It pays to read a few days of postings before answering. At first
when the cracks and flaws came up, I thought, THAT SOUNDS NORMAL for
an emerald.
Then being a green beryl…well…an emerald is a beryl, and it
is green, still it should be considered an emerald.
Then a few posts later, ah, a white beryl, one that has been dyed.
Now it is really fraud.
Blessings to all.
If the Kelowna stone is green beryl with a little V and Cr thrown in, what is the problem?
The problem is fraudulently misrepresenting the stone as being
something it’s not. In this case, even if the material before dying
were slightly green from Cr, making it technically emerald, the fact
that much or all of the visible color is due to undisclosed dye,
THAT’s the problem. The identity of the material isn’t the problem.
The source of the visible color, and how it’s represented by the
seller, is.
Peter Rowe
Light passes through an emerald.
It will also pass through an aquamarine, which is also a variety of
Beryl, if it’s clean enough to do so. And not all emeralds are clear
enough to really pass much light through, though these are pretty
cheap. They can still be emerald if the mineral is beryl, and the
color is green due to chromium in the material, rather than dye in
otherwise colorless material. Even dyed material can still be
emerald, if it was green due to chromium in the beryl before the dye
made it darker…
Now, if the question is what’s the difference between badly cut,
junk dyed opaque green beryl, and an emerald worth paying good money
for, then you’re about spot on…
Peter
Light passes through an emerald.
To prevent another long drawn out thread (which I’m told would be a
rehash from a year or so ago) My statement regarding light above is
incorrect.
What is the difference between Beryl and Emerald?
Emerald and Aquamarine are beryl, they have the same chemical
composition, it is trace elements that cause the color, the chemical
composition is not dependent on the trace element to be beryl. The
saturation of color determines whether it is emerald, aqua, or green
or blue beryl. By the way, helidor is yellow beryl.
Richard Hart G.G.
Denver, Co.
It's almost enough of a quagmire to make any sane jeweler stick to Tsavorite garnet... More durable (in part because it's usually much better clarity), brighter, in some ways prettier in it's finest qualities... And usually less costly too.
Long ago I was a captive repair jeweller. It took a lot off training
to convince the take in folks that I really hated green stones, at a
time when oiling was the major treatment. Just double the quote or
ask me for a price.
Alas being at the top of the repair people food chain for 6 stores I
got all the bitchy jobs. Too damned many take in folks to educate.
jeffD
Demand Designs
Analog/Digital Modelling & Goldsmithing
http://www.gmavt.net/~jdemand
That's true, I only said he was up on fraud charges.
What if you were the Jewelry Judge presiding over this as an
“emerald fraud case”? What questions would you ask about how to
define emerald?
Here is a start:
(1) The ratio of elements in the aluminous beryllian silicate
mineral compound (is it only one set that is allowed);
(2) The proportionate amount of that mineral in the emerald as rock;
(3) The translucency of the stone (all minerals are translucent but
some more than others);
(4) The natural colour of the stone;
(5) The colour additives used.
I think we all agreed on the principle of fair disclosure when that
thread was discussed here. Let’s see if all 13,000 on this list can
apply it as buyers and sellers of stones since they will be either or both.
Now, if the question is what's the difference between badly cut, junk dyed opaque green beryl, and an emerald worth paying good money for, then you're about spot on...
Question: What is the difference between a badly cut, junk dyed
opaque green emerald and a beryllium-aluminous-silicate worth paying
good money for?
People might have paid good money for the Kelowna stone if it had
been marketed with fair disclosure as a finely carved Garden Gnome.
Do you know the story of the famous Vancouver Garden Gnome?
Beryl and Emerald are chemically the same are they not?
Diamond and graphite also the same chemically! Gemologically they are
an ocean apart.
Leonid Surpin
(3) The translucency of the stone (all minerals are translucent but some more than others)
A mineral is a naturally occurring solid chemical substance formed
throughbiogeochemical processes, having characteristic chemical
composition, highly ordered atomic structure, and specific physical
properties. By comparison, a rock is an aggregate of minerals and/or
mineraloids and does not have a specific chemical composition.
Minerals range in composition from pure elements and simple salts to
very complex silicates with thousands of known forms.
Most rocks are opaque, some are translucent, minerals are usually
translucent or transparent, but not always.
Richard Hart G.G.
Denver, Co.
Methinks we resolved that about a year ago (refer to Orchid archives). The conclusion was that light passes through all minerals.
Light passes through all minerals, but not all qualities. For one
example,a corundum crystal, which is a mineral, can be opaque,
translucent, or transparent. To be opaque, light cannot travel
through the crystal. Put a light behind the crystal, if no light is
transmitted through the crystal, you have an opaque crystal.
Low quality “ruby” crystals are faceted and set in silver. Usually
pinkish or pinkish purple, no light is transmitted through the gem.
There are ruby cabs, nice reddish purple color, translucent, but not
noticeable unless a strong light is behind it.
Richard Hart G.G.
Denver, Co.
What is the difference between Beryl and Emerald?
If Dorothy’s journey along the Yellow Brick instead took her to The
Beryl City I’ve little doubt The Wizard of Oz would not be considered
the cinematographic classic it is today.
Phil W
we still do not have a definition of emerald except beryl which passes a popularity contest.
No need for a popularity contest:
http://www.ganoksin.com/gnkurl/1p0
and many others. Try Google.
