My Pink Tourmaline

[athenaworth]

OK, it's a 2.16 cushion shape mixed cut 9.04x7.02x4.86 with no heat or treatment. I got it for $285. I was thinking of setting it e/w in a yellow gold bezel with silver split shank (the DanielM I posted earlier). I love the color and the larger facets, but I want to make sure I did the best I could. What's your guys' opinion?

 

[athenaworth]

A few more

 

[T L]

OK, it's a 2.16 cushion shape mixed cut 9.04x7.02x4.86 with no heat or treatment. I got it for $285. I was thinking of setting it e/w in a yellow gold bezel with silver split shank (the DanielM I posted earlier). I love the color and the larger facets, but I want to make sure I did the best I could. What's your guys' opinion?

Since you asked for opinions, I will be honest. I think it's too expensive for the color. That color should be around $30/ct, not over $100/ct. It's really too orange for my taste, but even if you like orange, the more orangey tourmalines should not be that expensive. You can find them all over ebay for much much less. Besides never take a seller's word for it that a tourmaline is not treated. Heat treatment and irradiation are not detectable in tourmaline.

 

[minousbijoux]

I love the color and shape.

 

[ZestfullyBling]

I love the color, its very pretty! I favor stones that are deep pinkish/reddish/violetish. With this color I think you can go either way with white or yellow gold. Whichever your preference you can't go wrong!

 

[Novel]

I don't know about color for price, but I'm not loving the half light/half dark thing that is going on. Is that just how its photographing?

 

[Aoife]

I'm not going to comment on the price/color issue, because I always doubt that color as represented on PS really matches the IRL color--I can attest that my photos never do. However, the stone does look windowed to me in those photos. Is it? For that price, if you love the stone, keep it, set it, enjoy it. If you have doubts, you have a very substantial budget, and could definitely find something that does make your heart sing.


PS Aren't colored stones addictive?

 

[T L]

I'm not going to comment on the price/color issue, because I always doubt that color as represented on PS really matches the IRL color

True, so my comments above should be prefaced with, "if your photos are reasonably accurate for the color." You should know that orangey pink tourmalines are much less valuable/expensive than ones that are a true pink, and hold their color well. That's really expensive for such a tourmaline color (again, if the color is accurate). I know Barry of acstones sells similar colored tourmalines, and even he doesn't charge as much per carat for his precsion cut ones in similar sizes to that. I apologize for being blunt, but I can't stand when I see someone over paying for something. Now, if you love it, and you can't part with it, that's a different story, but since you were asking for opinions, I just want you to get the best value for your money.

 

[athenaworth]

I"m realizing more and more that I'm not color sensitive in the least. Hell, I've never had anything higher than an H diamond and it's never phased me. But when I looka t this stone it doesn't seem to have any orange in it at all. But i'm starting to think I spent too much on it and can find something better. Here's the best pic I could get of the color.

 

[T L]

I still see orange in that stone in your last picture, although it is not as orange as the photos above. Here is an example of a pink tourmaline with no orange in it (Cellentani owns this stone and it's precision cut by Bob Kast at Bobkast.com).



Now, some pink tourmalines go more orange in certain lighting, and you should always ask the seller about that. If you like orange in your pink, that's fine, but again, the ones that go more orange and do not hold their pink color, should not be as expensive as the ones that do hold their color, if there is no treatment that is (that is a whole other topic).

I honestly do think you can do better for your money if the color is accurate in your photos. I really do.

 

[athenaworth]

I think you're right. Back to the drAwing board

 

[iLander]

I think it's lovely!

Tourmalines are moody and tend to change colors in different lighting, that's just their nature. I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" color for a tourmaline, unless you are looking for something very specific. If it's not to your taste, that's fine, but I think it's a great stone and I'm loving the colors that I'm seeing in some of the photos.

I have one that is hot pink or peachy or fuchsia with purple flashes, all depending on the lighting. I, personally, like the variety and would get bored with a stone that was the exact same color all the time.

That's my personal opinion. . .

 

[T L]

I think it's lovely!

Tourmalines are moody and tend to change colors in different lighting, that's just their nature. I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" color for a tourmaline, unless you are looking for something very specific. If it's not to your taste, that's fine, but I think it's a great stone and I'm loving the colors that I'm seeing in some of the photos.

