But let us begin at the point in history when the trade had a real difficulty in articulating what it truly wanted. In the 1980’s while attending a CIBJO Coloured Stone Commission Meeting in Basel the attendees again voted on a clause in the then “blue book” that basically “outlawed” the use of origins on gemmological Reports, not that they had any real authority to do so. What transpired simply days after that Congress was that some of the very same individuals who voted for the outlawing of origin determinations came down the stairs of our basement laboratory in London’s Hatton Garden district to ask the question “hi Ken, do you think this blue sapphire comes from Burma?”. “Please tell me because it makes a huge difference to the price”.

Of course in those days the only blue sapphires of interest were those emanating from Kashmir, Burma or Sri Lanka; but the inclusion scenes, particularly between the latter two could be not just similar but the same. Remember at the time that UV/visible spectroscopy was in its infancy and chemical analysis was limited to what could be gained from based electron microprobes only available in universities, so basically it was inclusion-based determinations predicated upon user experience. Not the safest approach to assigning a factor that may impact the monetary value of the sapphire. But it was the only approach possible at the time. I do note at the time, however, that pieces of art were often assigned to famous artists with no more than a magnifying-glass observation.

 Times change and instrumentation has evolved significantly over the intervening decades, accurate trace element chemistry is now available with LA-ICP-MS in all those laboratories that have the required budgets to purchase and operate such sophistication, or at least have access to the instrumentation in one form or another, also UV/visible and FTIR spectroscopy are now standard test methods. Along with this, however, trade demands for origin determinations has “blossomed” to the extent that some demand this service not just for the usual culprits but for a wide range of other gems, e.g., alexandrite, which might be expected given the value, but also amethyst, peridot, and various garnets.

This all leaving the laboratories in the permanent state of “catch-up” where they remain today. One area where a “catch-up” was clearly, and obviously needed, at least to some of us, was in the acquisition of validated samples from all locations and the continued acquisition over time from the same as well as new locations. Put simply, a laboratory with all of the latest analytical technology at its fingertips, has nowhere to go if it does not have fully validated samples. By fully validated samples we mean samples collected at the mine site by a qualified field gemmologist who is tasked with recording the acquisition in detail and ensuring a clear chainof- custody back to the laboratory. Overall quite an expensive undertaking and with the limited human resources available in most labs resulting in each lab operating with data collected from samples that may indeed be validated but maybe collected at different timelines or from sites ‘only of current interest’ to that laboratory and certainly different to the collections of other laboratories.

So if we have arrived today at a situation where it is understood that validated samples and sophisticated analytical techniques (alongside normal gemmological observations) are prerequisites for gemstone origin determinations why are there still differences of opinions particularly with blue sapphire origins?

With emeralds there are a plethora of trace elements to use in population plots that create potentially wider separations in the final analyses with individual mines having a fairly stable trace element suites over time. This added to UV/visible and IR spectra along with inclusion observations, all makes for a more predictable origin call. With rubies a combination of the same factors but nevertheless with fewer trace elements available also produce more reliable origin determinations than for sapphire. This is not to say that sapphire origin determinations cannot be reasonably accurate, indeed some are, but the data overlap within each laboratory’s data sets, is significant between the most popular sources, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, Burma and Kashmir, and even more so between the commercial sources from Basaltic locations. 

So assuming that certain gemmological laboratories have the budget to own and operate sophisticated analytical tools and have well trained analysts and experienced gemmologists to analyse the data and then to collect a certain number of validated samples, where are we failing the community in the analysis of blue sapphires? To me, this clearly lies in the failure of laboratories to “pool” validated samples and the data acquired from them. For if such pooling occurred the data sets would be much wider and more reliable, and therefore allowing for more consistent/accurate determinations.

There was a time in recent history, pre-1985, where real sharing between laboratories was common place, but this was of a time where cooperation towards accuracy and gemmological passion overruled what is today the present business led focus where life is all about being first, the I am better than you syndrome, collecting as many IP’s to store away as possible and having the greater number of FB, IG or LinkedIn followers. Basically, Islands of great knowledge with oceans of water and the vast expanse of space, between.”