Al Balmer
Pine City, NY
Beryl and Emerald are chemically the same are they not?
That depends on what you consider “the same”. Both are beryllium
aluminum silicates. HOWEVER, they are obviously not exactly the same.
(If they were, they would look the same.) The presence of small
amounts of certain other metallic elements as contaminants give the
different colors. While these other metallic elements are not
necessarily rare, it is relatively rare to find them in Beryl.
Margaret
Beryl and Emerald are chemically the same are they not?
Almost. Beryl’s chemistry defines the major chemical composition and
crystal structure of the mineral, but does not define what sorts of
trace impurities may also be present in addition to the principal
chemistry and structure. All emerald is beryl, as it meets those
definitions. But not all beryl is emerald. To be emerald, it not
only must be beryl, but it also must have trace chromium present in
addition to the basic beryl mineral, that gives it a green color.
That chromium is an essential part of the definition of emerald, but
is not part of the definition of beryl. So beryl and emerald are the
same in crystal structure, and in the major chemical composition,
but differ in what impurities are defined, and the resultant color
produced.
Dyed green beryl is dyed green emerald is it not? False disclosure may then be the fraud aspect of this. But I read that the fraud charge was from his past in Ontario.
Peter, to be emerald, the beryl has to owe it’s green color to
chromium that is actually incorporated into the crystal structure,
generally getting there at the same time as the crystal is grown
either through the normal natural growth process, or in the case of
synthetic emerald, during that laboratory growth operation. An added
green dye may change the color, but doesn’t change the actual
identity of the mineral, any more than putting paint on a piece of
paper changes the identity of the paper underneath the paint, to
something else. If you add green dye to colorless beryl, you do not
get emerald. If you add green dye to beryl that already was at least
a little bit green due to chromium in the structure, then it already
was emerald, and the dye does not change this identity, only the
visual appearance of the stone. However, an emerald’s value derives
from much more than just it’s identity as emerald. The clarity of
the stone, the size of the stone, and the degree and intensity of the
green color, all affect the value and rarity of the stone. The
problem with adding dye is not just the deception as to the
origin/nature of the color, but also in the fact that it then is
presented as something that’s worth much more as a result of it’s
looking like a rarer more valuable material. Putting a dark walnut
color stain on a piece of light maple wood makes it look different,
and may make it prettier. But anyone looking at it will know that
this improved color to the maple is due to the stain, and the
underlying maple is the same, so percieved value is not based on
false That is then honest. To present a dyed green
beryl as being natural, however, is to pretend that it’s not only
something other than what it is, but to pretend that it’s much more
valuable That, if intentional, is fraud. Whether or not the fraud
this seller is accused of pertains to this stone or not, does not
matter. The stone was being presented as emerald, without mention of
the dye. That’s not honest. pure and simple.
Perhaps the issue could have been resolved if even one gram of dust
had been assayed from the faceting Richard. That would tell us if it
was a rock of a mineral.
BTW, slice the stone thin enough and ALL stones will allow light to
pass through. There is no such thing as an opaque rock or mineral.
All emerald is beryl, as it meets those definitions. But not all beryl is emerald. To be emerald, it not only must be beryl, but it also must have trace chromium present in addition to the basic beryl mineral, that gives it a green color.
The most significant distinction is that all beryls except emerald
are type I while emerald is type II. Forget all the
gibberish about chemistry. Gemologically emerald is very distinct
from other beryls. Other ways to separate the two besides type are
pleochroism, spectrum, fluorescence, magnification, and probably more
if I think about it. Chromium is not necessarily a deciding factor (
according to GIA ). Recall all the controversy with Mexican emeralds,
which are green due to vanadium. When they were discovered, some
gemologist took a stand that they were simply saturated green beryl.
GIA, based on their formation ( type II ) called them emeralds. That
was the end of chromium rule. But, it should be mentioned that not
everybody agree, especially those who deal with investment in gems.
Leonid Surpin
Peter,
Perhaps the issue could have been resolved if even one gram of dust had been assayed from the faceting Richard. That would tell us if it was a rock of a mineral.
BTW, slice the stone thin enough and ALL stones will allow light to pass through. There is no such thing as an opaque rock or mineral.
Handbook of Gem Identification has a definition of opaque, no
transmission of light even through thin edges. Book copyright, 1975.
I think might still be accurate.
Any mineral or rock that has no transmission of light is called
opaque based on the way it is when you observe it, not on what
happens if you slice it thin. I suggested a gemology course to help
you understand what you observe. You are wrong based on establish
gemological criteria.
I believe I have black jade, tigeriron, hematite, and psilomelane
that sliced thin will not transmit light.
I would be glad to send you a sample. I just checked and I see no
transmission of light on the edges.
Richard Hart G.G.
(Graduate Gemologist, 1977, and I still remember some of it).
Denver, Co.
Handbook of Gem Identification has a definition of opaque, no transmission of light even through thin edges.
For practical gemology craftsmanship I have no problem with the word
“opaque”, Richard. Nor does anyone else here.
Whether the Kelowna stone is opaque or not I have no idea.
But as I recall we exhausted this thread a year ago when a physicist
or chemist posted and said ALL stones will transmit light and the
thread ended because nobody would argue that further.
A photon is very small. Slice a mineral very thin (just a few
molecules thick) and it makes intutive sense to me that the photon
will get through. Otherwise can you say what physical or chemical
event stops it? But that likely has no practical gemological
application.