Jeffery Bergman of Gem Source of Bangkok lashes out against the proposed disclosure letter code system currently being endorsed by many trade leaders. Bergman, who has worked in the gem field since he was 14 years old, is a supporter of disclosure—but insists that it be universal, coherent disclosure covering both traditional enhancement methods and more recent advanced treatments.

            For 25 years I have been selling treated gemstones. I was the driving force behind the diffusion-treated sapphire boom of this decade. I also participated in the American Gem Trade Association fiasco when they established their disclosure policies. I believe this qualifies me to comment on last year’s debacle of the treatment and enhancement disclosure letter code system proposed by international gemstone industry leaders.

            Most of the industry applauded when they heard of this new system. I, for one, hissed and booed. On the surface the proposal appears to indicate industry leaders’ desire to provide a simple disclosure system in order to reduce deceptive disclosure practices in the trade. In reality the motivation for such a system is fear and greed. Allow me to explain before you scoff at or dismiss my statement.

            The proposal of a letter code system to identify and categorize various types of enhancements and treatments is both confusing and hypocritical. Let’s review the system and I will clarify the situation.

            N—for stones that have not been enhanced other than being cut and polished.

            O—for stones enhanced with colorless liquid oil only.

            E—for stones enhanced with heat, colorless non-hardened natural of synthetic resin (including cedar wood oil and Canadian balsam) and other enhancements.

            T—for stones treated with epoxy resin with hardener, colored oil, glass filling visible at 10X power magnification, diffusion treatment and other treatments.

            First of all cedar wood oil (E) is a colorless liquid oil so should it not be under the O category? Next, stones enhanced with heat (E) are referred to as being heat-treated by virtually everyone in the industry. Are we now to back pedal and declare that they were merely “enhanced” all along? Anyone who has seen the drastic difference in Sri Lankan gueda sapphire before and after heating will certainly categorize it as heat treated and not merely enhanced.

            Glass filling visible at 10X magnification should be in the E category. Does this mean that glass filling which is not visible at 10X but is visible at 20X or higher magnification should be in the E category? Maybe no disclosure at all is necessary if detection is more difficult than with 10X magnification. Then there is the epoxy resin issue which is also complicated by detection difficulties. This difficulty is primarily due to the relative permanence of epoxy after exposure to a hardening agent as opposed to oils or resins which are easily removed by alcohol, acetone (common nail polish remover), or even warm soapy water. The far more permanent epoxy is in the lower T category while easily removed liquid oils and resins are in the higher E or O categories. Somehow the whole proposal does not make much sense.

            Herein lies the dilemma. The industry, citing tradition as the basis for its categories of enhancement versus treatment, has traditionally NOT disclosed treatments of any sort. Since it has been traditional it is assumed that it is acceptable and therefore unnecessary to say anything to anyone. There is an underlying fear that if we tell the public, the end used, what has really been done to produce the lovely gem they want to buy then few of them would actually buy it.

            Perceived value would drop drastically if emerald buyers knew the ease at which oils and resins could be removed and the often radial difference in appearance before and after “enhancement.” How many people would want to wear blue topaz if they knew the beautiful color was produced by radiation and that some stones are still radioactive by the time they reach the jewelry store? And who would want to pay thousands of dollars per carat for a fine Sri Lankan blue sapphire if they saw what an ugly milky grey piece of junk it was before heat treatment.

            Disclosure is a moral issue. Gems do not cheat people, people cheat people. By proposing a letter code system we take the spotlight off the real issue which is the industry-wide need for full and accurate disclosure of any and all treatments or enhancements of whatever you want to call altering the appearance of a gemstone other than cutting and polishing.

            The industry has trapped itself and so far has not been willing to do what is necessary to get itself out of the trap. I call upon the industry leaders who set disclosure policy to drop the category system and propose a full disclosure policy regardless of tradition. If it is oiled with a colored oil, or bleached, or heat-treated, or diffused, or subjected to a combination of processes, then spell them out and put it on the invoice so there is no doubt or confusion about what has been done to the stone. Then, and only then, will we be able to regain the confidence of the public. Let us all remember that it is the end user who keeps us all in business. If we begin to practice such a policy now we will certainly feel the sting of the mistakes of our past but we will build for ourselves a sure future and a growing market based on education and understanding.

            What are you views on the proposed disclosure system? Does it serve the industry, the public—or neither? If implemented, how would it affect your business? JewelSiam invites readers to send your opinions on treatment disclosure to fax number : (66-2) 237-3271.