Search Colored-Stone.com:

This month's issue

Contact Customer Service

Colored Stone Back Issues

An Open Letter to the Trade Regarding the Paraiba Controversy

By David Federman, Editor-in-Chief

Genuine Brazilian Paraiba courtesy of American Gemological Laboratories (AGL).

Genuine Brazilian Paraiba courtesy of American Gemological Laboratories (AGL).

Truth be told, I don't want this suit to go forward. But it will if Doug and the lawyers I presume he's been talking to persist in the belief that this complaint is without legitimacy. As a result, AGTA will spend lots of money that could be better spent on doing right things rather than defending wrong ones.

Make no mistake: Allowing the hallowed origin name Paraiba to be used as a descriptive term for African tourmaline is wrong. And for anybody, not just Dave Sherman, who sells genuine mined-in-Paraiba tourmaline, this can't be good for business. But for those who want to sell gems with pretender provenance, it is a bonanza.

And here we come to the hard heart of the Paraiba matter: a full-scale frontal assault on a central underpinning of gemstone value. Can you guess which one?

Kashmir Sapphire courtesy of American Gemological Laboratories (AGL).

Mother Nature is a snob. She produces the very finest grades of natural gemstone in limited quantities and in very specific locations. For example, connoisseur consensus long ago established Kashmir as the pinnacle producer of blue sapphire. Burma holds the same stellar status as a source of ruby.

These aren't arbitrary honors. They are universally accepted acknowledgements of the historic fact that certain localities serve, or served, as benchmarks of ideal quality for specific gems. What's more, fine gems were more of a norm at these localities than any other. In the case of Kashmir, whose sapphires weren't discovered until around 1870, this late-comer supplanted every prior idealized sapphire locality, including Burma and Ceylon. To this day, Kashmir has withstood every challenge to its supremacy. Hence, its stones have been accorded "old master" status and are entitled to a premium based on origin.

Since World War II, I can only think of one gem mining locality that has attained "old master" status as a gemstone origin: Paraiba for tourmaline. While other localities such as Madagascar have become famous for high-quality gems, none, except Paraiba, has acquired specific provenance value as an origin.

To the contrary, some high-provenance localities have seen a dissipation of their stature. Take Burma. In the early 1990s, miners discovered a mammoth source of low-grade ruby at Mong Hsu, which only became commercially viable stones thanks to extensive laboratory reclamation. Until then, Burma's chief source for ruby had been the legendary Mogok area where superb stones - many in no need of enhancement - were a norm of production. But Mong Hsu quickly eclipsed Mogok. And when it did, the origin-name Burma was no longer synonymous with outstanding quality because most rubies were from the low-value area of Mong Hsu. For the name Burma to continue to connote high-value ruby, stones would have to be proven to be of Mogok origin.

This ring contains a Burma ruby from Mogok. Courtesy of the AGL.

This is where gem dealers and gemologists were derelict in their duty to the public. They failed to insist on a distinction between Mogok and Mong Hsu on origin reports for Burmese rubies. Sure, individual voices decried this error of omission. But no trade organization went on record as denouncing or even disapproving of it. In terms of its negative impact on value, failing to disclose Mong Hsu origin was tantamount to failing to reveal a controversial treatment such as beryllium coloring or glass filling. The stage was set for the Paraiba scandal - and worse. Here's how.

At a time when an alarming number of rubies, sapphires and emeralds owe their beauty and durability to gem rehabilitation rather than treatments, the jewelry industry is living under the greatest moral mandate for full product disclosure in its history. The gem trade pays loud lip service to this obligation, but forsakes it every chance it gets - so much so that many rubies, sapphires and emeralds in jewelers' counters no longer deserve to be called gemstones as this term is traditionally defined and understood.

Stones literally held together by glass or epoxy which should be classified as "composites" are sold merely as "enhanced." Stones artificially colored by chemicals which should be classified as "dyed" are sold merely as "heated with chemicals." Because such anemic product descriptions fail to trigger consumer caution, they constitute deception.

