Materialized Green Diamond Rings?
Robert Priddy: The Anti-Sai-Baba Extremist
GREEN DIAMONDS: RUMORS AND BLIND BELIEF
I have often wondered why people called the green stones, on the rings that SSB gave to them, "green diamonds". All of the people who I have met, who received such rings, never said that SSB called the green stone a "diamond". Despite this fact, these people referred to the stone as a "green diamond". Since they sparkle like diamonds (and I am sure the people hoped that they were diamonds), it is obvious that many ill-informed people started rumors, saying that the stones were "green diamonds". This also applies to "clear diamonds" that are often either cubic zirconia or white sapphires. I have met a couple of people who did have genuine diamond rings, that were given to them by SSB, that were verified with jewellers. However, real diamond rings, given by SSB, are rare. Most are semi-precious stones or synthetic zircons.
I knew, ever since the first time I saw the "green diamonds" (when I was 18 years old), that they were actually synthetic, green zircons. I collect crystals and minerals and have seen numerous synthetic zircons, spanning the full color spectrum. Such synthetic stones are seen everywhere; from class rings, jewelry stores, rock shops, the internet, television, ebay, malls, indian bazaars and even outside Sathya Sai Baba's ashram! All sell cubic zirconia in both its real and synthetic forms. So why people believe that these stones are "green diamonds", when their prevalence is widespread, well known and well established, is enigmatic. A true, green diamond is very, very rare and would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 5 carat stone.
I never knew that it was important for devotees to receive real diamond rings from Sathya Sai Baba (SSB). All along, many devotees have said that they could care less about the value of the gifts that SSB gives them. They care more that SSB gave it to them. However, that does not seem to be the case. For example, Robert Priddy is upset that his "green diamond" was not a real "green diamond" after all! Robert Priddy tells his story as follows:
Why should this surprise Robert Priddy? I knew this fact, and I am not even a jeweller! Was Robert Priddy so sequestered that he never saw a synthetic zirconia, in his life, before? It is also interesting to point out that Robert Priddy provides close-up pictures of his "green diamond ring", with Mr. Hertz, on his website (although Robert Priddy purposely tries to skew the image). The ring is in exceptionally brilliant condition and the stone is not visibly scratched or worn at all. This is unusual for a ring that happens to be 16 years old, whose stone is not worth more than $40 (in "super expensive Denmark")! Robert Priddy comments further by saying:
There are some common sense observations that can be made about these points of contention, from Robert Priddy. First of all, whenever any ring, with a gemstone inset, is exposed to any kind of cleaning solution using soap, it will coat the stone with a film (known as soap scum) and will make the stone appear dull and glass-like. Substances like chlorine (used in bleach) will cause the mounting to be discolored. These are common facts that are often discussed, by jewellers, in caring for precious and semi-precious stones.
Since Mrs. Maynard Ferguson admitted to wearing the ring "all the time, doing housework and washing up", it is very easy to explain why the stone looked dull and worn (she wore the ring while "washing up" and allowed soap sediments to build up on the ring).
Regarding Ron Laing's diamond ring having scratches on it, Robert Priddy said, "diamonds simply cannot be scratched, except by another diamond. I held it and examined closely, for it was so worn that it looked more like a piece of heavily scoured glass". It is also a well known fact that diamonds are easily scratched, because most diamonds are kept in jewelry boxes. Whenever the jewerly is jumbled or sifted, the diamonds can rub against each other, in the jewelry box, and cause scratches. Just because a stone is heavily scratched, does not mean that it is not a diamond. As a matter of fact, scratched diamonds are such a problem that jewellers often make a point of keeping diamond jewelry separate from each other, or wrapping them individually, in tissue, to prevent this problem.
