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

PhotosRose Quartz - L'Argentolle, Saint-Prix, Saint-Léger-sous-Beuvray, Saône-et-Loire, Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, France

30th Jul 2019 12:01 UTCDale Foster Manager

Quartz

L'Argentolle, Saint-Prix, Autun, Saône-et-Loire, Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, France

Uploaded by Pascal Ollic

I would be inclined to say it looks more like quartz with a light coating of iron oxide giving a pinkish tint rather than true rose quartz.

30th Jul 2019 12:46 UTCWayne Corwin

I'd say you're right on with that Dale.

30th Jul 2019 13:17 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Agreee

30th Jul 2019 13:19 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Fixed

30th Jul 2019 15:02 UTCCecil Cosse

What needed fixing? Was something wrong?

Cecil

30th Jul 2019 19:10 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert

It's really easy to distinguish "true rose quartz" from other quartz varieties:

It withstands heat of up to 500°C with no observable change in color and has been found to pale much quicker than amethyst or smoky quartz at temperatures around 200°C. There are conflicting reports on its sensitivity to visible and UV light with most sources denying effects of light while it is well established that it will pale very quickly under UV radiation and is extremely light sensitive. It never occurs in crystals and never occurs massive.

A few notes on its properties: The pink color is caused by color centers with Al and P apparently replacing Si, and the fibrous nature of the colorizing agent may cause asterism, so good crystals are transparent and clear. Gamma irradiation will cause the formation of pink color centers, so under artificial irradiation specimens may turn gray and the color may be obfuscated. Its non-existing crystals often show peculiar surface patterns on the rhombohedral faces, in particular not on massive specimens. Because of its color, rose quartz is very popular in beads and cabochons although its sensitivity to light makes it completely unsuitable for lapidary uses. Not to be forgotten: it always forms crystals and is always massive.

But I agree that the photo does not show pink quartz, and is colored by hematite.

30th Jul 2019 19:31 UTCRoger Ericksen 🌟

Thank you Amir. Now I know everything?

30th Jul 2019 20:09 UTCKevin Hean

Amir C. Akhavan Wrote:

> sensitive. It never occurs in crystals and never occurs massive.

>Not to be forgotten: it always forms crystals and is always massive.

Hi Amir,

The above statements contradict each other

I am obviously reading them out of context, where am I going wrong?

30th Jul 2019 20:25 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert

https://www.mindat.org/min-3456.html

31st Jul 2019 00:13 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert

Maybe I should have explained my point more explicitly.

It is easy to distinguish pink quartz from other varieties, although it is unfortunately a destructive test.

But it is somewhat silly to discuss approval of such photos or the id of the specimen as long as there is a single oxymoronic definition for two varieties on mindat.

The hogwash I wrote is just what is behind the term "rose quartz" on mindat, and it is contradictory to you but not to mindat.

I have tried to make it clear on the "rose quartz" page that these are in fact two very distinguished and distinguishable varieties.

But that doesn't help with localities, associations and all that goes with it. If locality x lists "rose quartz", you don't know what that means.

And if the common denominator is just the color, as some suggest, it makes no sense to say the specimen on the photo is not "rose quartz".

BTW, I've sent the photographer a P.M. a week ago suggesting to test the specimen by trying to bleach a small sample (which won't work with hematite as a color agent). But I don't feel like I can send out a formal complaint as long as the definition is as self-contradictory as it is now.

31st Jul 2019 17:06 UTCKevin Hean

Oh well you certainly caught me for a poephol :-)

31st Jul 2019 18:02 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

I agree completely with Amir. Massive "rose quartz" and crystallized "rose quartz" are such very different beasts, with such different properties, that by putting both of their descriptions on the same page on Mindat, nothing but confusion is created. Long ago a mineralogist suggested using the name rose quartz only for the common massive material colored by submicroscopic fibers of a mineral similar to dumortierite, and using the name pink quartz for the other variety, the one often referred to as "rose quartz crystals". But anyway, before discussing whether a specimen is or is not rose quartz, we have to specify which definition of "rose quartz" we are talking about. And quartz colored pink by hematite inclusions, "strawberry quartz", pink eisenkiesel, and similar variations on the theme are of course yet a third unrelated beast.

