Identity HelpIs this Morganite or something else?
Hello experts,
This is again acquired from antique collection, its hardness is more than 7.5 or 8, Beryl and Quartz could not scratch it, its size is good but brittleness is like it fell down from little more than 2 feet height on the floor and broken into 2 pieces from the center, seems to have a good cleavage as well, its S.G taken from the broken piece was 2.77, its inert under LW uv lamp.
Dear experts my guess is Morganite (hexagonal) and if it is taken as Morganite, what these crystal shapes appeared to be massive, pseudo morph or pseudo hexagonal on this cluster/floater are called?
Photos are taken direct under sunlight,
Sorry if the photos are blurred...
Your SG nails morganite.:-) 
It looks more like a piece of amethyst to me. The color concentration of a fairly dark purple color at the top of the crystal is typical for amethyst, not for morganite. It also appears to be a cluster of crystals showing mostly contact faces. These create confusing forms. The crystals also look to have some skeletal growth patters on its prismfaces, again often seen on alpine type amethyst. Together with the crust of iron oxides at the bottom of the main crystal makes morganite unlikely to me.
Just my thoughts.
Peter 
You are right Peter it does look like quartz but what about the hardness and SG? although the tests might not have been done correctly? 
Thanks to Rob Woodside, Peter Slootweg and Reiner Mielke for comments,
As i already have wrote this crystal is broken into 2 pieces means 2 parts the S.G that i have taken is of 2nd picture 2693, in bulk (whole cluster) is 2.77 and the weight of cluster is over 70 grams, not so difficult to take accurate S.G.
And the hardness is exactly as the sharp edge of Beryl cannot scratch it even applying breakable force,
Dear experts why i asked if these crystals were pseudo morph or pseudo hexagonal..... That's revealing! Either quartz as Peter and Reiner suggest or Spodumene, if it does have cleavage lines. Thank you Rob Woodside,
Yes it resembles like Alpine type amethyst as Peter Slootweg said,:-)
from a different view
Despite hardness test, another vote for quartz. I vote for quartz, with a termination of pale amethyst. Thanks to José Zendrera and Susan Robinson for your votes,
And as this voting continues i definitely will have to give in....but before, some different shape of individual crystals perched on this cluster...
to me these are unusual marks on this image but for the experts it might be normal. Quartz as no cleavage lines shown.;-) 
Pictures are getting better :-) I'll go with the pale amethyst lobby. Uneven coloration does not look right for morganite and neither does the the crystal formation in the second batch of pics (good for quartz though).
Something wrong with that SG though. If it were mine, I'd break off a very clean piece of around 3-5 ct and test that using your more accurate SG testing rig. A modest bet that you come up with 2.64 - 2.66. If its still 2.77 then, whatever you have, its not quartz.
If your small chip tests out to 2.65 or very close, you need to re-check your methodology very carefully to find out why your earlier result was so bad.
Got to be one of three things, I think:
1. A heavier SG mineral somewhere inside the piece.
2. A faulty weighing. Always tare the scale before making each and every reading. Test three times and take the average of the three weighings as the one to use (add together and divide total by three).
3. A screwed up calculation. I *always* let the PC do my calculations, keeping a little spreadsheet just for the purpose. Computers don't make mistakes; people do. Thanks to Rob and Owen,
Owen this cluster shows some sort of trigonal looking crystals as well, if could just assume as inter growth of corundum is possibe?
i will retest S.G for confirmation and will report back soon,
Rob here's an image taken backside of the broken part of 2.77 S G cluster,
Do tell me if the cleavage is still missing. I don't see any cleavage or cleavage lines there.:-( Abdul,
What you are seeing is not cleavage but a typical growth habit of quartz.
'Trigonal'. Have to see what you are lokking at to comment sensibly. Quartz can show something like this but the form is not the 60/60/60 trigon formation found on diamond and sometimes on corundum but no equilateral triangle, rather a form approaching an isoscalean triangle. However. on quartz, there are two long sides and one short with one or both of the long sides usually showing a pronounced curve.
Here are two examples in quartz. Frequently - as here - one needs to illuminate at an extreme grazing angle to see the growth forms:
Thank you experts for the comments,
Owen as you already told me, there is no cleavage in Quartz some months ago, i dont know if there will either be good cleavage in Beryl, but, what will you do if a cluster with 2.77 measured S.G is in your hands?
I will take S.G of both clusters now, with making a short video of all process, otherwise i will take photos of both crystals weight in air and immersed in water,
Rob this is another image for you....
Doesn't this zoning looks close to Corundum Owen with perfect triangles? just asking
Rob aren't these looking to be cleavage lines on cleavage planes, or striations, or might be twining or i still could be wrong :-) Ah, use of language... To call something a triangle it must (in a 2-D plane) be a closed figure either three lines meeting and with three internal angles only. More, for a correct triangle, the three internal angles must add up to 180 degrees.
What I think you are showing is a growth feature where adjacent faces meet as a 120 deg internal angle. This is common to many crystals that are trigonal (e.g. quartz and corundum) and also those that are hexagonal (beryl). A perfect hexagon has six faces (2-D) and six internal angles of 120 deg each. It is quite common for trigonal system crystals to take a hexagonal form. Some teach that trigonal is actually a sub-system of the hexagonal sysyem and not a crystal system equally ranking with the others.
To try and shoot Rob's fox for him, Beryl shows imperfect cleavage in one direction only. The cleavage will run parallel to the hexagonal plane (perpendicular to the C-axis (see Read). Here is a pic of apatite (hexagonal) showing imperfect cleavage, one on top where the imperfections can clearly be seem (exaggerated here for effect), the second is further down the crystal and, though even out of focus can be easily spotted by the way some light is tends to be reflected back from the cleavage and is not all transmitted through it. Again, the lamp has been placed to show this effect clearly.
Am sorry Owen, my mistake, and thanks for showing nice specimens
Triangle probably in triangle is right at the bottom of growth/zoning where this growth starts,
Rob, is this cleavage your asking for?
Owen this type of inter grown crystals inside cluster, could be anything, made me ask about corundum.
now all i have to take S.G again as soon as possible The cleavage lines must extend into the xl. These look like growth features and if so will only be on the surface and not extend into the xl.
The fox is dead , Thanks Owen. Rob Woodside said:
> The cleavage lines must extend into the xl. These look like growth features and if so will only be on the surface and not extend into the xl.
Keeping this sentence in mind i don't think i would repeat cleavage mistake again.
As Owen said,
> 1. A heavier SG mineral somewhere inside the piece. could might be,
My scale is working fine so as my calculations....i am here for learning, not for lying or foxing people around here......
That was my first question in this post,
> Dear experts my guess is Morganite (hexagonal) and if it is taken as Morganite, what these crystal shapes appeared to be massive, pseudo morph or pseudo hexagonal on this cluster/floater are called?
but no one replied not a single word about it, nothing about pseudomorph neither pseudohexagonal crystal shapes.....
i studied mineral keeping SG and harness in my mind first, when i could not conclude, i posted in this this forum, just to know if what i have, i was discussing for what was in my mind or what could that possibly be, not tried even to impose it as morganite or anythhing else, anyway, thats it Hello AbdulB,
Nobody said anything about a pseudomorph because there was nothing in the photos which suggested it was a pseudomorph. But you are right we should have addressed that question, sorry. Noone is suggesting you are "lying or foxing people around here" just mistaken, which all of us are from time to time.
