Mindat Logo
bannerbannerbannerbanner
Welcome!

heliodor from tajikistan

Posted by bob kerr  
Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 28, 2012 02:35AM
    
Hi,

Very interesting discussion. Here are two views of the specimen in my collection which I purchase about 10 years ago. Prior to that time, I saw a single crystal without matrix at the April 1994 Rochester Symposium which was attributed to Pakistan, not Tajikistan.

This specimen is 5cm by 5cm.

© Joseph Polityka

© Joseph Polityka

Best wishes,

Joe
avatar Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 28, 2012 04:26AM
Alfredo Petrov Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But. Owen, the burden of proof is on those who
> believe, not those who disbelieve.

Alfredo, are you sure? Proof and belief are two different things. All are free, in common courtesy, to believe as they wish - but not to claim belief as some sort of proof. Where this happens (as it quite frequently does in all sorts of matters), truth is too often mislaid.

>The suspicions
> about ametrine were resolved when detailed studies
> were published on the locality.

Exactly so. And there is no reason to think any longer (IMHO) that proof of the existence/non-existence of a source of Heliodor in Tadjikistan is likely to be forthcoming any time real soon. There is no proof of such a mine. And there is no proof of a fraud.

History provides examples of mines discovered and then lost again, some permanently, so their existence is may become a matter of fable. Somethimes they are lost for a few hundred years and sometimes just a decade or so.

> There have been no
> such studies about the alleged "Zelatoya Vada"
> locality, nor any possible reason given about why
> Afghani or Pakistani miners sneaking across the
> border into Tadzhikistan would baptise their mine
> with a Russian name.

The use of Russian has been covered in an earlier post in this thread, In all the Soviet Socialist Republics, cultural and ethnic differences were supressed. Difference in language is a prime expression of a separate culture. For schooling and universal military service Russian was the required language throughout. I had a personal liaison for some fair while with a most delightful Kazakh lady who, in her youth, had risen to Sergeant in the Soviet rocket artillery during her compulsory military service and who informed me of the ins and outs of such matters (on top of my own NATO indoctrination of a couple of decades). She was tri-lingual in Russian, Kazakh and (latterly) in English. By direct observation of her with her ex-Sov emigre friends, their Lingua Franca was Russian, even in England and in a social setting, as it was the one language that they were all most at ease in.

Also as explained earlier, *IF* the supposed mine were to have been on the southernmost exposures of the Pamir mountains in Tadjikistan, the logical approach would be from the Pamir valley, in a Afghan corridor separating Tadjikistan from Pakistan and terminating in the east at the border with China. This valley contains one of the few roads in the area, Not only was Tadjikistan a part of the USSR in the timeframe of the supply of this Heliodor to the Western markets but Afganistan (in particular the Pamir river corridor) was occupied by the Soviet Army. Whether miners were Tadjik, Afghan, Russian or even Chinese (by the papers they carried) or any mix of the same - scarcely seems material. Though the borders north and south of the corridor are (nominally) fixed, at the eastern end of the corridor the border northwards between China and Tadjikistan and southwards between China and Pakistan have never been formalised and remain in dispute. Accordingly it seems best not to too emphatic about the political boundaries. One thing is a safe bet and that is the local people will regard the borders to be as porous as ever they have been since the days of the Great Khan.

> The relative probabilities of
> truth or fakery in this case should be fairly
> obvious.

I think only two things are clear:

1. That the location of the supposed mine has never been properly fixed outside of the few who must have been directly concerned with it at the relevant time - if it existed at all.

2.Equally, no fraudulent activity has been proved; only that such a fraud would have been practical.

A couple of facts that give pause for thought and room for some doubt. Despite the routine use of slavery and cruelest tortures to extract information, the local Indians in the Muzo area kept the location of their Emerald mines secret from the Spanish for 20 years or so. After the Spanish had taken control over the Emerald mines in the area and worked then for a while, in the 1550's they managed to 'lose' the location of one mine which, to this day, has never been re-discovered. That one does not know the location of a mine is simply no proof that it never existed. Mine locations are still being lost.

In the case of the Tadjik Heliodor mine, I neither believe nor disbelieve. I merely observe that the matter is without proper proof, either way. Others, no doubt, choose to believe as they may care to.

