Talk:Gemstone

Rarity listing?

Is it possible to create a list depicting the relative rarity of each mentioned gemstone? I'm no expert on the subject, but that was one thing that seemed missing from my view as a reader. Krushia 20:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This could be problematic because new gemstone finds occur regularly and old mines close down and the relative rarity shifts so the list would have to be updated all the time. LukenessSA 20:57, 28 August 2010

Number of stones

"There is a large number of semi-precious stones".

How "large" as of late twentieth century? If precise number is not known, how about an order? In the 20s? 50s? 200s? 800s? --Menchi 23:36, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

I'd say one would be looking in the hundreds. Many stones have a semi-precious form that has, at one time or another, been used as a gemstone. For instance, ribbon chert has been used as a semi-precious gem; coral is occasionally used; and taaffeite is a quite rare stone that is prized particularly by collectors. Obsidian, some forms of flint, zoisite, et cetera, et cetera. I don't think there is a definitive list. thefamouseccles 04:37 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Oh boy. This question isn't one which lends itself to a convenient answer. To even begin, we'd have to define a few terms. I'd like to point out that the term "semi-precious" is discouraged and no longer used, as the current attitude is, "all gems are precious!" (I'll edit the main article at some point.) thefamouseccles is otherwise on the right track, in that there is no definitive figure.

By traditional defintion, a gem material possess the following qualities: beauty, durability, rarity, and acceptability. You couldn't get very far by using this as a guide, however, because there are so many idiosyncratic contradictions. For example, tanzanite (blue/purple zoisite) is certainly beautiful, rare, and acceptable. However, it's not very durable, being no more resistant to abrasion than typical window glass. Needless to say, "beauty" and "acceptability" cannot be defined either, so.. so much for that.

I can say that there are 50 gem species (including organics and not including intraspecies varieties) commonly used as gems, and these are what a gemmologist focuses upon. However, if you include the obscure collector's species, such as the aforementioned taaffeite and even stranger stones like manganotantalite, you'd have well over 200 species. This does not include the myriad artificial products used as gems, which are considered gem materials. An exact total can't be stated, the list continuing to grow annually as new "gemmy" deposits of previously unacceptable material are discovered.

Well, I've rambled enough. I'm unsure how I should tackle the current article, but I do know that I'll be doing something with it, soon. I do hope I've helped. Hadal 15:53, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Great info. You don't have to tackle the article once for all and somehow polish it instantly to perfection. Incorporate/better 3 or 4 facts/factoids at a time. If you feel like it, start a new article, however stubby it may be! Have fun! --Menchi (Talk)â 16:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Precious stones?

Nowadays, all gems are considered "precious,"

I really question this statement. From all the books and articles that I read on this topic, only 4 kinds of stones are considered precious by the professionals. If you based your statement on how amateur people called their merchandises on eBay, then please say so in the article. Kowloonese 01:40, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Then take it from a professional who wouldn't dream of writing content based on eBay auctions. The term "semi-precious" is outmoded and is now discouraged and frowned upon by us professional types. Oh, and you're wrong; the four cardinal gems arose through ecclesiastical use rather than the whims of the buying public. Back then, you'd pretty much have to be part of the church or with good connections to one in order to possess fine jewels.

These days, even a paste (glass) brooch can command a higher price than a diamond ring, if it's an antique with a proven provenance. I was at an auction preview a few weeks ago and one of the most expensive items at offer was an old bloodstone (that's a kind of cryptocrystalline quartz) box. There are simply too many variables to be drawing lines between what's precious and what's not. -- Hadal 01:50, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thought "precious stone" is a special jargon used by the fine jewelry industry as a classification terminology. You were only equating "precious" to "expensive". By the same logic, an ancient one-of-a-kind bronze coin can be called "precious metal" too. But any scientist will object to such change of definition. I hope the people in the GIA agree with you. Not that I don't believe you, but would you mind giving more details about this change of definition. When was it redefined? Who was the authority of such change? Is it supported by any publication from world recognized gemological organization? Kowloonese 07:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not that you don't believe me? Such a careful qualifier, after you insulted me earlier. Ebay indeed.

