This content was first published on IGR – Italian Gemological Review no. 21 in 2025. The information provided here is therefore current as of the original publication date.
Why, especially in academic circles, is there still a need to emphasize that gemmology must be scientific?
The answer lies in the fact that, when this discipline was first established a century ago, it was seen by scholars as a risky venture — an unorthodox offshoot of mineralogy, yet lacking solid foundations.
And, to be honest, the person at the forefront of this new field wasn’t a reassuring, old-fashioned professor with a goatee, pince-nez, and waistcoat, but George Frederick Kunz — an American collector and mineralogist who, starting from humble beginnings, worked his way up to become a partner at Tiffany. In short, Kunz wasn’t someone who simply studied precious stones; he sold them.
The application of mineralogical techniques to advance the jewelry trade led the academic world to view this “contamination” as a dangerous concession to the market, a “marriage of convenience”.
It’s no wonder, then, that gemmologists from the most prestigious laboratories and esteemed publications have preferred to focus on the identification and characterization of mineral species — because mineralogical foundations were seen as the hallmark of scientific legitimacy. In other words, the study of minerals that are of interest to jewelry, with no “leaps ahead”.
I believe the 7th National Conference of Gemmology, held in Naples on June 16–17, 2025, demonstrated that gemmology can and must remain a scientific discipline — even when it branches out from its original mission, the identification of minerals, to explore other areas.
When it comes to biogenic gems like coral, biology (Rui Galopim de Carvalho, Anna di Cosmo) offers certainties; sustainability policies for coral are supported by economic models (Lorenzo Turriziani); the legal implications of gemmological reports are rooted in legal doctrine (Marco Calabrò); specimen collections for determining geographical origin must be public and verifiable (Vincent Pardieu); and new hybrid masters for diamonds, while adhering to conventional standards, rely on objectively measurable colorimetric data (Alberto Scarani).
Even photomicrography (Liviano Soprani) is not just a technical-pedagogical exercise, but a universe governed by the same aesthetic principles that apply to all other images created by humans.
If our journal has helped give the Conference the confidence to make these “expansions” not only fascinating but also legitimate and well-founded, we couldn’t be more pleased. There’s no need for gemmology to tear its garments in an attempt to position itself as an isolated science. It isn’t. It’s a bridging discipline that connects various fields of knowledge, offering a more comprehensive and integrated perspective. But always scientific.
Editorial by Paolo Minieri, published on IGR – Italian Gemological Review #21 – Autumn 2025.