31st Jul 2019 19:56 UTCRoger Ericksen 🌟

I grew up collecting the pegmatites of Bedford NY before there was much development of the quarries. I still know where there is a beautifully exposed Rose Quartz core in the woods behind some houses on a dead end street. I came to see Rose Quartz as a very distinct variety that no matter what pegmatite it came, from New York to Maine, It showed some degree of asterism when polished. At the time, the common knowledge was that this was included Rutile. What this meant to me was that these Rose Quartz cores were single massive crystals. Then I saw Rose Quartz crystals (now sometimes called pink quartz) for the first time in Al Hazards showroom in Danbury Ct. Crystals that I bought later, as they became more available showed no sign of asterism.

Most of what I learned about the subject since then has come from Amir's Quartz page and other reading. Amir, i do not think your post was hogwash. I thought it beautifully illuminated a situation where 2 distinct varieties ,with different modes of formation and composition, get lumped together, it makes it difficult to explain to someone with a freshly found lump or crystal of pinkish iron stained quartz, that it is not Rose Quartz.

5th Aug 2019 09:09 UTCDale Foster Manager

Cecil Cosse Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

What needed fixing? Was something wrong?

Cecil

The photograph had initially been uploaded as Rose Quartz. Looking at it it looks rather more like iron stained quartz.

6th Aug 2019 09:17 UTCCecil Cosse

Dale,

Thanks for the explanation! I wish others would have explained a while back. Glad you did, though.

Cecil

6th Aug 2019 11:54 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Remember, mindat.org is not the varietal name police.

Although there is logic in saying "pink quartz" = crystalline rose-coloured quartz and "rose quartz" = massive quartz coloured pink by borosilicate fibres, this isn't how the name is used.

A search on minfind shows dealers exclusively selling the crystalline material as rose quartz. Even museum displays I've seen recently have the material labelled as rose quartz.

So, feel free to label them however you wish, but if we want to avoid confusion, we use the varietal names the same way that everyone else is using them, and unfortunately those two materials are coming under the same name.

It makes sense in that it's a descriptor of 'rose coloured quartz', The original use of the name didn't specify HOW the colouration needed to be made. Just as we now have Emerald with either Chromium or Vanadium as the chromophor, the method that creates the pink colour isn't implicit in the name itself because the name predates any discovery of the cause of the colouration by a long way.

So this is why the name 'rose quartz' is used for both phases on mindat.

6th Aug 2019 12:32 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert

It doesn't help that rose or pink are words equally used for colors. It is common in English to have terms that are composed of two words.

It is reasonable and luckily common practise in science to adapt terminology to growing and changing knowledge.

And it is very common to do that in mineralogy - minerals get discredited and their names get changed.

Nobody will keep terminology out of respect for "tradition" (or common use) - that would simply be inexcusable and anti-scientific.

The fact that every dealer does it wrong now doesn't mean anything - they will adapt just as they have in the past.

And one has to start at some point - we should have done that earlier.

This unwillingness to adapt language and instead continue to confuse and also to make it impossible to make statements about associations or paragenesis is simply beyond me.

6th Aug 2019 17:55 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager

Amir C. Akhavan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And it is very common to do that in mineralogy -

> minerals get discredited and their names get

> changed.

> Nobody will keep terminology out of respect for

> "tradition" (or common use) - that would simply be

> inexcusable and anti-scientific.

Ha Ha... tell that to the people who kept augite and omphacite as minerals, and who kept actinolite as a mineral and made its Mg/(Mg+Fe²⁺) boundary with tremolite at 0.9 when its boundary with ferro-actinolite is at 0.5 (or for that matter, why the latter isn't "ferro-tremolite" when they went and standardized the names of most, but not all, of the other amphiboles [there are other such examples too]... not once, but two or three times just in the last 20 years). I understand the reasonings, but tradition is certainly alive and well in our science. If rose and pink quartz are or get engrained in the terminology, they will likely live on forever.

