Oyo Valley Red Tourmaline

[PrecisionGem]

But the whole argument makes no sense, since treated red tourmaline sells for the same price as untreated. You may not like a treated stone, but there is no difference in the price. So even if I were to dig up a piece that was not treated, since as you pointed out I can not prove it's untreated, it sells for the same price as treated material. There is not risk involved anywhere since there is no premium for the untreated stone, nor any discount for the treated stone.

 

[T L]

But the whole argument makes no sense, since treated red tourmaline sells for the same price as untreated. You may not like a treated stone, but there is no difference in the price. So even if I were to dig up a piece that was not treated, since as you pointed out I can not prove it's untreated, it sells for the same price as treated material. There is not risk involved anywhere since there is no premium for the untreated stone, nor any discount for the treated stone.

You know what, just because the "Guide" states that, I don't have to agree with it. Guide prices can also change, and I am particularly sad to know that vendors are protecting their own best interests, rather than the consumer's, by this fact. I personally think that relying on a "guide" instead of doing your own research (as a consumer) is a big mistake. If one day that treatment does become detectable, those irradiated tourmalines will not be worth as much as the non-treated ones. Why take a chance ? I'm not saying never buy red tourmaline, but if you do, don't pay too much, and understand the fact that it could be irradiated. Honestly, I don't think your prices are so high that people should avoid buying it from you personally Gene. However, if I see some for sale for a substantial amount, I would personally not advise buying it. I also don't think vendors should buy this material, unless they get it cheap and sell it cheap, but again JMO.

I guess we'll have to "agree to disagree" on this one Gene.

Here's an irradiated stone from Richard Homer. Just wanted to show another example of this material. It looks very expensive, and could be confused with Nigerian untreated and highly saturated material.

http://www.webgraphicsengineering.com/Gemstones/detail.cfm?zNum=6284

ETA: I just found out there are irradiation facilities in South Africa. They're not just in South America.

 

[chrono]

Just throwing some food for thought out there; what do you think will happen when the major labs find a way to detect irradiation for tourmalines that is easy and inexpensive to test? Will the price of red tourmalines take a nose dive or stay stable, regardless of treatment? Will there now be a distinguishing price difference between a treated and non treated tourmaline? Obviously, the answer is quite clear.

 

[GemFever]

The color of the Richard Homer stone looks kind of like a tourmaline I got off GemSelect about a year ago:

http://www.gemselect.com/tourmaline/tourmaline-287239.php

The color is very cool. I remember thinking "no way is this untreated," but the description said "Treatment: None" so I got it. Glad it wasn't expensive. I wonder, would I have bought it if it said "irradiated"? No way. But now that I already have it... I think I'll appreciate it as a novelty item Plus, there is a chance it's untreated, right? I'll never know

 

[PrecisionGem]

If you are buying any gem stone with the idea that someday you will sell it, chances are you are going to loose money. Now if you are buying a stone to enjoy, and if the fear that it may have possibly been treated takes you joy away, then don't buy.

As far as pricing goes, I don't just go by "The Guide". In two weeks I'll be going to the biggest gem show on earth and looking at prices there. I'll see if I can find any distinction between treated and untreated tourmaline prices. But then you wouldn't trust anyone that that the stone isn't treated, so maybe there is no point.

As far as your advice to only buy red tourmaline if it's cheap, that's not an option. It's never cheap. The only cheaper material will be a brownish red color that cuts a muddy stone, and even then it won't be cheap. Good color is never cheap, and the best color is always very expensive.

So what would you feel would be a proper price for a nice red tourmaline of say 2 cts.? Assume the stone is being sold as untreated, but you don't trust that, so for you assume it's treated.

 

[mastercutgems]

TL; I do understand your logic on this and I was going to write a long winded thing yesterday and I hit a hot-key that did some funky stuff to explorer... Ooops...

But to get back to the issue of treated red tourmaline; I know they have been playing with this stuff for the last 8 years or more; more-than-likely more ... Gene is right; usually the red with brown secondary makes a butt-ugly gem that you can barely give away and the rough is still costly as when they try to sell it to you they highlight the red side and say " oh you can cut it with straight ends and the brown will not show" yea right and then you will not find a jeweler that will set it... So much for that logic... I personally do not invest in the red tourmaline for that measure; I have old Brazilian material from Cruzeiro and Moro Redondo; but nothing that has come out in the last 10 years just for that reason as I do not like dealing with nuked material. My choice, my money... not to say it is wrong; just my choice.