It was only a matter of time before the trade took larger linguistic license with origin and related rarity factors. And make no mistake: Converting Paraiba to a varietal name is deception. Here's why.

The gem trade has long honored established paradigms of beauty for prized gems such as ruby and sapphire. These paradigms are based on generations of connoisseurship associated, for the most part, with gems from specific localities that produced or still produce gems of exemplary quality and quantity. I have long called this close association between specific gems and places "the mystique of place." I have also long argued that this is a defendable mystique.

When the gem trade talks about Burma ruby or Kashmir sapphire, it is not talking about brands or trade names. It is talking about lineage and legacy. It is talking about an extrinsic value factor that earns certain gems the right to premiums based on their geographical birthplace. Such value factors are called provenance. Based on origin, it is conceivable that a high-provenance Mogok ruby that is identical in quality, size and shape to another low- or no-provenance ruby could command an additional 40% in price. That may strike some as absurd but the fact remains that high-provenance gems trade around the world on the basis of extrinsic factors such as origin or prior ownership.

True Paraiba tourmaline from Brazil. Photo courtesy of Paraiba.com.

It is the ultimate tribute to Paraiba tourmaline that in less than five years after its discovery in 1987, this origin-specific gemstone earned the right to hefty price premiums based on origin alone. The very word "Paraiba" has a resonance accorded to no other modern gemstone locality and, as such, affirms the continuing role and relevance of origin as a meaningful determiner of a gem's worth. Those who thought origin an anachronistic value factor were proven wrong by the modern-day triumph of Paraiba-origin goods as supremely beautiful and valuable gems.

By extending the meaning of the term "Paraiba" from a highly resonant, specific place name to a broad, generic varietal name, the gem trade has weakened the institution of provenance which is one of the central pillars of gem value.

It is only natural to want the benefits of provenance for gems that resemble those from revered localities. Nonetheless, the trade has long resisted valuation of fine ruby and sapphire on the basis of appearance alone. That is why you will see auction catalogs dotted with references to origin reports from leading gem labs. What's more, demand for these reports has never been greater - and the science behind them stronger. New money in Asia and Europe is embracing old value factors such as origin. So while a ruby may look Burmese, connoisseurs want a pedigree that the stone is such.

True Paraiba tourmaline from Brazil. Photo courtesy of Paraiba.com.

Given this desire for specific origin documentation, why did CIBJO, the international gemstones standards-setting group, approve use of Paraiba as a varietal name for all tourmalines with colors reminiscent of those from Paraiba? In 2006, the highly influential Lab Manual Harmonization Committee (LMHC) adopted this decision - provided stones contained copper (CU) and manganese (MN). When this ruling was greeted with consternation, the group further limited use of the term to "blue (electric blue, neon blue, violet blue), bluish green to greenish blue or green elbaite tourmaline, of medium to high saturation and tone."

Despite these restrictions, the LMHC had set a disturbing precedent for gemstone nomenclature. By making Paraiba into a trade name based on chemical composition rather than specific origin, the LMHC bastardized it from a high-value term of provenance to a lesser-value promotional term.

What was to be gained by allowing expansion of the Paraiba name? The answer is obvious once you look at the membership of the LMHC. The group is comprised of representatives from seven gem labs - GIA and AGTA GTC in the U.S., Gubelin and SSEF in Switzerland, CISGEM in Italy, CAAJ in Japan, GIT Gem Testing Lab in Thailand - that stand to gain in revenues derived from gem identification and origin determination reports. This conflict of interest is as self-evident as it is appalling.

Now the stage is set for further contamination of provenance.

In case you don't know, the LMHC is putting the final touches on a standard for padparadscha sapphire. This is the name originally given to a very rare pinkish-orange sapphire from Ceylon. Although padparadscha was not sold on the basis of origin, linkage between this gem and Ceylon has always been implied. If any word in gemstone history ever connoted extreme rarity based on origin, it is padparadscha.

