Date: 4/1/2006 1:25:27 PM
Author: colorchange
I would bet on a (nice) sapphire. If the stone is like on the photo you prefer it''s really a nice one.
Richard are you sure you didn''t hit the 3 by mistake trying to hit the 6 ?
Date: 4/1/2006 1:53:00 PM
Author: Richard M.
Date: 4/1/2006 1:25:27 PM
Author: colorchange
I would bet on a (nice) sapphire. If the stone is like on the photo you prefer it''s really a nice one.
Richard are you sure you didn''t hit the 3 by mistake trying to hit the 6 ?
CC, I would *hope* for a nice sapphire but my typing was in line with my bottom-line suspicion. The 3 (and single index) is what I intended based on the date and other data. I guess I may not as good as some other people here at doing precise gemology via blurry digital images. Of course it''s always fun to second-guess the first person to post anyhow, isn''t it?
Date: 4/1/2006 2:54:10 PM
Author: Wren
Date: 4/1/2006 1:53:00 PM
When did synthetic spinels go into production?
In the early 1900s, a few years after Verneuil made his first flame-fusion rubies. Someone accidentally dumped magnesium oxide into the mix intended for corundum and synthetic spinel was the result. Doping it chemically to simulate other gems was quickly discovered. While it''s a ''genuine synthetic,'' it''s usually used to simulate other gems like sapphire, tourmaline, garnet, alexandrite, etc. Most blue spinels doped with cobalt will appear red under a Chelsea filter. I just ''recycled'' a syn. spinel from an old 1960s-era class ring into a round brilliant cut. It''s almost the exact color of the stone pictured. But no one will know for sure what the subject stone is until it''s tested.
Richard M.
300x240.png)