TL I agree to a large point that I really do not want to invest heavily in a treatment I am not fond of; even though nature ground radiation is possible; not to that degree; heat is okay; but if nothing else heat sounds better than "nuked" ...

I am sure they ( the Labs ) in time will find a method of determining red tourmaline or any other color through isotope bombardment trailing, etc. to say yes or nay to this deli ma. Until then; if I like a red tourmaline I would buy it with the notion it may have been nuked; we are living in a time where no one really trusts anyone; and I agree Gene that I too have stood beside the miner in knee deep crap and know they did not send it anywhere to be treated; but you have to remember that is us standing there not the consumer; they were not standing beside us; so they too are having to take someones word for it...

Gene; I never think about losing money when I buy a stone, cut or rough ??? I know many of us cutters do not have the luxury of having another job; so this is how we make a living. I know many on this forum who have bought and resold gems at a profit; so I do not understand your logic here Gene as I have heard you make this statement more than once ??? I am confused; do you do this as a charity thing? If so that is great; but I do it to feed my family.


So whether it be a red tourmaline or a red spinel we do our best to test everything and also buy from what we consider a tried and tested vendor that we have not found to be a liar or misrepresent the gem rough they sell... Most of us that take this serious buy very expensive test equipment that will get us closer to making sure what we sell is what we think it is. Then if the client wants a independent certificate; we will send it to the lab and find out what they think.


I do not get thin-skinned as I know it is a trust thing and I have also sent things to accredited labs and they got it wrong... But that is why we have more than one lab.

TL buy what you like and warn all others of what might be out there; Gene do not take it personally as TL does have some good points and so do you as we know some things others do not when it comes to our sources.

This is not meant to hurt, or tick-off anyone; but I see both sides of this issue.

Most Respectfully;

Dana M. Reynolds, csmg

 

[Michael_E]

But the whole argument makes no sense, since treated red tourmaline sells for the same price as untreated. You may not like a treated stone, but there is no difference in the price. So even if I were to dig up a piece that was not treated, since as you pointed out I can not prove it's untreated, it sells for the same price as treated material. There is not risk involved anywhere since there is no premium for the untreated stone, nor any discount for the treated stone.

However, if I see some for sale for a substantial amount, I would personally not advise buying it. I also don't think vendors should buy this material, unless they get it cheap and sell it cheap, but again JMO..

Hmm, if you can't tell if a material has been irradiated, then don't buy any of it? I don't think so TL. If the material is of good color, then I would be willing to buy it all day long and sell it for whatever margin that I need to make the deal work. Since this forum is one of the few places where anyone cares about this treatment, (or most other treatments...assuming that we are NOT talking about multi-thousand dollar pieces), then it is well worth cutting treated pieces just to get the colors that people want.

The funny thing about discussing price when talking about treated materials, is that it always comes back to future values. Unfortunately, unless the stones being purchased are large, very expensive stones, there is little future value for them regardless of treatment. IMO the comments on this forum regarding treatments tend to make people overly concerned about treated stones at price levels under $1000 or so , as anything in that range can be assumed to have little secondary value anyway and so the buyer in that range should be more concerned with buying for color and beauty, not some hypothetical future value which will never materialize.

 

[chrono]

I buy (and I'm sure many others buy) gemstones with the purpose of personal enjoyment, not to resell or future value. That said, it would bother me greatly that something I purchased for over a thousand dollars, as an example, end up being worth pennies because I didn't realize it has been irradiated. If I wanted a nuked stone, then why would/should I spend over a thousand dollars for it in the first place?

 

[T L]

But the whole argument makes no sense, since treated red tourmaline sells for the same price as untreated. You may not like a treated stone, but there is no difference in the price. So even if I were to dig up a piece that was not treated, since as you pointed out I can not prove it's untreated, it sells for the same price as treated material. There is not risk involved anywhere since there is no premium for the untreated stone, nor any discount for the treated stone.

However, if I see some for sale for a substantial amount, I would personally not advise buying it. I also don't think vendors should buy this material, unless they get it cheap and sell it cheap, but again JMO..

Hmm, if you can't tell if a material has been irradiated, then don't buy any of it? I don't think so TL.

Michael, if you clearly read my comments above, you would have seen that I didn't say that people should never buy red tourmaline, but they should buy it at inexpensive prices, and assume it has been irradiated. I don't think people should buy red tourmaline if it commands a great deal of money.

