Hi all.
I was suprised to get my chrome diopside so early as I didn''t think it was going to ship until yesterday EST. So I was really excited to see that, and I thought I would share some insight with you on the mistake I made the first time, how I got had, and some links to images so that it might help someone else that might end up in a like boat. This might get a litte boring or in depth for some, but in the spirit of learning from my own mistake, I thought I would share. If any GG wants to shed some insight, I am all ears-seriously.
So you know, my depth perception was way off when I got the first stone, and I never measured it. However, the height of that crown should have given me a clue. Had I realized that, I would have figured something is wrong. The color was very close, so I am going to share a few comparisons and what I have found with the new arrival from AJS Gems.
This is a good picture of what a synthetic green quartz looks like, in 2 shades.
http://www.astergem.com/gemstones/Hydrothermal%20Quartz/images/Syn.-Green-Quartz-two-color.jpg
Look at the ones to the left that are more green than a blue green.
Now, here is a sample from icgems.com
http://www.icgems.com/picture/s_chrome_diopside_special.jpg
Pending on the light, the color can look really close. Chrome diopside also has that vitreous luster too, and so does quartz.
Anyways, I looked at the stone from AJS, and there a noted differences. Here is what I have found so far:
1.) According to GIA from an old news letter talking about how to differentiate green spodumene from chrome diopside, it talks about a certain pleochoric effect that is specific to chrome diopside. Under examination from 3 different lighting sources being:
a.) Natural sunlight
b.) A maglite
c.) A household flourescent fixture with a color temp estimated around 2200K-2400K
There are noted differences in the stones color. Natural sunlight exposure reveals a very slight brown hue when the stone is rotated by an estimated 30 degrees (give or take). The mag light reveals an almost pure green with some facets appearing to be a brilliant but very very slight yellow hint, barely noticeable. Under flourescent light, with the stone rotated 90 degrees or so (table facing my eyes while I am standing and looking upwards), there is a slightly bluish green hue to the stone. It looks exactly like a slightly bluish green emerald in that light. If you could picture a greener popsicle tourmaline color, that is the color I saw under a flourescent lamp (not a grading quality lamp).
With the previously owned quartz, natural sunlight revealed a more noticable yellow green hue. However, it was not uniform in nature as the stone from AJS is. Under flourescent lighting, the color was pure green and not as brilliant as the CD appears. This particular stone from AJS also illuminates a lot more uniformly in comparison to the synthetic quartz.
So after I opened the package and got the loupe out, the first thing I noticed was that thing needs to be cleaned in part from that cotton sheating on the bottom of the package. One of these days I''ll get the ultrasonic cleaner out as it needs it. I did use a chamois though to wipe it as best as I could.
When I first opened it up, it looked like a darker colored Tsavorite, even moreso than the synthetic.
Under illumination from my mag light, you can see a straight line inclusion if you view it at the right angle and you''re almost on top of it with the naked eye. It''s hidden beneath the crown, and under any other light, you couldn''t see it. So under the loupe, there are some extremely fine needle like inclusions that are directional. There are some smaller specs in there, and what appears to be some very very tiny air pockets or liquid inclusions. Those are barely noticeable under 10x, and I think they''re only visible from the pavillion adjacent to the cutlet. Me and my father did notice a very very slight grain at the bottom of the stone, but you would have to really look for it under a loupe. Overall, it''s a very verly clean stone.
With the synthetic quartz, the inclusions were halfway into the pavillion, and they weren''t needle like. They looked like chromosomes scrunched up, and they were dark colored, and you could notice the color turning more olive along the c axis. The CD has inclusions which lack coloring. There is no difference in color or tone along the c axis.
The polish of the cut itself is excellent. The symmetry from what I can tell is very close to perfect if not perfect. It''s a step cut bottom, and standard faceting on the top. It has a well proportioned table, and the overall proportions of the stone appear to be what you would expect from anything you would find in a jewelry store on a given stone.
