Tibetan andesine shown conclusively to be a fraud at Tucson meeting of the GILC

ISG at Tucson 2011: Day One...GILC

Day One of the ISG at Tucson 2011 events had members of our group at the GILC Conference held by the International Colored Gemstone Association. This outstanding event brings together many colored gemstone industry leaders for the purpose of discussing the current events and issues in the industry, and seeking to find viable solutions to the problems we face. Barbara and her staff absolutely hit another home run this year with another wonderful event.

We need to note that everyone signs a non-disclosure agreement upon entering. This is to help insure an open and honest discussion of the issues without fear of anyone getting quoted or miss-quoted based on hearsay from the meetings. With this in mind I do believe that there is important information that has come from today's event that can be shared with the members of the ISG Community.

The andesine issue took up the majority of the day. There were several speakers (names and topics confidential) who presented a variety of scientific reports. These were in general contradictory, convoluted, and in the first instance….pure fantasy. However, the report of the previously published (which is why I can talk about it) expedition by Dr. Peretti to the Tibet mines carried the day beyond any reasonable doubt in my opinion.

Dr. Peretti showed his previously discussed DVD video of his trip to the Tibet mines with well documented mine owner, Li Tong. The video proved the published claims that Li Tong’s crew were caught salting the ground around the claimed mine. The video showed graphically that when Dr. Peretti wanted to inspect a section of the mine area that should have contained andesine (if the claim was authentic) that Li Tong sent his staff ahead of Dr. Peretti and they could easily be seen dropping andesine on the group ahead of Dr. Peretti’s arrival. This was astounding and raised the one question that many asked:

"If Li Tong truly has an authentic Tibet andesine mine, why did he take Dr. Peretti to a location where his (Li Tong’s) crew had to “salt” the ground?"

The Peretti report was released at approximately the same time as the previously discussed report published by the Gem-A regarding an expedition to Tibet by the National Gem Testing Lab of China. The NGTC also visited mine locations owned by Li Tong. Their report makes three important points that directly support Dr. Peretti’s published findings. These points include:

• The NGTC group found a warehouse in Tibet with “hundreds of kilos” of “red feldspar” that tested to have been been "subjected to high temperature treatment with colouring elements added."
• Interviews by the Chinese NGTC group with local Tibetan citizens revealed that the local Tibetan people “had neither seen nor heard of red feldspar found in Tibet.” (direct contradiction to the Laurs/Hughes/Abduriyim report).
• The NGTC issued this statement: “In our opinion, the red feldspar samples that we collected and recovered from the supposed mining areas during our field investigations were deliberately planted on the ground surface and within loose surface soil.”

This opinion by the National Gem Testing Center of China was confirmed yesterday by the video evidence provided by Dr. Peretti in follow-up to his previously published report.

It should be noted that Li Tong, reported mine owner and leader of the Tibet andesine organization, was personally present…. and in the video…during the actual salting activities in the Peretti video.

One interesting question as to why these two expeditions found salted mines while the Laurs/Hughes/Abduriyim expedition reportedly found andesine under an “undisturbed bush” that prompted Richard Hughes to issue what we call his “Mission Accomplished” article. (The actual title of Hughes’ article is both inflammatory and insulting to our US President so we won’t repeat it.) One well-respected mine owner and ISG Community member raised the question: “Don’t they know how easy it is to take a piece of steel rebar and run a small hole into the ground under a bush, drop in a piece of andesine, and cover it up leaving no evidence of anything disturbed on the ground?”

That was the second profound question of the day, after the question why Li Tong took Peretti to a mine location that required his crew to salt the ground. Given that Li Tong was shown with his crew as they salted the mine, it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Li may have a piece of steel rebar sitting around somewhere.

The bottom line is that we have spoken to many miners who have evaluated these claims by the Laurs/Hughes/Abduriyim expedition report by Hughes, as well as Li Tong and the whole Tibet andesine organization, and just shake their heads that anyone could be so gullible as to believe these.

The high points of the day were all of the outstanding people we got to meet and greet. Due to the confidentiality agreement we will not name them here, but to everyone who we had the opportunity to meet at GILC we just say: Thank you. To all of you. It was an outstanding group.

On a final note: I have to once again congratulate the work of the ICA, their Board of Directors, and all of the members. I believe the ICA is the key organization to the healthy future of our colored gemstone industry.

More reports will be coming here on the events this week. Wish you were here with us. Maybe next year.

Reminder.......