I have one that is hot pink or peachy or fuchsia with purple flashes, all depending on the lighting. I, personally, like the variety and would get bored with a stone that was the exact same color all the time.

That's my personal opinion. . .

Hi Ilander,
I don't think I'm complaining about the color, as much as the price. If she likes, it, by all means, she should keep it. I just think it's very overpriced from what I've seen for that color going for from even top notch lapidaries like Barry. People work hard for their money, and I think she can do better for the price she paid. Now, we don't know if her photos are that accurate, but I posted Cellentani's stone to show a very nice example of pink tourmaline that should go for what about she paid for that stone. It's not that her tourmaline isn't nice, but I sometimes think the word "moody" is overused a bit, and it really is a negative connotation as I view that word, in describing color. I'm sorry for my blunt honesty. In the end, people should buy what they like, but one thing I'm a stickler on, and I know many of us are, is that we should always pay a fair price.

 

[marymm]

I have been scouting pink tourmalines for the past several months and will jump in to say my first thought when I read OP's 1st post and saw the pics was that it was priced more expensively than I would expect for that stone's color, cut and carat weight.

That said, just because a gemstone is priced higher than the norm does not mean it is not worth keeping... it is just one more factor to take into account when examining a gemstone and deciding whether to keep it or to continue the hunt. I think most people would agree it is certainly important in making a purchasing decision to know the general pricing in the market for a similar item. If the color, cut and size of the gemstone all meet the buyer's expectations, then one may well decide the higher-than-standard price is acceptable -- but an informed buyer is always a more satisfied buyer, in my opinion.

 

[Arcadian]

My biggest concern would be how its totally closing up in brighter lighting. Tourmaline can change a lot in depending on the light source, how the color tends to close up in brighter lighting isn't a good thing.

Now, as far as the whole irradiation thing, I've read it, I've discussed it, and I'm going to leave that at the store. My personal belief is that if you're THAT scared, then don't buy anything. All gems have the possibility of being irradiated either by man or by nature.

So on that, you have to do you, just be educated when doing so.

But I will agree that just from some of the pictures you're showing that you paid quite a bit for a stone that dosen't seem to perform as it should.

-A

 

[T L]

All gems have the possibility of being irradiated either by man or by nature.
-A

Not really Arcadian. Some gems show no positive effect when it comes to treatments, or they can look worse when treated, and therefore there are some gems that still remain untreated. Garnets, spinels and chrysoberyls are gems that are generally untreated, although they have been tried on with little success. However, one should always keep up on the latest treatment, and if treatments are a concern to an individual, then one should always buy a gem with a detectable treatment (ie clarity enhanced emeralds).

 

[Arcadian]

All gems have the possibility of being irradiated either by man or by nature.
-A

Not really Arcadian. Some gems show no positive effect when it comes to treatments, or they can look worse when treated, and therefore there are some gems that still remain untreated. Garnets, spinels and chrysoberyls are gems that are generally untreated, although they have been tried on with little success. However, one should always keep up on the latest treatment, and if treatments are a concern to an individual, then one should always buy a gem with a detectable treatment (ie clarity enhanced emeralds).

Of course, if you noticed I said possibility. I never said its a definitive. Anything is possible TL, you know that. Of course when it comes to making money humans will TRY anything! I also never said that they wouldn't. And you're correct, some stones that we know of have not benefited irradiation of the human type.

Also, I'm all for sharing information, I do it every day, but I will say that the last few posts where tourms are concerned TL, I think your putting it out there in such a way that its scaremongering.

If you don't want to buy tourms anymore because you're scared they may be irradiated, then don't, thats totally your choice.

However, if you're going to also state that they are irradiated, then site the source you're getting the information from so that others can read and make the choice for themselves, just as you did, just as I did.

I think thats not only right, but also fair. If you feel like you can't put it out there, then ask a moderator or site admin if you can. I don't think anyone on this board would have a problem with information pertaining to treatments being put out there for people to read and disseminate for themselves.

Hell if I had something definitive about treatments I sure as hell would point to it, and that would be that. Otherwise, just saying that you got this information about so and so being irradiated is damn useless without something concrete to back it up.