When you flip the stone over and look at the pavilion, OMG...you should see the color. I wish I had a good camera and magnifier to show you this gorgeous color. It''s more candy like than the synthetic. For what this thing is, it''s a high pavilion of 5.7mm (I haven''t measured that depth as I am too chicken to do so
). You have too see that thing in its entirety to really appreciate it. The color is astounding on this thing, and there is no zoning or windowing on it. It does have some tone to it no doubt. I wouldn''t say it''s excessive though IMO.
I did measure the diameters of the stone though while it was in the package with a set of calipers. I think someone at AJS made a typo as the longer axis is in fact 12.5 mm as stated, but the short axis is 7.7 mm vs. 8.7 mm. It''s quite likely an honest mistake on their part. Based on that, and assuming the depth is correct, the total carat weight is 3.93 carats. I plan on measuring that on a scale soon.
Based on standard weight estimation formulae, my caluclations put the SG at 3.37. The standard accepted value is 3.29 or 3.3; I used 3.29 for reference. By my estimation, that puts the estimated SG within +/- 2.4% of what is accepted. So with that margin of error, it could very well fit the bill for that. I have seen documentation that has placed the SG as low as 3.17 and as high as 3.34?, and for non chrome bearing diopside, 3.25-3.56. If you want to see my methodology, send me a PM and I''ll be happy to share that with you. I am going to talk to someone at my school about trying to test that aspect more accurately to see for sure. The SG of chrome tourmaline is ~3.07, Tsavorite is 3.57-3.73, and synthetic quartz is 2.53(?), and emerald being ~2.72. I know it''s not corundum for obvious reasons.
I don''t have a refractometer which would conclusively say for sure that this is in fact genuine chrome diopside or not. However, this thing will refract a brilliant green from the crown from the light in my room. The synthetic quartz didn''t do that. So this is appearingly a more brilliant stone, and the other one measured an RI of 1.54-1.55 uniaxal as measured by a GG.
So enough of the technical stuff.
The big question is...to mount or not to mount? It''s going to be a while before I get there, but this is a lovely stone. It''s more oblong than I thought, which would be more ideal for a semi-mount I sketched out for something else. That''s a womans mounting though, not a mans. I might have to get creative with it, and it''s going to have to be bezel set. It won''t be worn every day either, I can tell you that for sure. LOL.
Thanks for putting up with this novel of a post.
I was suprised to get my chrome diopside so early as I didn''t think it was going to ship until yesterday EST. So I was really excited to see that, and I thought I would share some insight with you on the mistake I made the first time, how I got had, and some links to images so that it might help someone else that might end up in a like boat. This might get a litte boring or in depth for some, but in the spirit of learning from my own mistake, I thought I would share. If any GG wants to shed some insight, I am all ears-seriously.
So you know, my depth perception was way off when I got the first stone, and I never measured it. However, the height of that crown should have given me a clue. Had I realized that, I would have figured something is wrong. The color was very close, so I am going to share a few comparisons and what I have found with the new arrival from AJS Gems.
This is a good picture of what a synthetic green quartz looks like, in 2 shades.
http://www.astergem.com/gemstones/Hydrothermal%20Quartz/images/Syn.-Green-Quartz-two-color.jpg
Look at the ones to the left that are more green than a blue green.
Now, here is a sample from icgems.com
http://www.icgems.com/picture/s_chrome_diopside_special.jpg
Pending on the light, the color can look really close. Chrome diopside also has that vitreous luster too, and so does quartz.
Anyways, I looked at the stone from AJS, and there a noted differences. Here is what I have found so far:
1.) According to GIA from an old news letter talking about how to differentiate green spodumene from chrome diopside, it talks about a certain pleochoric effect that is specific to chrome diopside. Under examination from 3 different lighting sources being:
a.) Natural sunlight
b.) A maglite
c.) A household flourescent fixture with a color temp estimated around 2200K-2400K
There are noted differences in the stones color. Natural sunlight exposure reveals a very slight brown hue when the stone is rotated by an estimated 30 degrees (give or take). The mag light reveals an almost pure green with some facets appearing to be a brilliant but very very slight yellow hint, barely noticeable. Under flourescent light, with the stone rotated 90 degrees or so (table facing my eyes while I am standing and looking upwards), there is a slightly bluish green hue to the stone. It looks exactly like a slightly bluish green emerald in that light. If you could picture a greener popsicle tourmaline color, that is the color I saw under a flourescent lamp (not a grading quality lamp).