Furthermore, zirconia has a hardness of 8.5 on the Moh’s scale of hardness. Glass, and a typical knife blade, have a hardness of 5.5 on the Moh’s scale of hardness. Consequently, glass and metal will not scratch a synthetic zircon. Chances are, if a zircon is scratched, it was put in a jewelry box with other hard stones, and the jumbling of the stones caused them to scratch one other. If Mrs. Maynard Ferguson's green stone was the same type of green stone that Robert Priddy had, then she had a green cubic zirconia. Zirconia's are very hard stones (8.3 out of a possible 10) and they are not capable of being "worn down". This also applies to Ron Laing's ring. If it was a zircon, the only things that could have scratched it are diamonds, corundums and other zircons.
Robert Priddy also talks about how Mr. Lucas Ralli's "diamond" split into two pieces when he put his full weight on the ring, against a hard, marble slab. Robert Priddy said that diamonds can "only be split by a sharp blow". That is not true. Diamonds are brittle. Diamonds can easily chip and fracture, especially when the stone already has fractures inside of it (many are microscopic). Although diamonds are exceedingly hard, they are not tough. There is a difference between "hardness" and "toughness". There are many gems, such as jade, nephrite and chrysoberyl that are actually "tougher" than diamonds. It is important to remember that diamonds can crack, chip, fracture, shatter, discolor and lose value!
It is also revealing that Mr. Lucas Ralli's stone split into two pieces. Diamonds have very simple and pronounced cleavage. "Cleavage" deals with the planes of molecules along which a stone can split apart, with relative ease. If the right pressure is applied (especially on a facet) on a diamond, it will split into 2 pieces or shatter. Synthetic zircons do not do this. Zircon's will chip and break irregularly because zircons do not have cleavage! Diamonds do. Glass, clear quartz and white sapphires also do not have cleavage. So chances are, the stone that was in Mr. Lucas Ralli's ring, was a precious gemstone (most likely a diamond) and was not a zircon, clear quartz, white sapphire or glass, because the stone split "in two pieces" along a plane of cleavage.
Robert Priddy also said:
However, what is amusing about this comment is that nowhere in Robert Priddy's book, Source Of The Dream, did Sathya Sai Baba ever call the stone a "green diamond"! As a matter of fact, this particular story is discussed in the chapter "Be Ready! Be Ready!", on pages 130 - 133 in Source Of The Dream, and SSB never called the stone a "green diamond". Robert Priddy himself, never called the stone a "green diamond" either! Robert Priddy refers to the stone as a "green stone"! The only time Robert Priddy calls the stone a "green diamond" is on a picture page where he described the stone as such and on page 141 in the chapter Marching Happy. In this chapter, on pages 140 + 141, Robert Priddy talks about the ring that SSB materialized for him. Robert Priddy continually refers to the stone as a "green stone" and then talks about what the stone "may" be!
Robert Priddy said that since SSB claims he is omniscient, SSB should have known about Robert Priddy's reference to the stone as a "green diamond". This comment confirms that SSB never called the stone a "green diamond". Robert Priddy also wrote a chapter entitled "The Unfathomable Nature of the Avatar" (pages 259 - 261), in which Robert Priddy tells the reader why SSB makes oversights despite SSB's alleged ominscience. Consequently, Robert Priddy gives us a valid reason why SSB would not have known about Robert Priddy's comment about the stone being a "green diamond"!
Robert Priddy also said:
However, Robert Priddy wrote, in the chapter entitled "Marching Happy" (page 140), that in his ring, there were more appearances than just SSB's silhouette of a head and shoulders! Robert Priddy said:
Consequently, despite Robert Priddy being able to explain SSB "rough silhouette" by using foil behind the stone, Robert Priddy fails to tells us how the foil can create the images of SSB's orange robe, lotuses and Shivalingams. Furthermore, Robert Priddy said that sometimes, the silhouettes could be seen with "great clarity". Obviously, Robert Priddy can't make up his mind about what he saw. Either Robert Priddy was lying when he wrote his book...or he is lying now. Either scenario does not bode well for Robert Priddy.