As for what "precious" equates to, what exactly were you equating it to? Seems you thought it meant expensive (or worth cherishing) too; most people do. I don't know what branch of science you specialize in, but definitions change all the time; your implication that me and my contemporaries are not true scientists is quite egregious. (Pointless rebuttal: many people still use the term micron when they should be using micrometre, but that doesn't make the former usage correct nor does the change to the latter make the scientists somehow subpar.) Your note about the coin bolsters my position rather than dismantles it, if you hadn't noticed; if a coin can be thought more precious than a diamond, surely you see how the distinction between semi-precious and precious is a false dichotomy.

The terms were in use long before there was this monolithic industry you seem to have in mind. As for the GIA, yes, they do; I've graduated from both the Canadian Gemmological Association and the Gemmological Association of Great Britain. While the former is not as prestigious as the GIA, the latter is considered the best of the best; it was also the first gemmological institution in the world. If you want a cite, check out the Preliminary course notes from the Gemmological Association of Great Britain, section one, page six.

As stated on that page: "It is better simply to consider all such gem materials under the the general terms 'gem' or 'gemstone'. The term 'semi-precious' lacks useful meaning and is misleading." It is, as I said before, an outmoded term. You still see it used occasionally— oddly enough on *cough* eBay auctions and in questionable "consumer guides". I could assume these are the sources you're working from, but that would be insulting, wouldn't it? -- Hadal 14:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hadal, please don't be so quick to assume bad faith in editors; bear in mind that Kowloonese didn't know what your qualifications were or what the basis of your edits were when he asked questions about them here; that was the point of asking in the first place. I don't see anything particularly insulting in what was said, just honest skepticism, so IMO "firing back" is only going to escalate tempers needlessly.

In any event, if there's differences in terminology usage between different large groups of people then the article should simply mention both usages and what contexts they're found in. Bryan 15:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't see where I've assumed bad faith, though I do see where it's been seriously suggested that I used eBay as a source or that, after stating that I was a professional, I did not hold a view common to a "world recognized gemological organization". My qualifications are on my userpage; no, they're not from the GIA, but to say they are the final authority would be American-centric (not that anyone has said so exactly, but "I hope the GIA agrees with you"? Hmm..).

Anyway, you're right. While what I read was offensive to me, I hereby apologise to Kowloonese for my harshness. This is why I don't often edit subjects within my field; I can get overly protective of "the truth". ;)

As for the terminology, I'll try to find time to write up a section defining a few sticky terms such as the one at question, if people feel it would be helpful. I've not seen "semi-precious" used much within the last few years, aside from the aforementioned eBay auctions and questionable guides, online jewellery stores, and the world of QVC and other shopping channels. I know that Birks (sort of the Canadian answer to Tiffany's) does not use the term; I'd be surprised if Tiffany does. Like any recently (~10 years) discouraged term, you'll still find its adherents. -- Hadal 17:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are a professional gemologist, I am just a layman. I believed what you said. I just wanted to clarify if this term is just arbituary opinions among the professionals or it is an official definition. Even your later quote only outmoded the term "semi-precious" and reassured that everything can be considered gemstones. But it does not explicitly outmoded the term "precious stone". My layman understanding is that "precious stone", "precious gemstones" and "gemstones" are not the same terminology. Since the old definition of "precious stone" is the same as "cardinal gemstones", so when you said all gemstones are precious, it sounded like all gemstones are cardinal, hence all my questions. It was not meant to be an insult when I asked those questions. I just wanted to know the history of the terminology change. Kowloonese 19:54, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I believe I've figured out where the major disconnect is in this exchange. When you read "precious stones", precious = gem, stones = stones. When I read "precious stones", precious = cardinal, stones is abbreviation of gemstones. When I read "semi-precious stones", semi-precious = non-cardinal, stones = gemstones. When you read "semi-precious stones", semi-precious = semi-gem, stones = stones. If these terms are jargons, they must have definition. If these terms are just English, they are up for interpretation because English language is always ambiguous. Kowloonese 20:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

hmm...

