Mabe pearls

ShoppingTelly

Help Support ShoppingTelly:

Personally, I can't see why you would want a loose Mabe pearl - heart shaped or not - unless you needed it for a project. Sell them on JM for sure but GC?

I agree. But this is the same Gem Collector that has started selling jewellery strands that should be on JM and pendants that should be on Gems TV.

All of the channels seem to have little differentiation between them now.

I'm surprised they've not tried flogging Slim Shotz on Gem Collector yet.............. (Yet being the key word!)
 
There was a heart shaped '19ct' Mabe (Maybe!) pearl on GC last night. In the Treatment it was described as Assembled!
Screenshot_2024-02-26-09-04-42-836.jpeg
 

I think it's the 'Assembled' terminology that is confusing people.

Once upon a time, 'Assembled' across the Gemporia group was aimed at doublet or triplet cabochons. Stones that were placed on a backing and had a Quartz cab over the top. Stones such as 'Mosaic Opal' or 'Crystal Opal on Ironstone'.

These days, they seem to use 'Assembled' for anything that involves some sort of 'manual' process or a method that doesn't fit under any of their other treatment codes. For example, they list the treatment for Lehrer's 'Cosmic Obelisk' stones as 'Assembled' too - but the stones are 'normal' / untreated - they've just been joined together to create the obelisk shape and effect.

Their treatment codes could do with a refresh because they're out of date and get confused even between presenters.

They often use (CP) for compressed and (RE) for reconstituted - even though they are both the same thing. Their website tells us what (RE) is - but the last time I looked, (CP) was not listed on their website at all. (CP) is not, and was never, needed. (RE) covered it already.

They use (H) for heat treatment and (IR) for irradiation - but for the past four years or so, they've added an (IH) - which presumably means irradiated AND heat treated - but, again. the last time I looked, (IH) was not listed on their website.

Some of their treatments are also so aggressive, they could do with a new treatment listed - to the point where 'rebuilt' would be a fair description.

Add to the above, Jewellery Maker throw in more confusion because they list the wrong treatment codes completely - despite me raising it with them, literally, for about the past 6 years. As always, I get the standard response of "we'll raise it with the team" - only for nothing to change. Basically, JM keep listing irradiated stones as (I) instead of (IR) - and they list diffused stones as (D) instead of (U).

(D) is actually for dyed stones - and (U) is for diffused.

Even their own presenters get confused by it. A few years ago, Rebecca Redican was flogging some Turquoise with the treatment code (IR) and she said, I quote, 'This stone has been irradiated - irradiation treatment is what gives the stone its colour".

That was flawed for two reasons:

a) The code she was referring to (I) stood for waxing - so the stones had just a wax coating applied to give them their glossy appearance and to prevent body salts/sweat being absorbed into the porous stone. The colour was actually natural.

b) Turquoise is a porous stone. It cannot be irradiated. It will disintegrate.

It baffles me how a so called GIA-AJP qualified presenter could claim that irradiation would give Turquoise its colour. Even someone with very basic knowledge of gemstones would know that Turquoise cannot be irradiated.
 
Last edited:
I agree. But this is the same Gem Collector that has started selling jewellery strands that should be on JM and pendants that should be on Gems TV.

All of the channels seem to have little differentiation between them now.

I'm surprised they've not tried flogging Slim Shotz on Gem Collector yet.............. (Yet being the key word!)
You saying that: I was completely bemused when, some time back, I saw JM (in it's gemstone phase, not it's jade phase, so a very long time ago :p ) selling Primal pills etc. NO relationship whatsoever. Which, as I'm being lazy and commenting in the one post, just because they give cloth / bags / makeup gemstone names to equate colours, doesn't mean they are gemstones :p

Not supposed to be sold by carat weight!
I was under the impression that pearls, amber and opals were not sold by carat, but by size or weight.
 
I was under the impression that pearls, amber and opals were not sold by carat, but by size or weight.

Pearls and Amber can't be sold by carat weight because they're organic rather than 'stones'.

Opals can be sold by carat weight if they're actual opals as mined - but they can't sell opal doublets or triplets (such as 'mosaic opal' or 'crystal opal on ironstone') because those are slithers of opal placed into a backing and with a Quartz cap placed over the top.
 
I think it's the 'Assembled' terminology that is confusing people.

Once upon a time, 'Assembled' across the Gemporia group was aimed at doublet or triplet cabochons. Stones that were placed on a backing and had a Quartz cab over the top. Stones such as 'Mosaic Opal' or 'Crystal Opal on Ironstone'.

These days, they seem to use 'Assembled' for anything that involves some sort of 'manual' process or a method that doesn't fit under any of their other treatment codes. For example, they list the treatment for Lehrer's 'Cosmic Obelisk' stones as 'Assembled' too - but the stones are 'normal' / untreated - they've just been joined together to create the obelisk shape and effect.

Their treatment codes could do with a refresh because they're out of date and get confused even between presenters.

They often use (CP) for compressed and (RE) for reconstituted - even though they are both the same thing. Their website tells us what (RE) is - but the last time I looked, (CP) was not listed on their website at all. (CP) is not, and was never, needed. (RE) covered it already.

They use (H) for heat treatment and (IR) for irradiation - but for the past four years or so, they've added an (IH) - which presumably means irradiated AND heat treated - but, again. the last time I looked, (IH) was not listed on their website.

Some of their treatments are also so aggressive, they could do with a new treatment listed - to the point where 'rebuilt' would be a fair description.

Add to the above, Jewellery Maker throw in more confusion because they list the wrong treatment codes completely - despite me raising it with them, literally, for about the past 6 years. As always, I get the standard response of "we'll raise it with the team" - only for nothing to change. Basically, JM keep listing irradiated stones as (I) instead of (IR) - and they list diffused stones as (D) instead of (U).

(D) is actually for dyed stones - and (U) is for diffused.

Even their own presenters get confused by it. A few years ago, Rebecca Redican was flogging some Turquoise with the treatment code (IR) and she said, I quote, 'This stone has been irradiated - irradiation treatment is what gives the stone its colour".

That was flawed for two reasons:

a) The code she was referring to (I) stood for waxing - so the stones had just a wax coating applied to give them their glossy appearance and to prevent body salts/sweat being absorbed into the porous stone. The colour was actually natural.

b) Turquoise is a porous stone. It cannot be irradiated. It will disintegrate.

It baffles me how a so called GIA-AJP qualified presenter could claim that irradiation would give Turquoise its colour. Even someone with very basic knowledge of gemstones would know that Turquoise cannot be irradiated.
Well, if the GIA qualification is supposed to be the bees knees to possess (as presenters have often told us), then all I can say is the GIA could have slipped up with their final assessments before awarding the qualification. Some of the errors they come out with are pretty basic ones - and it's certainly not unknown for the 'translation' of the treatment given to be at variance with what the screen details show. I wonder just how often that's happened over the years.
 
Well, if the GIA qualification is supposed to be the bees knees to possess (as presenters have often told us), then all I can say is the GIA could have slipped up with their final assessments before awarding the qualification. Some of the errors they come out with are pretty basic ones - and it's certainly not unknown for the 'translation' of the treatment given to be at variance with what the screen details show. I wonder just how often that's happened over the years.
It's nothing to do with that. It's just incompetence at Gemporia.

Some of the stones they sell on JM with the incorrect treatments listed have previously been on Gem Collector with the correct details showing.

These mistakes are 100% the fault of Gemporia
 

Latest posts

Back
Top