> overlap in these properties from one location to another. =A0They can,
fo=
r
> example, take some stones and know for certain that they did not come
fro=
m
> Sierro leone (one of the biggest problem areas), =A0but the machine
can't=
say this
> for certain for all locations, especially stones from other parts of
afri=
ca with
Is time an issue? Can they say "it (probably) came from Fooland AND it
did so within the past 5 years"? Because, if "the bad people" only
started selling diamonds four years ago, cutting out diamonds that
source from Fooland before then seems off target.
Or do "old" diamonds just not circulate? Would the ones in question be
uncut?
> similar geology. =A0And then there are the stones from Sierra Leone that
=
happen to
> be legal. =A0Perhaps mined legally before the war, or since, etc. etc. =
=A0No
Maybe I should read ahead ;-)
> It's a better test than nothing,
Sounds like since...
> but a long way from being even close to perfect
=2E..it's actually a worse test than nothing.
> this). =A0Nice bright red ruby, but easy to identify due to curved
growth=
marks.
Easy "with a loupe and an educated eye" or "looks funny to clueless
Gruhn"?
> a few gem dealers and even trained gemologists have been fooled by one
or=
more
> of the various ruby synthetics or treatments from time to time...
So back to a point I hinted at before - if even the experts are
fooled, does it matter? I guess it boils down to "what do we
value" (sparkly rocks!). And no, we don't value "fake" "manufactured"
"synthetic" even if such are exactly the same or better. We do seem to
value "dug it out of the ground". If so, I've no idea why.
|