6th Aug 2019 18:08 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert

> tell that to the people who kept augite and omphacite as minerals ...

O.k. if this is bad do you suggest to keep doing the bad thing and refuse to do the right?

Arguing by tradition in sience is against its very spirit.

6th Aug 2019 18:19 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager

Hi Amir... no, I agree with you. I was just pointing out that mineralogists don't do such a good job when it comes to eschewing "tradition" over even their own consistency.

6th Aug 2019 18:35 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

The problem here, Amir, is that you are trying to assign scientific rules to what is, at best, a trade name for quartz.

We have a danger here. Let's say that we define rose quartz as quartz that is coloured by borosilicate fibre inclusions. That's fine, except that's now confusing because a whole ton of stuff is labelled as 'rose quartz' and, by our new definition, isn't.

We could argue that the distinction between the two varieties is so important that they need different names. But I think the rose quartz/ pink quartz method of doing this is the wrong approach.

We have to accept that the name 'rose quartz' has been used for both. Whether we like it or not, that name has been defined by the community who use it, and although we could shout as loud as we want, we're not going to change peoples' views (especially when 'rose quartz' may be a more marketable name than 'pink quartz'!)

So, if we're trying to find names for them, we need to abandon trying to redefine 'rose quartz' and leave that as the name for all.

We then would need two NEW names, one for the crystalline and one for the massive material.

One could say that in this particular case, the morphology itself is enough to divide them. The colour is almost identical so calling one 'rose' and one 'pink' is itself misleading as it suggests a colour distinction that doesn't exist.

So, we could say that the names:

Massive rose quartz

Crystalline rose quartz

would be accurate and descriptive names for the two materials. yes, it's possible that there are massive pieces of the crystalline material - so I leave it as an exercise to you all to propose two better names for the two varieties of rose quartz.

6th Aug 2019 18:50 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Mindat could have some influence in such matters. We could be leaders, rather than followers of "tradition".

6th Aug 2019 19:04 UTCKevin Conroy Manager

Amen, Alfredo. While Mindat is at it, how about a push back for "Endlichite" instead of that tongue-twister name?

6th Aug 2019 19:08 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

> Mindat could have some influence in such matters. We could be leaders, rather than followers of "tradition".

Absolutely. That's why we've abolished the names 'cuproadamite' (= either adamite or, most often, zincolivenite) and 'cobaltian adamite' (= pretty pure adamite)

But I haven't yet seen a proposal for the naming of Rose Quartz that I think would be accepted within the wider community. There's no point doing something if people won't use it.

6th Aug 2019 19:18 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

But I haven't yet seen a proposal for the naming of Rose Quartz that I think would be accepted within the wider community. There's no point doing something if people won't use it.

That‘s circular reasoning. People won‘t use it because it hasn‘t been proposed, and we won‘t propose it because people won‘t use it.

Actually the definition of "pink quartz" as opposed to "rose quartz" has been proposed in the mineralogical literature before. (First came to my attention in a paper published by Dr Hidemichi Hori, but I think Amir has other references too.) Needs wider publication, which should be done by us, since no one else is doing it.

We won‘t get any flack from the gem industry, because their material would remain "rose quartz" as before. The specimens called Pink Quartz are of no interest to the powerful gem lobby.

6th Aug 2019 19:20 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

But as I've said before, the name 'pink quartz' has been rejected by the dealer/collector community who insist on keeping the name 'rose quartz'.

Plus, there is essentially no difference in colour between the two, so having two different names with two different colour descriptors is highly misleading.

So. Good try with 'pink quartz', but it hasn't worked and we need to try something new.

6th Aug 2019 19:23 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

> That‘s circular reasoning. People won‘t use it because it hasn‘t been proposed,

But that's exactly the point, it was proposed, but it wasn't accepted by the community.

I'm waiting for new ideas.

6th Aug 2019 19:34 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

The proposals were too obscure to be widely known, so it just needs wider distribution, which is Mindat‘s forte. We could start by separating the current contradictory descriptions on Mindat into two separate pages.

