Link This |
Email this |
Blog This |
Comments (2)
From the Gem Desk
October 8, 2007
Well, quite a bit has happened this past week and we'll try to catch you up on a few items that have landed with a thud on my desk.
First and foremost, Burma is back in the news. (Myanmar is the name given to Burma by the military regime, and I for one don't want to acknowledge their authority - so if you don't mind, it's "Burma" from my desk.) Yes, the Burmese people are still living under the thumb of the oppressive government. But over the past several months, we've seen thousands of civilians, including hundreds of monks, become very vocal protestors. Many have been killed, wounded, or jailed. And so with the recent visibility of this almost two decades long struggle, many in the jewelry industry are asking whether or not we should once again call for a ban on all Burmese gems. (Of course there's a U.S. ban on ALL Burmese products, but somehow we still see lots of Burmese gemstones.)
I understand how one can make the leap from blood diamonds to blood gemstones, but most Burmese gem dealers I have spoken with, including native Burmese, say that the monies we spend on Burmese gems does not go to the military government. So by placing a ban on Burmese gems, instead of hurting the government, we hurt the Burmese people. This is one good argument.
There is another argument that states that even if we ban Burmese gems here in the U.S., China and other countries will buy them, so what's the point? Well, like I tell my daughter, just because the other kids are playing in the street, that doesn't mean it's OK for you to go play in the street.
And then there are those who say that while the monies from gems may look substantial to us, the real money that the military regime counts on is from oil and other more substantial natural resources. OK - enough argument.
Obviously there is much more to solving the problems in Burma than simply placing a ban on the purchase of Burmese gemstones. More details on this discussion will be forthcoming in the next few weeks.
Second, and more locally, we have Rick Krementz prematurely resigning his presidency with the AGTA. What is happening with AGTA? Is it imploding? While it may have been reported that Krementz's resignation was "for personal reasons," one can't help but wonder what else played into this sudden departure. Take for instance what has happened under his watch in just the past year: The laboratory has needed to make some drastic downward budget adjustments, which then gave John Koivula (one of the world's greatest gemologists) a good reason to leave and go back to GIA. After a decade or more of extremely successful building up the organization, Doug Hucker resigns as AGTA's Executive Director, and many have wondered outloud whether that was because he just finally couldn't take any more direction from Krementz, or because Krementz couldn't get along with Hucker. And then Rick makes an announcement just a few weeks ago that he is going to open up a laboratory to test for irradiation in blue topaz. Now is that in direct conflict with the AGTA's lab, one which he is supposed to be overseeing as AGTA president? While Ed Griffon, COO in the AGTA home office says "no," I personally don't see how it's not. And then that causes me to take a step back in time to the JCK show when I stopped by the Krementz booth and found out that Rick was apparently no longer with Richard Krementz Gemstones. His father was back at work, and apparently gave Rick a few options, one of which may have been to help him start his own lab business. So if he was not in the business, how could he have been the president of the AGTA? Sorry but we only have more questions than answers at the moment. Rick Krementz has been "out of the office" every time we call, and AGTA likes to keep everyone smiling - which makes sense then as to why Rick Krementz will still be on the AGTA board, even though he resigned. Hmmm, I don't think Hucker is still on the board, is he?
Posted by Gary Roskin on October 8, 2007 | Comments (2)
