Auralite 23

Hi All! I've recently been hearing a lot about this Auralite 23 stone and I contacted one of the sellers and was sent this info sheet. What I'm wondering about is how they were able precisely date this quartz. I thougth quartz could not be dated due to its stability. I know there are ways to date rocks & minerals with approximations using other dating techniques but to get a precise date would be impossible. Jsut wondering if anyone had any opinions on this or anything else to add on Auralite. Apparently Pelham Grayson claims they are the only US distributer but this seller claims that's not ture so some controversy there. Thanks for any input! Please see attachment.

There is so much utter nonsense in the attached description that it's hard to know where to start. How about the assertion that carbon-dating "probably" won't be done because of the expense?!! If one were a billionaire with unlimited funds, how would one carbon-date Proterozoic quartz? The mind boggles. And how about the tiny traces of the multitude of other elements present? similarly present in every rock, plant and animal on the planet. Meaningless. And on and on...

Anyway, Mindat certainly isn't going to help promote fanciful made-up commercial names for something that is basically just amethyst crystals.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot???????? :S

Utter, demonic tripe!! How do you radiocarbon date a mineral that does not have carbon in the structure?? How can these obvious later stage minerals predate the North American craton in which they lie? What is the date of the matrix rock (may be YOUNGER than the craton). This is just intentional nonsense to sell something as something it is not.

Not to mention lack of knowledge on radioactive dating methods. C-14 dating is probalbly no more expensive than uranium methods; of course, if that quartz is a billion years old, any C-14 would be long gone. Maybe it was actually dated using unobtainium isotopes.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!! Oh, that made my day!

So is the Thunderbay Amethyst I have read about on here? And who is the GIA who has supposedly researched this? Don't know much about them. Thanks for all the input. You all confirmed my thoughts.

It also bears repeating (as has been mentioned on other threads) that several of the supposed inclusions in the amethyst (cacoxenite, lepidocrocite...) are not in fact present - mere misidentifications. Nevertheless I am so grateful for the good laugh that I hope no one removes this wonderful attachment :)

Are there other threads on this here, Alfredo? There must be a big push for this amethyst lately b/c I've had several people bring it to my attention as of late.

Should I have not posted that attachment? Don't want to do anything illegal or step on any toes. Jsut trying to get accurate info and wanted to be sure that my thoughts were correct.

Phanie,
Doug Schwarzenberger is claiming the research and testing for the crystals. You can google his name for more info.

chad

It's like someone's swallowed a copy of American Mineralogist and then thrown up over a Reiki healer

Stop it, Jolyon, I can't stand any more laughter today (:D

Chad, that's who the attachment comes from.

Well, well, that tells us something about Schwarzenberger's "research" :)

Ladies and gentlemen: Mineralogical and gemmological "research" involves doing controlled experiments, or at the very least going to the library to study old documents and recalculate previous analytical results. But just laying back and making stuff up (what the mystically minded call "channelling" ) is not "research"! :S



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2011 02:35AM by Alfredo Petrov.

What scares me most is that Doug Schwarzenberger is claiming to be a geologist and teacher of geology, physics and chemistry at the high school honors level in Arlington, TX. 8-)

From what I understood that info was obtained from the "GIA". Then I was directed here by the PelhamGrayson.com site: http://dosmangoes.xanga.com/608945917/item

It's just marketing nonsense phanie, just ignore it.

I can see that many of us are focused on the negativity of trade-naming one type of Amethyst as Auralite Amethyst, we have seen it too many times before in other crystals; where we loose sight of the sheer beauty of a stone because of the method of "naming it". In many cases, the trade-naming and commercial craze that drives the price to an unrealistic value for any "thing". When the Titanic sank, it was not the diamonds, rubies, emeralds or sapphires that amounted to the highest $$ loss, it was Feathers, particularly ostrich feathers destined for the hat makers of New York. Commercial craze at its best.

We will continue to find beautiful crystals that are unusual and unique. Let us re-focus our comments to the beauty of this particular amethyst, I have attached a photo so that we may possibly direct our energy towards positive comments of the "Art-Work" of the Earth.

Auralite Amethyst or what ever name you choose to call it, is a beautiful stone, Mother Earth has created something beautiful, and may we all continue to honour her amazing abilities of bringing things together (including this chat forum) so that we can feel the connected-ness of our beings.

Wow, amazing photo Charles~! Anything to add as far as the claims of its age, etc?