CAN MINERALOGY RESOLVE GEMSTONE NOMENCLATURE ISSUES?
One of the major purposes of The Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification (CNMNC) established by IMA is controlling the introduction of new minerals and mineral names for the larger mineralogical community. IMA also took initiative and formed a Commission on Gem Materials (CGM) in order to regulate gem terminology, including organics, simulants and synthetic gem materials prior to 2010. However there is no evidence that a glossary was ever published following their 2010 and 2012 report.
Although formidable organizations, such as CIBJO (The World Jewellery Confederation) and AGTA (The American Gem Trade Association) exist to promote gem business, each has also ventured into the area of nomenclature but stopped short of addressing issues to gem names. Instead, these organizations concentrate on ethics and professional practices.
The following points appear to be the major concerns in gemstone nomenclature:
1- Discovery of modern gem materials
2- Branded gems
3- Color descriptions
4- Treatment disclosure
A set of gemstone names based on mineral nomenclature would support the scientific credibility of gemology. If a more meaningful standard is not identified and embraced, consumer confidence is at risk. But can such a system also serve the commerce based role of gemology? There have been a number of attempts at producing a comprehensive gem glossary. This effort should be accelerated and supported by not only mineralogists but also gem trade associations. However, it must also represent the interests of the various sectors of the gem industry, if it is to be functional.