I fiddled and juggled a bit :-) - now has a TOC.
Surely if all gems are considered precious there must be some subclassification - that is a real wide spectrum. Diamond and a tumbled agate are both equally precious? Seems there should be a dividing line somewhere. Also, the article is in need of a good reference section. I can add a couple, but won't cover it all. Maybe also add an image of faceted gems to go with (and balance) the good image of tumbled stones. -Vsmith 19:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The traditional D,S,R,E is the line between precious/semi-precious. As has been boted the gem has moved against this dilineation see 'What is the difference between precious and semi-precious gemstones ? ' for instance. I know from working in an AGS store, that the AGS also will not make this dilineation, and the GIA certainly would not. This all makes great fodder for article content that is meaningful to the reader. We need quality references for this. The AGTA ref above is great as they are leading authority on colored gemstones. Other refs would be good also. SauliH 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't precious defined by what a person believes? What I mean to say is, you are the one who defines the so called preciousness of an object, for example a widow might consider a picture of her husband more precious than a diamond ring. So going back onto the term of gems, preciousness kind of comes with the time of the definition, so to say that if you were trying to define a precious stone in ancient rome bloodstone (thought to help during battle, and heal wounds) would most likely be more precious than say diamonds. So really what would be needed would be research into what is bought, or priced higher at the moment seeing as monetary value is really the only thing that can be factually defined.

Gemstones as Colored Stones

As a Graduate Gemologist of the GIA I was instructed to refer to gemstones in general as "Colored Stones." Indeed, the academic certificate from the Institute refers to proficiency in "Colored Stones and Gem Identification." Another certificate refers to the successful completion of the course in "Colored Stone Grading." I hope that this clarifies the accepted gemological designation of Gemstones being Colored Stones doing away with the old convention of "Precious and Semi-Precious." As an example, a fine Paraiba Tourmaline is vastly more expensive than a dead-looking green Sapphire. What was historically thought of being "Precious and Semi-Precious," carries little weight today in the valuation of gemstones. I hope that this information is useful for all concerned.````

I have to point out that in the preceding paragraph, the phrase "As an example, a fine Paraiba Tourmaline is vastly more expensive than a dead-looking green Sapphire" is something of a sophistry, and begs the question. One should compare like with like, so the real question (which may still shed some light on the "precious/semi-precious" controversy) is the following: Would the finest tourmaline command as high a price as the finest sapphire? I think not. (Added by Brian Allgar on September 13th 2006)

Courses on Gemstones

I recently picked up Gemstone as a hobby and hopefully turn this into a business later on. Is there any courses that teaches Gemstones?

Regards Sharon

This page is to discuss the article.Mapetite526 17:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Schools accredited by the Gemological Institute of America (GIA) —Dogears 19:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-precious

The term "semi-precious" exists in old reference books, so a sentence to address the topic in the article can help to disambiguate - such as including the text from above into the article - the term "semi-precious" is discouraged and no longer used, as the current attitude is, "all gems are precious. "Clear"ly there's a difference in stones that are hard enough to be facetted and opaque stones that are formed into cabochons.

Yes, I think there should be a little bit more about this. Stores still refer to them as precious and semi-precious here in the states. How about a little section called "Precious vs. Semi-Precious"? -- Mapetite526 20:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - Recommend adding a section in the article describing the many varieties of heat treatment to stones to alter their appearance and value (refer to the recent article printed in The New Yorker sometime in October 2006 about African gemstones). —Dogears (talk • contribs) 19:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have added a section describing the many different treatments commonly applied to gemstones. I may add more about reconstituted and assembled gems such as with turquiose and amber, which are commonly reassembled. -- Mapetite526 20:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Gemstones and Jewellery???

Would anyone else be interested in a WP for this subject. I see a lot of holes that could use expansion. Anyone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SauliH (talk • contribs) 17:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

    
I wish I had the time to tackle a project like this.  For any one who is interested and has the time, please be sure to use these great (trustworthy) resources.  

