corundum, India.12, Kashmir.11, Burma.12, gems

No gemologist today would deny the importance of inclusions to the study of gemology. They are vital tools in separating synthetic gems from natural, and their importance will certainly increase along with the growing sophistication of treated gems. However, the question of inclusion-based country-of-origin reports does not find all gemologists and traders in agreement. Some support the practice; others do not. The following article takes a close look at the entire question of lab-issued origin reports, asking… a. are origin reports accurate within a reasonable degree of error using the current methods? b. even if origin reports are reasonably accurate, how are they being used in today's market? Do they provide useful collector information and protection to prospective customers, or are they merely a diversion for drawing the buyer's attention away from the stone's overall appearance and quality, to some ill-definable factor, such as origin? c. are origin reports akin to the authentication of a painting by a master artist, or do natural gems have only one artist Mother Nature? The purpose of this article is, thus, to explore objectively the arguments for and against lab origin reports. First the author explains why he believes origin reports are not totally reliable and definitely not in the best interests of the consumer. Supporters are then given the opportunity for rebuttal, explaining why they think Mr. Hughes has lost his mind. It is our hope that, out of the fray, readers, defenders of the faith, and opponents will better understand this question of origin.