 

[T L]

But the whole argument makes no sense, since treated red tourmaline sells for the same price as untreated. You may not like a treated stone, but there is no difference in the price. So even if I were to dig up a piece that was not treated, since as you pointed out I can not prove it's untreated, it sells for the same price as treated material. There is not risk involved anywhere since there is no premium for the untreated stone, nor any discount for the treated stone.

However, if I see some for sale for a substantial amount, I would personally not advise buying it. I also don't think vendors should buy this material, unless they get it cheap and sell it cheap, but again JMO..

Hmm, if you can't tell if a material has been irradiated, then don't buy any of it? I don't think so TL. If the material is of good color, then I would be willing to buy it all day long and sell it for whatever margin that I need to make the deal work. Since this forum is one of the few places where anyone cares about this treatment, (or most other treatments...assuming that we are NOT talking about multi-thousand dollar pieces), then it is well worth cutting treated pieces just to get the colors that people want.

The funny thing about discussing price when talking about treated materials, is that it always comes back to future values. Unfortunately, unless the stones being purchased are large, very expensive stones, there is little future value for them regardless of treatment. IMO the comments on this forum regarding treatments tend to make people overly concerned about treated stones at price levels under $1000 or so , as anything in that range can be assumed to have little secondary value anyway and so the buyer in that range should be more concerned with buying for color and beauty, not some hypothetical future value which will never materialize.

Um, I also said in my earlier comments, that I never advise people to get lab reports on inexpensive stones, or stones that are commonly untreated. For example, I would never tell someone, "oh go get a lab report on that rhodolite garnet." Come on, that's ridiculous. I do care if the stone is expensive, and I also think corundum is a special case as there are so many kinds of treatments on it, that if people want true peace of mind, they should send it out.

 

[T L]

TL I agree to a large point that I really do not want to invest heavily in a treatment I am not fond of; even though nature ground radiation is possible; not to that degree; heat is okay; but if nothing else heat sounds better than "nuked" ...

I agree, and that's why I also posted Jeff Graham's thoughts on the subject of heating vs. irradiation on the first page of this discussion. Thanks.

 

[GemFever]

I would agree that the majority of people outside this forum don't care about treatments (or don't know about them or care to find out).

It's also true that the majority of the stones we buy we will not really have any resale value. But for me, there is something magical about having a natural stone that came out of the earth the way it did. Gentle heat I can probably live with, but irradiation... it's just not the same stone anymore, to me. I guess it all comes down to a personal choice.

Also... from http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/irradiated-gemstones.html

"Irradiated gemstones fall under the NRC's regulatory jurisdiction because the process of enhancing the stones' color – through bombardment with either neutrons or electrons – can make the gems slightly radioactive. After irradiation, the stones are typically set aside for a couple of months to allow any radioactivity to decay. NRC requires that the initial distribution of these stones be by a distributor licensed by the NRC. This distributor would conduct radiological surveys of each batch of gemstones to ensure that any residual radioactivity falls below regulatory limits. After the initial distribution, the stones would no longer be regulated – in other words, subsequent distributors, jewelers, other retailers and consumers do not need to be licensed."

The paragraph says the stones are safe... but I personally have a "yikes!" gut reaction. But again, that's my personal preference.

- Anya

 

[T L]

I would agree that the majority of people outside this forum don't care about treatments (or don't know about them or care to find out).

It's probably the latter, and the sad thing is that many people have sentimental pieces that they paid a fortune for, which are not worth that much. I'm sorry, perhaps some gems do not have secondary market value, but for collectors, and gem afficionados, treatment is a big deal. Most of the people that post on this forum are quite intelligent about gems, and do care deeply about treatments, and for those that don't, they are made aware of it by others that take their time out to tell them about it on this forum. It happens all the time here, and I applaud those consumers that do help novice consumers in that arena.

 

[Arcadian]

I see both sides to this.

but at the same time, I think it IS important that people know what their buying, irregardless of how much it is. This is a consumer board, and while I think things can sometimes get blown out of proportion, I also feel that knowledge is power. its up to the individual that buys.

I still buy tourmaline because I think they're pretty. But I also buy with full knowledge of what is available to know at the moment, and buy from those whom I feel are as forthright about their material as they can be. That means, those that know their supply chain, and, those that if a mistake is made, they do whatever possible to make it right with their customer.

