Why are there more origins for colored stones?

[lambskin]

Gem mining has been going on for thousands of years. Certain gems came from limited areas-emeralds from Colombia, rubies form Burma, sapphires from Ceylon, opals from Australia etc. I know that national boundries are really a matter of fiction: basically what is under the earth's surface is determined by geographical forces and not politics. Geologic and gem properties define what a colored stone is i.e. beryl, corundum,black opal etc. But I am seeing now rubies, emeralds and opals from Africa, sapphires from Montana and other gems that are mined in places not known for these gems. Although I am not in the trade it seems that these gems are a recent 'find' and wonder why they have not been discovered earlier. More exploration and technology advances have resulted in diamond finds in Canada and Siberia-is this a possible explanation for colored stones? The prices for these 'off-nation' colored gems seem lower (a Mozambique ruby and Zambian emerald seem to be lower priced than their counterparts in Burma and Colombia. But diamonds from Canada and Siberia are not cheaper (I am assuming it is the DeBeers cartel). So why does it seem that these gems have entered the market place in the last 10 years or so? Is it that the properties are the same but more treatments and enhancements make the stones look more like their famous counterparts?

 

[LoversKites]

I really have no idea, but I'd love to know. (sorry for being utterly useless on this forum sometimes )

 

[cm366]

Probably a combination of the increased treatment/enhancement techniques you mention with better exploration and technology for exploitation, an increase in market interest and marketability in areas not traditionally equipped for major mining, and more than anything better promotion or information accessibility over the last few years.

Treatment: certainly irradiation and surface diffusion, together with some of the resins, are relatively recent developments. Still, oiling, fracture-filling and high temperature heating have been around for a long time, and they aren't necessarily more useful on new finds than old.

Exploration and Exploitability: Ethiopian opal, for example, was only discovered (in modern times) in the 1990s. Probably more a reflection on that nation's level of infrastructure and industrial development than a realistic judgment of the material's value. Similarly, a lot of the Brazilian and SE African finds (major producers of tourmaline and a host of other gem materials) came about because of increasing interest in geologic exploration snowballing from one mine to the next. You probably haven't paid for an extensive geologic survey of your back yard, but you might if the folks down the street started panning gold on their porch! Similarly, as far as exploitation goes, Afghanistan and its neighbours have been famous for rubies and emeralds for hundreds, if not thousands of years (See the Black Prince's Ruby, for example). But, until recently, it was awfully difficult to go mine them without getting killed for your trouble, either by the owners of the land or someone who felt they ought to own it. For many buyers, this is still an issue, which is why vendors like Jeff Davies are based in Bangkok rather than Jegdalek or Kandahar.

Marketability: This is a big one. I said that Ethiopian opal was discovered in the mid 90's - that's true in terms of the mass market, but there are well-validated archeological finds of it used in prehistoric times in and around the modern mining sites. SOMEBODY knew it was there, they just didn't care enough to stop finding food and start digging until someone came along who recognized its commercial potential and was willing to sink enough money into it to convert the local economy. The same thing happened in Madagascar, where folks who wouldn't have been able to tell glass from diamonds in the 1980s can now show you 15 (or probably 150) different ways to make a synthetic sapphire look like natural rough. Similarly, Montana sapphires were being sold more than a hundred years ago, but they had higher labour costs, lower production and less mass appeal than stones from exotic Burma and Ceylon until the "Buy American" and "Mine your own" markets got interested enough to pay higher prices for a slightly greenish, slightly grayish blue than a purer blue from an overseas source.

Sorry for the wall of text - just think there're a few factors intersecting here, and I'm fascinated by how they interact!

 

[chrono]

CM covered most of the reasons why these finds were not discovered earlier - better technology today, increased market demand, marketing, war or difficult terrain play major roles. The biggest reason why these "off-nation" coloured gems seem lower than the famed Burmese (Mogok, not MongHsu) ruby and Colombian emerald is the quality. Although many Winza rubies are cleaner and do not require heating, few can rival top Mogok rubies. The find is also comparatively smaller and these rubies show more colouration issues. The same goes for the Colombian vs Zambian emeralds. Although the Zambians are cleaner and thus are less treated, most lack the colour quality (depth of colour) that the Colombian emeralds are famed for.

 

[FrekeChild]

From what I understand, Canadian diamonds (I haven't looked into those from Siberia) are mined ethically and workers are paid a fair wage, are guaranteed conflict-free, and they are regulated and take care to preserve surrounding land. That costs money. And I believe DeBeers has a hand in it over there as well, so they are probably helping regulate prices.