Natural vs. Synthetic
Michael
First, I am not an expert in any matters relating to jewelry or jewelry
making. However, I am beginning to delve into the art a bit, and have come
across an item that I have a question about.
I've noticed that there is much derision heaped on synthetic/man made/lab
made gems as compared to "natural" gems. From my understanding, they are
both the same chemical substances, and are differentiated solely by where
they were created (in the ground or in a lab) and by flaws which the natural
exhibit and generally the lab made do not. First, am I mistaken in this
assumption at a basic level?
If I'm not mistaken at the basic level, why is there such a sneering,
deriding attitude towards lab made gems as compared to natural gems? If the
lab made are "perfect" (relatively) examples of the gem they are crafted
after, and natural are flawed and relatively imperfect, why do so many
people consider natural as somehow inherintly "better"? I understand
character and history and all the other "feeling" arguments, but other than
feelings and warm fuzzies, is there any basis for the animosity towards lab
made gems, assuming they are correctly grown and cut? Its not like we're
talking about colored glass as opposed to a gem, we're talking about a gem
created in one place as opposed to another. Is this simply a preference
based on feelings, and little else?
Just curious, and thanks in advance for any answers you give. I am not
trying to create a leading question, I simply do not understand the
attitudes I've seen many jewelers display towards lab made gems and figured
I must be missing something.
Michael
Carl or Rebecca Downey
The simple answer is, of course it only has to do with feelings. Since
personal adornment does not fall into the category of 'food, shelter,
clothing' it's all about preferences on how the buyer/maker feels about
the gem. You could ask why -say-aluminum is valued less than silver.
Historically, folks with diposable income have preferred to acquire
things that are 'rare, durable and beautiful' however thay interpret
that personally. Most lab created gems are not rare. Many are not nearly
as durable as diamond(syn or natural) and if folks did not place a
higher value on natural vs synthetic there would be little reason to cut
any colored material other than CZ if your looking for the most visual
impact for your dollar.
As a hobby faceter and occasional cut designer I am sometimes more
interested in finding a little larger rough material to best 'show off'
a new design. This can sometimes mean placing a unique cut on '2nd or
3rd tier' natural material or synthetic. Sure, people like the visual
appeal of the stone but the next question is what it (the materail) is.
If I say anything that isn't 'diamond,emerald,ruby,sapphire or maybe
aquamarine' they go 'Oh' and are now uninterested. Thsi includes some
nice material like heliodor, garnets, chrysoberyl and even spinel. If I
start saying CZ or syn. corundum or YAG - well forget. Most folks
wouldn't give me enough to make minimum wage for the PREFORMING time.
And a competition stone? Forget it! They don't care that the meets are
perfect, the pavilion angles are 2 degrees above CA and the surface is
free of 'polishing lines' and indeed may only show 2-3 'newton rings' on
a test flat. They can't see the difference (especially since most stones
are displayed a few inches under a 75w bulb in a case - I've never
understood how some guy can agonize over and research the purchase of a
stereo receiver for weeks but will go into a jewelry store and look in
case and think "Uh that one's sparkly - gimme it" without examining it
under conditions more like office or grocery store lighting - much less
intimate restaurant conditions) and ,well, just because it matters to me
doesn't mean the customer cares one whit.
Carl
1 Lucky Texan
ted.f...@virgin.net
there are several things "else" at work in the attitude toward man made
gems as opposed to mother nature made.
1. Is the historical connection, which today largely has little
relevance, ie that gems may have or not magical curative properties etc.
2. That natural gems are very hard to find relative to making them in a
factory. Just look at the aerial photographs of the Debeers diamond mine
workings and find out the tons of kimberlite mined to produce a few
carats of pure gem quality carbon.
3.that man made as opposed to natural are considered by most people to
be " fake" gems, not "real" implying that they are not dug out of the
ground.
4. That man made gems are not the same in their structure. this can be
seen well in artificial rubies which under the right viewing conditions
show layering due to the flame deposition process.
these are just a few ideas that come to mind initially. A more
experienced gemologist will have better answers than me.
TedFrater Mostly a metal worker. Dorset UK.
Greg Lenon
most the stones you buy are altered in some way... For instance, the
different shades of onyx...
I try to work in natural stones whenever possible (just a personal
preference)..
The one thing I have noticed though.. it seems to me that most man-made
stones tend to take heat better than natural stones..
Curt Gates
<mik...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken at the basic level, why is there such a sneering,
> deriding attitude towards lab made gems as compared to natural gems?
Have you asked the people who displayed those attitudes? Those are the
people you should be asking. Sneering, deriding attitudes and animosity
are *not* universal throughout the jewelry trade, which recognizes that
there is a place and a market for all categories of gems and jewelry --
that it's a big world with all types of customers and markets. Some people
specialize in synthetics, which have their places, and others specialize
in natural stones, which have their places, and still others specialize in
colored glass, which has its places. Same for metals and designs. Mature
professionals respect all categories and materials, even if they don't
deal in them.
> Its not like we're
> talking about colored glass as opposed to a gem,
Maybe you answered your own question right there. If you accept that
"colored glass" has less (comparative value) than a "gem," then maybe you
can move on to synthetic vs natural and find an answer. (Be aware that
some the artists who make one-of-a-kind lampwork beads from colored glass
may not appreciate this attitude toward "colored glass."
> If the
> lab made are "perfect" (relatively) examples of the gem they are crafted
> after, and natural are flawed and relatively imperfect, why do so many
> people consider natural as somehow inherintly "better"? I understand
> character and history and all the other "feeling" arguments, but other than
> feelings and warm fuzzies,
Maybe you really don't understand what you call the "feeling" arguments.
The whole role of jewelery and human ornamnent does not lend itself to
left-brain, rational, logical, scientific, engineering understanding and
analysis. What was that expression that Spock on Star Trek would use ...
that "It does not compute." ? The whole function of storytelling......
Can you imagine Spock trying to make sense out of the world of jewelry and
ornament and art and human desire? Especially where it borders on "New
Age" traditions! Imagine Spock having a logical reason for getting his
ears pierced???
Beyond "feelings and warm fuzzies" there is the value or price (in
general) that the impersonal world marketplace assigns to a particular
stone. That value depends partly on supply and demand, and in some
respects, the supply of synthetics is unlimited. You may not like, or
understand, or agree with, say, the price of gold, or the price of gold vs
the price of brass, but that's the way the market (world) is. If somebody
wants to sneer at brass jewelry, that's their decision. Same for
synthetics.