Amusingly enough, Robert Priddy tells the reader, in the chapter "Marching Happy" (page 140 - 141), why SSB materializes "green diamonds" instead of other types of stones. The following quote shows how gullible Robert Priddy was and his desperation to blindly believe that his stone was a "green diamond", despite Sathya Sai Baba never calling it as such. Robert Priddy said:
The reason why so few asked Robert Priddy about the ring was perhaps due to the fact that they knew it was a zirconia!
On page 141, Robert Priddy said:
One will notice that Robert Priddy never said that Sai Baba called these stones "green diamonds". As a matter of fact, if SSB had called these stones "green diamonds", then Robert Priddy would not have spent so much time speculating as to what the stone actually was. Instead, Robert Priddy makes a strong case that he speculated that the "green stones" (his words) were "green diamonds" based on second hand information that he blindly believed! This was Robert Priddy's assumption. Not a statement of fact from Sathya Sai Baba. Of course, don't expect Robert Priddy to divulge these facts on his Anti-Sai hate site! Robert Priddy also said that in order to believe these stories of the stones being green diamonds, one's "credulity would have to be that of a 3-year old". I think this observation sums up Robert Priddy's "credulity" as well!
In conclusion, it is amusing that people care less about a gift given by Sathya Sai Baba and care more for the value of that gift! Many people often decry SSB for giving "diamond rings" to his devotees. These people should be relieved to know that most of the rings do not have real diamonds! Synthetic zircons are very prevalent and are seen (and well known) in every field of jewelry. It is difficult for me to believe that the recipients of these "green diamond" rings did not know that they were not real! The very first time I saw one of these rings, I knew what the stone was immediately! So it is not surprising that jewellers have confirmed what is a self-evident fact.
GREEN DIAMONDS: RUMORS AND BLIND BELIEF
I have often wondered why people called the green stones, on the rings that SSB gave to them, "green diamonds". All of the people who I have met, who received such rings, never said that SSB called the green stone a "diamond". Despite this fact, these people referred to the stone as a "green diamond". Since they sparkle like diamonds (and I am sure the people hoped that they were diamonds), it is obvious that many ill-informed people started rumors, saying that the stones were "green diamonds". This also applies to "clear diamonds" that are often either cubic zirconia or white sapphires. I have met a couple of people who did have genuine diamond rings, that were given to them by SSB, that were verified with jewellers. However, real diamond rings, given by SSB, are rare. Most are semi-precious stones or synthetic zircons.
I knew, ever since the first time I saw the "green diamonds" (when I was 18 years old), that they were actually synthetic, green zircons. I collect crystals and minerals and have seen numerous synthetic zircons, spanning the full color spectrum. Such synthetic stones are seen everywhere; from class rings, jewelry stores, rock shops, the internet, television, ebay, malls, indian bazaars and even outside Sathya Sai Baba's ashram! All sell cubic zirconia in both its real and synthetic forms. So why people believe that these stones are "green diamonds", when their prevalence is widespread, well known and well established, is enigmatic. A true, green diamond is very, very rare and would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 5 carat stone.
I never knew that it was important for devotees to receive real diamond rings from Sathya Sai Baba (SSB). All along, many devotees have said that they could care less about the value of the gifts that SSB gives them. They care more that SSB gave it to them. However, that does not seem to be the case. For example, Robert Priddy is upset that his "green diamond" was not a real "green diamond" after all! Robert Priddy tells his story as follows:
http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/enigma/Ring Exposed.htm
Robert Priddy: "On 31/10/2002, my wife Reidun and I returned from three days in Copenhagen, Denmark, where the 'green diamond' SB gave me in 1986 (shown above) was examined by Mr. Peter Hertz, the Danish Queen Margarethe's jeweller, a top Scandinavian expert on precious stones and diamonds. All was filmed in detail by Øjvind Kyrø's team for Danish TV. The result of the investigation, which took two days, is that the stone is a synthetic green sapphire.Value only about $40 today in super-expensive Denmark. Its value in India today could therefore probably be around $10.
