Ammolite testing

[Cave Keeper]

Would just having any of these professional qualifications:-

AGTA
AGL
AIGS
GIA
PGS
GGL
SSEF

mean we can be confident they should be able to authenticate ammolites and appraise their grades?

 

[Richard Sherwood]

I think all of them could authenticate Ammolite, but don't think most of them would give you a quality analysis, with the possible exceptions of AGL and PGS.

It might not be cost effective though. Many of these labs are very pricey.

Who is GGL, by the way?

 

[Cave Keeper]

Oops. The list is a copy of a list found somewhere else in this forum.

 

[Cave Keeper]

----------------
On 8/24/2004 11:46:16 PM Richard Sherwood wrote:
I think all of them could authenticate Ammolite, but don't think most of them would give you a quality analysis, with the possible exceptions of AGL and PGS.
----------------

I wonder how they're going to analyse ammolite triplets, which have the actual ammolite (hardness = 3.5 MOHS) sandwiched between a hard base and a protective quartz or spinel top, without destructive testing?

 

[newenglandgemlab]

I think any well trained gemologist with a loupe should be able to discern if it is an assembled stone. For ammolite the protedtive layer on top is a very good thing. They are very fragile. Most have been treated to stabilize the material. Ammolite is a very attractive stone. The harder layer on top makes it more durable so it can be worn and enjoyed. Cindy

 

[Cave Keeper]

----------------
On 8/28/2004 5:26:54 AM newenglandgemlab wrote:
I think any well trained gemologist with a loupe should be able to discern if it is an assembled stone. For ammolite the protedtive layer on top is a very good thing. They are very fragile. Most have been treated to stabilize the material. Ammolite is a very attractive stone. The harder layer on top makes it more durable so it can be worn and enjoyed. Cindy
----------------

Yes, but would the gemologist be able to authenticate that the ammolite layer in a triplet is genuine in spite of the protective overlying spinel or quartz layer without destructive testing - that was my question.

For example, I buy 10 ammolite triplets from a seller. I wish to test one of them, but do not want the gemologist to cut away the protective top and bottom layers.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 8/28/2004 10:09:44 AM Cave Keeper wrote:

----------------
On 8/28/2004 5:26:54 AM newenglandgemlab wrote:


For example, I buy 10 ammolite triplets from a seller. I wish to test one of them, but do not want the gemologist to cut away the protective top and bottom layers.----------------

Why cut anything? Most (I have not seen the exception yet, but...) would be obvious when seen from the side. All you need to do is tilt it and look closely for the texture of material. The material is layered by itself (described a bit below), but there I no way to confuse the natural structure with backing.

In section, the "walls" of the shell appear to be of a different structure on a thickness of up to 5mm (likely in the vicinity of the former shell) while the center is less compact. The large batch of Canadian specimens I picked mine from looked all the same in section.

I came across ammolite being sold as "unenhanced" (meaning that the matrix was threated but no backing or protective top was applied) at a considerable premium - both solid pieces and some showing the trademark "crackled" surface. Never bought one though aside a whole shell. The upper layer of the fossil that shows play of color is indeed fragile on it.

There is almost no way to get a very large cab off the upper layer of such a fossil (think of cutting a flat piece of the back of a snail shell - the old ones look the same. Good specimens (or the gem-like patches on them) are almost never that large. More over, solid opalescent ammonites seem to be more available than ammolite gems: the fossils are very collectable while the gems, well, have more of a local fame.


This is not very systematic info... I hope this interesting topic would get better service from the Canadian side of this forum

 

[valeria101]

Much of my knowledge of this (very collectable) material comes from a certain small but famous shop in Cambridge

But, here are two links at AGTA and Ammolite.COM that seem to make up a good part of any possible ammolite encyclopedia

The second site shows some less common high grade pieces and sensible grading aside paleontology 101.
Not that I could refrain from posting pictures, as usual:

 

[Cave Keeper]

----------------
On 8/28/2004 8:38:43 PM valeria101 wrote:

----------------
:
There is almost no way to get a very large cab off the upper layer of such a fossil (think of cutting a flat piece of the back of a snail shell - the old ones look the same. Good specimens (or the gem-like patches on them) are almost never that large. More over, solid opalescent ammonites seem to be more available than ammolite gems: the fossils are very collectable while the gems, well, have more of a local fame.
:
----------------

It's illegal to cut the gem off the whole ammonite, at least in the state of Alberta (don't know about the whole of Canada; or whether such law can extend into the States). Anyway, it's a pity to do so the a "whole" fossil when the World will soon be running out of Alberta ammonites.