Don Robinson
"imitation". The wearer and nearly anyone who sees the gem won't be able to
discern the difference. If anything, the synthetic gem can be more
beautiful, as in the case of star sapphires, etc. where the inclusion can
sometimes be more distinct and perfectly formed than a comparable natural
stone.
As far as I'm concerned, if a stone has comparable hardness (wearability)
and is as attractive as a natural stone, then I see no value in paying (or
charging) a higher price.
FWIW. I'm not an expert, either.
Custom Made Knives
by Don Robinson
http://home.att.net/~don-robinson.ce/
"Michael" <mik...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kc6ept4e5q771e2v4...@4ax.com...
marggi
appreciate the difference, maybe. It is like wine. Is Gallo by the jug a
perfectly good wine, and exactly the same grape based fermented product as a
fine Sterling Cabernet? Gallo will always be exactly the same, from vintage
to vintage, and if you like it, then that is "perfect", but if you are
looking for the subtleties that make a *great* wine, you will never find it
mass prodced. Same thing with Gems. They are like flowers, or wine, each one
to be enjoyed for it's own unique beauty, and synthetics can not match that.
On the other hand, synthetics are very pretty, and if you enjoy them and/or
cannot afford a natural stone, they have their place in jewelry as long as
full disclosure is made and the customer understands exactly what they are
buying.
Marggi
"Michael" <mik...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kc6ept4e5q771e2v4...@4ax.com...
LESLIE KINDER-ANDERSON
I think the reverence for natural gems is because of their rarity and value
as rare items.
Man-made crystals are controlled and the results are calculated to make
crystal look a certain way, hundreds of thousands of stones can be produced
which look a certain way, but in nature it is purely random and no two
natural stones are the same.
The rarest gems are hardest to find and revered for their rarity and our of
the ordinary beauty. Rarity is the key here. All collectors favor rare
items over common items.
Anyway, that's my view. I know the average person (and jeweler) is not as
excited about laboratory grown gems as natural
Leslie
"Michael" <mik...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kc6ept4e5q771e2v4...@4ax.com...
Gordon Zumach
g
Jeannette Wilson
>
> I've noticed that there is much derision heaped on synthetic/man made/lab
> made gems as compared to "natural" gems. From my understanding, they are
> both the same chemical substances, and are differentiated solely by where
> they were created (in the ground or in a lab) and by flaws which the natural
> exhibit and generally the lab made do not. First, am I mistaken in this
> assumption at a basic level?
To some extent. Yes, the main material is the same, chemically, but the
devil lies in the details.
For example, natural rubies do not grow by the flame-fusion method.
Hence, the natural stone does not have growth rings, and small pockets
of un-melted aluminum oxide. Nor do they contain pockets of flux, or
traces of the platinum crucible they're grown in, nor do they flouresce
in certain light.
Yes, these are not things visible to the naked eye, but they *are*
differences. That's over and above the rarity of the natural material,
too - when it costs little to grow a huge synthetic stone, there's
little value to it, but when there is only one known huge natural
perfect stone, well, its value is far higher due to its scarcity.
> If I'm not mistaken at the basic level, why is there such a sneering,
> deriding attitude towards lab made gems as compared to natural gems? If the
> lab made are "perfect" (relatively) examples of the gem they are crafted
> after, and natural are flawed and relatively imperfect, why do so many
> people consider natural as somehow inherintly "better"?
It's a matter of price, I think. When any car will do, why do people
sneer at a Yugo, and lust after the Rolls?
Love and Light,
Jeannette
--
I'm an impure woman. The impurities, as in gemstones, are what give me
color and personality.
"Stressed" spelled backwards is "Desserts" My home page -
http://vikki.oz.net/~jeanne/
Christina Foster Peterson
has a life and subtle characteristics. I learned a long time ago that
imposing my design on uniform material is less alive than a collaboration
between the material and me.
As a jewelry dabbler I sometimes find stones of other than classic color,
which is sometimes nicer. A jeweler I worked for had alexandrite that
ranged from olive through plummy purple. Since then I've been disappointed
in all the alexandrites that range between a slightly bluish green through
pinky red.
Christina
PS Isn't there a difference between synthetic and lab grown?
"Michael" <mik...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kc6ept4e5q771e2v4...@4ax.com...
WrdMizr
by a skilled artist?
Can you see the difference?
Can you conceptualize the difference?
Which is worth more?
Why?
Will you set synthetic blue sapphire in a design of platinum
surrounded by d-e-f, vvs1 diamonds?
If you do, do you think anyone will buy it?
If you won't, why not?
Should we continue on to antiques and reproductions?
On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 06:24:47 GMT, "Michael" <mik...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Will E.
The other day I saw a very nice solid oak table at a thrift store for about
$65. The same table constructed out of particle wood and laminated with a
photograph of oak fetches about $350. Go figure. It is a good thing that you
didn't ask this question during the Inquisition. For, to imply that Man
could create anything that is more perfect than God's attempt, would have
sent you to the rack in a flash.
To be fair, we should compare natural vs. synthetic with comparable size and
quality material. For example, lets look at a one ct. Burmese ruby and a
similar color flux grown stone. The natural might fetch 50K to 100K while
the flux grown stone may be purchased for under $100 (depending on source,
cutter, market, etc.). But I wonder what the per ct value of the rubies in
Dali's Jewel lips(1941) would be if they were flux grown? Or what was the
price paid for the first ruby LASER rod sold to the military?
Of course rarity plays a significant role in setting a stone's value, but it
often comes down to simple "Supply and Demand" ( coupled with asking price
and number of willing buyers.) Look at natural zircon. It can be a beautiful
stone and "should" be worth more than it is currently. But because it was
once used as a diamond substitute, it is still considered a low value fake
by some.
One could be sitting on a large lot of valuable natural stones and unable to
sell them because a competitive marketer is selling synthetics to your
buyers. So what then is the true value of your valuable naturals?
One day we will be wearing digital jewelry, just push a button and a
virtual gem of your choice will appear, perfectly cut and mounted, between
the prongs...You would still have to pay for it though.Will Estavillo
Greg Lenon
Nay, not really. Unless you get close.
> Which is worth more?
Neither, Picasso is garbage. :)
> Why?
Because he had 0 skill. Even his non-abstract themes were garbage.
> Will you set synthetic blue sapphire in a design of platinum
> surrounded by d-e-f, vvs1 diamonds?