THIS type of information should be backed up with definitive proof, not because you say so and not because so and so said so either.

Hell the person that said it, I have no issue with, he's a smart dood. Matter of fact, I wouldn't MIND if he came here and said what he said himself TBH, as long as it was backed up with trackable proof that folks could read for themselves.

This is the very reason why I said I'm leaving that issue at the store. If I can't point to the site and say here, go read it for yourself, its useless to put it out there.



-A

 

[T L]

All gems have the possibility of being irradiated either by man or by nature.
-A

Not really Arcadian. Some gems show no positive effect when it comes to treatments, or they can look worse when treated, and therefore there are some gems that still remain untreated. Garnets, spinels and chrysoberyls are gems that are generally untreated, although they have been tried on with little success. However, one should always keep up on the latest treatment, and if treatments are a concern to an individual, then one should always buy a gem with a detectable treatment (ie clarity enhanced emeralds).

Of course, if you noticed I said possibility. I never said its a definitive. Anything is possible TL, you know that. Of course when it comes to making money humans will TRY anything! I also never said that they wouldn't. And you're correct, some stones that we know of have not benefited irradiation of the human type.

Also, I'm all for sharing information, I do it every day, but I will say that the last few posts where tourms are concerned TL, I think your putting it out there in such a way that its scaremongering.

If you don't want to buy tourms anymore because you're scared they may be irradiated, then don't, thats totally your choice.

However, if you're going to also state that they are irradiated, then site the source you're getting the information from so that others can read and make the choice for themselves, just as you did, just as I did.

I think thats not only right, but also fair. If you feel like you can't put it out there, then ask a moderator or site admin if you can. I don't think anyone on this board would have a problem with information pertaining to treatments being put out there for people to read and disseminate for themselves.

Hell if I had something definitive about treatments I sure as hell would point to it, and that would be that. Otherwise, just saying that you got this information about so and so being irradiated is damn useless without something concrete to back it up.

THIS type of information should be backed up with definitive proof, not because you say so and not because so and so said so either.

Hell the person that said it, I have no issue with, he's a smart dood. Matter of fact, I wouldn't MIND if he came here and said what he said himself TBH, as long as it was backed up with trackable proof that folks could read for themselves.

This is the very reason why I said I'm leaving that issue at the store. If I can't point to the site and say here, go read it for yourself, its useless to put it out there.



-A

Arcadian,
I see your point, and I see why others would be annoyed at my constant discussion on irradiation and other non-detectable treatments. In no way am I trying to be a party pooper, or put anyone's stones down. I just put this information out there because I feel responsible in stating "be careful, and buy at your own risk." No matter who we buy from, we have to take the vendor at their word, and they have to take their supplier's words that these stones are not treated. However, non-detectable treatments are something I feel the need to be concerned about, and that's why I discuss them here.

Now, I know I would be breaking the rules of this site if I linked to where I have found these discussions and articles, and I don't think that admin would make a special case for me to post them here, as that would open the door to others wanting to post links to forbidden websites. However, I welcome you and anyone else to google "irradiated tourmaline" and "irradiated indicolites" and you will find plenty of information and articles. It's all out there, trust me.

While the Pricescope colored stones subforum does discuss treatment on a limited basis, there are other sites that really get deeply into the discussions of treatments on gemstones, and take it very very seriously. Believe me, I would love nothing better than to know that tourmalines were free of this treatment, or at least had some detectable way of determining if a stone were irradiated. I have some gorgeous pinks and blues that I can't look at in the same way because of this issue and it upsets me, just as much as it would anyone who has beautiful stones that they love. However, I feel a responsibility to this forum and to consumers lurking here to bring it up. It is what it is, and if people don't want to listen to me, or think I'm speaking rubbish, that's fine too, but in the end, I just want people to be aware, and they can come to their own conclusions.

 

[Arcadian]

TL, please understand one thing, I'm not mad at what you're saying, just how its being delivered. But it also wouldn't matter if it were someone else saying it, i'd be just as peeved. A lot of people here do trust you, and you've offered a hell of a lot to this community and continue to do so. I don't ever want you to think that you're not valued for those things. And while I don't always agree with you, I value you too.