The ISG would like to extend an open invitation to all members of the industry to attend our ISG Lab Update seminar at the Hotel Arizona on Friday, 4 February. We have important new information on a variety of issues and topics that you will need to know in the upcoming year. The ISG Lab Update is free to the industry and includes a free continental breakfast and/or coffee and drinks. We promise to be finished in time for you to return to your booth in time for the show start.

Robert James

President, International School of Gemology

Oregon sunstone and treated feldspar from Mexico are easily identified by Raman photoluminescence: Rossman and McClure's findings in error

ISG: The story of the ISG Raman Microscope scans of andesine.

Numerous errors in claims and reports abound throughout the industry!

At the recent Sinkankas Symposium on Gem Feldspar, Dr. George Rossman posted up a slide (you see at left) of one of our composite Raman scan images and declared our findings to be incorrect.....based on a quote he attributed to us that we never made. Indeed, Dr. Rossman has never seen any of our study specimen group (in spite of our offering same) and has not actually tested any of our specimens. And yet, he incorrectly made the declaration that we were wrong in our findings.

The problem: what he claimed we said wrong, we did not say at all. What we did say...he totally ignored.

Confused? So are we! This brings to light the problem with this entire andesine fiasco, certain members of the industry have continually tried to protect the alleged perpetrators of the andesine problem at the expense of truth.

Since Dr. Rossman chose the Symposium at the GIA to present his case without our having the opportunity for rebuttal of his statements, we feel it only fair that we have the opportunity to do so here

We will first share with everyone what our andesine study group actually looks like...or at least part of it. Rather than allowing the alleged perpetrators of the andesine fiasco to supply our specimens, the ISG has purchased hundreds of specimens on the open world markets. We have sought out mine owners from the various mines to obtain proper specimens from as many locations as possible, received specimen submissions from consumers for testing, and we have paid for virtually all of our other specimens so that our research will remain independent and without encumberance to outside influence. Pictures of just a few are below including the inbound shipping envelopes we maintain for records.

With the help of many consumers who wanted answers, the ISG obtained an Enwave Raman Microscope that we had custom built with a Meiji Techno MX microscope. We proceeded to do over 1000 Raman scans of the specimens including specimens from all origins and all colors. The image you see at the top of this page is only a single composite of two scans. We thought you would be interested to see the whole ISG Raman Story.

We wish to acknowledge and thank Marty Haske of Adamas Gemological Laboratory for his research and website covering the topic of Raman Photoluminescence. Mr. Haske's work proved pivotal in our research to identify the diffusion treatment of andesine. Here is how it worked......

In the image at left you see a composite of many scans done on Oregon Sunstone from as many mines as we could gather. We have literally thousands of specimens of Oregon Sunstone in our office, and the Raman Photoluminescence scan you see at left is classic for all.

Then, we tested a number of the Chinese and Mexican feldspar specimens.

At left is a composite image of the scans from the Mexican yellow feldspar and Chinese red andesine. The Chinese andesine includes stones claimed to be from Tibet, Mongolia, and the Congo.

As you can see, we did not rely on the peaks as claimed at the Sinkankas Symposium, but rather the whole of the Raman Photoluminescence reaction.

With over 4 kilos of Casa Grande/Chihuahua Mexican material, and several hundred Chinese andesine, the results we got were repeatable, and verifiable in stone, after stone, after stone, after stone....you get the idea.

Once we compared the three groups, we found that indeed the Oregon Sunstone had a unique, predictable and repeatable Raman Photoluminescense result, and that it was significantly different than either the Mexican or Chinese andesine.

In all cases, the Mexican and Chinese material all tested out the same.

Which....was our first report: That the Chinese andesine tested the same as the Mexican andesine with the Raman.

But we did not stop there.

We obtained transparent plagioclase feldspar specimens from as many sources as we could find and verify. These included: Madagascar, Oregon, Mexico, Tibet, Mongolia, Congo, India, and Tanzania.

As you can see at left, each source had a unique Raman Photoluminescent reaction with the exception of the Mexican and Chinese. These were identical.

This was the crux of our Raman reports, and our findings that the Chinese andesine tested the same as the Mexican feldspar. Did it actually originate from Mexico? Who really cares? We don't. But apparently someone at Caltech and DSN cares. However, as the California Appeals Court ruled in the past few days, the origin of the material is not as important as the selling of the diffusion treated andesine without disclosure. The origin is of little or no importance based on the findings of the court in deciding against Direct Shopping Network in their lawsuit.

But there is one step further we need to go in this ISG Raman Story....