Of course not.. but then again, most of us (me, at least) don't work in
gold, let alone platinum, and as for diamonds. hehe, I'm still working up
the courage to buy CZ's. :)
> If you do, do you think anyone will buy it?
No.. because my skill is very low. :)
> Should we continue on to antiques and reproductions?
I won't work on antiques.. my skill is very low. :)
Lastly, I think that some synthetic's are better than naturals, if only when
set of fire. I'm currently making a ring that will require me to set the
first stone, before I can begin work on the second and third stone.
Hopefully I won't destroy this one (working in 14 guage silver plate.. a
new experience for me.. So far, I've broken 3 saw blades, and 1 diamond
edged drill bit)
Peter W. Rowe
<gr...@lenon.com> wrote:
>>Neither, Picasso is garbage. :)
>>
>>> Why?
>>
>>Because he had 0 skill. Even his non-abstract themes were garbage.
How do you define Garbage, then? At least in the company of those with some
understanding of the nature of art, Picasso's work is generally considered to be
some of the most highly creative work of the 20th century.
It's important to understand that the classification of a body of work as "good
art" does NOT mean that you have to like it at all. It's quite possible to
acknowledge that an artists works are great art, and in the same breath state
that you'd not have his works in your house if they paid you to put them there
because you hate the stuff...
What Picasso did, along with many of the best of the 20th century's finest, was
to carry art beyond merely the depiction of what was seen, or the exploration of
new nuances in the skills of that depiction of reality, to the realm of
exploring the experience of seeing, and carrying the image beyond what could be
seen in a 2 dimensional view. He often attempts to show us all four dimensions
of an image/idea, each part of the image shown from it's own most informative
viewpoint, at it's own most important time in the sequence. The result is an
image that most certainly does not just mirror what our eyes see at some moment
in time, but rather explores the whole nature of what is there on many levels,
over a period of time. That the result should then be a canvas with jumbled
outlines and seemingly abstract shapes and colors, should not surprise. It
does, however, take considerably more work on the part of the viewer, to fully
understand what is being shown. For many viewers, this is too much work. They
wish to be simply shown what they already know and are already used to seeing.
A pretty picture which simply confirms what they already know should be in the
scene, which comforts their view of reality by showing them nothing unexpected
or disquieting. In a word, kitsch. Viewers willing to look further than the
comfortable, at a Picasso or other highly creative work, can find far more
information: an insight into what another human being has seen and thought,
that the viewer might never have seen on his/her own. And when that insight
shows the viewer a thought with which he/she does not agree, the usual response
is to call that thought garbage, rather than allowing the artist their right to
their own views, even of different from one's own.
Peter
ted.f...@virgin.net
Peter You write as tho you have worked for Southebys!!
I dont think anyone will deny an artist the right to his or her creative
ideas and its interpretation into reality.
Furthermore works of art whether antique, rennaisance, traditional,
modern or contemporary, in other words all art throughout history
should not be denied a place in todays world.
Where caution needs to be exercised is in calling something art because
the "establishment" deems it to be so, for a whole range of reasons.
The main one it looks to me, is fashion.
It is fashionable today to be controversial what ever the medium and if
the National museums and International art institutions consider a
blank white canvas or 32 sand lime bricks laid in a square to be the
latest "Great" work of art, then we the viewing public are expected to
approve their view.
Fortunately the general public are not so neieve as to believe
everything the art establisment deems to offer up as the latest Great
woa..
There is an old parable (I like to call it). Its the Emperors new
clothes.
It say it all.
Any artist that thinks that he has made a work of art has to realise
not everyone else will share his view. He/she will come to the
conclusion sooner or later that its been made because it had to be. And
that has to be the sole reason for its creation.
When you can create something for its own sake, and then walk away from
it, not concerned if it sells or not, you have become a true artist.
Just my view,
Ted Frater.
Greg Lenon
some
> understanding of the nature of art, Picasso's work is generally considered
to be
> some of the most highly creative work of the 20th century.
I, being a fan of many artworks, am repulsed by Picasso. I am a fan of most
painting, whether being Rococo, Boroque, High Rennisance, or (My personal
favorite) Raphael, I do enjoy most artwork. I've even found myself
appreciating mobils, many of the painting in Lascaux, and some abstract
sculpture (which I had a hard time understanding at first). Personally, my
bedroom is adorned with painting such as "The School of Athens,"
"Nightwatch," and believe it or not, "Aficionado" by Picasso himself. Why
do I call his work garbage? The fact of the matter is, when compared with
the greats, and even the not so often mentioned greats (such as Vermeer), I
find it hard to appreciate Picasso. Yes, I do own a print of one of his
paintings, but it is one of his early works, before he tried to push the
envelope too far. Is this saying that all of Picasso's early work was
appreciated by me? No, of course not. I despise his Blue Nude as well.
Not to be critical Mr. Rowe, but I hope you understand that "Creative" does
not mean good. There are many creative things in this world, but not all of
them are good. An example of this would be Adolph Hitler. Killing well
over six million people can be looked at a "creative" way to deal with his
repressed childhood, but most, if not all of us, will admit that it was a
horrible thing to do, and was wrong, ie bad.
Given, Picasso artwork was unique (partially, anyway), but when one looks at
the Pieta by Michaelangelo, and then "Three Musicians" one would most likely
be inclined to call Picasso's work garbage.
> shows the viewer a thought with which he/she does not agree, the usual
response
> is to call that thought garbage, rather than allowing the artist their
right to
> their own views, even of different from one's own.
Of course, Picasso has the right to judge his work the way he sees fit, and
there is nothing wrong with that. What I have a fundamental problem with is
others calling the vast majority of his work anything but garbage. While
much of Cubism is decent artwork, Picasso takes his work to a extreme, in
some cases violent. The fact that the man created, and sold, artwork that a
child could create is insulting. Examples of these would be: Femme,
Woman/Flower, and Rooster.
Those are just three examples of Picasso.
I wish to bring up Guernica, one of Picasso's better known paintings. I
abhor this painting. It is the drawing of a delusional man, who instead of
being claimed such, was praised as a great artist.
Finally, I wish to leave on this note. When you look at a painting, you
must do so properly. You must first be educated upon the artist, and you
must also be able to disregard whatever is said about it. I call Picasso
garbage. Many do not. It is for you to make your own opinion upon this
subject. Do not listen to what others tell you, view the object, and make
up your own opinion.
Greg Lenon
PS- All the paintings I mentioned are at allposters.com (I shop there
frequently)
PSS-I didn't copy this. It is my own opinion. :)
Greg Lenon
my reply to Mr. Rowe.. but thank you for stating it more eloquently than I
could.
