What “jade” means on a supplier’s quote, and what to write instead

If you are buying gua sha tools or facial rollers to sell under your own name, the word on the supplier’s listing often hides more than it tells you.

Start with the fact that decides everything else: “jade” is not a single material. It is a commercial word covering more than one material. Jadeite is a pyroxene. Nephrite is not a mineral species at all; it is a rock name for a microcrystalline aggregate of the tremolite–actinolite series. The international nomenclature body, CIBJO, recognises exactly two: nephrite and jadeite. GIA’s description adds green omphacite under certain conditions. The gemmological laboratories’ own harmonised standard covers four, adding kosmochlor. Three authorities, three different lists, which is itself a measure of how much work the single word “jade” is being asked to do.

The Swiss Gemmological Institute states that identifying material as “jade” alone is insufficient and that the mineralogical identity has to be added; CIBJO’s own list of acceptable names gives “Nephrite, or Nephrite-jade” and “Jadeite, Jadeite-jade”. That is the standard your supplier’s listing fails when it says only “jade.”

What the wholesale market actually offers

We searched a major Chinese wholesale marketplace across eight material terms on 12 August 2026 and read the listings. Three findings matter.

Jadeite is effectively absent from this category. A search for jadeite gua sha returned no listing that described the product as jadeite. Every result was rose quartz, “green quartz,” or nephrite. At the volumes a studio group buys (a few hundred units), jadeite is not what is on offer, whatever the retail market suggests.

The labels are being blurred at source, in the product titles themselves. One listing is titled “Yello [sic] Jade Serpentine Nine-Tooth Gua Sha Comb”: two different materials combined into a single product name. Another sells “Xiuyan Light Green Jade.” Xiuyan is a locality name rather than a material: the county’s bulk output is serpentine, though it also yields a nephrite, which is precisely why the name tells a buyer nothing. A third listing is at least honest: “Imitated Jade … Glass Guasha.”

On this evidence, price at wholesale tells you almost nothing. This is worth stating plainly because the opposite advice circulates widely. Listings described as nephrite ran $0.58–$5.50 FOB; rose quartz $0.60–$5.90; explicitly labelled serpentine $0.26–$2.29; glass $1.55–$3.55. Honestly-labelled material and substitute material occupy overlapping bands. A rule of the form “under $5 means fake” would reject most of the legitimate catalogue. At retail the picture changes and price becomes informative, but that is not the market you are buying in.

One limit on the above. This is one marketplace on one date. Two other major platforms blocked automated access, so treat the bands as indicative of that platform rather than as the market.

Verification: what a scale and a beaker actually deliver

Start with the result, because it is stronger than the caveats that follow.

Weighing a solid piece in air and then suspended in water gives you its specific gravity, its density compared with water. Set an acceptance band for nephrite of 2.90 to 3.10 and check what that band does to the substitutes this category actually ships.

Set the ceiling at 3.10, not lower. The standard figure for nephrite is 2.95 with a range of plus 0.15 and minus 0.05. Iron is what makes nephrite dark, and it raises density: GIA’s published study of black nephrite from Guangxi measured twelve samples between 3.015 and 3.405. A ceiling at 3.03 would reject genuine dark material of this kind as substituted goods. Widening to 3.10 costs no discrimination, because nothing in the table sits between the two ceilings except leaded glass, which passes either way. One honest limit: the darkest material in that study reads above 3.10 too, so if you are ordering black nephrite specifically, agree a band for it with the supplier rather than defaulting to 2.90–3.10.

Four of the six substitutes in that table are rejected outright by a jeweller’s scale and a beaker of water, a fifth is caught at typical values, and only leaded glass reliably gets through. Rose quartz, which the marketplace scan found more often than anything else, fails by a wide margin. That is the case for running this check on every incoming lot.

The method. Weigh the piece dry. Weigh it again suspended in water. Divide the dry weight by the weight it lost in water. A 60 gram nephrite piece loses about 20 grams; a 60 gram piece of serpentine loses about 23. That difference is comfortably larger than the resolution of a jeweller’s scale.

