| The BenchExchange | MetalCalc |
Industry Web Sites Guide | Featured Products | Advertising | Contact Us | Link to Us | 
| More...
| | Home | Jewelry Making Library | |  |
 |
7106 Saunders Court, Bethesda, MD 20817 USA.
Tel 301-983-1990 Fax 301-983-3980
See also:
Fred Ward's Updated Letter
to the Editors of U.S. Gem Trade Publications
Have You Seen This Ring?
Fred Ward and Blue Planet Gems, Inc. are on the verge of losing one of the most astonishing cases involving gemstones in recent history.
He is being sued by his customer for having sold her a 3.65 carat emerald. He testified that the emerald was unfractured when sold, was fractured by the customer in her kitchen, and was filled by some still unknown party.
An "expert" witness has testified on behalf of the plaintiffs that he was able to determine with certainty that the emerald was fractured before being unearthed in Colombia and then filled with Opticon at the mine!
Most industry people will be wondering how it is that they managed to miss all of these important advancements within their field. How is it that an enhancement process can "reverse" or "fail" due to trauma? How is it possible to determine when a stone was fractured? How is it possible to know where an enhancement took place? And most importantly, how is it possible to hide a 10.8 mm surface-reaching fracture so completely that it could get passed microscopic, UV light, and fiber optic light exams; and a pin test for surface breaks?
Frad Ward says there was no fracture when the emerald was sold. Despite photographic evidence and testimony from eye witnesses the court decided otherwise.
Fred Ward has provided us with a description of this case according to his own experience - an inside look at one of the most costly and misguided cases of our time. Fred Ward asks the following important question: "if a customer can buy a sound, high-quality, unfractured and unfilled gemstone, break it, and then receive a judgement making the jeweler liable for the original cost, plus treble damages, plus legal fees, where does that leave us?"
Emerald ring as delivered. Unretouched
photograph made April 14, 1994. |
Customer buys Colombian emerald from Blue Planet Gems, Inc. (BPG) in February, 1994. BPG mainly uses design provided by customer. Emerald 3.65 ct; side diamonds 1.01 ct and 1.03 ct; custom-made 18 kt yellow gold mount. Note the great clarity of this fine emerald. As delivered, the emerald has no fracture and no filler, except a minor amount of oil in the pavilion, which we had disclosed to the customer, and is inert to UV light. Note also that there are no sizing beads in the ring. Customer marries using this ring April 17, 1994, and departs the following day on her honeymoon, leaving the ring hidden at home. She resumes wearing the ring during the first week in May, 1994. |
Unretouched photograph made May 9, 1994.
|
Emerald ring as returned to BPG May 6, 1994. Customer says she hit her emerald on her kitchen counter a day or two earlier and believes she broke it. Her ring finger is so heavily bruised and swollen when she arrives at BPG that she has to use hand lotion to remove the ring. Ignoring the obvious complications associated with the fracture, customer asks for sizing beads . BPG offers to let the goldsmith who made the mount look at the ring to see if sizing beads are possible and delivers the ring to him about 6PM as he is leaving for an outside appointment. When he returns about 11PM, the goldsmith calls BPG saying the emerald is so badly fractured that he will not solder in sizing beads without a written release. BPG tells him to return the ring without beads, which he does on Monday morning, May 9, 1994. This picture shows the ring's condition on May 9. The emerald has a surface-reaching fracture from one girdle across the entire table almost to the opposite girdle, app. 10mm long. This fracture, caused by the customer's blow to the emerald, emanates from an impact point near the junction of the gem's table and crown facets. On this day there is no filler anywhere in the substantial fracture and the entire emerald is still inert to UV. Note especially in this top view there are no sizing beads in the shank. To show the ring exactly as it appeared, neither the emerald nor mount is cleaned for photographs. |
Emerald photographed using mainly back-light.
Unretouched photograph made May 9, 1994. |
Microscopic view of the emerald as customer delivered the ring to us after she had fractured the gem. Note particularly the white impact point where the blow occurred. Tiny particles of crushed emerald surround the impact point. A nick knocked from the emerald is clearly visible under medium magnification. There is no filler of any type anywhere in this app 10mm long fracture. |
Unretouched photograph of emerald using mainly top-light made May 9, 1994. |
From a slightly different angle, the impact point is clearly visible on May 9, 1994. There is no filler of any type in the fracture. |
Unretouched photograph made May 9, 1994
|
Although the customer says she wore her ring for less than a week before fracturing its emerald, the gold mount shows considerable abuse. There are dings and scratches all over the mount, causing two witnesses to testify in court that the ring showed signs of above-average damage. One noted that he had seen rings worn for years with less damage. |
Unretouched photograph made October 13,
1995. |
During depositions in October, 1995, BPG sees ring for first time since May 10, 1994. Three major changes are noted and confirmed during an examination at Continental Jewelers, where State Farm Insurance Co. had ordered the ring sent. Although the ring was brought in ostensibly for an emerald replacement, State Farm had ordered the mount cut apart, even though it did not and still does not own the ring. Thus evidence that we need in the case against us has been destroyed. During our examination we discover four significant changes to the ring: (1) There is filler in the emerald'sfracture and the filler fluoresces to UV light. (2) There are sizing beads in the mount. (3) The emerald and diamonds have been cut from the gold mount. (4) There are rows of glue inside the mount. The goldsmith who set the emerald for BPG later swears in his testimony that he never uses glue when setting and did not use glue to set this emerald. |
Unretouched photograph made April 11, 1996. |
The filler in the emerald is spotty and uneven, obviously
done in haste by a party still unidentified to us or to the court.
Instead of being "invisible," as State Farm and our customers would
like to have everyone believe, this fracture is clearly visible in
any light, the filler is visible under any magnification, and the
fracture is easily detected with a fingernail. The filler glows brightly
under UV, in sharp contrast to the emerald's being inert to UV when
we sold it and just after the customer fractured it.
BPG sold an emerald without a fracture (and thus without filler) and a mount without sizing beads. While the ring was under the sole control of its buyers between May 10, 1994 and August 8, 1994, the emerald was filled by someone unknown to us, and sizing beads were soldered into the ring mount. BPG had nothing to do with either change. |
It is important to remember that the buyers sued my partner and me personally, and sued our corporation, State Farm, and the ring's appraiser. State Farm changed tactics during the trial to attack us instead of defending itself against the plaintiffs' charges. By so doing State Farm obviously hoped to not pay the $58,500 claim for the ring. And helping the plaintiffs by attacking us allowed the plaintiffs to seek triple damages as well as seek payment of their legal fees, options that were impossible if they had gone after State Farm instead of us. Both State Farm and the plaintiffs benefitted by turning the case against BPG, my partner, and me, the only innocent parties in the case.
| The BenchExchange | MetalCalc | Industry Web Sites Guide | Featured Products | Advertising | Contact Us | Link to Us |
| More...