Green facetted stones

A visitor to the chat area requested that this picture be posted in an effort to determine the material that these stones are composed of.

The material is putatively from Hiddenite NC. Visitor stated that the material was "heavy" and that the original stone size weighed 260 grams. No data on optical properties, density, hardness etc are available.

Dear Daniel;
Pics on faceted stone, ESPECIALLY w/light shining through, are near useless; EXTRA especially on a MINERAL forum, which isn't a LAPIDARY forum. You're asking plumbers about how to construct a swimming pool, just bcs we both deal w/water. I'll TRY to help; bt, from what I see, your friend (whose observation about the "material was "heavy" and that the original stone size weighed 260 grams" (no size given, so, that was useless info; "heavy" is in the eye of ONLY the beholder!) state no VOLUME, which gives us an idea of density. From what I can glean off the pic (having the rough means nothing, either), your friend has some fine pressed glass. Things that hint at it: color centering in each stone, w/most having rays to each corner; common w/cooling glass. Next: polished girdle; rarely done in stone w/ANY class.
Something else I can tell you: that stone may have been BOUGHT at Hiddenite; but, it never ORIGINATED at Hiddenite.
One more thing:if the material was PUTATIVELY from Hiddenite (implying X didn't collect it, himself), did X also CUT them? Or were they already cut & X was TOLD the original material was PUTATIVELY X weight? Everything smells about this one; query your friend closer about this. Bear in mind that in a POPULAR tourist area w/LOTS of free cash floating around, noone would EVER expect a scam to be pulled. Just CAN'T be done (yeah, right!).
hope this helps.
Your friend, Steve

Hi Daniel. Get someone to take an RI reading using a refractometer, then post it. But there is something decidely fishy with those cut stones, ie. they are too clear with no inclusions whatsoever, this could point towards synthetic stones??? Spencer.

Dear Steve:

If you will re-read my initial post, you will note that the person asking the question is not "a friend". Or, for that matter, even a nodding acquaintance.

As I stated, the person was simply a visitor to the chat area who could not figure out how to post photos to the forum. I do not know this person and I have no interest in knowing this person. I have not seen the stones and have no interest in seeing the stones. Had this person been a friend, I would have already flipped one of the stones onto the Berman balance, measured its refractive index, and determined whether or not it was isotropic, uniaxial, or biaxial. The use of the qualifier “putatively" refers to the simple fact that I was not present to witness the “discovery" and therefore cannot vouch for it. Your "something else I can tell you" should be directed to to the owner of the facetted fish-tank gravel, not me.

Parenthetically, the job of the lapidary is to cut gem materials... it is the task of the gemologist to determine what the material is composed of. I personally feel that the best way to start with the identification of a fine gem is to take a hammer and smash the gem into fragments, then powder some for XRD – keeping aside a few small shards for examining its optical properties on my spindle stage under the pol scope.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2007 04:00PM by Daniel Russell.

Dear Daniel;
You are thousand % correct on all you mentioned; it is I who missed those points in your posting. LOL on your analysis method; I LIKE that! Somehow, I thought that you chatting w/this person was personal, therefore friend to friend; didn't even think about this forum's chatroom. Most sorry.
Your friend, Steve

Looks like "sprite" emeralds to me

I agree based on the photo and info provided, it is most likely glass. As Spencer noted they are too clean, and a rough stone large enough to cut all those would be very expensive it if were truly hiddenite. The only other natural material that would be plausible, I think, would be tourmaline (not from local source). Natural emerald would be full of inclusions. They would be uncommonly large and expensive for tsavorite. Chrome diopside would have better refraction. If it was Moldavite they would sell it as Moldavite as that already is an entrenched marketing item, but even that is really a type of glass too. So by process of elimination, my bet would be glass as it would be the only thing that would make sense and be affordable in such a large quantity, available to tourists. Just my opinion.

regards,
stephanie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2012 03:25PM by Stephanie Martin.