Loupes

[Opallover]

I feel stupid asking this, but I am new at all of this. I have recent;y acquired a loupe. How do you use it exactly?

Linda

 

[Richard M.]

Date: 2/28/2006 1:44:18 PM
Author:Opallover
I have recent;y acquired a loupe. How do you use it exactly?
Linda

For use with colored stones, see Richard Hughes'' instructions in the "Help With Tanzanite" thread. I agree with him. Do you have a gun? If not I can lend you one of mine.

Richard M.

 

[Opallover]

LOL!! I guess I''ll use it to admire my wedding/engagement ring!! Thanks Richard!!

Linda

 

[movie zombie]

i like using a loupe on color stones. i get to know them on a really personal basis that way. i want to know the stone''s identifiers....that''s how i think about inclusions: they are merely part of my spess''s personality. i know i know: love it for its color! which i do....and its crystal and its cut. when one buys what richard wise says is the best spess he''s ever seen, well, there isn''t much to complain about. i like how it looks period, with or without a loupe.

so loupe if you want: just don''t take it too serious! wasn''t it vincent that at one time said he prefers color stones with inclusions as they had for him more personality? instead of looking at them as flaws, think of them as character lines.

movie zombie

 

[MINE!!]

Well said MZ.

 

[movie zombie]

thank you, Mine. i''d really like to see your spess under a loupe because of its concave cut....i have this idea that it is something really personal, individual, and unique made just for you. yes, richard homer has concave cut many a spess: but no two spess roughs are identical and cutting has to be compatible with the stone''s structure. i imagine flashes of orange, yellow, and red not only on the surface but down inside its very being.

i believe one of the green garnets from russia is not considered ''desireable'' unless it has feather inclusions! and i think if i had a piece of really really good amber i''d be louping it to see any and all creatures trapped within it.

the joys of color stones.......!

movie zombie

 

[belle]

hold the loupe close to your eye and bring the stone (whatever it may be!) towards the loupe until it comes into focus.
have fun!

 

[movie zombie]

good call, Belle! none of the rest of us responded to the initial question! just started off on our own opinions or reactions to same.

movie zombie

 

[Richard M.]

Date: 2/28/2006 4:01:39 PM
Author: belle
hold the loupe close to your eye and bring the stone (whatever it may be!) towards the loupe until it comes into focus.

have fun!

The point Richard Hughes makes is that ultra-strict diamond clarity standards are silly when appied to colored gems. Yes, loupes can be handy for identifying natural inclusions, zoning, etc. but the impact of the gem''s color, cut and brilliance on the unaided eye -- its ''presence'' -- is the important thing.

Current GIA teachings recommend against using loupes when clarity-grading colored stones because eye-visible inclusions are expected in many kinds.

GIA breaks colored gems into three clarity types: Type I, usually eye clean (example: aquamarine, etc.); Type II, usually included (examples: ruby, garnet, etc.); and Type III, almost always included (example: emerald, red and bicolor tourmaline, etc.)

I think brilliance and cut quality are very important as well but color is obviously the important thing in colored stones. While opals are classed as colored gems, grading and valuing them is not the same as transparent crystalline stones. An entire grading system has been devised exclusively for opal by the Gemmological Association of Australia. Grading is done almost entirely without loupes.

Hint for loupe use: hold the lens close to the eye as Belle suggests, then put the tips of your two little fingers together to steady your hands. Then bring the fingers holding the object slowly toward the lens. Steadying the hands against each other offers more control and sharper views.

Richard M.

 

[elmo]

I applaud the intent of Dick's post, but I also think there's more to this.

First and foremost, when buying a stone, I ask myself does it have the look? I remember someone (Hughes?) saying if it does it "winks" at you. That's a great analogy, and boy that's a great feeling if you've been looking long and hard for something. No loupes involved in that decision.

Something tells me though that the AGTA has more than one microscope at the lab. Has the stone been enhanced? Would someone care to hazard a guess about origin? Or in this case did the bench guy's assistant do a hack job when he set a soft stone? Good chance that some sort of magnification will be involved in answering these questions.

Also, I don't know about everyone else here, but my eyes aren't what they used to be, and I can always use a little help

.