Unlike the case of V- and Cr-colored emeralds, which only a professional can distinguish, the two types of pink quartz have different physical properties (reactions to heat and light, for example), so there‘s more point to separating them. I would not suggest making separate pages for V- and Cr-colored emeralds - sufficient to just mention on the Emerald page that the color can come from Cr or V or both together.

6th Aug 2019 22:02 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

I have no problems with dividing things and us pushing an alternative name but I can tell you right now the name 'pink quartz' is wrong and I won't support it.

It is essentially a synonym of rose quartz. Rose quartz is called rose quartz because it is pink. Adding 'pink quartz' as a name for something that is the same colour, but different in other properties, is just nonsense!

If you're going to distinguish it with different names, the different names need a descriptive term that is not related to colour to distinguish them.

If there were more of the crystalline rose quartz available I'm sure it would have been given a splendid trade name by now such as Rose Crystal Quartz. But there isn't, so it hasn't.

6th Aug 2019 23:38 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert

It can't be a synonym, because that means another name for the same thing which it isn't.

Using the term synonymously is factually an error since the 1990s.

That it wasn't "accepted by the community" is in large part mindat's fault - the naming proposals are from the 1990s and 2000 - that's not that long ago.

There's nothing "wrong" about the name.

I don't think it is necessary to make up arbitrary constraints on the naming.

Color in the name is fine.

It is simply a matter of getting used to it.

German collectors got used to the two terms Rosenquarz and Rosaquarz, which is even closer in sound.

When I first heard the English pronounciation of "pyrite" and "baryte" I didn't even get what it was about because it was 50 miles off the "original" Greek and it sounded to me as if the speaker had left the school at eleven. But eventually I got used to it and it doesn't sound as distorted and stupid to my ears as it did.

Same with "pink quartz", initially I was scratching my head, but now it's just a term as any other.

7th Aug 2019 00:00 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert

I just saw the earlier post.

I do not agree we need two new names, and this is also not generally done with minerals.

Rose quartz was said to never occur in crystals and suddenly "rose quartz in crystals" appeared. So the first name stays with the old material, and the new stuff needs a new name because it is not what people thought it is.

The "community" uses the names synonymously because they don't know better.

So the confusion caused by splitting the varieties is not a danger, it is a good thing.

If we see any value in educating people about minerals and help them with their research I can't see any justification in the fact that renaming seems inconvenient to some dealers.

Renaming stuff has always been inconvenient to dealers and collectors (including myself, it is annoying, yes), nothing new.

But this kind of traditionalism is simply counter productive.

It's really remarkable that the discussion is not about the fact that the varieties are very different, because there's nothing to discuss, it's just a plain and boring fact.

It's all about "feelings".

7th Aug 2019 00:30 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

I disagree with your comments Amir.

> Using the term synonymously is factually an error since the 1990s.

Only if you are using your own definition of 'rose quartz' to specifically exclude quartz coloured in a similar way by a different method. When the name 'rose quartz' was invented the method of colour was unknown, it was simply a variety defined by colour. The new crystalline rose quartz fits into this colour definition perfectly, so there is no need to call it anything else.

> There's nothing "wrong" about the name. I don't think it is necessary to make up arbitrary constraints on the naming. Color in the name is fine.

I cannot disagree more! If you are going to propose a new name to try to clear up a confusion, you do not do so by making it even more confusing!

> German collectors got used to the two terms Rosenquarz and Rosaquarz, which is even closer in sound.

The fact that in German it's even more confusing is not a reason to make it confusing in English!

> So the confusion caused by splitting the varieties is not a danger, it is a good thing.

So, at least you accept it will be confusing!

> If we see any value in educating people about minerals and help them with their research I can't see any justification in the fact that renaming seems inconvenient to some dealers.

We are talking here about varietal names. There is no IMA to define them. Is it our role to define names and to push the community to use them? Possibly! I'm not opposed to us taking a stand and saying these names should change.

But if this is going to work we need a MUCH better idea than rose quartz / pink quartz.

Over to you.