I gave permission for opening the ring, (the stone is encased at the back so the stone's underside cannot be seen, as are all so-called Sai Baba diamond rings that I have seen). It turned out to have a layer of green silver foil behind the stone to enhance the green colour and reflect light. Behind the silver foil, the golden casing was painted black. The metal is 18 carat gold. (The stone was formerly estimated by its surface size to be the equivalent of ca. 5 to 6 carats, the stone being 1.2 cm in diameter). Mr. Hertz estimated the total value of the ring as perhaps up to $200 in Denmark today...
Mr. Hertz assured us that he was able to determine without any doubt that the stone was not natural but artificial or 'synthetic' - that is to say, manufactured by human beings."
Why should this surprise Robert Priddy? I knew this fact, and I am not even a jeweller! Was Robert Priddy so sequestered that he never saw a synthetic zirconia, in his life, before? It is also interesting to point out that Robert Priddy provides close-up pictures of his "green diamond ring", with Mr. Hertz, on his website (although Robert Priddy purposely tries to skew the image). The ring is in exceptionally brilliant condition and the stone is not visibly scratched or worn at all. This is unusual for a ring that happens to be 16 years old, whose stone is not worth more than $40 (in "super expensive Denmark")! Robert Priddy comments further by saying:
http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/enigma/Ring Exposed.htm
Robert Priddy: " I had occasionally wondered about the authenticity of these stones, such as when I saw the ca. 1 carat green stone in a ring worn by Mrs. Maynard Ferguson. She told my wife and I that the ring was "very worn down" due to her having worn it all the time, doing housework and washing up. The green stone certainly looked dull and much the worse for wear. The same applied to the same sized clear 'diamond' ring worn by Mr. Ron Laing, when we visited him and his wife, Peggy Mason, in Tunbridge Wells in 1987. Ron Laing said he had been told that it was a diamond. Diamonds simply cannot be scratched, except by another diamond. I held it and examined closely, for it was so worn that it looked more like a piece of heavily scoured glass.
During a visit to his Bayswater flat in London in 1987, Mr. Lucas Ralli told me that SB had once "materialised" a ring for him with a clear (white) diamond. As soon as he had lowered himself with the aid of his bunched fists to sit cross-legged on the veranda outside the interview room, the unaccustomed ring came in contact with the floor, which is of marble, and the 'diamond' split into two pieces. (Diamonds can only be split by a sharp blow, but not by the sort of pressure involved in that instance).
There are some common sense observations that can be made about these points of contention, from Robert Priddy. First of all, whenever any ring, with a gemstone inset, is exposed to any kind of cleaning solution using soap, it will coat the stone with a film (known as soap scum) and will make the stone appear dull and glass-like. Substances like chlorine (used in bleach) will cause the mounting to be discolored. These are common facts that are often discussed, by jewellers, in caring for precious and semi-precious stones.
Since Mrs. Maynard Ferguson admitted to wearing the ring "all the time, doing housework and washing up", it is very easy to explain why the stone looked dull and worn (she wore the ring while "washing up" and allowed soap sediments to build up on the ring).
Regarding Ron Laing's diamond ring having scratches on it, Robert Priddy said, "diamonds simply cannot be scratched, except by another diamond. I held it and examined closely, for it was so worn that it looked more like a piece of heavily scoured glass". It is also a well known fact that diamonds are easily scratched, because most diamonds are kept in jewelry boxes. Whenever the jewerly is jumbled or sifted, the diamonds can rub against each other, in the jewelry box, and cause scratches. Just because a stone is heavily scratched, does not mean that it is not a diamond. As a matter of fact, scratched diamonds are such a problem that jewellers often make a point of keeping diamond jewelry separate from each other, or wrapping them individually, in tissue, to prevent this problem.