 

[rubydick]

Elmo,

Of course you are correct. We lab gemos use whatever tools will get the job done.

I''ve spent much of my adult life staring into a microscope. This is one reason why I''m always so happy to escape the lab, to get a look at the real world from a macroscopic perspective, rather than the microscopic. We all need that change in set and setting. Does a body good.

While magnification increases detail, it also simultaneously decreases depth-of-field. Call it perspective. Too often, we gemologists get so used to staring into our scopes that we lose perspective. This occurs with any subject, political or otherwise. Periodically we need to force ourselves outside our comfort zones, to experience things from a different vantage point. Only by changing our perspective can we come to better understand the totality of a subject.

Some might argue otherwise, but in my opinion, the perspective of purchasing a gemstone, be it a diamond or a gem of color, should be how it appears to the naked eye. In photography, that means 50mm. Normal vision, normal field-of-view.

So why would we use magnification? To learn something that is not manifest with normal vision. In my photography, I make liberal use of lenses both short and long (my favorites are the wides; love the in-your-face distortions). In gemology, I do likewise.

With forensic gemology, we use the best hammer available. But in judging the beauty of a colored gemstone, we are not speaking of forensic gemology. Instead, we are into the realm of subtle aesthetic judgment. Quite a different animal.

When I hunt gems, my choice of tools is no different than my choice of lenses when hunting photographic subjects. Sometimes you need a wide angle, sometimes a fast telephoto. And sometimes the perfect tool is the simple, ordinary 50mm.

The original question was in regard to a stone that showed scratches and chips with the loupe, which caused much hand-wringing. In such areas, the question is not forensic gemology (what kind of stone is it, is it natural, is it treated, does it have damage that will weaken the gem?), but a question of aesthetics. Others might disagree, but I would suggest a simple resolution. Do the scratches or chips detract from the stone''s beauty when viewed with the naked eye? Can they be easily seen under normal wearing conditions (parties, restaurants, etc.), or do you need to stuff the stone through someone''s eye socket before they become visible?

Only the owner/purchaser can answer these questions. From their own perspective.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 2/28/2006 2:12:55 PM
Author: Richard M.

Date: 2/28/2006 1:44:18 PM
Author:Opallover
I have recent;y acquired a loupe. How do you use it exactly?
Linda

Do you have a gun?

Lordy... every time I got in front of a magnification device these two days... couldn''t stop a chuckle. Dunno what''s sillier - someone shooting a loupe or laughing at one!

 

[rubydick]

Ana,

You are amazing, truly amazing! That picture of yours reminds me of a song by Ned's Atomic Dustbin. A little ditty called "Kill Your Television."

Went something like this:

she said, she said
'you don't know sh*t,
because you've never been there'
she turned upon him,
took him by the hair
spun him round about,
pushed him out,
laughing as he fell about,
sat down for a drink
in her father's favourite chair

kill
your
television

I said I know I don't know sh*t
because I've never been there,
you turned upon me, took me by the hair,
spun me all about, pushed me out,
laughed at me like I'd been there,
sat down for a drink in your father's favorite chair,

she said...

soap for sore eyes
I need an intermission
if looks could kill
i'd kill your television
soap for sore eyes
I need an intermission
if looks could kill
i'd kill your television

kill
your
television

soap for sore eyes

Thanks again, Ana. Wonderful!

 

[elmo]

Date: 3/1/2006 9:22:03 PM
Author: Richard Hughes
The original question was in regard to a stone that showed scratches and chips with the loupe, which caused much hand-wringing. In such areas, the question is not forensic gemology...

But I think it was a matter of forensic gemology, that was my point. She was asking for help after someone chipped and scratched her stone. She later wrote that the jeweler admitted to damaging it. In a more perfect world, the guy would have admitted it before she took posession, but better late than never. I'm glad the person that damaged her stone got busted for it.

I still think your message is a good one for folks on the forum like me, that deserves repeating.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/1/2006 9:53:03 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 2/28/2006 2:12:55 PM

Author: Richard M.

Date: 2/28/2006 1:44:18 PM

Author:Opallover

I have recent;y acquired a loupe. How do you use it exactly?