But I didn't know solid opalscent ammonites seem to be more available than ammolite gems (I assume you're talking only about Alberta ammonites). I've never seen many such Alberta ammonites offered on the Net at any one time in contrasts with the thousand or so ammolite gemstones and jewelry offered during the same period.

From the viewpoint of affordability alone, I would think the gems are more collectable ($15 to $3,000) than the ammonites ($600 to $100,000+) (prices during year 2004). A lady could easily wear most Alberta ammolite pieces, but not whole Alberta ammonites (smallest seen 3 1/2" diameter/maybe 1/2 lb. in weight). If she wanted to wear two split ammonite halves as earings, she'd have to use ammonites from other places, as I don't see (at least on the Net) tiny or small Alberta ammonites (3/4" to 1 1/2" diameter) being offered. Wonder if such tiny Alberta ammonites are offered in Calgary, being near the source?

 

[Cave Keeper]

I love nice shops. Does that shop in Cambridge have a website I could visit?

And how large was that ammonite you showed us? It looks much, much smaller than the two giant-size ammolites next to it.

----------------
On 8/28/2004 9:12:57 PM valeria101 wrote:
Much of my knowledge of this (very collectable) material comes from a certain small but famous shop in Cambridge

:
----------------

 

[valeria101]

The Cam shop is called Moussa (Kings Parade 5, Cambridge, UK)- and they do not seem to have a website.

I am not much of a fossil amateur, so I would not know what the commerce of higher quality ammonites looks like on the net. These are some of the more spectacular fossils that get sold and bought for display. Surely small chips of them would be more wearable, but, for obvious reasona, these finds seem to be more successful competing with other fossils as popular display pieces. Not sure how effective is the Alberta law you mention, but there may be little need for it: amonites are top shelf display objects while ammolite is sort of curio that rarely gets into high end jewelry, as far as I know.

The three pictures came as electronic sources on my HD (see refs.) so I do not know their scale at all.

 

[Cave Keeper]

What special instrument did you use to examine the ammolites? Was it one of those electronic skin/hair beauty aids?
Was it an unprotected natural or a triplet you were examining?

I tried to look at a triplet from the side and the ammolite layer was so thin, my eyeballs almost burst trying to see anything. I tried the naked eye, 10x/15x/20x/30x loupes and still couldn't see much. At no time did the fine layer of ammolite in the triplet look like 5 mm. thick, even after 30x magnification.

When I said destructive testing, I mean cutting away the protective top spinel or quartz layer so that the ammolite layer of a triplet can be properly examined.

----------------
On 8/28/2004 8:38:43 PM valeria101 wrote:

----------------
Why cut anything? Most (I have not seen the exception yet, but...) would be obvious when seen from the side. All you need to do is tilt it and look closely for the texture of material. The material is layered by itself (described a bit below), but there I no way to confuse the natural structure with backing.

In section, the 'walls' of the shell appear to be of a different structure on a thickness of up to 5mm (likely in the vicinity of the former shell) while the center is less compact. The large batch of Canadian specimens I picked mine from looked all the same in section.

I came across ammolite being sold as 'unenhanced' (meaning that the matrix was threated but no backing or protective top was applied) at a considerable premium - both solid pieces and some showing the trademark 'crackled' surface. Never bought one though aside a whole shell. The upper layer of the fossil that shows play of color is indeed fragile on it.
:
----------------

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 8/30/2004 7:49:22 AM Cave Keeper wrote:

Was it one of those electronic skin/hair beauty aids?
----------------

What are those?

I did look at fossils (surface and sections) using a binocular microscope (up to 40X).

My message above wasn't too clear. the respective 5mm refers not to the opalescent layer but at the entire piece of ammolite that is cut away to form a cab - it includes matrix, of course.

Why remove the top layer of the triplet? This may be naive, but it didn't occur to me to take those off. Then, how would you do it? Cutting seems out of question, I would think, since the top layer is times harder than the material below, so following the line of separation with a cutting device does not sound practical. Since I would expect the fossil material to be stabilized before cutting, it will likely be complicated to figure out what chemical treatment may undo the bond between ammolite and spinel without damage. As said, I didn't try.

This may be old fashioned, but buying untreated (=stabilized but not acked) material seems the obvious way. Triplets seem to be made primarily of the lower quality, smaller pieces anyway. Not that they do not look great and exotic, but fine differentiations of the type and degree of enhancement may not pay when "look" and not pedigree is what matters.

 

[Cave Keeper]

----------------
On 8/30/2004 10:53:09 AM valeria101 wrote:

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

On 8/30/2004 7:49:22 AM Cave Keeper wrote:


Was it one of those electronic skin/hair beauty aids?