Budget for measurement error, because it is larger than the scale’s resolution suggests. Three biases push a reading around, and two of them push it the same way. The suspension thread displaces water too and pulls the result down. Water at 20 to 25 degrees is a little under 1.000, so measuring against 1.000 reads about 0.01 high. A surface wax pulls it down by roughly 0.007. Add scale linearity and a bubble you did not notice and a realistic total uncertainty is around plus or minus 0.02. Treat any reading within about 0.02 of a band edge as inconclusive: re-run it, or send that piece to a laboratory. Do not reject on it.

Do not run it on a roller. A facial roller is a stone barrel held in a metal frame on an axle, and weighing the whole assembly returns the average density of stone and metal together, which is far higher than any stone and tells you nothing. For rollers, take a barrel out of a unit from the shipped lot. Asking the supplier to send a loose barrel sounds easier and is worth much less, because a sample the supplier chooses is the easiest object in the transaction to hand-pick. A barrel is drilled for its axle, so clear the bore of trapped air before weighing it.

What you need beyond the scale. A suspension arrangement rather than a hook on a kitchen scale: an SG kit or a bridge and beaker, fine thread, and distilled or boiled water, because air bubbles clinging to the surface spoil the reading. Impregnated or thickly coated material also reads wrong. An ordinary polish wax does not: on a 60 gram tool it weighs a fraction of a gram and moves the result by roughly 0.007, and the gemmological laboratories’ harmonised standard says light surface waxing need not even be declared.

What the check does not do. It cannot tell you a piece is jade. It tells you whether the density matches what you ordered, which is a different and more useful thing on a purchase order: a reading outside the band is a contractual failure regardless of what the material turns out to be. And one material gets past it: leaded glass, which can be made to any density in the jade range. One other sits close enough to need care: serpentine’s gem range tops out at 2.77, leaving about 0.13 to the bottom of the nephrite band, real, but narrow enough that technique matters. And the top of dolomite’s reported range, 2.90 to 2.95, sits inside the band and will pass, though typical dolomite reads about 2.85 and fails.

Hardness closes the dolomite gap, and it is the cheapest thing that does. Dyed dolomite marble, sold as “Mountain jade”, is Mohs 3.5 to 4 against nephrite’s 6 to 6.5, a difference wide enough to be unmistakable. Run it on the units already being consumed for laboratory testing, or on a hidden face, and never on saleable stock: a gemmological education body describes scratch testing as one of the most destructive tests available and advises never performing it on a finished piece. Note also what hardness cannot do. Mohs is a ranking rather than a scale of equal steps, and quartz at 7 is harder than nephrite, so “it scratches glass and steel” is passed by quartz, nephrite and jadeite alike.

A hand lens confirms glass and resin positively. Molten glass traps gas as it forms and a crystalline aggregate cannot, so rounded bubbles, strings of bubbles and flow lines identify glass. Bubbles also appear in the polymer that fills bleached and impregnated jadeite, so what a bubble tells you is that the piece is glass or has been filled: either way, not untreated stone. Note the limit: no bubbles is not proof of no resin. Settling impregnation reliably is a laboratory matter, using infrared spectroscopy.

Dye collects in the cracks. Dye penetrates the permeable boundaries between grains and any open fractures rather than the crystal interiors, so treated material shows colour concentrated along a network of grain boundaries instead of spread evenly. Under magnification this is one of the more recognisable signs.

Two checks are commonly misunderstood rather than useless. Feeling the piece for coolness identifies polymer and nothing else, because glass, serpentine, marble and quartz all feel cool. It is the only check that covers every unit at no cost, which is exactly the gap sampling leaves open. Use it for resin, not for identifying stone. And the ring test measures a real property of nephrite, but glass rings too and whether a given piece rings depends on its shape. It does not establish authenticity.