7th Aug 2019 00:32 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

And why is it such a big problem to call them all 'rose quartz'?

It's clear that rose quartz crystals are one thing, and rose quartz massive is another. We even explain this as such on the rose quartz page.

From a collector perspective this is a non-issue.

From a scientific point of view, there is of course a difference, and that's why I'd like to see new names for the two phases, but with "rose quartz" as the parent name that covers all (so all different types of rose quartz photos are shown when viewing the rose quartz page).

7th Aug 2019 00:47 UTCErin Delventhal Manager

So if I can just butt in to give my two cents here: I see a lot of logic to both sides of this debate.

I think the current terminology is wildly confusing, and I agree that mindat can and arguably should be the entity to try to fix problems like this.

I also very much see the point that perhaps the proposed names don't really solve the confusion because they are too similar.

Having said that, can we all take a deep breath and consider finding a solution we can all be happy with: namely, can we find another set of names that better clarify the difference?

Another advantage to coining new terms is that there is no confusion with the usage of the older terms, which makes moving forward so much easier since we're not trying to rectify what's been done in the past.

7th Aug 2019 08:01 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Perhaps an analogy with Opal makes sense here.

Opal is opal regardless of the internal structure (or lack of one).

Rather than try to redefine the name 'Opal' and give other names (eg 'hyalite') to things that were previously called Opal, a decision was made to split Opal with suffixes which allows the name 'Opal' to be retained for the whole group of amorphous silica materials.

Perhaps such names could be derived for rose quartz varieties. It's not as elegant as 'pink quartz' but we're not trying to sell it as a marketing name but as a descriptive name that accurately describes the difference between the two phases (which is why I am so adamant that the names rose quartz / pink quartz are so bad) and allows the term 'rose quartz' to be retained for the entirety of the rose/pink quartz family of materials.

For example:

Rose-Quartz-(fBSi) - for rose quartz coloured by fibres of a borosilicate mineral

Rose-Quartz-(cAlP) - for rose quartz with colour centers induced by Al and P 'Pink Quartz (of Hori)' would be a synonym of this.

This naming structure also allows for expansion should any other rose/pink quartzes be discovered in the future.

Note that traditionally Rose Quartz is not hyphenated, but it would need to be in this case. I do not expect dealers to start labelling their crystalline specimens as 'Rose-Quartz-(cAlP)', but then they really don't need to. It's important for us to make a distinction here within the database and within locality lists.

Don't like that suggestion? I don't blame you, it's not that elegant.

Here's a second:

Based on a quick literature search (using google scholar) we see that the name pink quartz hasn't been widely adopted. The names that are most frequently used are

massive rose quartz

Goreva, J. S., Ma, C., & Rossman, G. R. (2001). Fibrous nanoinclusions in massive rose quartz: The origin of rose coloration. American Mineralogist, 86(4), 466-472.

Ma, C., Goreva, J. S., & Rossman, G. R. (2002). Fibrous nanoinclusions in massive rose quartz: HRTEM and AEM investigations. American Mineralogist, 87(2-3), 269-276.

Cohen, A. J. (1985). Amethyst color in quartz, the result of radiation protection involving iron. American Mineralogist, 70(11-12), 1180-1185.

Cohen, A. J., & Makar, L. N. (1985). Dynamic biaxial absorption spectra of Ti 3+ and Fe 2+ in a natural rose quartz crystal. Mineralogical Magazine, 49(354), 709-715.

Balitsky, V. S., Makhina, I. B., Prygov, V. I., Mar'in, A. A., EMELCHENKO, A. G., Fritsch, E., ... & Shigley, J. E. (1998). Russian synthetic pink quartz. Gems & Gemology, 34(1), 34-43.

Hosaka, M., Miyata, T., Shimizu, Y., & Okuyama, O. (1986). Synthesis of rose-quartz crystal. Journal of crystal growth, 78(3), 561-562.

Hori, H. (2001). Nomenclature of quartz color variations--pink and rose. Mineralogical Record, 32(1), 42. (yes, even here!)

Cassedanne, J. P., & Roditi, M. (1991). Crystallized and massive rose quartz deposits in Brazil. Journal of Gemmology, 22(5), 273-286.