That to me, as a consumer is very very important. Not so much the mistake, but how the vendor handles the aftermath with the customer.

I've gotten to be very discerning of who I purchase from specially because I don't want to spend a lot of money on a heavily treated stone, but I think that anyone who wants to be sure they get a good stone for the money feels the same way.

I do what I can to educate myself and to make sure I buy from the best possible source for the best possible price. Thats what this forum is about. I think this is all anyone can do. I do agree with Gene that there has to be trust somewhere. If anyone is so distrustful of where their gems come from or distrusts a vendor, then don't buy from that source.

I for one don't have a problem that TL has said what she said not buying tourmaline for herself. Its her opinion and personal decision to not buy it, based upon the data that is out there at the moment. But I will say that I do know that certain varieties are not cheap, treated or not, nor should there be any perpetuation of that fact. Knowledge of treatments puts the ball in the buyers hands and it gives a buyer information they can use to decide whether or not they want to buy a stone based on known scientific data. For some buyers really not always about pretty.

Now by the same token you're not going to find perfect pariba blue tourmaline for 10/ct because that's just not feasible. If its that low it likely is glass; if real is extremely desaturated or has enough inclusions that it mars the look of the stone. For reds depending on what is known about them and their source, they also don't come cheap.

If the person purchasing is a purist and they have high exacting standards for their personal collections, tourmalines and quite a few other stones that could be treated without detection are stones they should avoid until testing standards has caught up with treatments.

To me its a pretty simple solution. Buy what you like based on known data, buy within reason, buy what you like. Gemstones are really not a good investment tool nor should a person sink their money into them thinking they would be.


-A

 

[T L]

If you are buying any gem stone with the idea that someday you will sell it, chances are you are going to loose money. Now if you are buying a stone to enjoy, and if the fear that it may have possibly been treated takes you joy away, then don't buy.

As far as pricing goes, I don't just go by "The Guide". In two weeks I'll be going to the biggest gem show on earth and looking at prices there. I'll see if I can find any distinction between treated and untreated tourmaline prices. But then you wouldn't trust anyone that that the stone isn't treated, so maybe there is no point.

As far as your advice to only buy red tourmaline if it's cheap, that's not an option. It's never cheap. The only cheaper material will be a brownish red color that cuts a muddy stone, and even then it won't be cheap. Good color is never cheap, and the best color is always very expensive.

So what would you feel would be a proper price for a nice red tourmaline of say 2 cts.? Assume the stone is being sold as untreated, but you don't trust that, so for you assume it's treated.

If it were not precision cut (as I know there is a cutting premium), I personally would not pay more than $100 for the whole stone. I'm not the one setting the prices, but after collecting for over 20 years, I think that's a decent price on an irradiated native cut red tourmaline. Of course, I probably wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole in the first place. LOL! I also don't care how much time/money/energy has gone into nuking it, irradiated stones are pretty worthless to me, and to many other gem afficonados.

 

[T L]

If anyone is so distrustful of where their gems come from or distrusts a vendor, then don't buy from that source

Arcadian,
I do think there should be trust with a buyer/vendor, but if you're a gem purist like me, and you are offered the opportunity to buy a stone that is possibly irradiated, but there is no way on earth a lab can tell either way, then I would skip it. I think Pregcurious gave a good example of Tgal's padapradscha purchase from Richard Wise. Now I think Tgal should trust Richard Wise, and fortunately, the lab was able to test the stone in question, and find out it was synthetic. If that same stone was untestable, I don't care how trustworthy Richard Wise, or any vendor is, it can still have treatment or be a synthetic. Since the stone is question was very expensive, it was great that the lab could test it.

To all,
I don't want people to think I'm "fighting with Gene" or having heated arguments. We are very open with each other on and off this forum, and I do and have always appreciated his comments and honesty. He's has a right to his opinion, and I do as well. Its an interesting discussion.

 

[Arcadian]

TL, if you look as to what I said later

If the person purchasing is a purist and they have high exacting standards for their personal collections, tourmalines and quite a few other stones that could be treated without detection are stones they should avoid until testing standards has caught up with treatments.

