Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

Minerals by Properties Minerals by Chemistry Advanced Locality Search Random Mineral Random Locality Search by minID Localities Near Me Search Articles Search Glossary More Search Options

The Mindat Manual Add a New Photo Rate Photos Locality Edit Report Coordinate Completion Report Add Glossary Item

Mining Companies Statistics Users Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations Mineral Shows & Events The Mindat Directory Device Settings The Mineral Quiz

Photo Search Photo Galleries Search by Color New Photos Today New Photos Yesterday Members' Photo Galleries Past Photo of the Day Gallery Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Identity HelpWhat is this? Emerald I hope?

14th Sep 2016 03:39 UTCTheodore Hansen Theo

Luster - Vitreous to Sub Vitreous

Color - greenish blue

Streak - none

Hardness - Scratches glass but not Corundum

Size - 4 inches long, 2 inches high, 3 inches wide

location - unknown

Other minerals - Muscovite or Mica

Shape - Hexagonal

Weight - 2 pounds and .5 ounces (919 grams)

transparency - Transparent to opaque

I got this at a rock shop in my area and owner said it might be emerald?

I cant sleep not knowing if this is really an emerald or not

14th Sep 2016 03:56 UTCDoug Daniels

Iffy as emerald, and as aquamarine. Maybe a bluish green or greenish blue beryl? (Considering the size)

14th Sep 2016 04:00 UTCWayne Corwin

Theodore

I does look like beryl, aquamarine beryl,,, not emerald beryl :-(

Still nice tho !

14th Sep 2016 04:00 UTCRolf Luetcke Expert

Theodore,

We see this on mindat often, mostly in cut stones that people buy on ebay, hoping it is a valuable stone.

As Doug said, probably a beryl but a specimen piece, not one to make jewelry from, unless you want people on ebay to buy something that should not have been cut into jewelry.

It is a nice specimen but not much more.

There was a lot of this low grade material mined for the ore years ago and then dumped on the market when it was not needed.

Rolf

14th Sep 2016 04:20 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Theodore, emerald and aquamarine are the same mineral species: beryl.

"Emerald" is the bright green variety of beryl, and "aquamarine" is the blue variety of beryl. As your piece looks more blue than green, it's aquamarine, and the dealer should never have told you "might be emerald". Well, perhaps the seller was a little color blind and they really didn't know.

14th Sep 2016 12:21 UTCPaul Brandes 🌟 Manager

Agree.

Too much blue to be truly called an emerald. From the photo and your description, it does appear to be a beryl, just not an emerald. Still, it's a very nice piece! (tu)

14th Sep 2016 12:46 UTCMatt Courville

Hi Theodore, agree with everyone and thought to give you an example of something I had collected. This is, generally speaking, a low-grade aquamarine beryl. Have a look at this locality as well if you can find some time(the Beryl Pit) - it has some very neat minerals.

Matt

14th Sep 2016 17:20 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Unheated aquamarine beryl.

Most light blue aqua specimens have been heated (as below, almost certainly)

15th Sep 2016 00:14 UTCTheodore Hansen Theo

I hate to think it is an aquamarine instead I want to just call it a beryl

I didn't think it could be an emerald...really wanted it to be but had my doubts

15th Sep 2016 02:06 UTCD. Peck

Theodore, Any way you slice it, it IS BERYL. The aquamarine, emerald, or morganite labels are simply varieties (eg Beryl, variety aquamarine) that are not official (IMA), but are more gemalogical. You have a nice crystal. And it is OK to simply call it Beryl without a varietal name.

19th Sep 2016 04:41 UTCTheodore Hansen Theo

well that settles it then! it is going to be my biggest prized crystal in my collection! I might want to cut some of the opaque areas off the back and just leave a nice translucent crystalized chunk with the natural sides of the crystal. I am so happy now that I can just call it a Beryl!

Thank you all! I look forward to you guys with helping me identify any future crystal that I cannot identify!

!!