With the previously owned quartz, natural sunlight revealed a more noticable yellow green hue. However, it was not uniform in nature as the stone from AJS is. Under flourescent lighting, the color was pure green and not as brilliant as the CD appears. This particular stone from AJS also illuminates a lot more uniformly in comparison to the synthetic quartz.
So after I opened the package and got the loupe out, the first thing I noticed was that thing needs to be cleaned in part from that cotton sheating on the bottom of the package. One of these days I''ll get the ultrasonic cleaner out as it needs it. I did use a chamois though to wipe it as best as I could.
Under illumination from my mag light, you can see a straight line inclusion if you view it at the right angle and you''re almost on top of it with the naked eye. It''s hidden beneath the crown, and under any other light, you couldn''t see it. So under the loupe, there are some extremely fine needle like inclusions that are directional. There are some smaller specs in there, and what appears to be some very very tiny air pockets or liquid inclusions. Those are barely noticeable under 10x, and I think they''re only visible from the pavillion adjacent to the cutlet. Me and my father did notice a very very slight grain at the bottom of the stone, but you would have to really look for it under a loupe. Overall, it''s a very verly clean stone.
With the synthetic quartz, the inclusions were halfway into the pavillion, and they weren''t needle like. They looked like chromosomes scrunched up, and they were dark colored, and you could notice the color turning more olive along the c axis. The CD has inclusions which lack coloring. There is no difference in color or tone along the c axis.
The polish of the cut itself is excellent. The symmetry from what I can tell is very close to perfect if not perfect. It''s a step cut bottom, and standard faceting on the top. It has a well proportioned table, and the overall proportions of the stone appear to be what you would expect from anything you would find in a jewelry store on a given stone.
When you flip the stone over and look at the pavilion, OMG...you should see the color. I wish I had a good camera and magnifier to show you this gorgeous color. It''s more candy like than the synthetic. For what this thing is, it''s a high pavilion of 5.7mm (I haven''t measured that depth as I am too chicken to do so
I did measure the diameters of the stone though while it was in the package with a set of calipers. I think someone at AJS made a typo as the longer axis is in fact 12.5 mm as stated, but the short axis is 7.7 mm vs. 8.7 mm. It''s quite likely an honest mistake on their part. Based on that, and assuming the depth is correct, the total carat weight is 3.93 carats. I plan on measuring that on a scale soon.
Based on standard weight estimation formulae, my caluclations put the SG at 3.37. The standard accepted value is 3.29 or 3.3; I used 3.29 for reference. By my estimation, that puts the estimated SG within +/- 2.4% of what is accepted. So with that margin of error, it could very well fit the bill for that. I have seen documentation that has placed the SG as low as 3.17 and as high as 3.34?, and for non chrome bearing diopside, 3.25-3.56. If you want to see my methodology, send me a PM and I''ll be happy to share that with you. I am going to talk to someone at my school about trying to test that aspect more accurately to see for sure. The SG of chrome tourmaline is ~3.07, Tsavorite is 3.57-3.73, and synthetic quartz is 2.53(?), and emerald being ~2.72. I know it''s not corundum for obvious reasons.
I don''t have a refractometer which would conclusively say for sure that this is in fact genuine chrome diopside or not. However, this thing will refract a brilliant green from the crown from the light in my room. The synthetic quartz didn''t do that. So this is appearingly a more brilliant stone, and the other one measured an RI of 1.54-1.55 uniaxal as measured by a GG.
So enough of the technical stuff.
Thanks for putting up with this novel of a post.
300x240.png)