Linda

Do you have a gun?

Lordy... every time I got in front of a magnification device these two days... couldn't stop a chuckle. Dunno what's sillier - someone shooting a loupe or laughing at one!

Whats funnier is IDing the gun from the picture....
There is a loupe in that picture???????....
hehehehe

Btw the gun photo is staged the slide is locked back by the slide stop.
Then photoshoped in of course.

 

[Linda W]

Great picture Ana. I have been giggling all morning.



Elmo, thank you for agreeing with me. I am glad my ring is going to be fixed. When I put my glasses on and the light hits the stone, the scratches can be seen. So end of story. I am a happy camper now. ha ha ha ha.

Linda W

 

[belle]

Date: 2/28/2006 5:03:29 PM
Author: Richard M.


The point Richard Hughes makes is that ultra-strict diamond clarity standards are silly when appied to colored gems.

what is silly, is that opallover asked a simple question and instead of a simple answer she got a lecture from the soapbox that is still going on!

even the comments in linda's thread were out of line.

i do not disagree with the message but it was, and continues to be, put forth in the wrong place at the wrong time. in both threads!

step off!

 

[Linda W]

Sorry Belle



Linda

 

[belle]

for what linda? you haven''t done anything wrong at all!
my point was, opallover wanted to know how to use a loupe and this thread has turned into an anti-loupe fest just as yours did. you both had valid questions that were never even answered. just soapboxed.

not cool.

 

[Kaleigh]

I read this thread and was like where are the answers to opal''s questions. So I agree belle, not cool.

 

[valeria101]

Wait a minute... aren''t there?

''How to use loupe'' may mean what distance you need to take from the object in cause (which I never measured) or what to look for with it... which did get attention.

''Don''t use it'' seems to be a legitimate answer to ''How to use a loupe''.


The topic seems very relevant, and funny.

 

[belle]

Date: 3/2/2006 3:05:36 PM
Author: valeria101


Wait a minute... aren''t there?

''How to use loupe'' may mean what distance you need to take from the object in cause (which I never measured) or what to look for with it... which did get attention.

''Don''t use it'' seems to be a legitimate answer to ''How to use a loupe''.


The topic seems very relevant, and funny.

i really don''t think ''don''t use it'' is the answer for someone who just bought a loupe and was wanting to know how to use it. if this would have been posted anywhere but in this forum, opallover would have got her answer and not the continued preaching from the soapbox. she asked a question and deserved an answer. she can use the loupe any way she wants and shouldn''t be chastised for it! her loupe, her stones!

again, i don''t disagree with the intent. i just think it was presented very very poorly.
i have even more frustration with it going on in linda''s thread...maybe i should go there and make my opinions known

of course the photoshop rendition was very cool

 

[valeria101]

Thanks...

Well, it may be an odd side of me talking - quite often, I find asking the right questions harder than answering. And this has the annoying effect of side-tracking conversation (or Pricescope threads) away from the steady 1-2 answer to the question at hand and towards what I dream it may be relevant.

.... perhaps I was assuming too much about this personal preference being more acceptable than it is, like you say

Richard ?, eh-he I''m happy to read whatever he writes!

 

[Richard M.]

You''re right. I''m sorry for my part in responding off-point. Of course it happens repeatedly here on many threads, usually without any comment. Hughes''s post did, indeed, short-circuit me to the clarity-grading soap-box. It was wrong in the poster''s context about damage to the stone during setting.
Richard M.

 

[strmrdr]

Sorry
Belle has answered you question so I figured it was covered.
To make up for it.
This picture shows the proper way to use one better than words can.

notice hand touching cheek and hands touching each other to steady things.

 

[belle]

Date: 3/2/2006 3:59:41 PM
Author: Richard M.
You''re right. I''m sorry for my part in responding off-point. Of course it happens repeatedly here on many threads, usually without any comment. Hughes''s post did, indeed, short-circuit me to the clarity-grading soap-box. It was wrong in the poster''s context about damage to the stone during setting.
Richard M.

no need to apologize richard. you did answer the original question. we were also lucky to have some added bonus material