Best,
Owen



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2012 04:49AM by Owen Lewis (2).
avatar Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 28, 2012 08:43AM
we can't stop people wanting to believe in Tadjik beryls, but the only evidence that we have so far that they do exist is stories.

Owen, I admire your "what if" stories that could explain the legitimacy of these beryls, but sadly these are nothing but theoretical constructs - the clear evidence so far points to an artificial origin of these beryls.

The danger of posting "what if" stories however is that down the line, people (especially unscrupulous dealers) may start to quote your suggestions as fact, to justify their sale of these specimens. This has already happened with comments made innocently about these beryls, see the Belakovsky article in Lithographie Beryl book.

As has been shown, the production of these fakes is easy and done in bulk.

It is not up to us to prove these are not genuine. Science is based on providing evidence to prove your theories are correct. If you just have stories to back up your theories - you have religion, not science.

Jolyon



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2012 07:58PM by Jolyon Ralph.
Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 28, 2012 08:22PM
    
"Give us each day our daily faith....but deliver us from belief".....R.A. Heinlein
avatar Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 28, 2012 10:09PM
So what kind of proof would be adequate to convince you and the rest of us of fraudulent activity? Some test to distinguish between natural and artificial radiation? Unless you tested every existing specimen, you could still make the argument that there must or might have been some natural specimens from a small pocket, and a scammer just exploited this exciting find.

How about if the perpetrator of the fraud publicly admitted his caper? Would that prove anything? If the perp was a liar in promoting these specimens, why would you believe his story now?

Based on your well written and cogent arguments, I think you could dance around almost any kind of "proof".

I think Owen is a very good writer, and likes generating all these counter posts. Hey, he got me to post.....and I have to admit that I have
enjoyed reading all this discussion.

And if one does passionately believe in Tadjiki beryls.......well,nothing one says can change the mind of a true believer.
Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 28, 2012 10:13PM
I visited the Field Museum in Chicago, Illinois today. In the Grainger Hall of Gems, the Field has one of these "Tajik" heliodors on display next to a Russian heliodor. The "Tajik" heliodor is on matrix and appears similar to the specimen posted by Joe above (see attached pic - my apologies for the quality, it was from my iphone).
Attachments:
open | download - heliodor.jpg (148.7 KB)
avatar Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 28, 2012 10:15PM
Perhaps someone should contact the Field Museum and point them towards this thread.
avatar Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 29, 2012 12:15AM
Dr. Paul Bordovsky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what kind of proof would be adequate to
> convince you and the rest of us of fraudulent
> activity?

Or the lack of it?

On the one hand, that there was proof of the existence of a mine. On the other hand, that there was proof that a fraud - or a series of frauds - have been committed.

> Some test to distinguish between
> natural and artificial radiation?

Yes please. That could make a good start. However, such does not seem to have been forthcoming in this and some other matters. We have no 'hot rocks' here. There is a concern in this that is larger for the gem trade than the piddling little specific around which we presently rehearse our arguments. I think the broader issue has some importance.

> Unless you
> tested every existing specimen, you could still
> make the argument that there must or might have
> been some natural specimens from a small pocket,
> and a scammer just exploited this exciting find.

You make a fair point and it is one that has nagged at me for a while. I have a nasty feeling in my water that something like this might be close to the truth.

Proof positive of one fraud quite possibly cannot prove all - but the case, that there may ever have been a mine at all, would become somewhat less credible and the burden of proof of any such existence would become somewhat more imperative. Few issues turn out to be a matter of absolute black or white but, rather, the majority turn out to be one of a near-infinite series of shades of grey.

> How about if the perpetrator of the fraud publicly
> admitted his caper? Would that prove anything?

No. Not without incontrovertible evidence supporting the confession. This is why no one should ever be found builty and sentenced on the basis of a confession alone.

> Based on your well written and cogent arguments, I
> think you could dance around almost any kind of
> "proof".

You play a strong backhand return of service, Paul winking smiley

Logic is the sole certain basis upon WHICH truth can be determined (IMHO). Popes, Grand Muftis and quite a few others may believe differently.... well, let them hold to their beliefs. And argue their cases accordingly.

>? .... I have to admit that I have
> enjoyed reading all this discussion.

I'm warmed to hear this. Taking shared pleasure from such a discussion seems to me to be some very small good just in itself. Should such discussion stimulate critical thought and produce sparks of illumination, then one or more signposts on the very long and winding road to some realisation of truth might be discernible.

