Everyone who deals in gems or jewelry could be adversely affected by a June, 1997, jury verdict in Washington, DC. As a principal in the case, I assure you this is serious business, and it will affect your business. If a customer can buy a sound, high-quality, unfractured and unfilled gemstone, break it, and then get a judgement to make the jeweler liable for the original cost, plus treble damages, plus legal fees, I am sure you see the consequences to you and your company. At the July JA Show in New York, National Jeweler, a USA gem trade publication that should be unbiased and impartial, sponsored and paid for a meeting that American Gem Lab owner Cap Beesley chaired to discuss the trial. The amount of inaccurate and slanted information dispensed at that meeting was so great that the Rap Report, another trade publication, had to print a full page to correct after its original hopelessly error-filled article based on what its reporter had heard at the Beesley meeting. Beesley, who was a paid witness for State Farm Insurance Co. in the lawsuit, was only in the courtroom for about an hour of the 8-day trial. Still, he wrote and liberally distributed during the JA Show his one-sided and inaccurate version of the case, which he titled "Judgement Day."

I must now set the record straight for everyone in the gem trade. The sponsorship of the one-sided Beesley meeting by a supposedly unbiased National Jeweler is highly questionable. The timing of Beesley's self-promoting JA Show meeting was earlier than I felt was appropriate because the case was far from settled. The judge still had various motions before him. Discussion of the case should have been delayed until a final verdict. That just came on October 10. The judge voided the jury's treble damages verdict, leaving us with two judgements: recision-to buy back for $38,500 the ring with its broken and filled emerald, two sound diamonds, and the 18-kt mount that has been sawn apart and destroyed; legal fees for the plaintiffs' attorneys for up to $182,000; and of course we have our own legal fees, which total $160,000. Everyone should have waited for this judgement and decisions about appeals and other options before taking the case to the press, which I trust and where I have worked professionally for three decades. But Beesley's printed promotional piece, his NY meeting, and three subsequent issues of National Jeweler pushed events precipitously. Instead of waiting until there was something final to report, Beesley and National Jeweler went public with innuendo, misstatements, and speculation.

I can state this case's history in a few sentences. All I tell below is in evidence except the 1994 GIA lab report. We were not allowed to admit it because GIA failed to appear to defend its report.

Brief history of case
A customer bought a sound, unfractured, unfilled 3.65-carat emerald from a firm I co-own BPG (Blue Planet Gems, Inc., a Maryland corporation) in spring, 1994. The emerald showed signs of light oiling, which we discussed with the customer several times. We also warned her during numerous meetings that emeralds are brittle and that she should be careful if she wore her ring daily. Although she wanted prongs, we insisted on a bezel setting. Nevertheless, she had worn the ring only a week, when she hit the emerald directly on her kitchen counter, fracturing it from one end to the other, across almost the entire top of the stone. She filed a claim with her insurance company, which denied her claim. The customer then sued the insurance company, my corporation, my partner personally, me personally, and the independent appraiser personally.

A year ago we went through arbitration and won it cleanly and easily. The arbitrator found that State Farm Insurance was completely liable for the appraised value of the ring. In doing so, he found us innocent. The insurance company rejected the nonbinding arbitration and requested a jury trial in DC. In June, 1997, a DC jury found me, my partner, our corporation, and the independent appraiser liable for all claims against us, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Detailed history of case
In January, 1994, a friend of some twenty years came to Blue Planet Gems, Inc. for a fine emerald to be placed in a ring for her second wedding. Ray Zajicek, a well-known and knowledgeable dealer who has specialized in Colombian emeralds for 25 years, sent three stones on memo. (The same consumer-advocate Ray Zajicek, who co-founded AGTA and ICA, has been enormously vocal for years about the need for full disclosure.) The buyer selected two of the gems to have appraised, and from those chose one, a 3.65-carat emerald. I examined it with a loupe and in my microscope with fiber-optic light and ultraviolet light. The emerald was gorgeous and bright, with a color and 3-phase inclusions that suggested Muzo as its source. It was completely clean across its table and table facets, inert to UV, with no flash effect. I examined it twice loose and once set.