WrdMizr
<webm...@natureshop-gallery.com> wrote:
>To be fair, we should compare natural vs. synthetic with comparable size and
>quality material. For example, lets look at a one ct. Burmese ruby and a
>similar color flux grown stone. The natural might fetch 50K to 100K while
>the flux grown stone may be purchased for under $100 (depending on source,
>cutter, market, etc.).
I seriously doubt anyone would pay $50K for a 1 ct Burmese ruby, but I
understand the point. Likewise, here in Thailand, faceted lab ruby
can be bought for about Bt 20/ct ($.50).
"Lab material" is all of the above and deserves more respect form a
technical point of view that from gem lovers, IMO.
But I wonder what the per ct value of the rubies in
>Dali's Jewel lips(1941) would be if they were flux grown?
Actually, according to "Ruby and Sapphire", by Richard Hughes . . .
Fremy grew "flux grown" material in the latter part of the 19th
century. He just couldn't produce large material so he abandoned.
Then Carrol Chatham came along and cracked the code and made "Cultured
Emerald."
I think the "snake oil" approach and the continual creative naming and
renaming to fool the general public is part of the problem. And the
producers of synthetics have "created" that problem.
WrdMizr
>> Can you see the difference?
>
>Nay, not really. Unless you get close.
>
>> Which is worth more?
>
>Neither, Picasso is garbage. :)
Well, you may feel your reply is cute but the world art community
certainly doesn't agree with you.
And to say that an original Picasso has no commercial value is
ridiculous.
Will E.
sold for 400k a number of years ago, forgetting that for many stones, as
their weight increases, the value jumps geometrically, and conversely... On
the other hand, perfect, top color, one ct rubies are still hard to find and
who knows what the future market will look like. I guess it is up to the
appraisers and what goes unquestioned for seven years that will determine
the value of any stone. Will E.
ted.f...@virgin.net
Unfortunately for art, the world art community has "Dirty fingers", ie
it brings money(read greed) into the equation. It has a vested interest
in keeping art values high to protect its investments and reputation
for supporting/buying art whether it has any real artistic value or not.
The worst example of the art establisments bias has been their total
ignoring of one of the USA's greatest 20 cetury sculptors.( I cant find
the reference right now, the one that did the high relief sculture over
the doorway to a cathedral)
On his own admission Picasso deliberately made much of his art for
strictly money reasons.I dont begrudge it him. However I would never
bastardise my art for money. Id be selling my soul to the Devil,
metaphorically speaking.!!
Ted Frater.
WoN ereH
>must do so properly. You must first be educated upon the artist, and you
>must also be able to disregard whatever is said about it. I call Picasso
>garbage. Many do not. It is for you to make your own opinion upon this
>subject. Do not listen to what others tell you, view the object, and make
>up your own opinion.
>
>Greg Lenon
>
>
>PS- All the paintings I mentioned are at allposters.com (I shop there
>frequently)
I'm not at all surprised that the art on your walls consists of posters. IMO,
anyone that *abhors* Guernica shows a complete lack of understanding of
anything that is creative in the human spirit. Picasso may have been a great
marketer, and created his art in large part to entertain his public, but so was
Michaelangelo, even more so, he never dared create anything without signed
contract in advance. Art is a product. Even a child in kindergarten who
brings a drawing home to Mom knows that.
DG
WrdMizr
<webm...@natureshop-gallery.com> wrote:
>WrdMizr, You are correct. I was thinking in terms of a four ct stone which
>sold for 400k a number of years ago, forgetting that for many stones, as
>their weight increases, the value jumps geometrically, and conversely... On
>the other hand, perfect, top color, one ct rubies are still hard to find and
>who knows what the future market will look like. I guess it is up to the
>appraisers and what goes unquestioned for seven years that will determine
>the value of any stone. Will E.
The record, according to Hughes book, is a "near perfect" 15.7 ct.
Mogok, untreated; sold at Southeby's in 1986 for US$3,630,000. Now
thought to be owned by the Sultan of Brunei
Greg Lenon
Aye, I'm sure you own many a origional picasso and michaelangelo.
> Michaelangelo, even more so, he never dared create anything without signed
> contract in advance.
I want you to check out how much money it would cost to buy the marble block
that David was made out of. Then you might understand why it was important
to have a patron.
Michael
and informative.
Here are the items that I have drawn from this discussion and perhaps
another question or two:
1. Chemically there is no difference between Lab Grown and Natural at a
basic level, which seems to be confirmed by most.
2. There are imperfections created by the growing process which detract
from the emotional and monetary "value" because they seem, to most people,
to "mar the work". That being the case, why isn't the presence of natural
inclusions also reviled, as well as the necessity of oil/heat treatment to
make many of the "natural" stones even marginally marketable (at twenty
times the cost of a comparable lab gem)? I know that the natural with many
inclusions is priced lower, thus valued lower, but there isn't the same
attitude displayed towards them as there is towards Lab Gems. Just curious.
3. Some people seem to think that I'm Mr. Spock. Sorry about that. Spock
was a Kantian and his "complex" logic was highly flawed and inconsistant at
best. He was, after all, a poorly conceptualized fictional character. :)
Sorry, no Spock here. My alleged "spockiness" comes from being a computer
programmer, amatuer astronomer and amateur radio afficionado. And yes, you
heard it here first, a computer programmer who does not care for Star Trek!
4. Those who asked why people valued Picasso instead of an imitator of
Picasso missed the mark a bit. I'm not comparing a unique stone and asking
why people do not value a lab grown to imitate that specific unique stone
(Hope Diamond vs. Hope Diamond look alike). I was asking a more general
question, which would be translated in the analogy as "one painter who
paints original works in X style as well or better than other renowned
artists who paint in X style, but is looked down upon because of his
pedigree/official pronouncements by the 'art experts', etc". Does this help
frame the quetions better?
5. As to the comparison to antiques, that is a bit more valid. However, I
think the market has made it clear that as a whole, most people prefer new
furniture and appliances as opposed to a houseful of antiques (I was once an
antique dealer). If they didn't, there wouldn't be so many
furniture/appliance stores (and other items as well). Is it then just a
matter of time before natural stones become to the market what antique
household items are today, e.g. - Rare and curious pieces of beauty which
most people do not buy, prefering instead the modern equivalent?
