Answers on "Andesine-Labradorite" color source!

red dirt · Post by **red dirt** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:23 pm

I am curious as to how many stones the report writer owns, why only two green "andesine-labradorite" were tested and no red ones were used

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:51 pm

Things are as simple as this: Robert runs a business and needs advertising. He uses his forum and newsletter to do this. Lately he's found a whole new group of potential customers and he's playing them like a true marketing expert. The retorics all come down to the same thing: we're the best, come and hang with us (and then buy my product). He chooses an agressive approach towards everybody outside his school thus trying to eliminate any doubt by the potential customer. That he will lead the school further away from recognition that way doesn't seem to bother him...

I'm sure one can learn a lot from his course materials and joined efforts on his forum. Thing is: one can do that for free through the gemologyproject, other great online sources and on this forum. Advantage: you don't have to tell Barbra that she's the best after every post, an occasional 'thank you' will do. After reading and understanding all that you can find, call yourself S.O.G. (self ordained gemologist after dr Hanneman's book) It will have as much standing in the industry.
I found myself reading a post on his forum a week or so ago where someone asked a question after going on a job interview. The interviewer hadn't taken her ISG Registered Gemologist status all that serious and she wondered why... My reply and well meant advise got me banned instantly. I was defined 'yet another wannabe' and the commercial continued...

I hope for all them JTV consumers that they will not be fooled again.

Doos · Post by **Doos** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:02 pm

Hi red dirt,

One will probably never know.

Barbra Voltaire, FGG · Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:18 pm

Over the past several years, these specimens have been sent to the GIA, AGTA, AIGS. They have been studied by Dr. Lore Kiefert, Emmanual Fritsch, George Rossman, Laurent Massi...and many other industry legends.

Several reports were issued by the Major Gem Labs indicating "no evidence of treatment". This determination was made within the scope of standard gemological testing.

I sincerely believe that everyone studying this "mystery meat", including most recently, Robert James, is honestly reporting on their findings within the limitations of the tools available to them. I do not believe, for a second, that any of these researchers are deliberately presenting false or biased information....but it does certainly appear that many conclusions have been drawn too quickly....across the board!

Read the studies thoroughly. Keep asking questions. Don't accept something just because it was written....

Precision Gem · Post by **Precision Gem** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:46 pm

Could it be that some stones are not treated, and some are? After all, isn't JTV now admitting that at least some of the stones they have sold have been treated? An just months before this admission, they were claiming that several labs had tested the stones as all natural.

So, there are only a few possible truths here.

1. The labs have been fooled.
2. The labs have been covering up the truth.
3. JTV has been covering up the truth
4. JTV was fooled.
5. Everone who ever bought a Lab/And is a fool
6. The Chinese have out smarted everyone and are making millions
7. The stones are all natural and eveyone involved is a fool.
8. The Oregon sunston miners are selling the stones to the Chinese, fooling them, pretending to be diplomats from the Congo.
9. The whole gemstone business is pretty foolish, lets face it, this stuff has no practical value, so who cares where or what these foolish stones are anyways!
10. I'm just a big fool.

Doos · Post by **Doos** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:53 pm

Could it be that some stones are not treated, and some are?

Yes.

theimage1 · Post by **theimage1** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:11 pm

I hate to point this out, but put in the above (Paraiba, Brazil) to Google Maps and it points directly to an area about 20mi east of Patos Brazil.

Mapquest shows four listings for Paraiba Brazil.

If you go to Live Search Maps, it points out there is a state in Brazil called Paraiba.

Now I don't know about WEBSTERS gem book edition 1990, as I don't own it or a newer version. The stone is referenced to have arrived in United States in 1987 (JCK 4/1/2002). Since the first reference I have found to Paraiba Tourmaline was published in Modern Jewelry in 1990 by Federman, I would doubt any book published before or even in that year would contain a reference.

I did see that Charoite was first mentioned in the 1994 edition of Websters, and it too appeared in the 1980's in the US. Books are great references for old information, periodicals & journals are references for NEW information. The publishing cycle makes a book out of date the day it arrives on the shelf. (Doesn't mean that they are not still very useful tools!)

Anyway I don't really care about the argument on the tourmaline one way or the other. but I do like to see accurate information:

"... there can not be any tourmaline from Paraiba. In fact Paraiba doesn't even exist" <--- simply not true

Gem books are not good places to get Map data, and Computer Books (which I have hundreds) give really poor Gem data!

Not meant to hurt any feelings, but this is silly!

cat-foster · Post by **cat-foster** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:17 pm

I don't want to waste too much of your space, but being one of those consumers, I think the problem is that the original information was untreated, then later information stated one source definately heated. Many consumers feel betrayed not just by the industry, but also by their own human reaction to it. Yes I understand all the rules and some of the psychology behind sales tactics, but I still occasionally get sucked in anyway. It has been very difficult (as in so far other than one Tibet web page where the report is very difficult to make out) to find any of those lab reports that many folks say exist. Do any of you have the URLs to the postings of those older official reports? The lack of access to those reports has created so much frustration that getting them might not be enough to ease the tensions, but it would help.

Also I forgot to mention no confirmed locations that the group trusts.

gem-n00b · Post by **gem-n00b** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:19 pm

Gemfrance, one of our members, has many Andesines with certificates stating that they are natural Andesines. Do not confuse JTV with "the industry", JTV is just one company.

cat-foster · Post by **cat-foster** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:40 pm

Ok, thanks for the link. One question. On the "Result(s): Found to be a NATURAL FELDSPAR - ANDESINE". Does that mean natural from the ground and in color, or just natural from the ground? I realize the front cover agreement isn't shown.

Barbra Voltaire, FGG · Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:45 pm

see:
previous post

YH · Post by YH » Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:46 pm

I believe that natural from the ground can be heated, because sometimes that happens in the ground. But treatment is not natural.

Doos · Post by **Doos** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:50 pm

Hi theimage,

Maybe I should have posted my "research" under the quiz section .. as "find the errors".

Hi cat-forster,

The lack of access to those reports has created so much frustration that getting them might not be enough to ease the tensions, but it would help.

I'm sure they will be available to the public if the public is willing to fund the research. Maybe the consumer groups could donate a few million dollars to the labs as sponsors. That would help keeping some stoves burning.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the sharing of information .. we live in the linux age after all, but as a great man once said "ask not what we can do for you, but what you can do for us" .. or words to that extend.

So I guess it is time to do some picketing at the Congo and Tibetan mines.

As for me, I'm lazy and just rather wait for the reports instead of doing some actual research. It just is so much fun to downplay companies with bogus remarks, don't you agree?
Neither do I.

Barbra Voltaire, FGG · Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:51 pm

Heating is considered a treatment.

We still have to experiment on how plagioclase fares under conditions of being heated in furnaces. What sort of alterations are seen optically and physically.

What temperatures?
What sort of environment?

Extensive study has been done on corundum and these studies need to be replicated on plagioclase to prove the points asserted.

George Sharen · Post by **George Sharen** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:52 pm

hi guys

just a short note ... for those who studied beyond high school I apologize this will be redundant ... for those who didn't here it is.

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

shooting the messenger will not make the results go away. Repeat the experiment and if your results don't match .. then publish and join the fray. Off the cuff ad hominem attacks do not belittle the attacked but they do belittle the attacker.

nuff said