Ted Themelis
Jewellers warned against misrepresenting gems
Posted September 07, 2010 | By Sonia Nair
Gem expert Ted Themelis warned jewellers they must be careful not to hide treatments of gemstones or use misleading definitions, in a seminar at the Sydney trade fair.
Starting off his presentation by debunking the popular myth that gemstones are always beautiful, rare, portable and valuable, Themelis talked to jewellers about the common misconceptions that often take place with gemstones.
“If you say a gem has been enhanced, it increases sales because of the notion it has made the gem better. If you say the gem has been treated, it has negative connotations because it suggests the gem has been subject to some processes,” he said.
Themelis, who has worked in the gem identification and treatment field for more than 30 years, pointed out that treating gems can often improve their overall appearance. He used the example of rubies with surface-reaching fractures where lead-filling restored them to a colour-improved, fracture-filled state.
“Without treatments, there would be no ruby business. Twenty or so years ago a treated ruby was an exception rather than the rule; nowadays it is the opposite. I can safely say that almost all rubies in the market are treated one way or another.”
That aside, Themelis warned jewellers that lead-filled rubies are neither stable nor durable and went so far as to say they should not be used in jewellery manufacturing. He used the example of a lead-filled ruby eroding in a glass of lime juice after merely a day, due to its instability and reduced endurance after the treatment.
Themelis advised all jewellers to always disclose when a gem has been treated. However, he conceded that one of the big issues for retailers is that many often cannot tell when a gem has been treated. This is despite the 2005 ACCC ruling that all gemstones’ treatments must be disclosed.
Kathryn Wyatt, the GAA’s federal publicity and marketing manager, told Jeweller, “What makes this issue current now is that there are more treatments out there and jewellers must be made aware of the treatments – even if they can’t tell for themselves.”
Failure to comply with the ACCC disclosure ruling could result in fines of up to $220,000 for individuals and $1.1 million for companies, with the added cost of corrective advertising.
Themelis also said, “To be called a true gem, a stone should be untreated”. All others should be called, “treated (or processed) gems”.
He claimed even the terms ‘semi-precious’ and ‘precious’ were misleading. “I think the terms ‘semi-precious’ and ‘precious’ should be abolished. You can have a high quality amethyst [semi-precious stone] that costs more than a low quality ruby [precious stone],” he said.
The Bangkok-based expert also urged jewellers to refrain from using “geographical markers” as a selling point for low-quality gems.
“Geographical markers should only be used for true classical localities with historical value, hence their added premium. If sapphires are mined from old mines in Kashmir, rubies and sapphires in Mogok (Burma, now Myanmar) then that’s fine – but not if they’re from new mines in the same country. That leads to misrepresentation of the gem”, he explained.
Ted Themelis was a guest of the GAA and presented his seminar at the Sydney trade fair last week.
Image Gallery (2 Images)