International Colored Gemstone Association - http://www.gemstone.org/gem-tips/ask_03_00-semi.html Gemological Institute of America - http://www.gia.edu/ Jewelry Infromation Center - http://www.jic.org/ Jewelers Vigilance Committee - http://www.jvclegal.org/ Gemological Association of Great Britain - http://www.gem-a.info/education/educationIndex.htm --Gemtrainer 16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rhodochrosite

This page mentions that Rhodochrosite is too fragile to be used in jewelry, etc., but then the Rhodochrosite page says it is used in jewelry. Anyone knowledgeable (I'm not) about the subject want to clear the issue up please? Thanks! -Yupik 09:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Rhodochrosite is in fact used for jewelry (I am wearing some, in the form of a beaded necklace at the moment). While it is quite soft (meaning easily scratched) and not very tough (meaning it will chip) many gemstones, which are not at all durable are frequently used for jewelry purposes. The key is to know how to properly handle and care for delicate pieces. --Gemtrainer 15:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)gemtrainer

WHAT HAPPENED?!!

Where did everything go? The entire page is gone! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.74.35.9 (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Just sad vandalism, the page is easy to restore from the History log - Adrian Pingstone 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why So Many Capitals?

Should All The Words Like Sapphire, Ruby And Emerald Be Capitalized Throughout As They Are? Is That The Norm? PseudoEdit 21:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Metaphysics?

Perhaps there should be a section on the metaphysical properties of gems, even if it's just for the sake of helping this article to be 'well-rounded'. If not here, then for the individual stone pages. Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.101.28 (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The information you're talking about does exist at Charmstone. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In line with what has been suggested above, it would be useful if the metaphyscal aspect of gemstones also called "Ratnagarbhas", well documented in Hindu scriputres and astrological treatises, is also made a part of this artcle or could invite pepole to wrtite on this aspect. Insertd by User: Nvvchar, 22nd Decemebr 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.100.252 (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

semiprecious

there is no difference now between precious and semiprecious stones?

there is not a broad consensus for that. it is one user's OR.

while yes sometimes semiprecious stones in jewelry outsell precious ones IF the former have significant known historical value, that does not end the overall distinction. an amber ring owned by marie antionette of course will outsell a modern low-grade diamond solitaire --but only because of the provenance-value. remove the historical context and the settings and sell the stones alone and we'll see which stone is worth more.

i could just as well point to silver outselling gold (as might happen if an authenticated ancient greek silver coin with provenance is compared to the sale price of a generic modern piece of bullion gold) but it does not lead to a sweeping assertion like silver is worth as much as gold.

a 10kt moonstone is going to outsell a 10kt diamond? really? not unless that moonstone is on a roman or maybe renaissance era mounting where the history adds to the value. there a few high-value modern pieces made of base material, but generally only because of high collector interest in the designer or in the era (certain art deco and art nouveau specimens).

also

the 'sources' listed in the lede's first sentence are weak: one link to a dictionary generally (not a specific entry therein) and one link to a bead-necklace maker's guidebook. this article needs work of many fronts, but especially on sourcing and on getting rid of that precious=semiprecious OR theme. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Crystal?

There seems to be no discussion of to what extent gemstones are single-crystals or polycrystals. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC).

Who, where, and how are gemstones found?

Some important sections to this article are missing that should answer the following questions: Where are gemstones found? And how are they found? And by whom? Currently this article dose talk about the commercial aspects of refining gemstones into jewelry, but no mention of the processes leading up to that. If someone with more knowledge on the topic could add a section or two on the history of humans acquiring gemstones (including the present), that would help to round out this page. Also there is no talk about the political and economic role that gemstones have played and continue to play in world affairs.(eg. the California Gold Rush, European imperial expansion, etc). A section on this topic would make this article a more comprehensive source of information.

Oh wow really (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

They are mined at countless locations around the world. Gold is not a gemstone, though South Africa diamonds are. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

"Fake minerals" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fake minerals. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

New pic in section "colors" in need of description

I have just added an image with seven semiprecious stones. It would be nice if someone who has the knowledge could add the types of the gemstones to the image caption. Pittigrilli (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2023 and 15 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tahliafarr, ChloejWard (article contribs). Peer reviewers: WanderingAurora, Yaatch.

— Assignment last updated by ChloejWard (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is a good site for an addition of environmental issues and child labor from mining. [1] If the student doesn't add a section to the article I will. Sectionworker (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2024 and 10 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NeuroBlast100 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Frances Mamman.

— Assignment last updated by Spencerladner (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)