Sørensen, B. E., & Larsen, R. B. (2009). Coupled trace element mobilisation and strain softening in quartz during retrograde fluid infiltration in dry granulite protoliths. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 157(2), 147.

Scholz, R., Chaves, M. L., Krambrock, K., Pinheiro, M. V., Barreto, S. B., & de Menezes, M. G. (2012). Brazilian quartz deposits with special emphasis on gemstone quartz and its color treatment. In Quartz: Deposits, Mineralogy and Analytics (pp. 139-159). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

etc. etc. etc. Quite conclusive.

The crystalline form of rose quartz has two different names that have been used within the scientific literature

rose quartz crystal

Cohen, A. J., & Makar, L. N. (1985). Dynamic biaxial absorption spectra of Ti 3+ and Fe 2+ in a natural rose quartz crystal. Mineralogical Magazine, 49(354), 709-715.

Wright, P. M., Weil, J. A., Buch, T., & Anderson, J. H. (1963). Titanium colour centres in rose quartz. Nature, 197(4864), 246.

Halliburton, L. E., Perlson, B. D., Weeks, R. A., Weil, J. A., & Wintersgill, M. C. (1979). EPR study of the E′ 4 center in α-quartz. Solid State Communications, 30(9), 575-579.

Hosaka, M., Miyata, T., Shimizu, Y., & Okuyama, O. (1986). Synthesis of rose-quartz crystal. Journal of crystal growth, 78(3), 561-562.

Weil, J. A. (1993). A review of the EPR spectroscopy of the point defects in α-quartz: the decade 1982–1992. In The Physics and Chemistry of SiO2 and the Si-SiO2 Interface 2 (pp. 131-144). Springer, Boston, MA.

Leyderman, A., Weil, J. A., & Williams, J. A. S. (1985). Generation of paramagnetic centres in crystalline quartz by ultraviolet irradiation. Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids, 46(4), 519-522.

etc. etc.

or

crystalline rose quartz

Kibar, R., Garcia-Guinea, J., Cetin, A., Selvi, S., Karal, T., & Can, N. (2007). Luminescent, optical and color properties of natural rose quartz. Radiation Measurements, 42(10), 1610-1617.

Choong, S. P. (1945). Coloration and luminescence produced by radium rays in the different varieties of quartz, and some optic properties of these varieties. Proceedings of the Physical Society, 57(1), 49.

Bailey, P., & Weil, J. A. (1991). EPR study of the [SiO4/Li] 0 centre in α-quartz. Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions, 87(19), 3143-3146.

Ernstson, K. Pink quartz-a new, meteorite impact-related origin? Part 1: Observations and first hypothesis of formation. - impact-structures.com (seems to be a bit 'out there'!)

London, D. (2018). Reading Pegmatites: Part 4—What Quartz and Feldspars Say. Rocks & Minerals, 93(4), 320-336.

I dislike the name 'crystalline rose quartz' because it could imply that the other form is amorphous.

Oh, and when searching for pink quartz we find the term is used confusingly in the scientific literature for the massive variety, the crystalline variety, and even for other forms of pink-coloured quartz (such as quartz coloured by hematite inclusions) which we haven't even thought about.

Based on prevailing scientific usage, I would therefore propose that Rose Quartz be a family name which is subdivided into Massive Rose Quartz and Rose Quartz Crystal

7th Aug 2019 08:14 UTCErin Delventhal Manager

I think your proposal to handle it similarly to opal is logical, though I think the names could be simplified.

The second proposition is more like a description than a name.

7th Aug 2019 08:19 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert

Before I take a deep breath...

Jolyon, you seem to (willfully) miss the point of using proper terminology and refuse to improve things.

"Confusion" about a change of names is o.k. - changing habits is always uncomfortable.

Confusion about not knowing what one's talking about is not o.k. That is the problem here.

Using one word for two things in one context is simply an error if done innocently and malicious if done on purpose, nothing else. In particular when photo ids get "approved".