The economics of actually testing

A laboratory identification report for a jade carving is priced by weight. On GIA’s published Colored Stone Services schedule effective 1 July 2026, a piece of 200 to 450 carats sits in the $137 and $168 tiers of the Identification Report. We have assumed a tool weighing 40 to 90 grams, which is what places it in those tiers; weigh yours before relying on the figure, because the fee rises sharply above a kilogram. Note that this is the identification service. The separate identification-and-origin report costs about 60 to 75 per cent more at these weights, so confirm which one a quote refers to.

Against a unit costing under $6 landed, testing every piece is absurd and testing nothing is negligent. And test where the goods are. China has a national gem and jade testing body, NGTC, working to the Chinese national standards for jade, and its certificates are routine in the Chinese jade trade. Requiring an NGTC certificate against a retained sample keeps the testing in the country the goods ship from, which is normally faster and cheaper than sending pieces to a North American laboratory.

The model is sampling: pull two or three units per production lot, test those, and make the report the contractual basis for the whole lot. That converts a per-unit cost into a per-lot cost and gives you something to enforce against. Its limit is worth knowing too: a sample detects a wholesale substitution, not a partial one within a lot.

Buy identification, and do not assume a cheaper test substitutes for it. Identification establishes the mineral, and it is the only service that can support a material specification on a purchase order. The same schedule lists cheaper quality-assurance tests, including one for the presence of dye at $120 for up to ten stones, but read the conditions before planning around them. Its results come as a table rather than as a report you can attach to an order, it is unavailable for items that have already had an identification report, and above all it cannot tell you what the stone is, which is the thing your specification turns on. One of those quality-assurance tests is still worth knowing about: there is a jade-specific impregnation test at the same price, and impregnation is the question a hand lens cannot settle.

Be aware of what “certified” means on these listings, because it does not mean this. Across every search we ran, the certifications advertised were RoHS, CE, FCC and ISO management-system standards, covering restricted substances, electrical safety and quality management. None of them identifies a mineral.

What belongs on the purchase order

This is the part that does the real work, and it matters more than any bench check, because the specification is what turns a reading into a claim. A measurement that disagrees with the order gives you something to enforce, regardless of what the material turns out to be.

• —The material by its correct name, nephrite or jadeite, and never the bare word “jade.”
• —No treatment, stated explicitly: no dyeing, no bleaching, no polymer impregnation, no wax beyond a surface polish. Note that the familiar A/B/C classification is a jadeite system — A untreated, B bleached and polymer-impregnated, C dyed — so “Type A” written against nephrite is a designation with no meaning. The dye risk you actually face in this category is dyed serpentine, dyed quartzite and dyed dolomite marble.
• —A specific-gravity acceptance band with a method, not a single number: for example nephrite 2.90–3.10, hydrostatic, in distilled water, two or three units per lot. A single figure gives a supplier room to argue the first time genuine material reads 2.91. For rollers, specify that sampled units may be disassembled, because an assembled roller cannot be weighed this way, and a loose barrel chosen by the supplier is the easiest sample in the transaction to hand-pick.
• —A laboratory report naming the issuing laboratory and report number, tied to retained samples.
• —Trade names excluded as material descriptions: “new jade,” “Korean jade,” “Xiuyan jade,” “Malaysia jade,” “Suzhou jade.” Two different rules cover these. The CIBJO Gemstone Book (clause 4.2.3.4) states that the names of cutting, processing or exporting centres may not be used to imply geographical origin, and the Canadian Jewellers Association’s Canadian Guidelines for Gemstones gives “serpentine as jade” as an example of a description that is unacceptable without appropriate disclosure.

What your product copy does to the regulatory status

The regulatory position of these tools is set by what you say about them, not by what they are, and in a private-label business, you write the copy.

In Canada a gua sha tool is very unlikely to be a cosmetic. The statutory definition covers substances and mixtures of substances, and on that wording an implement is not a substance. What it can become is a device, and the definition that catches sellers is not the disease limb most people watch. A device includes an article represented for use in restoring, modifying or correcting body structure or the functioning of any part of the body. Copy that avoids disease language but claims the tool “modifies facial structure,” “corrects” a jawline or “restores lymphatic function” is arguing against that limb, not clear of it.