Our company paid Ray Zajicek's company $14,500 for an unfractured emerald. Obviously I would not have paid that amount for an emerald with a huge filled fracture running across its table. The buyer then hired an independent gemologist-appraiser (from three names we submitted as a courtesy, since we have always had a company policy of not appraising any item we sell). The appraiser did all the usual tests independently (microscopic exam, UV light, fiber optic light, pin test for surface breaks, etc.) and wrote in her report that this was a fine emerald. The buyer's new husband basically designed the ring, which we had made and set with two one-carat diamond sidestones. I examined the finished ring, finding all parts intact, undamaged, and beautiful. So did the appraiser, separately and independently, including running a probe across the table. I made close-up photographs of the ring before delivery. In court we displayed a 16x20-inch print of the ring as delivered.

The appraiser testified that on three occasions the buyer had asked her to inflate the value, which the appraiser refused to do. My partner testified that the buyer asked twice that she intercede with the appraiser for a higher appraised value; both were refused.

Customer breaks her emerald The buyer testified that she wore the ring a week before she hit the emerald on her kitchen counter. She called her State Farm insurance agent May 6, 1994, to report she thought she had broken her emerald. On May 7 she called the appraiser to ask for a copy of her appraisal right away because she needed to file a claim with her insurance company. Late in the afternoon of May 6 she brought the ring to Blue Planet Gems, Inc., saying she had hit her emerald and thought she might have broken it. My partner had to offer hand lotion so that the buyer could ease the ring off her bruised, swollen finger. The buyer wanted sizing beads put into the ring. Since it was late on Friday, my partner packaged the ring, which she and her husband drove to the goldsmith who had made the mount. On his way out, he promised to call when he had had an opportunity to examine the ring.

Later in the evening the goldsmith called to report the emerald was indeed fractured almost all the way across the top. Because of the fracture, he refused to put heat on the mount. The goldsmith returned the ring to me early May 9. I examined and photographed it with my microscope. The emerald had a huge fracture across its table and table facets, but there was no filler in the fracture. The impact point, a crushed area, and a nick where the blow occurred were all clearly visible under magnification. The customer picked up the ring early May 10 with no sizing beads because our goldsmith had refused to add them. We did not see the ring again for a year and a half.

After three-month delay, customer turns over ring to insurance company; when examined, the ring has sizing beads and the emerald is fracture-filled
State Farm instructed the buyer to take the ring to a DC jewelry store for an emerald replacement. She delayed until August 8, 1994-three months after she had broken the emerald. When the ring arrived, it had sizing beads in it, and the emerald had been badly filled with some substance(s) other than oil. The jeweler told State Farm that the emerald was filled with "glass."

Without consulting us, State Farm ordered him to dismantle the ring to free its three stones, thus destroying any possible evidence about the filler or other treatment. The insurance company requested the emerald be sent to a lab. The ring had been delivered to the jeweler on August 8, 1994, and the next thing we know about it was a lab report by Cap Beesley's AGL dated in November, 1994. One might ask what State Farm had been doing in the interim. The AGL report states, "It is the opinion of the laboratory that this material has been subjected to a clarity enhancement process utilizing and (sic) opticon (plastic) type filler. Currently a reversal process [my emphasis] is adversely affecting the clarity grade of the material. The change in the fracture's appearance is in large part due to the failure of the enhancement medium and not damage to the material."

After sizing beads are added and emerald is filled, GIA report includes plot showing fracture is longer and deeper than when photographed May 9, 1994
State Farm sought a second opinion. In December, 1994, the DC jeweler sent the emerald and diamonds to GIA. GIA issued a lab report stating the emerald was fractured and that, "...evidence of clarity enhancement is present." It also described the emerald as having, "...a large fracture system that extends the length of the stone, breaking the surface of the table, crown, and pavilion facets." GIA plotted the fracture as running from one end of the gem to the other. When I had microscopically examined the emerald on May 9, 1994, after the buyer had broken the gem, the fracture was long but not deep-and not filled. Also, when I saw the emerald in May, 1994, just a few days after the customer broke it, its fracture did not break the surface of the pavilion facets.

More than a year later, in October, 1995, when I next saw the emerald during the DC jeweler's deposition, I could easily see with a loupe that the emerald was filled, badly and unevenly, and that the fracture system had grown much larger, longer, and deeper. And sizing beads with their tops filed flat in the shank and glue around the emerald had been added by someone since it left Blue Planet Gems, Inc. on May 10, 1994. The emerald had suffered considerable trauma during the year.