Following your "color based variety" suggestion one will have to include hematite colored quartz as rose quartz as well, and you didn't seem to like that, judging from an earlier posting.

Proper naming does count to me as a collector. Collectors want to know what things are (what is it physically, why is it so, etc.) and they want to put a correct label on things - it's crazy to use a contradictory term for a that.

In particular when it is about the locality, then things must be split up.

Rose quartz does not occur in Galiléa.

If it is really a non-issue for collectors, then there can't be much "damage" by changing the name, why do we even discuss this and not just do what we should and split the variety and choose the names proposed?

If it is an issue, then it should be fixed immediately, because proper naming counts to collectors for the reasons giving above.

Chosing a name....

It is much better to use something that has been proposed by somebody else and simply use that with a reference - no need to defend your choice, it's common practise.

Rose quartz is used for decoration etc. and not just put in a drawer or showcase like pink quartz. This name should be kept for what it has been used for in the past two centuries.

7th Aug 2019 08:37 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

> Jolyon, you seem to (willfully) miss the point of using proper terminology and refuse to improve things.

Amir, I think you are stuck in a rut here. You are so convinced that the Hori suggestion from 2001 is the only option that you are not actually listening to what I am saying. I am clearly *trying* to improve things, and if I wasn't trying I would simply accept the 'pink quartz' argument and be done with it.

> It is much better to use something that has been proposed by somebody else and simply use that with a reference

Except the name 'pink quartz' is already in common use in the scientific literature essentially as a synonym of rose quartz (but also including the hematite-included varieties) Hori made a mistake. He should not have proposed the name 'pink quartz'. The proposal was made but was, essentially, ignored. If the proposal had been a good one then I would support it, but it wasn't. Sorry, but that's true, and this is why no-one other than you is really campaigning for the name.

The pink quartz adds to the confusion, it doesn't reduce it. When we add information from scientific papers and the term 'pink quartz' appears, what will get added to mindat? The wrong information, that's what.

The terms Massive Rose Quartz and Rose Quartz Crystal have the advantage of being unambiguous and, more to the point, are already in general use within the scientific community. They are also compatible with names dealers and collectors are already using.

I quite like the opal naming analogy, but that would be a much harder one to encourage people to start using.

Please, please stop with the 'pink quartz' campaign, because it's failed - neither the collector nor the scientific community have adopted it in the 18 years since it has been proposed. It's dead.

7th Aug 2019 09:18 UTCFrank K. Mazdab 🌟 Manager

Amir C. Akhavan Manager

Hori didn't make a mistake, he was pointing out a problem and suggested something to fix this.

I think it was a mistake because of the obvious confusion that both 'rose quartz' and 'pink quartz' have been used to describe the same material in the literature for at least a hundred years. It was right to draw attention to the difference and start the discussion about choosing names, but clearly if it hasn't stuck after 18 years it's not going to.

As I said before, it's been proposed, and ignored. If I felt there was merit in the name I would be the first one campaigning to get it more widely accepted, but I can't in all sincerity back a name which I think is a terrible choice (for the reasons I've said)

7th Aug 2019 21:13 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Excellent question, Frank!

7th Aug 2019 22:11 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert

As explained before several times using something as a synonym base on anerroneous assumption is an error.

Hori didn't make a mistake, he was pointing out a problem and suggested something to fix this.

If these kinds of proposals are called a mistake, that's the end of scientific dispute.

That names have been used before doesn't mean they are burnt for further use. Look at what happened to petrology and how many terms have changed their meaning.

My priorities in this matter are simple:

1. split !

2. find a name. Yes, I do suggest pink quartz and I don't find it any more stupid than red beryl, for example. Just as red beryl, it is simple and easy to remember and associate. But I've even thought about "rosa quartz" ;-)

The terms "massive rose quartz" and "rose quartz crystal" do suggest that "massive" and "crystal" are two possible attributes of the same thing, which is not the case. And that is not very helpful and very confusing.

As to Frank's question I can only say that the initial assumption that rose quartz is colored by rutile is base on EPR spectra that pointed to Ti. I don't know all the details of these old studies. And yes, rose quartz can be quite blueish.