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

What are those?

I did look at fossils (surface and sections) using a binocular microscope (up to 40X).

My message above wasn't too clear. the respective 5mm refers not to the opalescent layer but at the entire piece of ammolite that is cut away to form a cab - it includes matrix, of course.

Why remove the top layer of the triplet? This may be naive, but it didn't occur to me to take those off. Then, how would you do it? Cutting seems out of question, I would think, since the top layer is times harder than the material below, so following the line of separation with a cutting device does not sound practical. Since I would expect the fossil material to be stabilized before cutting, it will likely be complicated to figure out what chemical treatment may undo the bond between ammolite and spinel without damage. As said, I didn't try.

This may be old fashioned, but buying untreated (=stabilized but not acked) material seems the obvious way. Triplets seem to be made primarily of the lower quality, smaller pieces anyway. Not that they do not look great and exotic, but fine differentiations of the type and degree of enhancement may not pay when 'look' and not pedigree is what matters.

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

It's those pen-like scopes a beautician or hair treatment expert use to pursuade a potential customer to buy a ten-course treatment package by magnifying on a screen the horrible condition of their skin or scalp before treatment.

I read somewhere someone trying to repair an ammolite or opal by cutting off the protective layer; that's why I took for granted it's possible. Now that you've raised the point, maybe it's not possible after all.

So, naturals are the pieces to go for, then. Or, better still, the whole gem-quality ammonite.

 

[lizardback ammonite]

First off alberta is not a state,we are a province.

and as far as i know it is not illegale to cut ammonite gems from a complete ammonite,if this was the case i would have been sent to jail 12 years ago..i have been reading all of these posts and am surprised at how little seems to be known of ammonite,,also the best place to find ammonite is in banff Alberta.rock and gems or freyas gewllery..are good places to look if you want a finished or custom piece also when it comes to little fossils they are quite rare..and the only colorful gem quality ammonite is found here in alberta,,this is why it is such a rare product,,there still is no explanation as to why these ammonites retained or have color,,but the ones that do have color can be spectacular,,

 

[lizardback ammonite]

repairing ammolite triplets as far as i know will never be possible,,the reason is that to make a triplet that will survive any length of time you must cut almost all of the layers off until you have about one layer left,,then a spinel cap is glued down useing jewlers grade epoxy glue,,to me the lack of actual ammonite is what i dont like about triplets,plus the fact that all of the shapes are callibrated sizes and such,i think it is ammonite for the masses,,the natural freeform stones are all different and unique,plus you can see the thickness of what you have,,not every layer of the shell is the same color,so when light hits it ,,the light has to refract of all those layers,this is why you can see so many different colors just by rotateing the stone,,also most natural stones can be repaired, if there was a problem because you most likely have enough layers left unless you chipped it all the way to the bottom layer ,,and even then ,it is still possible to just reshape the piece,i have yet to repair a piece anyhow,.i would have put a few pictures up here to see if i could figure out how,i am still a bit new to the whole computer thing.

 

[valeria101]

Posting for lizard-back: "4 inch fossil with good color"

There will be more comming, I am told, including a one inch piece set in gold and some 4-5 inch ones.

 

[valeria101]

14 and 10 inches...

 

[Albertan]

Just to set the record straight. Alberta is a province and not a state. Also ammolites are fossils and as such are protected. However most gem stones are obvtained from fragments of ammolite fossils and as such are treated and cut before being produced into gemstones for jewellry. If anyone was to find a complete ammonite that had been transformed into ammolitte, they would be crazy to cut it as it would have way more value as a whole, rather than the sum of values of stones that could be created from it. In some instances, full ammonites that have been altered can be sold for a 7 figure amount.

 

[Ammonite.com]

Hello Albertan,

Ammonites and all fossils are covereded under the Historical Resources Act (HRA) which protects fossils from commercial exploitation. However, ammonites and a few other non-vertebrate fossils are under a ministerial exemption from the HRA. They can and are cut up to produce gemstones. In fact Korite could not be in business if that were not so.

It would be nice for us in the ammonite business if we were able to get much more for the complete fossil than for the sum of its parts, but sadly, it is not so.

If you are interested, both Lizard Back Ammonite and ourselves would be happy to sell you a complete Blue Zone Ammonite covered in thick AAA grade Ammolite for an amount in the high 5 fiqures and you then can sell it at 7 figures.

If you want to run any more of your ammonite theories by us, please do. Both Lizard Back and myself have been in the ammonite industry exclusively for over 16 years.