Clear principles at Amberif

Why is the number of forgeries growing?
The shortage of raw amber which has been going on for 5 years now, and began with the flooding of the Beach Section (Plazhevoy Uchastok) of the strip mine in Yantarny in the Sambia Peninsula, has led not only to a permanent rise in prices, but also to attempts to substitute amber surrogates for real amber. This phenomenon attained alarming levels first in the Kaliningrad Oblast of the Russian Federation where almost the entire seasonal souvenir retail network was flooded with products made of synthetic polyester resin. The Russians call products made with the addition of amber crumbs polibern, while products which are only coloured with amber meal are marketed as bernit. Soon, such fakes began to appear even in the prestigious amber gallery at Catherine’s Palace in Tsarskoye Selo in display cases labelled “Baltic Amber,” no less! This was already a clear case of forgery.
Even worse, amber imitations made of cheap surrogates began to appear at budding specialist amber exhibitions such as Yantar Baltiki in Kaliningrad and Amber Trip in Vilnius. This in turn posed a threat to the global amber market.

The threat of modified natural resins
Three years ago, there was an attempt to introduce products made of amber surrogates at the Amberif Fair. These products were not made of synthetic resins, which are easy to identify (by their smell upon heating), but of Colombian copal: a young, not completely fossilised natural resin, modified by roasting or pressing. In its natural state, this resin – or rather the hardened deciduous tree sap – easily dissolves in substances like alcohol or ether, which makes it easy to identify. When modified, it becomes similar to Baltic amber (succinite) both in appearance and in its resistance to solvents. The quick reaction of the Management Board of the Gdansk International Fair Co. (MTG SA) and the experts of the International Amber Association made it possible to discover the attempts to sneak such surrogates to Amberif in time and immediately remove the copal forgeries from the exhibition stands.
There were repeated (although rare) attempts to use jewellery gemstones made of copal modified to resemble amber in subsequent editions of Amberif, which resulted in the establishing of the Amber Commission to monitor the exhibition stands, and the signing of an agreement with the Gdansk University of Technology to establish an emergency testing service. This means that a specialist on permanent duty takes samples to perform IRS analysis on them. This analysis makes it possible to identify copal regardless of the way it has been treated.

The reaction of the Gdansk amber community to the rise in the number of forgeries
Although the flow of imitations to the Amberif International Fair of Amber, Jewellery and Gemstones was successfully blocked, threats remained in the local market. Manufacturers of imitations were quoted in the press speaking about the imitations’ alleged ‘environmentally friendly’ character, due to the preservation of the natural resources.
This was the reason for the strong reaction from reliable amber companies:
- in the summer of 2006, a joint Declaration on Good Amber Industry Practices was signed to ban combining trading in real amber with the use of any surrogates;
- on July 24, 2006, the Amberif Consultants’ Council filed a motion to introduce a ban on the trade in copal and copal products into the regulations of amber fairs. The motion was supported by every Polish professional and economic organisation in the amber industry.
The management of MTG SA decided to introduce the following conditions to the exhibition space rental contracts:
9. Special Provisions:
9.1 There is a complete ban on the exhibiting of surrogates (products made of plastics mixed with amber), Colombian copal and Baltic amber forgeries at the Amberif Fair.
9.2 Pressed amber may be exhibited at the Fair on condition that it is clearly labelled. This label should bear the Polish designation “bursztyn prasowany” and the English designation “pressed amber.”
9.3 Amber other than Baltic amber should be clearly labelled. The labelling should bear the amber’s name and place of origin in Polish and English.
9.4 MTG shall appoint an Amber Commission which will monitor compliance with the special provisions. The Commission shall include the experts of the International Amber Association.
9.5 Should an Exhibitor infringe the provisions of this section, the Commission referred to in Clause 9.4. above shall apply to the Management Board for the termination of the contract as a result of default on the part of the Exhibitor and to impose the following sanctions:
a/ immediate closing of the exhibition stand; in such a case, the Exhibitor shall not have the right to the refund of the fees borne for participation in the event.
b/ refusal of application to subsequent editions of the Amberif and Ambermart Fairs.

Amberif monitors how the rules are being followed
At the 14th Amberif Fair, product authenticity inspections were carried out by the Joint Amber Commission with three experts selected by the Management Board of MTG SA and two representatives from each of the seven professional and organisations of the amber industry. All told: 17 persons. It turned out that the introduction of the strict rules practically eradicated the attempts to trade in amber surrogates at Amberif. Small amounts of copal were discovered at only one stand belonging to a company which came to the Fair for the first time. The Commission put forward a motion to decline this company’s participation in the next edition of the Fair.
Furthermore, the Amber Palace company of Moscow, which had already been warned against the improper labelling of pressed amber products, again offered these products as made of natural amber. A motion was filed to permanently ban this exhibitor from participating in the Amberif and Ambermart Fairs.
In contrast to the eliminating of amber imitations made of different substances, the problem of the proper labelling and reliable information to purchasers about the various artificial treatments for the clarifying and tinting of amber has not yet been adequately solved. There is a common lack of knowledge about the classification of amber gemstones. Usually both sellers and buyers fail to appreciate the need for precise description of the physical and chemical treatments used in production. This is the result of small, in fact negligible, differences in price. These differences amount to roughly 1 cent per 1 karat, whereas in the case of classic gemstones this difference may be several-hundred- or even over a thousand-fold.

2007-04-24
source: Wieslaw Gierlowski