In the United States there is a product code for exactly this object: manual therapeutic massager, Class I, exempt from premarket notification but not exempt from good manufacturing practice requirements, nor from establishment registration, device listing, labelling and adverse-event reporting. It applies when the product is sold for a medical purpose. One wrinkle worth knowing if you follow the citation: the regulation it sits under describes an electrically powered device, yet FDA maintains two product codes beneath it (one manual, one electric), so the agency applies it to hand tools despite that wording. The exemption from premarket notification is itself conditional: it lapses if the device is intended for a different use, or works by a different fundamental technology, than the exempt class.

The alternative position is FDA’s General Wellness: Policy for Low Risk Devices, issued 6 January 2026, which covers products intended only for general wellness use and posing low risk. The guidance’s low-risk conditions turn on whether a product is invasive, implanted, or uses a technology posing a safety risk without regulatory controls. Read those against your own product and copy rather than assuming: gua sha’s intended effect includes raising visible petechiae, so the question is not obvious.

The two US positions are alternatives, not a sequence. Copy that stays inside general wellness means the product is not a device at all, and none of the registration, listing or quality-system obligations attach. They attach only on a medical-purpose position, where the general wellness policy no longer helps. That policy is unusually accommodating for this category: it lists claims to increase, improve or enhance the flow of qi as acceptable general wellness claims, alongside relaxation, stress management and physical fitness. What falls outside the policy is disease language: treating a disorder, or restoring a function impaired by a condition.

What triggering it costs in Canada is worth knowing before you write the copy: importers and distributors of even a Class I device need a Medical Device Establishment Licence, although no device licence is required for Class I itself.

One more thing that catches this buyer specifically: the tool may not be a cosmetic, but the facial oil or serum many operators bundle with it is, and that brings cosmetic notification and ingredient-labelling obligations of its own: in Canada, notification to Health Canada within 10 days of first sale and an ingredient list by INCI name. And the position on qi claims above is a US one: advertising regulators elsewhere answer that question differently.

The practical control is cheap: ship claim-free product copy with the goods, and put in writing that therapeutic claims change the product’s classification. It costs nothing and it shows the buyer you know the rules.

Two smaller points worth knowing. CITES does not apply: it lists animal and plant species, and minerals cannot be listed at all. And unless the law excepts them, goods imported into the United States must be marked with the English name of the country of origin, conspicuously and permanently, in a way that reaches the ultimate purchaser. Marking only the outer carton is the alternative for goods that are excepted from marking themselves, not a free choice, which matters if you repackage.

What is not here, and why

• —“Anything under $5 is fake.” We went looking to verify it and the wholesale data refutes it.
• —Any thermal conductivity figure for jade. The numbers in circulation come from vendor content and disagree with each other by a factor of three. No primary ambient-condition measurement was obtainable.
• —A retail price multiple. Retail material does trade far above wholesale, but we did not verify a figure, so we describe the direction rather than quote a number.
• —Any claim that describing serpentine as jade is illegal in the United States. Canadian industry guidance names it as unacceptable, but that is a trade guideline. Whether the US jewellery advertising guides reach a stone implement that is not jewellery is unresolved, and we found no enforcement action either way.
• —An exhaustive list of deceptive trade names. GIA publishes some examples, noting that terms such as pink jade, Mexican jade, Alaska jade, Transvaal jade and Japanese jade generally refer to other minerals. What we do not publish is the longer list circulating in vendor and consumer sources, which we could not trace to any gemmological body.
• —“Burmese jadeite is banned from the United States.” Widely repeated; the ban was revoked in 2016. We did not verify whether later sanctions reintroduced any restriction, so we make no claim either way.
• —Legal advice. This describes what published standards and regulations say. Your classification is a question for counsel.