6. To the person who mentioned Wine and why people value one wine made with
a certain grape over another made with the same grape, well, I have the same
questions about that as well, truth be told. As a home wine maker/beer
brewer, I see the same attitude in comparisons between "haut" wine and
"yucky bottle exploding moldy looking" home made wine. However, I've made
the experiment or two in this regards, and bottled some home made wine of
similar type and variety in an "officially approved and labeled" wine
bottle, recorked and re-sealed it, and guess what? At dinner time many of
the detractors of that "nasty filty home made wine, not better than
cornsqueezens" commented on how good the "approved" wine was and even tried
to use it as a basis of argument for how I could never match its quality.
Hmmmm, something is at play here, and its arguable that its even "taste".
My personal experience is that its ingrained prejudices, as taught by others
and accepted without individual personal thought, being passed along as long
reasoned judgement. Who was it that mentioned the Emperor's New Clothes?
That comes to mind. This is the same attitude I seem to find in regards to
Lab Gems as opposed to Natural Gems.
7. Some mentioned rarity. This makes sense. I am familiar with market
dynamics.
8. To the person who asked why a fake wasn't worth as much as an original
missed my point. Lab Gems are not fake, they are the same material. If
they were glass trying to be fraudulently passed as a gem, then they would
be fake.
9. I found it interesting that when the imperfections of natural gems were
mentioned at all, they were described in the most glowing terms, e.g. - it
gives them life and personality. When imperfections were mentioned in
regards to lab grown gems they were described in a somewhat less glowing
manner - rings detract from value, aren't nice, etc. Instead of answering
the questions, they simply extended my curiousity even further.
10. To the person who stated that it was a good thing that I didn't ask
these questions during the Inquisition, you are correct. I would have
either burned at the stake or led a revolt against the Inquisitors. But the
question would have remained. :) Question everything that does not make
sense is the way I've chosen to spend my time here in life, and I couldn't
have been born in a better time to do so, for which I am profoundly
grateful.
Again, thank you all for your responses, I appreciate them.
MichaelC
"Michael" <mik...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kc6ept4e5q771e2v4...@4ax.com...
WrdMizr
wrote:
>First, let me thank everybody for their replies, they were very thoughtful
>and informative.
>
>Here are the items that I have drawn from this discussion and perhaps
>another question or two:
>
>1. Chemically there is no difference between Lab Grown and Natural at a
>basic level, which seems to be confirmed by most.
Then explain the difference in fluorescence between Mogok stones and
flux growm.
Explain the chemistry that creates the velvety appearance of Kasmir
sapphire.
>2. There are imperfections created by the growing process which detract
>from the emotional and monetary "value" because they seem, to most people,
>to "mar the work".
No, identify them as lab grown.
That being the case, why isn't the presence of natural
>inclusions also reviled, as well as the necessity of oil/heat treatment to
>make many of the "natural" stones even marginally marketable (at twenty
>times the cost of a comparable lab gem)? I know that the natural with many
>inclusions is priced lower, thus valued lower, but there isn't the same
>attitude displayed towards them as there is towards Lab Gems. Just curious.
<snip>
>5. As to the comparison to antiques, that is a bit more valid. However, I
>think the market has made it clear that as a whole, most people prefer new
>furniture and appliances as opposed to a houseful of antiques (I was once an
>antique dealer).
Good gems are like good antiques. AIR, antique does no simply mean
old. Junk is junk. Some sandpaper was once made with garnet.
If they didn't, there wouldn't be so many
>furniture/appliance stores (and other items as well). Is it then just a
>matter of time before natural stones become to the market what antique
>household items are today, e.g. - Rare and curious pieces of beauty which
>most people do not buy, prefering instead the modern equivalent?
There is far more lab material sold than natural.
>9. I found it interesting that when the imperfections of natural gems were
>mentioned at all, they were described in the most glowing terms, e.g. - it
>gives them life and personality.
Maybe you don't understand that the imperfection call chromium is what
makes corundum ruby. Or that "silk" (titanium needles) causes
asterism.
I really wonder if you did your homework before you came here. Your
post had a slightly distasteful edge to it, as does this one,IMO. I
also wonder if you bought some lab material that you thought was
natural.
Michael
industry when I made my original post. Attempting to show that I know
nothing simply confirms MY original post's statement.
Reread every other post in here and many other people apparently do not have
the knowledge that you claim that I should have. Many individuals state that
chemically there is little base difference between a natural and lab grown
gem. Instead of critisizing me for my lack of knowledge, perhaps you could
share with us all your in depth insight to my misstatements. If that is too
much work, links to relevant web sites would have sufficed. Instead, I get
the dunce treatment from you. Thank you. I'll be sure to remember your
kind words should you ever visit a computer/astronomy/amateur radio/gun
newsgroup.
For the record I've purchased nothing that I "thought was natural". I'm not
attempting to justify anything to myself, but thank you for insinuating as
much about me. I'm sorry if you consider serious hard ball questioning
distasteful. I came here to learn something about this subject, not be
ridiculed with this kind of attitude. My questions are sincere, and I was
looking for guidance where I am incorrect, not insinuations, preaching and
accusations. Some of your answers informed me of things that I did not
know, and for those I thank you, but many are simply throwing my lack of
knowledge back in my face as if I should be ashamed of ignorance when I am
in fact seeking answers. Questions raise more questions, and inquisitive
minds will always be wondering. I have always believed this to be a
strength of the human mind, not the weakness you apparently think that it
is, insofar as you find it distasteful. I had hoped for more.
To everybody else, thank you for your instructive posts. I will take some
time to digest your answers and try to come to some of my own conclusions.
Again, thank you all.
Michael
"WrdMizr" <traveler_N...@loxinfo.co.th> wrote in message
news:ua80qtgaib68narhc...@4ax.com...
Peter W. Rowe
<mik...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Thank you, WrdMizr, for not instructing. I mentioned that I do not know the
>>industry when I made my original post. Attempting to show that I know
>>nothing simply confirms MY original post's statement.
Hey guys, lets try to remember that the charter of the group requires posters to
remain civil. While this post still is, it suggests that other posts have tried
not to be. I'd suggest that rather than taking offense, the most productive
approace is to assume that such posts were meant without uncivil intent. Some
people write in a manner that means no ill meaning, yet can be sometimes
misinterpreted if one wishes. At this point in our lives, I'd suggest that
charitable approaches both to responses, and to how one reads a response, would
be useful...>>
>>.. Many individuals state that
>>chemically there is little base difference between a natural and lab grown
>>gem.