> And if one does passionately believe in Tadjiki
> beryls.......well,nothing one says can change the
> mind of a true believer.

Popes.... Grand Muftis.... smileys with beer



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2012 03:29AM by Owen Lewis (2).
Duncan Miller
Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 29, 2012 08:33AM
What would the financial motivation be to turn what may have been quite elegant aquamarine specimens into heliodor? Although heliodor is less common than aquamarine, in the gem trade it generally commands a lower price. Is this not also true in the mineral trade? Or is the supposition that the original crystals may have been more cloudy, or not intensely coloured? I am displaying my ignorance here, in the hopes of some enlightenment.

My interest is that I have three intensely coloured, loose heliodor crystals, bought in the mid-1990s in Tucson as faceting rough, purportedly from Pakistan (with no further detail), and it would be nice to know if they are suspect.
Attachments:
open | download - Heliodor.jpg (382.4 KB)
avatar Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 29, 2012 06:21PM
Duncan Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What would the financial motivation be to turn
> what may have been quite elegant aquamarine
> specimens into heliodor? Although heliodor is
> less common than aquamarine, in the gem trade it
> generally commands a lower price. Is this not
> also true in the mineral trade? Or is the
> supposition that the original crystals may have
> been more cloudy, or not intensely coloured? I am
> displaying my ignorance here, in the hopes of some
> enlightenment.

I think this is a legitimate question which has been asked before and, AFAIK, it remains unanswered. Prima facie, there is no satisfactory economic rationale to perpetrate such a fraud. However (pace Jolyon) let me hypothesise just this once.

Party X comes into possession by illegitimate means of a substantial quantity of good quality Heliodor crystals. Whether treated or untreated is unimportant for the moment. What matters for this scenario is that the supply is illicit. Party X needs to convert the stones into cash. When he takes them to market, his quantity and quality are sufficient to ensure he is asked, probably repeatedly, 'Where are these from?' X cannot say because to do so would likely reveal that his supply was illicit. X may not even know the source locality but is under pressure to say something. So, X offers silence or obfuscation. To give vague and perhaps self-contradictory references to a source locality in one of the most inaccessible and least thoroughly explored parts of the world would be quite unsurprising. In this scenario, some element of deception might be present but there need be no fraud. And 'economy with the realité' is no crime and even still a sought after skill in some professions smiling smiley

This general scenario is not one of my invention. Rather it is one familiar and commonplace throughout history, in the gem trade and other trades too. The trading is often essentially honest, in that the buyer receives in full measure what he is paying for. That something along these lines is at the bottom of the 'Tadjik Heliodor' controversy must be, on balance or probabilities, more likely than a fraud for which, even after 25 years of head-scratching, there is no shred of evidence. At the least, it gives an alternative explanation that fits the facts such as I have come to know.

> My interest is that I have three intensely
> coloured, loose heliodor crystals, bought in the
> mid-1990s in Tucson as faceting rough, purportedly
> from Pakistan (with no further detail), and it
> would be nice to know if they are suspect.

There are a number of finished gemstones, Jade, Emerald, Sapphire and Ruby among them, where some enhancing treatment is so commonplace and sometimes so ancient a practice that it should be anticipated as the normal condition, unless and until skilled and sometimes complex and expensive examination has indicated otherwise. Heliodor seems to have joined this ever-growing group of stones.

Others may be able to inform you more closely on the effect in the collector's trade in mineral specimens. However, with prized specimens fetching into four or even five figures, how can it be entirely unaffected?
avatar Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 29, 2012 06:54PM
Duncan


> What would the financial motivation be to turn what may have been quite elegant aquamarine specimens into heliodor?

Because heliodor specimens are MUCH less common than aquamarine. And tied with an "exotic" locality, far more valuable than the original aquamarine crystal. A dealer could sell the same crystal for 5-10 times more money as a Tadjik heliodor than a Pakistani Aquamarine.


> Although heliodor is less common than aquamarine, in the gem trade it generally commands a lower price

Well, first you're ignoring the clear evidence you've seen in the messages above of bulk treatment of aquamarine into heliodor for the gem market. If it wasn't cost effective - they wouldn't do it!