19th Sep 2016 13:31 UTCDoug Schonewald

Theodore,

Please do not cut the opaque areas off. To most collectors this will diminish the crystal substantially as a specimen and diminish value as well. Simply mount and display the crystal to show the best side. Perhaps photographing the back side, posting the back view, and adding a description of your plan for trimming will elicit some comments and you can go from there. I think you will find that most collectors would prefer a specimen not be trimmed in that way, but I am often wrong about things. Give he professionals a chance to weigh in.

19th Sep 2016 14:03 UTCOwen Melfyn Lewis

Theo,

The mineral beryl, both as a group and an individual species of the same name make a fascinating study and it is a good start-point for learning about how the presence of very small amounts of elements, such as chromium, iron and manganese can completely change the appearance of beryl (and other minerals).

A single crystal of pure beryl is always colourless, any colour present not being caused by the specimen being beryl but by the presence of one or more trace elements,either (and sometimes both) by atomic (elemental) substitution in the beryl molecule or by electrical charge attraction into a space the beryl crystal lattice.

Though there are some basic thoughts stretching back more than 2,000 years, a broad understanding of the nature of minerals and their classification only developed within the last the 300 years (and is still far from complete). However, some specimens of minerals have been associated with human living (and, likely, trade) stretch back much further - even before modern man (species homo sapiens) evolved. It's likely that the earliest (from the archaeological records) is amber (not, strictly speaking, a mineral) which has been found in worked forms in sites of early human habitation from some 450,000 years ago and well away from known amber deposits.

A logical deduction from these findings is that human-kind has had an interest in objects with interesting properties, as matters of curiosity and human adornment for more than 400 millennia before it became interested in the practical uses of minerals (first gold, copper and tin, later silver and then iron). But the interests of curiosity and adornment have continued from pre-historic times through to the present day. This is a characteristic that is a watershed separation between even pre-modern mankind and its ancestors, the African great apes.

Unusual colour has always attracted humanity and most of all bright colours when associated with high transparency. Such specimens have always been highly prized and were amongst the earliest objects to be traded over long distances via the euro-asian and asian-sub-saharan african trade routes. Enter the gem trade, well established even 2,000 years ago and by then evidenced in the written records of the old civilisations. The word 'gem' comes from the Roman, 'gemma'. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (full version), the word first appears in English some 400 years after Roman withdrawal from Britain in a variety of spellings, such as 'gimme' and 'zymme', this being more than a thousand years ago, at the dawn of the (Old English) language.

The varietal distinction within a gem mineral species (largely based on colour) remains important globally because of its effects on innate desirability and hence monetary value. In beryl alone, a top quality emerald of say 2 grams might sell retail USD 0.5M, a similar size and quality of aquamarine for, say, USD 5K, a green beryl (translucent) for USD 500 and a colourless beryl (goshenite) for maybe USD 250 or less. These all may be beryl but for all expecting to buy of sell beryl, wholesale or retail, a good understanding of price level with variety and also of the judging of quality within a single variety seem essential to financial well-being :)-D

19th Sep 2016 14:17 UTCMatt Courville

Hi Theodore, I agree with the others on not cutting off any of your beryl. If you happened to have more than one and were into lapidary work(club/own tools), then this might be an option - and you would have the right set-up to polish it properly. I have done this with a few beryl crystal pieces quite similar to yours, but I generally don't post my lapidary stuff on mindat.

Matt

20th Sep 2016 16:53 UTCEd Clopton 🌟 Expert

Theodore,

It's your rock, so do what you want with it, but it will be of more interest (and value) to other mineral collectors down the line if it retains its original shape, uniform surface texture from weathering or wear, and flaws. If you start whacking pieces off, it shifts from being a mineral specimen to being lapidary rough, and it does not appear to be of suitable quality for that, although it might make interesting cabachons or (with a lot of waste) a small sphere. My inclination would be to leave it as is.

Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 25, 2024 09:01:28

Go to top of page