Your opinion on this stone?
- Thread starter aimee0474
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
From your picture it looks like semi translucent to opaque with heavy inclusions. This type of material is mostly used for cabachon cutting and for carving because it is nice and inexpensive.
As long as you did not pay more than a few dollars for the piece you did just fine.
Wink
As long as you did not pay more than a few dollars for the piece you did just fine.
Wink
mogok
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 408
This ruby photograph looks to me to show a typical material from africa: brownish red with a lot of polysynthetic twinning. Its not a great stone for sure for many reasons:
The transparency looks very limited, the stone looks translucent more than transparent.
The clarity is very low, its nearly cabochon material...
the color looks very brownish (but there is the photo and the screen effect...)so I suppose its an iron rcih material with a limited fluorescence... I repeat: I suppose.
Only the cut looks correct (I mean symetric)...
To my opinion it is a typical low quality stone that you find on ebay. It is not a bad stone if you learn from it or if for some reason you begin to loke it: Not everybody looks like a top model,... For gems, beauty, art and human: there is no standart that really stand.
This stone clearly does not have real value, that's it...
But take my opinion as it is: I like "open" stones, with a good luster, bright, with a good transparency and a fine clarity... I love a stone to have some "tale tale" inclusions under microscope but I love my stones to be near eye clean... I've a particular dislike for any kind of treatment, as I prefer to pay double to get a native potato than a heated symmetric clean commercial calibrated thing...
That's what I think very honestly about this photo. I dont have seen the stone so please take this opinion as it is: An opinion on a photograph not a stone... To tell you correctly the thing I would need to see the stone.
All the best,
The transparency looks very limited, the stone looks translucent more than transparent.
The clarity is very low, its nearly cabochon material...
the color looks very brownish (but there is the photo and the screen effect...)so I suppose its an iron rcih material with a limited fluorescence... I repeat: I suppose.
Only the cut looks correct (I mean symetric)...
To my opinion it is a typical low quality stone that you find on ebay. It is not a bad stone if you learn from it or if for some reason you begin to loke it: Not everybody looks like a top model,... For gems, beauty, art and human: there is no standart that really stand.
This stone clearly does not have real value, that's it...
But take my opinion as it is: I like "open" stones, with a good luster, bright, with a good transparency and a fine clarity... I love a stone to have some "tale tale" inclusions under microscope but I love my stones to be near eye clean... I've a particular dislike for any kind of treatment, as I prefer to pay double to get a native potato than a heated symmetric clean commercial calibrated thing...
That's what I think very honestly about this photo. I dont have seen the stone so please take this opinion as it is: An opinion on a photograph not a stone... To tell you correctly the thing I would need to see the stone.
All the best,
- Status
300x240.png)