State Farm Insurance loses non-binding arbitration, asks for jury trial
State Farm Insurance requested non-binding arbitration, which all parties in this case agreed to. We went through a two-day non-binding arbitration in April, 1996. BPG presented the same evidence and most of the witnesses we would later use at trial, and we won the case at arbitration completely. The arbitrator said that State Farm had accepted the appraisal, the value stated in the appraisal, collected a premium and insured the ring. He said the buyer had then broken the emerald and filed a claim. The arbitration judge ruled that State Farm should pay the full appraised value and that no one else had any responsibility in the case. Having lost at arbitration, State Farm rejected the arbitrator's ruling, and requested a DC trial.

The trial
That brings us to the 8-day Washington, DC jury trial in June, 1997. The jury became confused with conflicting gemological information. This jury ruled against all the gem trade professionals who had held and examined the emerald before it was fractured. Instead, they believed purported experts, who had never seen the emerald before it had been fractured and filled. The jury ruled against 6 trade professionals who had weighed the emerald at least 15 times on 6 different electronic gem scales before the gem was broken by the customer: the emerald had consistently weighed 3.65 carats. After it was filled between May and August, 1994, the emerald weighed 3.66 carats, as testified to by the DC jewelry store, by Beesley's AGL lab, by GIA, and by two expert witnesses in DC. On multiple scales operated by various observers, it had always weighed 3.65 carats before delivery to the customer, and on multiple scales operated by various observers on both sides of the issue, it always weighed 3.66 carats after it was turned in to a DC jewelry store. Filler adds weight.

Before the emerald was mounted, both the independent GG-appraiser and I recorded on separate equipment that the stone was inert to UV light. Now the filler in the fracture that runs all the way across the 10.8mm length of the emerald glows like a headlight in UV. Obviously there was no fracture and no filler before the emerald ring was delivered. We would have seen the fluorescence and could easily have seen the gigantic fracture. Because the crack is so wide, it is easy to detect with a fingernail. No gemologist, or even an untrained shopper, could have missed this fracture.

Beesley's testimony So what did Mr. Beesley say under oath, on the stand, as a State Farm witness making $2500-a-day-plus-expenses? He testified that the Colombians were so good with fillers that they could make invisible a huge surface-reaching fracture that runs the entire length of a 3.65-carat emerald-cut emerald-not obscure, mask, hide, or enhance-but make invisible! If such a fantastic filling were possible, then every gem lab and every emerald dealer, buyer, and seller would be racing to learn how to do it. A recent Washington Post article quotes John Koivula, chief research gemologist at the Gemological Institute of America, saying, "Fillers are detectable by experts..." And Ray Zajicek said at the trial, "If anybody, Colombian or otherwise, can fill this emerald so it looks like it did before the customer broke it, I'll gladly buy the stone back at her retail price."

Beesley testified in excruciating detail how he thinks Colombians fill emeralds. He said without any sign of embarrassment that his unique skills allowed him to look at this emerald six months after it had been delivered and tell it was fractured before being unearthed in Colombia and then filled with Opticon at the mine! Never mind that we had delivered the emerald without a fracture and without filler or that I had photographed it close-up without filler just after the owner had hit it. Beesley was claiming what no gemologist or gemological lab in the world can substantiate. And he testified to all this although he recently admitted to a friend that he has never even been to Colombia.

Beesley's claims not backed up with test equipment
I challenge Mr. Beesley to reveal what analytical or chemical testing equipment he used to support his statements. What authorizes him to identify the chemistry of fillers without scientifically testing them? What permits him to describe the country of origin when genuine labs with scientists and test equipment are reluctant to give origins? I know of nothing in the literature suggesting that a blow to a stone will cause any filler inside fractures to fail, "reverse," and become visible.

Beesley testified numerous times that what he observed in the emerald was an "Opticon-type" filler. And he testified that he could see the filler clearly because it had "failed." He said he could tell by looking that the impact inflicted by the customer was strong enough to cause the filler to "reverse," or "fail," but not hard enough to break the emerald. He testified that only because of this so-called "reversal" did the once invisible filler suddenly and miraculously become visible. Instead of hearing rhetoric, I would like to see any proof Mr. Beesley has to offer.

The role of National Jeweler
The lead article on the front page of the September 9, 1997 issue of National Jeweler is so filled with misinformation and biased information written with such a different slant on the emerald case in which I am involved that at first I thought I was reading about a different trial. The one-sided account seriously threatened my reputation by misinforming gem-trade professionals around the world. In advance of its publication, I had sent National Jeweler almost all the facts included here. Yet their cover article contends that we lost the case because we did not disclose a treatment. Nothing could be farther from the truth. My partner and I did disclose the only treatment the emerald had had when we sold it-oil. Separately and together my partner and I discussed and disclosed oiling to the buyers. Both customers admitted at depositions and testified at trial that we had told them the emerald was oiled. We could not disclose what did not exist. We complied completely with the FTC and AGTA guidelines in effect in 1994 and with those in effect today.