Furthermore, zirconia has a hardness of 8.5 on the Moh’s scale of hardness. Glass, and a typical knife blade, have a hardness of 5.5 on the Moh’s scale of hardness. Consequently, glass and metal will not scratch a synthetic zircon. Chances are, if a zircon is scratched, it was put in a jewelry box with other hard stones, and the jumbling of the stones caused them to scratch one other. If Mrs. Maynard Ferguson's green stone was the same type of green stone that Robert Priddy had, then she had a green cubic zirconia. Zirconia's are very hard stones (8.3 out of a possible 10) and they are not capable of being "worn down". This also applies to Ron Laing's ring. If it was a zircon, the only things that could have scratched it are diamonds, corundums and other zircons.
Robert Priddy also talks about how Mr. Lucas Ralli's "diamond" split into two pieces when he put his full weight on the ring, against a hard, marble slab. Robert Priddy said that diamonds can "only be split by a sharp blow". That is not true. Diamonds are brittle. Diamonds can easily chip and fracture, especially when the stone already has fractures inside of it (many are microscopic). Although diamonds are exceedingly hard, they are not tough. There is a difference between "hardness" and "toughness". There are many gems, such as jade, nephrite and chrysoberyl that are actually "tougher" than diamonds. It is important to remember that diamonds can crack, chip, fracture, shatter, discolor and lose value!
It is also revealing that Mr. Lucas Ralli's stone split into two pieces. Diamonds have very simple and pronounced cleavage. "Cleavage" deals with the planes of molecules along which a stone can split apart, with relative ease. If the right pressure is applied (especially on a facet) on a diamond, it will split into 2 pieces or shatter. Synthetic zircons do not do this. Zircon's will chip and break irregularly because zircons do not have cleavage! Diamonds do. Glass, clear quartz and white sapphires also do not have cleavage. So chances are, the stone that was in Mr. Lucas Ralli's ring, was a precious gemstone (most likely a diamond) and was not a zircon, clear quartz, white sapphire or glass, because the stone split "in two pieces" along a plane of cleavage.
Robert Priddy also said:
Sathya Sai Baba had every opportunity subsequently to refute that this was a genuine green diamond he had given to me, for he accepted my book 'Source of the Dream' in 1994 and signed it on the inside cover. In that book the 'green diamond' is photographed very clearly and what SSB said when he gave it to me is stated verbatim.
However, what is amusing about this comment is that nowhere in Robert Priddy's book, Source Of The Dream, did Sathya Sai Baba ever call the stone a "green diamond"! As a matter of fact, this particular story is discussed in the chapter "Be Ready! Be Ready!", on pages 130 - 133 in Source Of The Dream, and SSB never called the stone a "green diamond". Robert Priddy himself, never called the stone a "green diamond" either! Robert Priddy refers to the stone as a "green stone"! The only time Robert Priddy calls the stone a "green diamond" is on a picture page where he described the stone as such and on page 141 in the chapter Marching Happy. In this chapter, on pages 140 + 141, Robert Priddy talks about the ring that SSB materialized for him. Robert Priddy continually refers to the stone as a "green stone" and then talks about what the stone "may" be!
Robert Priddy said that since SSB claims he is omniscient, SSB should have known about Robert Priddy's reference to the stone as a "green diamond". This comment confirms that SSB never called the stone a "green diamond". Robert Priddy also wrote a chapter entitled "The Unfathomable Nature of the Avatar" (pages 259 - 261), in which Robert Priddy tells the reader why SSB makes oversights despite SSB's alleged ominscience. Consequently, Robert Priddy gives us a valid reason why SSB would not have known about Robert Priddy's comment about the stone being a "green diamond"!
Robert Priddy also said:
This unevenness was evidently due to the manner in which the green silver foil was inserted incompletely behind the stone so a painted black background caused some shading, allowing a kind of shadowy, rough silhouette of a head and shoulders to appear from certain angles when shading it from above. This is no 'mysterious appearance' of Sai Baba, as many devotees even believe, but a result of the manner of cutting and mounting the stone.