This is essentially correct. The definition of synthetic (the properly
technical term for "lab grown") is that it must duplicate the chemical and
crystalographic and other physical properties of the natural material. But the
key is that it must duplicate only those qualities that actually define the
natural, thus Ruby is aluminum oxide crystalized in the hexagonal system,
colored by Chromium. A manmade material of this sort is easily made, but which
doesn't look much like real ruby due to the curved banding from the quick flame
fusion growth process. Other manmade material grown from a flux takes much
longer, but then looks a lot more like the natural. It will cost more both due
to it's better imitation of the appearance of the natural, and it's higher
production cost. But there is an essential definition of the term GEMSTONE
which is not covered by the natural/synthetic definition. It's generally
accepted that to be a true gem, a material usually must have beauty sufficient
to warrant notice, Durability suffient to survive use as a gem, and RARITY.
Rarity can be considered to be not just the degree to which a gem is available,
or the supply/demand ratio, etc. It also can have lumped with it, the
intangiable emotional/historical values that people can place on items.
Emerald, for example, has a very ancient tradition of gem use through history,
as well as rarity. The relatively recently discovered green garnet, Tsavorite,
is actually rarer as its found in only one region of the world, and almost
certainly exists in smaller total quantities than emerald. Plus, it's often
available with far fewer defects and inclusions, has a higher refractive index
which makes it brighter, and in it's best qualities has an intense green color
that equals the finest emerald in a heartbeat. By any logical thought, it
should be a more valuable gem, yet it is not. Emerald, in fact, is so often
heavily included that we even accept it with so many inclusions that it's almost
falling apart, and gets filled with oils and treatments to mask the flaws. We
do this simply because this material has such a weight of tradition and gem use
behind it that we simply cannot rid it of it's historical weighting, despite
it's obvious shortcomings. Hell, we even give the inclusions nicer sounding
names like "jardin" (french for garden) in an attempt to romance the flaws
themselves!. Other gems, widely available without inclusions, like aquamarine,
become almost unsaleable with such flaws, a telling fact since aquamarine is the
same mineral as emerald other than the chromium coloring of emerald and the pale
blue of aquamarine.
The first two properties of beauty and durability are duplicated pretty well by
the synthetics. But the man made materials don't also duplicate the same degree
of rarity, and since humans value gems, for better or worse, partly on the basis
of their rarity, then there will be an intrinsic difference in the values. Note
that this relationship also holds between different types of synthetic. The
aformentioned flame fusion types of synthetic sapphire and ruby are made for
pennies per carat, and look pretty, and work just fine as to wear and tear. But
they are dirt cheap due to their ready availability and ease of production, etc.
Other synthetics, harder to make and better duplicating the the nuances of
appearance of the naturals, may then cost more, but their values is not set by
the value of the material they duplicate, but rather by their own rarity and
costs. While their market may be defined or created by the natural material,
their value is derived on their own merits, from the same market driven forces
that place values on the natural materials. These rarity factors are why cubic
zirconia, once available only in controlled limited amounts from a few
producers, could fetch prices of sixty dollars a carat or more, while now,
widely available everywhere, they're down to pennies, for the same, or better
material. And synthetic moissonite is now also very costly, due to it's rarity
in the market, even though that rarity is as much a function of the control of
that market by the producer.
Synthetic materials must, in order to be called true synthetics rather than
imitations, duplicate the essential qualities of the natural material. But
there is no requirement for the synthetic to duplicate the non-essential, yet
often intrinsic qualites. Sometimes these are flaws, such as inclusions of
other minerals, or breaks, healed fractures, or the like. Often it's nuances of
chemical impurities that alter the color in some recognizable way, yet need not
be duplicated by the synthetics in order to be called synthetic. The difference
in fluorescence between most synthetics and most natural rubies is a case in
point. Most natural rubies have traces of iron. Not all of them, and iron is
an impurity, not part of the definition of what makes a ruby a ruby. Iron masks
fluorescence in the rubies in which it exists. Some manufacturers of synthetics
have, on occasion, introduced iron into their mix to make a closer appearing
synthetic, but many leave it out intentionally to aid identification of their
product. Adding iron to the synthetic may make it look more like the natural,
but it doesn't usually raise the price to match, since it's easy to add, so it
doesn't increase the rarity of the synthetic, and it then means the synthetic
mimics the appearance of a slightly lesser quality of ruby. Why do that?
In general, the most pure and inclusion free and perfect of the natural gems is
considered the rarest and most valuable examples. These usually are the quality
that most synethetics strive for. This means that, a truly
inclusion/imperfection free gem is sometimes hard to differentiate from the
synthetic. One result of this is an increase, though perhaps slight, in the
percieved value of natural materials with identifiable natural inclusions and
imperfections, as these then insure the identification of natural origin. A
classic example of this is the purple quartz gem called amethyst. It's widely
available in relatively "clean" and inclusion free examples, which are the most
highly valued. It used to be that the difference in price between the cleanest
amethysts and the more highly flawed/included ones was quite substantial. But
not anymore, since the intruduction of really good synthetic amethyst. This
synthetic is so good that some pieces cannot every be really conclusively
identified as natural or synthetic. What THAT has done is to raise the value of
those pieces of natural amethyst which are almost clean, but not quite, such
that enough evidence of their natural origin remains to be conclusive proof.
Then the romance of awe of mother natures works gives that material a higher
demand and market value than the cheaply and easily availble synthetic which
looks almost identical.
>>> >
>>> >1. Chemically there is no difference between Lab Grown and Natural at a
>>> >basic level, which seems to be confirmed by most.
>>>
>>> Then explain the difference in fluorescence between Mogok stones and
>>> flux growm.
>>>
>>> Explain the chemistry that creates the velvety appearance of Kasmir
>>> sapphire.
>>>
As explained above, lab grown sapphire or ruby duplicate the essential essence
of what makes a stone ruby or sapphire. They need NOT duplicate the various
identifiable characteristics that define a particular gem. Thus specific
varieties of natural gem will usually have additional chemical or physical
componants, not essential to their identification as that particular variety of
gem, which never the less are important to their end appearance. In those cases
where lab grown stones duplicate these aspects of the natural gem too, then the
statement gest more correct, but there are very very few types of synthetic gem
which truly manage to always duplicate it all.
>>> >2. There are imperfections created by the growing process which detract
>>> >from the emotional and monetary "value" because they seem, to most
>>people,
>>> >to "mar the work".
>>>
>>> No, identify them as lab grown.
