LovingDiamonds|1318191173|3036649 said:You are correct but when you see the term "Paraiba Tourmaline" being used by somebody who says they are a GIA Gemologist, it would be my assumption that the Tourmaline was (a) copper bearing (b) had the neon glow associated with a Paraiba Tourmaline and NOT just copper bearing and therefore a cuprian and (c) was either from Brazil OR stated that it was from Mozambique or elsewhere.
The advert stated "**I am a GIA Gemologist, and direct importer of fine and rare gemstones. All stones I sell have been examined and tested with multiple gemological tools, and I guarantee 150% the accurate description and authenticity of everything I sell! If I cannot guarantee it 150%, I will not sell it!!!!***
The other thing to note is that as the stone did not have a lab report at the point of sale, it's unclear as to how this could have been marketed as coming from Brazil. I don't know if this was determined by AGL or not but it's important because if not known, it shouldn't have been advertised as such as that in itself is misleading.
With the bolded statement, if we use that mind set, selling a stone as a tourmaline or sapphire or quartz without a lab report would be misleading. I don't know if the vendor knew or not if the stone is from brazil. But there is no evidence that the stone is not or that the vendor is unsure, so I can't and won't say that part if the description is misleading.
This thread is full of assumptions by people who don't have facts in hand and I am really surprised pricescope has allowed this "trial by internet" based on assumptions.