocate article Death of the Thai Ruby. See Life During Wartime for Hughes' response.
This
page is http://www.ruby-sapphire.com/bullpen.htm Page updated 14 April, 2008 |
| Home | Passion Fruit: The Best of Ruby-Sapphire.com | Rants & Slants : Articles |
| The Book: "Ruby & Sapphire" | Buy the Book | Something of Myself: Meet RWH |
| RWH Bibliography | The Gemologist's Library |
| Links | Contact Us | Site Map | Photo Credits | Merci… |
© 1997–2008 Richard W. Hughes/RWH Publishing & Books; all rights reserved.
Users may download this information for their own private, non-commercial use.
Other reproduction (text or graphics) without the express written consent of Richard W. Hughes is strictly prohibited.
Ruby-Sapphire.com is dedicated to the free exchange of ideas on gems, gemology, the gem trade and other matters concerning the trade in precious stones and jewelry. Unless otherwise stated, opinions expressed herein are solely those of Richard Hughes/RWH Publishing & Books.
Problems? Praise? Contact the Webmaster