Not a "NO", but an "also" situation. The inclusions in the lab grown stones DO
mar the work, but they may also both identify them, which makes them useful to
the trade, and they may also sometimes make them better mimic the natural
material's inclusions, which may make them look more like the naturals, even if
they then do NOT look more like the best of the naturals. This becomes a market
driven thing. The most natural appearing stones, even if lesser as a result ,
are more saleable.
>>>
>>> That being the case, why isn't the presence of natural
>>> >inclusions also reviled, as well as the necessity of oil/heat treatment
>>to
>>> >make many of the "natural" stones even marginally marketable (at twenty
>>> >times the cost of a comparable lab gem)? I know that the natural with
>>many
>>> >inclusions is priced lower, thus valued lower, but there isn't the same
>>> >attitude displayed towards them as there is towards Lab Gems. Just
>>curious.
The natural inclusions ARE indeed reviled to some degree, though "revile" is too
strong a word. Those natural stones with the least inclusions are the most
highly prized, often fetching far higher prices. However, inclusions are often
tolerated simply because there is little choice, if one wishes sufficient
quantities of the natural material to satisfy demand. Also, while inclusions in
the lab grown gems are viewed simply as manufactureing defects, not generally a
desired thing, the same inclusions in the natural material are due to the
natural environment, and are signatures of the way and place the natural gem
grew. Though they mar the work just as much, they are ALSO souveneers, if you
will, of that natural process, and part of the appeal of gems is a simple sense
of wonder that these things CAN be formed in nature. Thus this sense of wonder
also applies to the fingerprings of that origin, the inclusions and flaws. The
inclusions in a lab grown ruby are simply bits of the flux salts used to grow
the material. Not much romance in that. But the inclusions in a natural ruby
might be a bunch of thin crystals of rutile, another interesting mineral, or a
bit of pyrite, or often another bit of ruby or sapphire crystal that got
incorporated into the host crystal. These things are like the bug in a piece of
amber, a bit of the history of the gem's creation trapped for us to see. So
long as that history of it's creation is a thing of interest and appeal, then
the inclusions themselves will not be viewed with as much negativity as they are
in a manufactured gem.
>>>
>>> There is far more lab material sold than natural.
>>>
True enough. There are often too few gems to satisfy demand, and thus the
prices rise. That creates an unsatisfied market. There are lots of synthetic
gems sold because the natural ones have created the market before them. You can
create the lab stones in colors and varietes seldom seen in nature, yet you
seldom see these sold. Why? They don't create the illusion that the wearer has
the more costly natural gem. This is simple economics mixed with vanity and
consumers wanting what they do not wish to afford, so making due with an
acceptable substitute.
>>> >9. I found it interesting that when the imperfections of natural gems
>>were
>>> >mentioned at all, they were described in the most glowing terms, e.g. -
>>it
>>> >gives them life and personality.
>>>
>>> Maybe you don't understand that the imperfection call chromium is what
>>> makes corundum ruby. Or that "silk" (titanium needles) causes
>>> asterism.
Some inclusions and imperfections do indeed give the gems their essential
beauty. Usually this is then duplicated, at least in the silk or chromium
examples given, in the synthetic. Most inclusions, though, have less value.
They are tolerated, simply because there is no choice (review the difference
between emerald and aquamarine in this tolerance level)
So then. If we MUST put up with the inclusions, yet the inclusions are not
really desired, and the buyers would prefer the unattainable gem without the
inclusions (but not at a higher price, please), then the task of the seller is
to convince the buyer to change his mind about the inclusions. The depiction of
inclusions in glowing terms is simply slick salesmanship, not gemology.
Sometimes the approach is reasonable, noting that inclusions are indeed the
fingerprint of the natural origins, and sometimes interesting to look at in
their own right, giving the gem it's own unique characteristics. This much is
certainly true. Some salespeople, though, carry it to extremes. They wish to
earn their commisions...
>>>
>>> I really wonder if you did your homework before you came here. Your
>>> post had a slightly distasteful edge to it, as does this one,IMO. I
>>> also wonder if you bought some lab material that you thought was
>>> natural.
>>>
And this is what I referred to in my first paragraph. Lets not be so judgmental
of individuals. It's inappropriate in this group, and in society as a whole,
and it forces me to then have to make difficult decisions regarding whether to
approve a post or not, something I really don't enjoy doing. I don't find the
referenced posting to be distasteful, only inquisative and perhaps looking for a
detailed discussion and debate. Nothing wrong there. Argue about the facts and
opinions, not the posters themselves. Certainly with regard to synthetics vs.
naturals, the industry and the field has a rich history of debate and
disagreement on which to draw.
Peter Rowe
(G.G., as well as your moderator...)
Bert
questions. I'll just add a couple of thoughts.
"Michael" <mik...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>2. There are imperfections created by the growing process which detract
>from the emotional and monetary "value" because they seem, to most people,
>to "mar the work". That being the case, why isn't the presence of natural
>inclusions also reviled...
I think in general people are more tolerant of imperfection in natural
objects than in man-made objects, particularly mass-produced objects.
In this age when everyone is familiar with the phrase "quality
control," it is assumed that any manufacturing process can be refined
to the point of yielding nearly-perfect objects; a failure to achieve
such refinement is not generally well-received by the consuming
public. On the other hand, there is no expectation that nature will
yield perfection on a regular basis; still, there is an appreciation
for natural perfection when it does occur.
>4. Those who asked why people valued Picasso instead of an imitator of
>Picasso missed the mark a bit. I'm not comparing a unique stone and asking
>why people do not value a lab grown to imitate that specific unique stone
>(Hope Diamond vs. Hope Diamond look alike). I was asking a more general
>question, which would be translated in the analogy as "one painter who
>paints original works in X style as well or better than other renowned
>artists who paint in X style, but is looked down upon because of his
>pedigree/official pronouncements by the 'art experts', etc". Does this help
>frame the quetions better?
I don't think the analogy is directly applicable, since in one case
we're talking about a man-made versus natural object, and in the other
case we're talking about a man-made versus man-made object, so there
are different dynamics involved. For instance, in the case of a
painting, many people aren't terribly confident of their own artistic
taste, and thus defer to the experts to tell them what is good,
particularly for higher-priced purchases. This creates more demand for
work from the renowned artist than from the unknown artist. Even those
who are confident of their own taste cannot afford to ignore this
phenomenon if they view their art purchases as investments, because
the investment value is determined by market demand. And of course
there is also the pretty common human desire to associate with or in
some way to acquire a piece of those having power and prestige; in
terms of the art market, this translates to additional demand for the
work of a famous artist.
