Talk:Gemstone

What about opal?

---

Contents

1 Number of stones 2 Precious stones? 3 hmm... 4 Gemstones as Colored Stones

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)

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.