Recently, Madagascar has been said to be producing sapphires that look identical to padparadschas from Sri Lanka. For this reason, it is argued that the term "padparadscha" is solely a color term having nothing to do with origin and that all sapphires with combinations of pink and orange hues reminiscent of those found in Sri Lanka are entitled to be called such.

Classic Sri Lankan Padparadscha courtesy of AGL.

I strongly disagree. Padparadscha at heart is a term of rarity for stones with an implied origin. To dilute its meaning is to repeat the same mistake that got us into the Paraiba predicament. Just as look-alike Burma rubies and Kashmir sapphires are refused the privilege of being identified and sold as Burma or Kashmir stones, African pink-orange fancy color sapphires should be refused the right to be identified and sold as padparadscha (which should henceforth be Sri Lankan padparadscha just as exemplary blue corundum is Kashmir sapphire).

In the name of defending rarity, I propose that the trade officially recognize the historic correlation of padparadscha sapphire with Sri Lanka. There was no need to do so when that country was the sole source of this sapphire. But now that other sources are alleged to produce padparadscha stones, the trade should codify a strict association of this word with Sri Lanka. I don't ask this because I am an elitist who seeks to deprive gem dealers of the extra revenues they would make if allowed to call sapphires padparadscha on the basis of appearance alone. I do this because I am a traditionalist who seeks to defend all recognized rarity terms from bastardization. By repeatedly failing to defend the tradition of rarity in the domain of origin, we have weakened a central pillar of gem value. I am asking the trade to evaluate and analyze the padparadscha precedent as part of a dangerous, ill-advised multi-pronged attack on the essential notion of gemstone rarity.

Just as conscientious dealers and merchants have resisted broadening use of the term Paraiba to non-Brazilian tourmaline, I ask them to resist similar broadening of the terms padparadscha for non-Sri Lankan sapphire and Burma for non-Mogok rubies. So much depends upon keeping meanings strict for both explicit and implied origin/provenance terms. The art world is now seeking to defend the sanctity and integrity of the Rembrandt name - so much so that an estimated 40% of the world's Rembrandts have been de-certified as such. Shouldn't the gem world do the same for its Rembrandts?

Time is short. The LMHC is about to broaden and weaken the color definition for padparadscha to accommodate buyers whose only experience are with newer, more plentiful African stones. Henceforth, LMHC member labs, and any other labs that subscribe to its decisions, will be free to call a wide range of pinkish orange to orange-pink sapphires "padparadscha." According to a representative at a jewelry television network which has submitted a wide range of orange-to-pink sapphires for identification, "Stones that no educated dealer or collector would ever called 'padparadscha' are now being certified as such."

I hate to think what will happen next. Maybe all chromium-bearing rubies will be allowed to be sold as Burmese. Don't laugh. Widened definitions for Paraiba and padparadscha go hand in hand with vastly expanded definitions of words like natural and gemstone.

African Padparadscha courtesy of AGL.

In conclusion, let me say this: Playing name games with highly specific descriptive terms like "Paraiba" and "padparadscha" is one of the most dangerous games the gem trade could be playing at the present time. It's time to call a time out before the fans come charging on the field demanding their money back.

This was also sent out to our Colored Stone GemMail newsletter subscribers. Want to receive the latest up-to-date information on the gemstone industry? Sign up for our free Colored Stone GemMail newsletter.

e-mail the editors of Colored Stone | About Colored Stone | Sign up for the FREE Colored Stone GemMail newsletter

This site and all of its contents are copyright Colored Stone and Interweave unless otherwise noted.
All articles, photographs, graphics, logos, and trade show floorplans are owned by Colored Stone and may not be reproduced in any form,
in print or in electronic media, without the express written permission of the publisher. Violators will be subject to legal action.