>5. As to the comparison to antiques, that is a bit more valid. However, I
>think the market has made it clear that as a whole, most people prefer new
>furniture and appliances as opposed to a houseful of antiques (I was once an
>antique dealer). If they didn't, there wouldn't be so many
>furniture/appliance stores (and other items as well). Is it then just a
>matter of time before natural stones become to the market what antique
>household items are today, e.g. - Rare and curious pieces of beauty which
>most people do not buy, prefering instead the modern equivalent?
In the case of appliances, people want new because (a) new typically
has a longer remaining useful life and requires less maintenance than
used, (b) new frequently includes more and/or improved features, and
(c) it generally takes less effort to locate a new item in the desired
color, condition, etc. As for furniture, the demand for new is in
large part due to changing tastes and desires for new styles. With the
exception of (c) above, these factors are not applicable in the
comparison of synthetic versus natural gemstones.
A more applicable analogy would be the value of antique furniture
compared to the value of replicas of antique furniture. By and large,
a genuine antique in decent condition will be worth considerably more
than a replica.
>6. To the person who mentioned Wine and why people value one wine made with
>a certain grape over another made with the same grape, well, I have the same
>questions about that as well, truth be told. ...
I think essentially the same dynamics are involved with wine as with
art, where people defer to critics as the arbiters of taste, thinking
that liking the right wines or the right art will confer on them the
appearance of being cultured and refined. This behavior is frequently
reinforced by peer response and peer pressure.
But again, I don't think this dynamic is involved to a great degree in
the natural vs. synthetic gemstone question, especially as the
synthetics become more indistinguishable from the naturals.
>7. Some mentioned rarity. This makes sense. I am familiar with market
>dynamics.
What really matters, in terms of the market value of an object, is its
rarity relative to the demand. Two items can exist in equal
quantities, but if one is more desired for some reason, it will cost
more. In the case of gemstones, the natural stones are inherently more
rare than the synthetics, at least in terms of potential rarity.
Nature can't be coerced into producing more gemstones to meet market
demand (though perhaps additional demand can lead to more concerted
efforts to find the stones that do exist); on the other hand,
synthetics can potentially be made in unlimited quantities.
>> If I'm not mistaken at the basic level, why is there such a sneering,
>> deriding attitude towards lab made gems as compared to natural gems? ...
>other than
>> feelings and warm fuzzies, is there any basis for the animosity towards
>lab
>> made gems, assuming they are correctly grown and cut? ... I am not
>> trying to create a leading question, I simply do not understand the
>> attitudes I've seen many jewelers display towards lab made gems and
>figured
To the extent that animosity is displayed by jewelers toward synthetic
gems, I can think of at least two possible reasons. First, jewelers
want to protect their customers who have invested in natural
gemstones. A flood of synthetic stones indistinguishable from natural
stones would likely cause the value of the existing natural stones to
plummet, leading to disgruntled and apprehensive customers.
Likewise, if the values of gemstones fall due to larger supply, the
jeweler will make a smaller per-stone profit for a given percentage of
markup. Of course, it's possible that increased volume of sales due to
the lower prices could make up for the reduced profit margin, so this
may not be a compelling reason.
Bert
Michael
questions, they have helped answer a lot for me.
Michael
"Peter W. Rowe" <PWR...@home.com> wrote in message
news:7cp5qtk0ardgqdks1...@4ax.com...
[[And the next 300 lines of this post, all the quoted text of my previous reply
to Michael, I've snipped for your reading brevity. go back and read my earlier
post if you wish it. PWR]]
Lee S. Billings
says...
>
>Michael wrote:
>> If I'm not mistaken at the basic level, why is there such a sneering,
>> deriding attitude towards lab made gems as compared to natural gems? If the
>> lab made are "perfect" (relatively) examples of the gem they are crafted
>> after, and natural are flawed and relatively imperfect, why do so many
>> people consider natural as somehow inherintly "better"?
>
>It's a matter of price, I think. When any car will do, why do people
>sneer at a Yugo, and lust after the Rolls?
Okay, I have to delurk to address this. There's much more to a car than price
and appearance! The Yugo has a *miserable* reliability record -- it's in the
shop more than it's on the road.
Given two cars of comparable reliability, what makes some people choose the
more expensive one? Lotta things... snob appeal is a big factor, but so are
things like finishing details and the perception (which may not match the
reality) that the more you pay, the better the quality. Actually, price /
performance is on a curve, and after a certain point you get into the realm of
diminshing returns... which is why cars of medium price and reasonable
reliability are more popular than *either* Yugos or Rolls.
Now, applying this to gems... there's a large perception factor, which as
Michael points out is carefully nurtured by some jewelers. The average buyer,
like me, would never be aware of the fine differences you mention -- but if we
hear enough professional jewelers say that synthetic stones are inferior, we
may absorb the attitude by osmosis. After all, they're supposed to know what
they're talking about...
From a merchant's point of view, what you use depends a lot on which market
you're trying to reach. If you're selling "fine jewelry" to an upscale market,
then you definitely want to stick with natural stones whenever possible. If
you're selling "economical jewelry" (like Service Merchandise), then synthetics
make more sense because they're cheaper and those savings can be passed on to
the customer. If you're selling "pretty stuff", then it depends *entirely* on
your intended customer base; you may have some genuine stones, some glass, and
even some plastic if you do flea markets and church bazaars.
The most important thing IMO is that you be honest about what you're using, be
it natural, synthetic, imitation, or whatever.
Celine
--
"Only the powers of evil claim that doing good is boring."
-- Diane Duane, _Nightfall at Algemron_
Carl or Rebecca Downey
going and that is I disagree with the notion that there is intense,
widespread derision towards lab created gem materials in the first
place. Of course one may run across an individual now and then or
perhaps a class of individuals (gem collectors?) that may have strong
negative opinions of synthetics but the original post gives the
impression extreme negative feelings are universal. I disagree. A lot of
hobby faceters like the range of clean, large material available. I bet
there are quite a few bench jewelers that breathe a sigh of relief
(secretly?)when they realize a sizing job or a stone that requires
dismounting is lab created and very 'robust', perhaps not requiring
extremly careful handling like some heavily included and fragile natural
material. And many pieces of jewelry would be unaffordable if not for
synthetics.
Just wanted to mention that. Should've during the 'run' of this
subject.
Carl
1 Lucky Texan
Old Abuelo
www.gemstoneartist.com .
Not my site
Abuelo
Lee S. Billings wrote in message
<29martcrt4hfq9tso...@4ax.com>...