Secondly, they'd never treat top grade colour aquamarine - it's the paler, less valuable stuff that's converted into our heliodor crystals.

Check with experts in Pakistani minerals, but I'm pretty sure most if not all pakistani heliodor is artificially treated aquamarine.


Owen

>I think this is a legitimate question which has been asked before and, AFAIK, it remains unanswered

The financial question is so obvious it hurts me having to say it yet again, but the Tadjik crystals sold for FAR more than the equivalent pale aquamarines from pakistan do. As I said before, check the replies above, see the traders irraditing stuff today. If there wasn't a profit in it, they wouldn't do it.

And I totally disagree, regardless of motive, to say that a crystal is from country X when it is from country Y in order to sell it (even disregarding that the colour has been artificially changed) is absolutely 100% within the definition of fraud.

There are people who defraud a little by saying something is from mine X when it's from a nearby mine instead - that's still fraud. The only honest way to sell it is to say "It's from area X but I can't say exactly where".

The gem industry is far more forgiving of treatment in general (although again it is clearly fraud when it is not disclosed) - because once it's cut and in a piece of jewellery, it doesn't matter hugely.

But for collectors of minerals, having something claiming to be a yellow beryl from Tadjikistan when in reality it was artificially coloured from a specimen mined in pakistan cannot in any way be seen as anything except a huge fraud.

Jolyon

Jolyon
Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 29, 2012 08:14PM
Given that it is easy and potentially profitable to turn pale aqua into heliodor, should we be suspicious of all heliodor? Does it matter where it is (supposed to be) from? Does the shade of color matter? Price? Association?

I'm not trying to be provocative; I'm just curious. I have two heliodors that I purchased quite cheaply from a dealer that are not as intense orangey-yellow as some shown in the thread above. One has plane faces and has a little muscovite associated, the other is a little etched with no mica. They were both supposed to be from Brazil. I have pale aquas from Pakistan (also purchased cheaply from a different vendor) that are identical except for the color.

I think that beryl and muscovite commonly occur together in many countries (correct me please if I'm wrong), and that plane and etched faces are also widespread (again, correct me). I agree that really dark colors are especially suspect. But from posts above, it seems that paler colors of yellow can also be artifically produced.

Based on this, without digging them from the mine myself, I can't say that my or any other heliodor from (supposedly) any location is natural. Forgetting for the moment the sketchy locality, is this the lesson I should be taking away from this thread?
Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 29, 2012 08:36PM
To go along with my post above, here is a photo that shows the larger one (with frosted faces), 54x7x7mm. At $20 or so, about the same price as I would pay for the pale Paki aqua that may have spawned it. What do you think - enhanced?
Attachments:
open | download - Brazil beryls.JPG (514.8 KB)
avatar Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 29, 2012 09:05PM
> Given that it is easy and potentially profitable to turn pale aqua into heliodor, should we be suspicious of all heliodor?

Yes. We should be suspicious. It's too easy to fake, so you really need to know your stuff to be able to see a heliodor specimen and know that it's natural. There are natural heliodors - for example the Ukranian stuff, but unless you know your stuff you can't be certain.

Unfortunately collectors of gem minerals tend to have the worst time when it comes to trying to avoid fakes.

Tanzanite crystals are frequently treated (general rule of thumb, but even this is not 100% proof - if it's trichroic it's PROBABLY natural, if it's bichroic then on balance of probabilities it's PROBABLY heat-treated)

Blue Topaz - probably irradiated

Many Kunzites - irradiated

and many more...

The Tadjik heliodor is a particular bugbear of mine because not only is it treated without being disclosed, the locality was faked as well.
avatar Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 29, 2012 09:12PM
Owen,

I am not about to get into a logical argument with you, because after reading your posts, I'm pretty sure I'd lose. smiling smiley

The bottom line is, as Tomasz said, people have gone looking for the supposed source and even asked locals, and it does not seem to exist. I have been to the Peshawar market a number of times, and the only Tajik specimens I have seen have been rubies. I have also seen numerous irradiated specimens of pretty much every enhanceable gem species available for sale in that market.

