There was no doubt that the material I bought was glass filled as the seller later emailed me a lab report which stated 'natural ruby, glass filled'. This certificate, the seller felt, should reassure the buyer that this was natural ruby and not synthetic (although the report was not shown or referred to at the point of ordering) . My problem was that I felt that as a NAJ member, he should clearly declare the glass filling treatment from the outset. I believe that the GIA will no longer refer to glass filled ruby as 'natural' or 'ruby' now, but will call it manufactured goods.
So to me, this is an example of glass filled ruby entering the jewellery retail sector from a well trusted, established trade fair (IJL) without any declaration, where it can easily be bought by unsuspecting retail buyers and sold on through UK shops to the unsuspecting public as natural ruby.
You've lost me a little bit, Marianne. Icecream is 'manufactured goods'. So are car batteries. What is there in 'manufactured goods' as a description that makes it a good and sufficient description of glass-filled red corundum? As you may have guessed, I am not a jeweller. Can you give a link, other than CIBJO's Gemstone Book, to a description of glass-filled composites that jewellers, internationally but in English, are recommended to use?
I agree that 'glass-filled ruby' seems a proper declaration to make wherever such stuff is offered for sale. And, indeed, CIBJO is emphatic on this particular.
I'm hoping that this link to the GIA's guide to Lead Glass Filled Ruby explains what I am talking about, their suggested terminology and nomenclature is expressed at around 3.45 minutes in. I was interested in seeing if there was a discussion to be had about this material entering the UK market without people realising what they are buying. I believe Antoinette Matlins has had similar concerns about synthetic and glass filled rubies being offered for sale without declaration in some US department stores. I'm interested in generating discussion because I am genuinely worried, and as I am halfway through my FGA, the topic of Rubies and their Treatments is being offered as a dissertation option (which I shall take) so any opinions on this subject are of great interest to me. Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my posts, pity its just you, me and the tumbleweed blowing through here!
Well, it may just be me but you do retain an interested audience of one at least Marianne! Some questions for you that I hope thinking about may be some useful preparation towards your dissertation:
- Do you have a copy of and have you read thoroughly a copy of CIBJO's Gemstone Book?
- In what way(s) do you find CIBJO's recommended terminology for 'glass-filled ruby' to be insufficient?
- Why do you think that the GIA-preferred terminology is an improvement on the CIBJO recommendation? N.B. Most emphatically, I do not!
- The GIA video clip refers specifically to 'lead glass filling'. What other kinds of glass are also used to infill and stabilise fissures and voids in gemstones?
- Name four other gems in addition to ruby, in which glass filling has been found.
- Give three main reasons why the glass filling of gems is objectionable whilst (when properly declared) oiling or waxing are generally accepted trade practices.
I look forward to your thoughts on this points in due course. We might even get some more contributions to the thread!