That Cap Beesley has been running all over New York trying to convince people that we failed to disclose a treatment is bad enough. That National Jeweler repeats the inaccurate charges when it had facts is unacceptable. We disclosed everything there was to disclose, up-front and honestly.

I imagine the National Jeweler readers who are gemologists or trained jewelers were stunned to hear what Beesley claimed. He testified that he could tell that the customer did not hit her emerald hard enough to fracture it. He actually testified under oath that she did hit it hard enough to "reverse the filler process," causing the once invisible filler to become visible!!! This is absurd, even laughable. Even so, the unknowing jury must have believed him.

National Jeweler writes that Dorree Lynn, the customer, "claimed that when she returned in early May, 1994, she accidentally struck the ring on her kitchen counter revealing a large fracture." Testimony at the trial showed what actually happened was that Dorree Lynn telephoned her insurance agent, the appraiser, and my partner Carol Tutera, telling each of them that she had broken the emerald. When Dorree Lynn hit her emerald, she did not "reveal" a fracture; she caused a fracture.

National Jeweler writes that Ray Zajicek said at trial that he had "little time for inspection" of the emerald before he sold it to us. Clearly National Jeweler did not check its facts. Ray testified he remembered this emerald well, because of the very long price negotiation concerning the 3.65-carat emerald. In the two weeks he had spent buying it in Colombia, he had examined it at least 15 separate times. Ray also testified that he had examined the emerald again in Texas. Hardly a hasty examination.

In the most malicious, ridiculous statement yet written about this case, National Jeweler prejudices its readers when it prints pejorative words as "reveal" and "conspiracy." Is there anyone in the gem trade who believes that Ray Zajicek, Sheila Zajicek (GG-GIA), Robert Gesler (a Dallas goldsmith), designer Carol Tutera, goldsmith Steve Skalabrin, independent appraiser Karen Sternberg (GG-GIA), and Fred Ward (GG-GIA) conspired to cheat a customer? Would they risk their fine reputations for a $14,500 emerald? Any suggestion of a conspiracy is absurd.

National Jeweler writes that lab reports from GIA and from AGL "suggest that the fracture had existed prior to its last polishing." Parts of three letters from GIA to me and shared with the editor of National Jeweler specifically say that nothing in its report should be construed to mean that a fracture existed before the emerald was sold. And Cap Beesley should read his own reports before he describes them to magazines. Nothing in Beesley's AGL report concerns when the emerald was damaged.

National Jeweler lets Beesley introduce information never stated at trial. The magazine says he claimed the emerald could not have been repolished after the buyers owned it because its weight stayed the same. The emerald's weight did change, but in the opposite direction from what Beesley hypothesized. Before we sold the emerald, 6 professionals had weighed it approximately 25 times on 6 different electronic scales; each and every time the gem weighed precisely 3.65 carats. After it was filled, at least 5 professionals and two separate gem labs weighed the emerald on at least 5 different electronic scales; it always weighed 3.66 carats.

National Jeweler tosses in the gratuitous statement, "Despite the emerald's high price, it was not sent for grading at the time of the original April, 1994 sale," leaving its readers to believe we were hiding something by not getting a lab report. In fact, our trial testimony showed that we suggested that the customers get a lab report. We even offered to package and FedEx the emerald to GIA, hardly an offer from someone trying to hide facts. The customer refused, saying there was not enough time before her wedding. Looking back, it would have been useful for us (not the customer) to have had a report. But we could not make our customer, who owned the gem at that point, get a report.

And then National Jeweler ends with its main informant arriving at the wrong conclusion. Instead of seeing this case accurately as a jeweler being falsely accused by a customer, it supports Beesley by quoting his misinformation about "the serious consequences of inadequate detection and enhancement disclosure policies." Such statements have done me and the entire gem trade great harm. There were no detection or disclosure problems with this emerald. The problem of straightening out the court over a serious miscarriage of justice would be much easier if a few misguided segments of the trade press and some promotion-crazed members of the gem trade would get on the right side of this story, tell the truth, and stop trying to profit from my temporary misery. We and our witnesses told the truth at the trial, which a misled and confused jury disregarded. They had heard too many bizarre gemological fantasies. Now it is time to get down to "nothing but the truth."