Given that there are "Tajik" beryls that are identical in appearance (color excepted) to Pakistani pieces from multiple Pakistani locations separated by large distances (e.g, the muscovite combinations from Nagar, the albite combos from Shigar), it would seem highly unlikely that a single Tajik location is producing such a wide variety of specimens. I mean, it's possible to narrow down the exact village that many Pakistani specimens (including aquamarines) came from. These places are often very far apart... how is it that one single locality could have produced such a wide variety over such a short interval?

Is there a chance they are real? Sure. Is it a very realistic chance? Not at all. Circumstantial evidence does not prove anything, but it can point heavily to a certain conclusion....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2012 09:12PM by Ibrahim Jameel.
Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 29, 2012 09:19PM
I'm a pretty knowledgeable collector of gem minerals, and what I'm taking from this is that no one can tell for certain. Short of a test or mining them yourself.

Slightly different subject, and I know it has been asked before - what is the difference between faking and enhancement/treating? If a zoisite from Merelani isn't blue/purple before treatment, but is afterwards, does that make it a fake tanzanite? Or is it "treated"?
avatar Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 29, 2012 09:26PM
> what is the difference between faking and enhancement/treating?

Disclosure by the dealer. And not just "if asked".

Sadly, with some gem minerals, some dealers assume that their customers know that they are treated "because they all are" (as I heard from one). With tanzanite, if it's untreated the dealer will usually proudly exclaim it (and charge a lot more).

So, I can't tell you what you should or should not buy, but I wouldn't buy a tanzanite unless it was trichroic (so you can see a prominent red colour when looking down teh axis of the crystal.

Jolyon
avatar Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 29, 2012 11:17PM
Jolyon Ralph Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Owen
>
> >I think this is a legitimate question which has
> been asked before and, AFAIK, it remains
> unanswered
>
> The financial question is so obvious it hurts me
> having to say it yet again, but the Tadjik
> crystals sold for FAR more than the equivalent
> pale aquamarines from pakistan do. As I said
> before, check the replies above, see the traders
> irraditing stuff today. If there wasn't a profit
> in it, they wouldn't do it.

It's not straightforward, Jolyon, in my view.

If Aqua is irradiated into Heliodor and is then, without disclosure, sold at a premium above the price for the same xtls sold as Aqua, then that imay be fraudulent. Prove that has happened and show who committed the fraud and a prosecution case might be 'open and shut'. But we don't begin to have this; only a general certainty that Aqua can be irradiated into Heliodor.

There is an economic motive possible for such a conversion even without a price premium. That would be where there is more Aqua available to the market that it can absorb without dropping the floor price and the market is under-supplied with Heliodor at a price floor approximating to that of Aqua or even a little below. As I understand it, such a change, even undisclosed, is not presently unlawful although I would say that it is unethical and a preach of international and some national gem trade rules.

However, in the specific case of 'Tadjik Heliodor' no case for either has been clearly established. There is a suspicion and no more.

It might help throw more light if you or some other would publish here, chapter and verse for the price premium which might have been fraudulently attained in the 'Tadjik Heliodor' case if conversion from Aqua was proved. My last information (some while ago now) was that an allegation of fraud in excess of USD 1M is sufficient to trigger an FBI investigation.

FWIW, my own little specimen of 'Tadjik Heliodor' on Albite, bought in early 2011, was bought (at auction in the US) at a substantial percentage discount to the price I would have had to pay for a similar specimen of Aqua from the Skardu District of Pakistan.

> And I totally disagree, regardless of motive, to
> say that a crystal is from country X when it is
> from country Y in order to sell it (even
> disregarding that the colour has been artificially
> changed) is absolutely 100% within the definition
> of fraud.

I suggest that you may confuse a matter of ethics with one of law. Neither lying or incomplete disclosure in themselves constitute a fraud. If they did, over one thing or another, most of us would be looking down straight down the barrel of a jail sentence.

> There are people who defraud a little by saying
> something is from mine X when it's from a nearby
> mine instead - that's still fraud.

As a matter of the strict definition of fraud, I disagree.

' Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.'

You think you 'have the horses' for that? Bet or fold....

> The only
> honest way to sell it is to say "It's from area X
> but I can't say exactly where".

And, I agree, that states a sound ethical position.

> The gem industry is far more forgiving of
> treatment in general (although again it is clearly
> fraud when it is not disclosed) - because once
> it's cut and in a piece of jewellery, it doesn't
> matter hugely.

I hold my peace. Others might well disagree with that.

