Synthetic Grossular Garnet Merelani ?

[PerSweden]

Hi,
Got caught when trying to identify this stone. Would love it to be genuine but I suspect this Grossular Garnets" Merelani Mint is synthetic.

1. It feels dead, no glow. Especially compared to Tourmaline in same shade.
2. Got a fantastic gem collection after my late father but this stone was kept loose with other cheap stones like quartz and amethysts.
3. Chipped and bad cuts

With my Topcon refractometer it shows a clear 1.64 and got a strong red uw flourescence as per photo. Indicates as "light green mean less Vanadium that quench red", than Tsavorites that glow more orange.

The pictured stone is 8.16 ct and the mere size indicates a fake.

Would be glad to know what you think.

 

[IcePhoenix]

Gut feeling here, you are right. The cut is not nice at all, the colour doesn't look like a merelani mint garnet (which is usually an intense pastel green, hints of blue and yellow can be there too) and the size is pretty big. I mean, a seller buying the rough this stone came from has lost a lot of money with this wonky cut. But that doesn't matter when cutting something that has little value.

 

[PerSweden]

Thanks for feedback.
Colorwise I've read some Merelani are almost without any color. But should be some brilliance?
And why bother making a synthetic stone if not making it look better than this? Outcome vary to that extent?

 

[T L]

Ive seen “corpse colored” mint garnets. They’re a sickly pale green. I’m not sure what you have there, but without knowing exactly what it is, it could be a simulant as well.

Thanks for feedback.
Colorwise I've read some Merelani are almost without any color. But should be some brilliance?
And why bother making a synthetic stone if not making it look better than this? Outcome vary to that extent?

 

[pwsg07]

1.64 is not the RI for grossular garnet. Is it singly refractive?

 

[IcePhoenix]

Brilliance can be lost with not-super-great-cuts. You are right in saying simulants are usually too perfect rather than the opposite. Could it be something cheap and treated maybe meant for costume jewellery. Truly just guessing

 

[PerSweden]

1.64 is not the RI for grossular garnet. Is it singly refractive?

You are right, was a typo. I read 1.74 and the other stone I got is 1.73 which is within the range for grossular.

Sorry I didnt reply earlier as I am still waiting for a microscope. A cheap USB one but will try a DIY black light filter to lock for inclusions in order to rule out a simulant.

The stones certainly needs a recut, if its the real thing...

Best
Per

 

[PerSweden]

Not black light, back FIELD "filter" that is....