However, Robert Priddy wrote, in the chapter entitled "Marching Happy" (page 140), that in his ring, there were more appearances than just SSB's silhouette of a head and shoulders! Robert Priddy said:
As with other such rings, silhouettes of Sai Baba can be seen in it, sometimes with great clarity, his attitude varying much and very subtly with the lighting conditions. Shading it with a hand even often gives the appearance of the orange robe below the black hair, all set in a translucent green light! At times various types of crosses appear in it and also lotuses and Shivalingams.
Consequently, despite Robert Priddy being able to explain SSB "rough silhouette" by using foil behind the stone, Robert Priddy fails to tells us how the foil can create the images of SSB's orange robe, lotuses and Shivalingams. Furthermore, Robert Priddy said that sometimes, the silhouettes could be seen with "great clarity". Obviously, Robert Priddy can't make up his mind about what he saw. Either Robert Priddy was lying when he wrote his book...or he is lying now. Either scenario does not bode well for Robert Priddy.
Amusingly enough, Robert Priddy tells the reader, in the chapter "Marching Happy" (page 140 - 141), why SSB materializes "green diamonds" instead of other types of stones. The following quote shows how gullible Robert Priddy was and his desperation to blindly believe that his stone was a "green diamond", despite Sathya Sai Baba never calling it as such. Robert Priddy said:
Later I came to realize a number of things about the importance of the green color. One fairly mundane point alone is the difficulty that people - including customs officers, theives, and muggers - would surely have in realizing that tthe stone is an extremely rare diamond of the highest degree of clarity, just short of perfection. Despite its size and brillance, few persons apart from Sai followers have asked me about it during the past seven years.
The reason why so few asked Robert Priddy about the ring was perhaps due to the fact that they knew it was a zirconia!
On page 141, Robert Priddy said:
Some people have called these stones emeralds, but emeralds are in fact never so translucently clear and bright, I have discovered. It may be of interest to know what others to whom Baba has given the same kind of bright emerald-green stone, and who have investigated the matter quite thoroughly, have thought about this stone. Through the years in the Sai movement I have seen perhaps twenty people with green diamonds given by Baba. Some have shown them to jewelers, but I have not heard that the jewelers have been able to say what the stone is. The stones are all of a similar shade of green, with a brilliance unknown in green gemstones anywhere in the world of commerce. One resident of Prashanti Nillayam, who has a ring with a very similar stone of a slightly different green hue, was told by one of India's most well-known chemical industrial figures that it can only be a diamond, and I have established that its hue is very close to that of the Dresden Green diamond. These green stones that Baba makes are also held to be diamonds by an Australian who is recognized as a major world expert in opals. The stone is about 5 carats or approximately 1cm by 1.2cms and would be a huge value on the market, if anyone were willing to sell one or even risk trying.
One will notice that Robert Priddy never said that Sai Baba called these stones "green diamonds". As a matter of fact, if SSB had called these stones "green diamonds", then Robert Priddy would not have spent so much time speculating as to what the stone actually was. Instead, Robert Priddy makes a strong case that he speculated that the "green stones" (his words) were "green diamonds" based on second hand information that he blindly believed! This was Robert Priddy's assumption. Not a statement of fact from Sathya Sai Baba. Of course, don't expect Robert Priddy to divulge these facts on his Anti-Sai hate site! Robert Priddy also said that in order to believe these stories of the stones being green diamonds, one's "credulity would have to be that of a 3-year old". I think this observation sums up Robert Priddy's "credulity" as well!
In conclusion, it is amusing that people care less about a gift given by Sathya Sai Baba and care more for the value of that gift! Many people often decry SSB for giving "diamond rings" to his devotees. These people should be relieved to know that most of the rings do not have real diamonds! Synthetic zircons are very prevalent and are seen (and well known) in every field of jewelry. It is difficult for me to believe that the recipients of these "green diamond" rings did not know that they were not real! The very first time I saw one of these rings, I knew what the stone was immediately! So it is not surprising that jewellers have confirmed what is a self-evident fact.
posted by Equalizer @ 9:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home