-A

 

[PrecisionGem]

I guess I wasn't clear Dana. My reply to your comment:

"Gene; I never think about losing money when I buy a stone, cut or rough ??? I know many of us cutters do not have the luxury of having another job; so this is how we make a living. I know many on this forum who have bought and resold gems at a profit; so I do not understand your logic here Gene as I have heard you make this statement more than once ??? I am confused; do you do this as a charity thing? If so that is great; but I do it to feed my family."

I try not to buy stones to loose money on either. What I was talking about was consumers buying cut stones, with the idea that at some later date they would make money on them, or at a minimum break even. In most cases this isn't going to happen. Typically the consumer buys at a retail or near retail price, and would if they were lucky be able to sell at a wholesale price. Every jeweler has their sources as you know, and they are buying from them what they want, when they want it, and at a wholesale price. So try walking into a jeweler, not as a member of the trade, with a "used" stone, that the jeweler is most likely not looking to buy, and he/she is certainly not going to pay you even wholesale price for the stone. I see some people are selling stones now here on Pricescope and some other sites. From the little I have looked around I think they are typically selling their stones for less than what they paid for them. If the idea is to make money, then I would think the average person would be much better off buying Apple stock which is at $421.96 per share right now up from $326 same time last year.

Dana, as a cutter, you are buying rough, but then adding value to it by cutting it. Much different than a consumer buying cut stones and trying to resell.

I think Michael E is spot on again as always with his post.

 

[LD]

If we don't buy gems because at some point any treatment that may or may not become detectable will reduce the gems value, we'd end up buying very little and I'm sure those of us who have been collecting for 20 plus years will have a percentage of gems in our collection that have treatments that weren't detected at that time! If a treatment affects value i.e. diffusion, filling, dyeing etc then it should be declared at the point of sale and the price should reflect the treatment. None of these treatments occur in nature and so, for me, they are more than intrusive - they are, in essence, making a false gemstone!

For heat and irradiation (which both occur in nature - I understand perhaps not to the degrees that man can inflict on our gemstones) AND IT DOESN'T AFFECT VALUE NOW, so long as it's been declared then why not buy? This is a personal decision. So long as these treatments are declared at the point of sale, I'm happy with this. Very few of us buy gems to re-sell - perhaps if we did then the price we paid now would be an issue. Don't forget ANY gemstone can decrease in value. What would happen to the value of my alexandrite or Paraiba Tourmalines if new sensational finds were unearthed? They would plummet in value! Does that mean I shouldn't buy it? No!

If I look at my Rubellites (all bought many years ago), I searched for years to find ones with no brown. It took me years and looking at tons of gems to end up with the 7 or so I now own. Are any of them irradiated? At the point of sale I wasn't told they were but who knows! Has the value of them dropped? No I don't think so.

Morale of this story is buy if you like, don't buy if you are concerned about treatments but forget about future value because everything can decrease or increase! It's good people are educated and the buyers on this forum can make informed choices. I feel sorry for the average once every 10 years jewellery buyer who ends up with a ruby that's fissure filled to within an inch of it's life, they've paid way too much and think they have an heirloom gem.



Edit: TL I don't think you are being argumentative (and I hope nobody reads it as such). You have strong opinions on treatments as any good collector does and I think this thread is a great debate with reasoned arguments on all sides! It's a subject I don't think has an outcome because it's personal opinion.

 

[T L]

I guess I wasn't clear Dana. My reply to your comment:

"Gene; I never think about losing money when I buy a stone, cut or rough ??? I know many of us cutters do not have the luxury of having another job; so this is how we make a living. I know many on this forum who have bought and resold gems at a profit; so I do not understand your logic here Gene as I have heard you make this statement more than once ??? I am confused; do you do this as a charity thing? If so that is great; but I do it to feed my family."

I try not to buy stones to loose money on either. What I was talking about was consumers buying cut stones, with the idea that at some later date they would make money on them, or at a minimum break even. In most cases this isn't going to happen. Typically the consumer buys at a retail or near retail price, and would if they were lucky be able to sell at a wholesale price. Every jeweler has their sources as you know, and they are buying from them what they want, when they want it, and at a wholesale price. So try walking into a jeweler, not as a member of the trade, with a "used" stone, that the jeweler is most likely not looking to buy, and he/she is certainly not going to pay you even wholesale price for the stone. I see some people are selling stones now here on Pricescope and some other sites. From the little I have looked around I think they are typically selling their stones for less than what they paid for them. If the idea is to make money, then I would think the average person would be much better off buying Apple stock which is at $421.96 per share right now up from $326 same time last year.

