I have set them and want to sell them this year. Since I won't be
able to afford a gemological kit until next year
Start by at least educating yourself to how to identify gems. The
GIA courses are probably too pricey for you if you can’t yet afford
any instruments, though I’d highly recommend them once you can afford
them. The installment payments aren’t so bad…
But if that’s too much, then at least get a good book or two on gem
identification. Liddicoats is the standard, but there are others,
and some might be more easily understood for a beginner at gem id.
And if you can’t afford proper gem identification equipment, you can
afford at least the basics.
A good corrected 10x triplet loupe. Don’t get a lesser type.
And a cheap penlight (the best are the really cheap ones using a
single incandescent bulb the front of which is a glass blob that acts
as a lens to focus the light. While these aren’t as nice for normal
penlight uses, compared to, say, a maglight penlight, the very
intense localized (at the bulb) light of those cheapies (cost a
dollar or three last I checked) makes them very useful for really
illuminating a gem (hold the front of that bulb right up to the side
of the stone while looking in the top. Anything within the gem lights
right up. With practice, almost as good as a microscope for seeing
inclusions…)
Then, even if you can’t afford a proper professional grade
polariscope, you can make one. Look for Hanneman (spelling? check the
archives) gemological equipment for cheap kits, or make one just from
a couple pieces of polarizing plastic and a bit of ingenuity. Even an
old pair of polaroid sunglasses will work. This does not have to cost
you lots of money to achieve basic functions of a polariscope. Won’t
be as nice as the pro versions, but it would let you determine single
refractive stones versus double refractive, and more easily see
pleochroic colors. This latter property, by the way, would easily
seperate your amethyst from possible synthetic alexandrite like
corundum.
A sensative scale would be good too. You kind of need one to sell
anything sold by the carat anyway, and once you know what something
weighs, you can use the measurements to derive what the stone should
weigh if it is a certain material with a given specific gravity. If
it weighs more or less than that, then you’ve a good idea what it
might be. The better the scale, the more accurate that guess. If it’s
really accurate, you can build a little apparatus pretty cheaply to
use it to directly measure specific gravity (at least for larger
stones, not so much melee.) That’s a pretty useful bit of data. Or,
again with Hanneman gemological equipment, you can build a little
home made but surprisingly accurate scale designed to directly read
specific gravity…
of course, what you really need for some of this, aside from
knowlege on how to use it all, is a good refractometer. Those,
unfortunately, aren’t so cheap. But again, with practice, you can
learn to visually estimate the general range of refractive index of a
facetted stone based on it’s appearance.
And the other option you may wish to explore is to make friends with
someone who DOES have the needed gemological equipment to tell you
what you’ve got. Perhaps a local lapidary club would find some hobby
gem cutter with the equipment, or perhaps a local jeweler would be
willing to take pity on you and help out. Worth looking.
But the bottom line regarding your stock of possibly incorrectly
identified stones is simple. If you don’t know what it is for sure,
then don’t describe it inaccurately. If you’ve got purple stones
that might or might not be amethyst, then sell them as purple stones,
not amethyst. If you don’t know whether the stones are natural,
treated, or synthetic or simply imitations, then don’t claim more
exact than you’ve got. If people ask (and they will), be
honest. Tell then you “THINK” the stone is such and such, but you’re
not sure, and it might be something else. If you’re honest, you
won’t get in trouble. Just be sure buyers really understand it when
there is some potential misidentification.
Peter Rowe