It is very easy to test if some pale amethyst (or potentially non-amethyst) has the same or similar cause of color as rose quartz: you just heat it up.

If it pales: no, end of the story.

But if the color is stable, it could be a lot of things, hematite, or borosilicates with Fe-Ti, or simply some other finely dispersed material. Then you need a "real lab" to figure it out.

7th Aug 2019 22:19 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Amir C. Akhavan Manager

Hori didn't make a mistake, he was pointing out a problem and suggested something to fix this.

7th Aug 2019 22:42 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

The problem with using a name like "Rose Crystal Quartz" or "Rose Quartz Crystal" is that it might be found in massive form some day, and then what? (There aren‘t many minerals that are always found as crystals and never anhedral.) So I‘m almost inclined to prefer something as ugly as a "-(cAlP)" suffix rather than imply that a variety must of necessity appear as crystals.

7th Aug 2019 22:50 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Based on our rules, the names Rose Quartz Crystal and Massive Rose Quartz are already in widespread use in the literature, so we should add these for now as the sub-varietal names.

This doesn't mean the discussion is over, and if a new nomenclature is justified then we should certainly consider writing it up and promoting it.

9th Aug 2019 19:22 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert

Very Good.This will finally make it possible to search for localities and paragenetic associations independently for both varieties.

Of course I do not agree on the "widespread use" reason because the terms "crystal" and "massive" are used and understood as attributes of one thing. And as Alfredo pointed out, it has other problems.It is a first step.

Anyway, I just want to add a final point to this discussion, which may also be related to other minerals and varieties:It is ideed an interesting question why Hori's proposal is largely ignored. When you check Mineralienatlas, you will find that they do distinguish both varieties and use two different names for them (Rosenquarz and Rosaquarz) as "official names". There's no formal approval system and so no additional pressure to adapt terminology to changes in knowledge, and I doubt many have a copy of Hori's article, or have heard even of it, yet they do it.

Even if some of my photos and figures have been used, this has nothing to with me and I had zero influence on this decision and have not made any proposals to change anything.

So why is it that Mineralienatlas and German, Swiss and Austrian quartz collectors are 30 years ahead in their quartz terminology?Because the last comprehensive book on quartz in English is from 1962 (Frondel). Swiss author Rudolf Rykart published two books on quartz, the last edition of the second book has been published in 1995. It doesn't contain X-ray diffraction data, but from a collector's perspective it is much more comprehensive than the old Frondel. And of course it is much more up to date on many things than the 1962 book. Although it is slowly coming of age, it's still *the* reference for German speaking quartz collectors.

Such a book is of much greater influence than some article in Mineralogical Record.For example, the names used for Dauphiné, Tessin, Muzo or Cipo habits all came to worldwide use through this one book, directly or indirectly. The terminology has not been invented by the author, it was taken from other articles or picked up in Strahler's circles. All these habit and growth form names would not be well-known if they had just been published in dozens of different articles.There are still many German dealers and many collectors that use the term Rosenquarz sloppily, but quartz collectors usually observe that Rose vs. Rosa distinction and use different names.

The other reason for the lag in English terminology is of course mindat itself, conserving the rose quartz terminology and information (and that of many other varieties) in the state of the 1970s/80s. And you will forgive for saying this, if it wasn't for that German guy who got interested in the topic through that Rykart book and worked on many of the variety pages and the mindat quartz page, these would still be much worse and outdated.

BTW, I have much more sympathy for someone who doesn't want to name a mineral or variety after a pop singer than someone who's worried about dealers' labels ;-)

9th Aug 2019 21:56 UTCCecil Cosse

As your basic, run-of-the-mill, mineral collector, this all seems a lot of spent words about nothing really important. I'm just stating my two cents worth.

Cecil Cosse'

9th Aug 2019 22:43 UTCMartin Rich Expert

Amir, I'm sure you know the content of Rykart's book. He is explaining the difference between Rosenquarz and Rosaquarz and his words make sense to me.

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: May 9, 2024 23:42:31

Go to top of page