Dana, as a cutter, you are buying rough, but then adding value to it by cutting it. Much different than a consumer buying cut stones and trying to resell.

I think Michael E is spot on again as always with his post.

Gene, having a stone as close to the way Mother Nature created it is not just a "monetary thing" for some people, it's also a "mind thing." For example, how would Kate Middleton feel if she found out her MIL's sapphire ring was a stone that was artificialy colored in a lab. There's a small possibility she wouldn't care, but I think most people would for a valuable and/or sentimental piece. Also, say you buy a stone for $10K, and you find out that it's worth $200 later on because it's had a very invasive treatment. I rather lose a few hundred dollars on a gem then several thousand. In the new PS forum, people are losing money on some colored stones, but not a ton. I mean some of those gems are also not that rare, and very inexpensive to begin with, so you're not going to get that much for your monetary return. However, if you have a fine sapphire, ruby, emerald, you may get your investment back, or close to it (especially with that AGL report ). Well, anyways, perhaps its because you're an engineer and male, like my husband, you two see things very black and white!! I think many of the people that post on this board, and gem collectors are a lot more emotional about their stones, and want the most for their money as well.

ETA: You know, the fact you do not have emotional feelings about gemstones is probably the reason you're a vendor. I could never be, as I do get attached to some gems for their great beauty, rarity, and because they are gifts of nature. I see some of the gems you and others sell, and I think, "how can he part with that!! It's so beautiful!! "

 

[T L]

TL, if you look as to what I said later

If the person purchasing is a purist and they have high exacting standards for their personal collections, tourmalines and quite a few other stones that could be treated without detection are stones they should avoid until testing standards has caught up with treatments.

-A

Sorry about that Arcadian. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[T L]

Edit: TL I don't think you are being argumentative (and I hope nobody reads it as such). You have strong opinions on treatments as any good collector does and I think this thread is a great debate with reasoned arguments on all sides! It's a subject I don't think has an outcome because it's personal opinion.

Thanks LD, and it's good to hear both sides of the argument. I agree.

 

[mastercutgems]

TL and Gene

I luv you both and also luv a good debate

I think we all 3 have been in this for a long time and have our own ways of looking at things; not always in agreement; but professional in our differences

Thanks for being the people you are.

Gene at prices you and I charge ; who can complain ??? LOL They can buy and resale and still make a profit

Just joking Ella

I am not trying to promote Gene's or my work... all in jest

But I still do not buy red tourmaline; for the nuke reason and also I do not see all the subtle shades of brown like many of you eagle eyes out there; any other color though; and they may be nuking them as well ????But if the color is right I will take the plunge... in small doses though...

Most Respectfully

Dana

 

[PrecisionGem]

I do get attached to the stones, but I'm addicted to the rough. I basically use the cut stones to buy more rough, never seeming to actually make any money at this. Over the years, there have been a few stones that now I wish I never sold, like the one in my avitar and a few others.

I have never seen any red tourmaline in the rough for sale, where the dealer was declaring the rough as nuked. Heated yes, but not nuked. A lot of times stones will be treated after cutting, as the cutting process takes out most larger inclusions that really tend to grow during heating, so it's safer to heat and treat after cutting. I had a parcel of crummy looking dark red tourmaline rough back when I used to sell rough. I tried heating some of it in the rough, it actually heated well, turned into a nice bright pink, but it all cracked to pieces and became un-useable.

 

[LD]

I do get attached to the stones, but I'm addicted to the rough. I basically use the cut stones to buy more rough, never seeming to actually make any money at this. Over the years, there have been a few stones that now I wish I never sold, like the one in my avitar and a few others.

I have never seen any red tourmaline in the rough for sale, where the dealer was declaring the rough as nuked. Heated yes, but not nuked. A lot of times stones will be treated after cutting, as the cutting process takes out most larger inclusions that really tend to grow during heating, so it's safer to heat and treat after cutting. I had a parcel of crummy looking dark red tourmaline rough back when I used to sell rough. I tried heating some of it in the rough, it actually heated well, turned into a nice bright pink, but it all cracked to pieces and became un-useable.

WOW what a great insight! I'd never have thought this might be a passion! I guess it's really obvious now you mention it! Just out of a matter of curiosity, what is the stone in your avatar? It always reminds me of the Zircon I bought from you (which is beautiful by the way) but I don't think it's your avatar picture!