Best,
Owen
avatar Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 30, 2012 12:29AM
Ibrahim Jameel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Owen,
>
> I am not about to get into a logical argument with
> you, because after reading your posts, I'm pretty
> sure I'd lose. smiling smiley

That does not necessarily follow, Ibrahim. In a logical discussion there is never a winner or loser. Neither should be pre-committed to any fixed position or outcome. Both should seek a better understanding of the truth. Where proponents of differing beliefs debate, then one belief system may be felt to have triumphed over the other (and not always because it better represents the truth). A little sad, isn't it?

> The bottom line is, as Tomasz said, people have
> gone looking for the supposed source and even
> asked locals, and it does not seem to exist. I
> have been to the Peshawar market a number of
> times, and the only Tajik specimens I have seen
> have been rubies. I have also seen numerous
> irradiated specimens of pretty much every
> enhanceable gem species available for sale in that
> market.

smiling smiley True I have no doubt. Nor have I anything to add from my time in Islamabad other than that earthquakes in the general area can remove sides from mountains and fill small valleys in a matter of minutes. I was in Islamabad during the quake of 9 Oct 2006. The death toll (in tens of thousands?) has never been known because so many in the Northern fastnesses simply disappeared..

> Given that there are "Tajik" beryls that are
> identical in appearance (color excepted) to
> Pakistani pieces from multiple Pakistani locations
> separated by large distances (e.g, the muscovite
> combinations from Nagar, the albite combos from
> Shigar), it would seem highly unlikely that a
> single Tajik location is producing such a wide
> variety of specimens.

That is very fair comment. The 'Tadjik' items appear in varying colour saturation and are on Albite. Muscovite, Quartz and (ISTR) Calcite and with various inclusions. That raises a concern in me and others may wish to give expert opinion. Then again, no Tadjik mine at all has ever been proved to exist. Nor is it necessary that samples coming different mines did not, some or all, come from north of the Pamir river. I think that no one - least of all me - claims that much truth has been told in respect of 'Tadjik' Heliodor. However, it is also true to say that, whatever suspicions some may have, no evidence of fraud has yet been shown.


> I mean, it's possible to
> narrow down the exact village that many Pakistani
> specimens (including aquamarines) came from.
> These places are often very far apart... how is it
> that one single locality could have produced such
> a wide variety over such a short interval?

Perhaps it did not? But it does not follow then that either some or all of the source locations cannot have been in Tadjikstan.
>
> Is there a chance they are real? Sure. Is it a
> very realistic chance? Not at all.
> Circumstantial evidence does not prove anything,
> but it can point heavily to a certain
> conclusion....

Fair enough. For me there is not (on what I have learned) a large balance of probabilities either way. You may well decide differently. But both of us should have share a certainly that there is no certain evidence (yet) either way and even after 25 years of earnest discussion.

Remember the similar 'expert' pronouncements that Ametrine *must* all result from a heat treatment of Amethyst, all because a proven source of origin had not, at the time, been forthcoming. Well, eventually, the actuality of the Anahi mine eventually became known, Can't remember much humble pie being eaten for those earlier erroneous and over-proud pronouncements though. In the 'Tadjik' matter I say no more than that, on present evidence, we can't be sure.

Who knows, someday the Earth may shake in the Pamirs and other treasures be discovered - or left still unseen by man for a centuries yet to come.

Owen
Re: heliodor from tajikistan
May 30, 2012 12:32AM
Interesting thread.
Owen enjoy your peace, and your piece!
If you ever sell it, say 'It comes w/ a label that says it is from Tajikistan" Then there will be no fraud, or suspicions.
Peace!
Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.
Mineral and/or Locality  
Search Google  
Copyright © Jolyon Ralph and Ida Chau 1993-2014. Site Map. Locality, mineral & photograph data are the copyright of the individuals who submitted them. Site hosted & developed by Jolyon Ralph. Mindat.org is an online information resource dedicated to providing free mineralogical information to all. Mindat relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Mindat does not offer minerals for sale. If you would like to add information to improve the quality of our database, then click here to register.
Current server date and time: November 25, 2014 00:36:05
Mineral and Locality Search
Mineral:
and/or Locality:
Options
Fade toolbar when not in focusFix toolbar to bottom of page
Hide Social Media Links
Slideshow frame delay seconds