"The GIA is currently unable to separate diffusion treated red Tibetan andesine from natural red Oregon Sunstone," GIA Executive at the Sinkankas Symposium

Also at the Sinkankas Symposium a high ranking GIA executive made a presentation statement that you read above. The GIA cannot separate the natural red Oregon Sunstone from the diffusion treated Chinese material. Regardless of the refractive index differences that we have already demonstrated, the Raman Photoluminescense can.....well, I will let you see for yourself.

At left is a Raman Photoluminesence composite of a Plush Oregon Sunstone and a Tibet red diffused sunstone.

Can you separate these two?

Just for arguments sake, we performed a set of scans on Plush Oregon sunstone and a tray of Mexican yellow feldspar and Chinese red diffused andesine.

Again, the image speaks for itself.

At the risk of appearing flippant and/or a bit sarcastic, I will tell the following true story......

I gave my 8 year old son 2 red stones and had him perform scans with our Raman Microscope. He was able to separate the Oregon Sunstone and the Chinese diffusion treated andesine by Raman Photoluminescense. He has no idea how it works technically, but the Enwave Raman and support software has advanced to the point that even an 8 year old can separate natural Oregon Sunstone and diffusion treated Chinese andesine. Seriously!

With the ruling of the California Appeals Court that says Direct Shopping Network failed to prove a prima facie case on any of their accusations against myself and Interweave this is only the end of one chapter in this never ending story.

The next part goes to Andegem and the AGTA who DSN blames for all of this. Andegem for supplying it, and AGTA for certifying it as all natural and untreated. We have implored both of these organizations to step up and do the right thing before lawsuits and court rulings began. They failed to do so.

Perhaps they will now since DSN seems to be willing to throw both of them under the bus.

But that.....is another story.

Robert James

President, International School of Gemology

Vindication for Robert James and Colored Stone Magazine versus Art Garabedian, DSN, and Andegem

Vindication For Free Speech And Opposing Ideas

by Lisa Brooks-Pike, May 18, 2010

On Monday, May 17th, the Court of Appeals of the State of California, second appellate district, division four, reversed the previous ruling in Direct Shopping Network, LLC (DSN) v. Interweave Press, LLC.

In late 2008, Art Garabedian of Direct Shopping Network, LLC (DSN) filed a law suit against Robert James, Colored Stone Magazine, Colored-Stone.com, Interweave Press, LLC, and Does 1-1000, for trade libel, interference with contract, and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Attorneys for Interweave Press responded by filing an anti-SLAPP motion, a motion which would prevent the case from going further as they deemed it a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.”

The anti-SLAPP was heard in Los Angeles County Superior Court by Judge Laura Matz who denied the anti-SLAPP motion on 04/10/2009. Attorneys for Interweave immediately filed an appeal and yesterday won the case and were awarded costs when Judge Matz’s ruling was “Reversed in Full.” Click to View

The findings of the appellate court are profound and send a message to the gemstone and jewelry industry.

Regarding DSN’s claim for trade libel, the courts find that DSN presented no admissible evidence. Garabedian attempted to stand behind a solitary AGTA report listing as natural an Andesine sample purchased from Andegem. The court determined that not only was the test performed on only one sample, but that the AGTA report itself was hearsay, and that the report itself stated it was subject to numerous limitations and conceded that “some treatments commonly applied to gem materials are not currently detectable.”

The courts also outline that statements of opinion are protected speech, and go on to say, “under the first amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.” The court documents point out that “James and Dr. Rossman tested different stones and James offered to make the stones he tested available to DSN.”

The courts found that DSN produced no evidence that the claims of color treatment were false. DSN was also unable to provide proof that it lost sales because of the suggestion of Mexican origin rather than the presence of treatment, nor did DSN provide proof that any contract had been disrupted. It was the court's opinion that the artificial treatment of the gemstones superceded the issue of origin.

The conclusion of the courts: “DSN presented no evidence that defendants interfered with any particular relationship or expectancy. Moreover, DSN identified no wrongful conduct apart from the allegedly false and defamatory statements made about its product. As we have concluded the statements concerning treatment were not false and the statements concerning origin were not demonstrably defamatory, there is no support for the “wrongful conduct” element of the interference claims.”

“The order denying the motion to strike is reversed. Interweave is awarded costs on appeal.”

Click to see the 35 page court ruling
Copyright© 2010 Jewelers Ethics Association
The above article may be reprinted, reproduced and distributed in its entirety, with all copyrights in tact.

__________________