 

[PrecisionGem]

LD, cutters really can't make a lot of money doing this. There is too much time involved. It's not just the cutting, it's the buying of rough, then building the website, taking pictures, answering eMails, packaging stones up etc. In Asia, they can hire inexpensive help for many of these things, and are generally dealing with a lot more stones. There are just so many stones one can precision cut in a day. If you really work it, pick quicker shapes, then maybe cut 2 or 3 stones a day.

I think for the most part all the cutters here are in it for the passion, not money.

The stone in my Avitar is a Mozambique aquamarine that I cut and sold maybe 6 or 7 years ago. Right before the Mozambique Paraiba type tourmaline find there was some really nice aqua coming out of Mozambique. Suddenly the tourmaline find came, and the miners left the aqua to go make their riches on the tourmaline. It seems the aqua has never come back. There were really nice deeper color back then, and this is one. The stone was concave cut. Here's a bigger picture.

 

[chrono]

Gene,
I feel your pride and regret with regards to that Moz aqua stone. The depth of colour is very good, plus the fancy concave cutting not only further deepened it, but it also took care of the low RI issue. Beautiful stone! It's a stone I'd love to own as well.

 

[mastercutgems]

Gene is so right on this as all the cutters I know feel the same way... It is a passion and we all get attached to the material and then when we sell one of our "children" we cannot replace it as the source dries up

I know back then they called the Mozambique aquamarine "Santa Maria Africana" as it rivaled the Santa Maria mines of Brazil... I thought the material was high back then; but I still bought it as it was like no aquamarine I ever saw... I know I let Grey have enough for his daughter a ring and pair of ear rings... And it was like parting with a kid... Well maybe not that much

There are a handful of gems I sold I wish I had back as I cannot replace them any longer.

Gene is also right on the fact that we as American cutters do not have the resources to hire much of anyone... We have to do it all... source, buy, grade, test, cut it, photo it, edit it, list it on a website we do a lot of ourselves, answer emails, box it up, sometimes get it back, re-list it, etc... Well that is a full time job and to be competitive with everyone else and try to be kind, open, honest, and all those other things just to stay in the running to be considered a competent cutter, gemstone dealer... well it sometimes is a daunting task...

So we as cutters on here do not have it made in the shade ; so-to-speak... But I for one chose this field and even though with all the treatments, etc. I still love the work, the material, and most of the people LOL

Getting back to the red tourmaline radiation thing.... I have been doing more research and I have found that over 75% of all the irradiation done to tourmaline is in the cut and finished state. That they ( the labs ) too as Gene had mentioned had too much failure in treating tourmaline in the rough as evidently the rough still has energy -tension, stress within the crystal that any type of heat and heat from bombardment of radiation is causing the crystal to fracture and as with tanzanite it usually fractures where there is more stress and or inclusions. That normally the stress is relieved during the cutting process; makes sense as I always cut tanzanite before heating.

I am sure many of the cutters on here notice this in the Oyo , Afghanistan, and Namibian neon blue and neon blue green tourmalines; as many times they will split in two while cutting as they are being relieved of stress built up inside the crystalline structure. You cannot see it under 100x; but it will happen and when it does your heart sinks as that material was 35 dollars a carat in the rough...

So it may be an indicator TL that if you want an un-nuked tourmaline you may have to buy it in the crystalline shape and from a person that is in country that the chances are much less that it has had any treatment. We all know the Thai's and many others sit around in the labs with kilos of cut butt-ugly anything and try to figure out how they can enhance it to make it look and sell better.. Nothing new there...

This is not meant to hurt, promote, or tick off anyone

Most respectfully;

Dana

 

[T L]

Gene is so right on this as all the cutters I know feel the same way... It is a passion and we all get attached to the material and then when we sell one of our "children" we cannot replace it as the source dries up

I know back then they called the Mozambique aquamarine "Santa Maria Africana" as it rivaled the Santa Maria mines of Brazil... I thought the material was high back then; but I still bought it as it was like no aquamarine I ever saw... I know I let Grey have enough for his daughter a ring and pair of ear rings... And it was like parting with a kid... Well maybe not that much

There are a handful of gems I sold I wish I had back as I cannot replace them any longer.

