gems, jade, pyroxene jade, fei cui, Burma, China, Hetian yu, Chinese jade, nephrite, yu, Guatemala, New Zealand, Japan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Canada, USA, Burma, Myanmar

At its core, any nomenclature system is a means of classification, a way to create logical categories that can be used to educate others. Like a garden, nomenclature systems require regular maintenance to remove overgrowth and “deadwood”. Nomenclature evolves naturally over time as it reflects the current state of knowledge. As understanding deepens, we often discover that items once thought to belong to one category more properly fit into another. At that point, we face a choice: move the item to the category that best represents it, or allow it to remain where it is as an exception. Every nomenclature system has these exceptions. This CIBJO guide examines one such case with jade, where mineral species names may have been improperly applied to gem materials that are actually rocks. This is not a purely academic exercise as financial costs may apply as a real consequence in a world where third-party verification of gem materials is a requirement, i.e., gem testing costs that involve the non-destructive analyses of rocks can be prohibitive, particularly at the low-value end. CIBJO takes no official position on this question. We recognize that many parties, particularly in China and across the East, consider the replacement of the terms/names jadeite, omphacite, and kosmochlor with the collective term/name fei cuì to be consistent with modern gemmological practice. Accordingly, they see no deception in marketing a gem whose constituent minerals are intimately intergrown under this unified term, a tradition that dates back to the early 1700s. At the same time, CIBJO acknowledges that traders, gemmologists, and consumers may prefer to divide pyroxene jade into its individual mineral components. CIBJO remains neutral on these differing approaches and accepts that variations in practice may exist between regions and that neither approach should be considered an unfair trade practice. There are sound reasons why nomenclature cannot, and should not, be expected to be identical everywhere. Each culture uses language to describe the world in its own way. The issue of ‘yù’ versus ‘jade’ illustrates this clearly: the two words carry distinct meanings, and neither has an exact equivalent in the other language. The proliferation of different languages and dialects reflects the diversity of human cultures. Nomenclature, therefore, inevitably carries a cultural dimension and must accommodate meaningful regional and linguistic differences where they arise. In the pages that follow, we aim to present this complex subject logically and consistently, bearing these principles in mind. The discussion represents the outcome of extensive dialogue among representatives from around the world. Jade is a human treasure. It is our hope that this guide will foster greater understanding of this remarkable natural canvas, beloved by jeweller and carver alike.