At the same time, putting info on treatments out there without backing up with irrefutable proof shouldn't be done. This isn't a science board where you CAN put that information out there and have great debates about it and go back and forth; This is first and foremost a consumer board. Plenty of people will NOT understand why you're saying it, they just know you do and they will trust what you're saying.

I personally want people to trust what I'm saying based on the information I can give them, backed by something that allows them to read and educate themselves so they can form their own opinions. Thats where great opportunities come in to put this place on another level.

I've always said there are so many missed opportunities on this forum. This is a biggie to me. Spoonfeeding info like this is never good because it leads to being a bad Breck shampoo commercial. You tell someone something, they tell two friends, but in the meantime that information gets twisted because you didn't tell them oh, btw, here's where I read this from.

Old heads on this board carry a big responsibility. You guys know people look up to you and look to you for advice not only about buying but also about interpreting what those treatments can mean.

Alls I'm saying is please be careful how things are worded, knowing that you have people who do place a lot of trust and faith in you. If its definitive that a certain treatment is happening, then please site the source where that info came from. That to me is the ultimate education opportunity and not the whole mystic bs that tends to surround the gems. There's enough of that without adding into it.

-A

 

[T L]

Thanks Arcadian,
I appreciate that, and point taken. Here are some safe to post articles on irradiated tourmaline. The sites I cannot link to often discuss treatment more in depth, and we have interesting discussions on them.

http://nevada-outback-gems.com/Encyclopedia_pages/gem_treatments/tourmaline_treatment.htm

Check Faceters.com as Jeff Graham points out irradiated tourmaline on some of his pages, but he states they do not color shift. The color shifting can still occur in irradiated specimens from what I've been told.

Tourmalines are also sometimes heated before the irradiation process to remove or lighten the unwanted color, and then irradiation is peformed to deepen it to a very attractive shade. This is taken from a restricted site.

What I have found out is that I cannot locate any photo of an irradiated indicolite. I have seen photos of irradiated rubellite (even Richard Homer sells them). I have asked and asked around, but no one has come forward. It might not matter as the material, from what I've been told, does not look much different from natural indicolite. It still would be nice to see a photo.

If you want to continue this discussion on the irradiation of tourmaine in another thread (or anyone), feel free to do so. It would be nice to have this discussion, and perhaps some people can shed some light on things I'm currently researching. In the meantime, if I don't know something, I err on the side of caution and avoid the material until a treatment can be detected. Others may want to still buy the material based on missing information. It's everyone's personal decision.

 

[LD]

I've got a slightly different take on this one. I actually don't mind irradiated stones (for some, not all, gemstones) if disclosed. It can replicate what nature should/might have/would have done so I'm okay with it. Let's face it, in some stones you can't detect whether it's natural or man induced so ............. if I have to rule out all irradiated stones then I'm pretty much limited to what I buy. For me, the big "no no's" are BE, filling, dying, coating, laser drilling etc.

I think we all have our tolerances as to what is/what isn't acceptable and whilst I agree new people to the board should know the facts, I would be very surprised if their tolerances were as low as ours, so I tend not to mention them unless we're talking sapphires, rubies, emeralds OR where the price difference will be substantial. Some people just want a pretty stone at a fair price.

Athena - just coming back to your stone - I also see orange in it but that's fine if you like the colour. Colour is very personal so you must buy what you like. I also think it's over-priced BUT before you send it back, do some research and see if there's something else on the market that you could get for less money AND a colour you love. Don't just send it back because we're saying it's expensive. If you love it then the cost shouldn't be an issue. If you're on the fence with it then it may well become an issue.

 

[T L]

I've got a slightly different take on this one. I actually don't mind irradiated stones (for some, not all, gemstones) if disclosed.

I probably should have been more specific on my stance on irradiated gems, as you do bring up some good points. I don't mind any gemstone treatment if it's disclosed and one is paying a fair price. I do understand, for example, that irradiated diamonds are a fantastic alternative to their natural counterparts because the price difference between the two can be astonomical. However, for tourmaline, if I'm paying the same amount for a tourmaline that is natural vs. unatural in color, and the treatment is undetectable (it's detectable in irradiated diamonds), then that disturbs me.

Thanks for sharing your points on this one LD.