Gene is also right on the fact that we as American cutters do not have the resources to hire much of anyone... We have to do it all... source, buy, grade, test, cut it, photo it, edit it, list it on a website we do a lot of ourselves, answer emails, box it up, sometimes get it back, re-list it, etc... Well that is a full time job and to be competitive with everyone else and try to be kind, open, honest, and all those other things just to stay in the running to be considered a competent cutter, gemstone dealer... well it sometimes is a daunting task...

So we as cutters on here do not have it made in the shade ; so-to-speak... But I for one chose this field and even though with all the treatments, etc. I still love the work, the material, and most of the people LOL

Getting back to the red tourmaline radiation thing.... I have been doing more research and I have found that over 75% of all the irradiation done to tourmaline is in the cut and finished state. That they ( the labs ) too as Gene had mentioned had too much failure in treating tourmaline in the rough as evidently the rough still has energy -tension, stress within the crystal that any type of heat and heat from bombardment of radiation is causing the crystal to fracture and as with tanzanite it usually fractures where there is more stress and or inclusions. That normally the stress is relieved during the cutting process; makes sense as I always cut tanzanite before heating.

I am sure many of the cutters on here notice this in the Oyo , Afghanistan, and Namibian neon blue and neon blue green tourmalines; as many times they will split in two while cutting as they are being relieved of stress built up inside the crystalline structure. You cannot see it under 100x; but it will happen and when it does your heart sinks as that material was 35 dollars a carat in the rough...

So it may be an indicator TL that if you want an un-nuked tourmaline you may have to buy it in the crystalline shape and from a person that is in country that the chances are much less that it has had any treatment. We all know the Thai's and many others sit around in the labs with kilos of cut butt-ugly anything and try to figure out how they can enhance it to make it look and sell better.. Nothing new there...

This is not meant to hurt, promote, or tick off anyone

Most respectfully;

Dana

If they're still nuking tourmaline in the rough state, even if it's only 25% of it, then it's still too much of a risk for me (for others, that's a different story). The only way I would trust the tourmaline is if I went to the mine, saw the miner extract it, and I was there during the whole process of it switching hands going from mining to cutting. Even so, if i were to sell my gem, that still isn't 100% proof to my buyer that the stone wasn't enhanced. The fact of the matter is that you still have to take someone's "word for it."

Natural color green diamond is a similar story. It has a radiation stain just like it's artificially colored counterpart. It's very tricky to buy that material, but since it's so expensive, often the labs (in most cases, GIA) will not grade it as natural color unless they had seen the stone in its rough form first, and were able to document the process of the rough going through its cutting, without any "funny business" going on in between those steps. The labs aren't going to bother doing that with red tourmaline, as it is nowhere near as expensive as a fancy green diamond.

I own a couple of pieces of beautiful saturated red tourmaline, and they were purchased and cut by a precision facetor from a source in Nigeria. I have to "take his word for all of that" and if I were ever to sell it, I couldn't, in my conscious, tell someone that its untreated. I don't know for a fact. Fortunately, I didn't pay a great deal for the material, so I'm not losing sleep over my purchases. It just saddens me that such beautiful material is "stained" by the fact that the treatment is not detectable.

 

[mastercutgems]

Hi TL

It looks to me that one ( a lab ) could be a little more sound in that high concentrates of Manganese is the chief contributor of the mineral being red; if like in Be heated sapphires if the key color component/element is lacking or very low it would be a true indicator of something fishy in Denmark ( no offense to people from Denmark ) ...

So if they are very nice rubellites you might want them tested for manganese as that would be a good indicator of natural. I know in this world of so many trying to deceive others to make a almighty buck it has left a bad taste in the mouth of any collector. Believe me us cutters do not like it either as we are always a little distrustful and rightly so and we have to be as it is our money and a bad 10K investment is a hard pill to swallow...

But I do understand and I also understand the labs do not want to test anything other than what they can 100 % prove and it is getting tough as the people on the other side of the fence are sometimes smarter and has better equipment than the big labs do... Look at Aqua; they do not test for heat on it anymore, look at sapphire; just a few labs will give you a unheated report; and for origin.... I cannot tell you have many I have sent off for that all to come back as " we could not tell" here is your 600 dollars back ???

Oh well; that is why I bought my digital spectroscope and all the other bell and whistle tools and instruments; I will do what I can on my own. Is it enough; no... but it gets me a lot closer than a RI meter and a dichroscope...

But like I said in the first post; keep on telling us all you find out TL as these too are tools that make us better at determining what we trust and have issues with...

Nothing meant to harm or insult

Most respectfully;
Dana