| Original Message: Re: "Cultural Amber" ?? |
|---|
|
Hello Nancy, Your post has practically nothing to do with the perspective that some plastic beads can be or are called "cultural amber" by some people. However, here are some additional observations about what you write: There is (practically and for all purposes) no such thing as "reconstituted amber." For many years I have discouraged this meaningless phrase. Amber is not "reconstituted"—nor is it "reconstructed." The former refers to a material that has gone through a process whereby something that has been removed (such as water) has subsequently been replaced. Not pertinent to amber. "Reconstructed" (gemologically) refers to forming a material from pulverized pieces that are bonded together with a foreign material (often Epoxy). Also not pertinent to amber. In gemology, the material (I believe) you are talking about is "pressed amber," also named "Ambroid." You remark, "...I can't tell if, by phenolic amber, you mean reconstituted amber...." I don't mean that. I don't believe I ever wrote "phenolic amber." (If I did, it was a slip.) In all instances where the word "phenolic" is mentioned, it refers to artificial synthetic resins that are composed in a laboratory/factory, containing phenol, carbolic acid, etc. There is no relation to amber, except possibly in appearance, between these materials. I am unsure where you got this idea, that I would mistake plastic for another material (that being pressed amber). Please note: semi-fossil resins are collectively called "copal," NOT "copol." I agree that "...from a chemical point of view, amber and cop[a]l are the same thing." HOWEVER, these materials differ in their physical properties. Amber (that is, fossil resins of a certain usefulness and beauty) have naturally polymerized to the state that they have become hard and durable, and can be subject to lapidary treatments, and will be suitable for decorative purposes. In contrast, copals (geologically younger "semi-fossil" resins) remain reasonably similar to ordinary resin (as collected from a living tree) in that they melt easily (at much lower temperatures than amber), remain soft and in-durable, biodegrade more easily than amber, and provide inferior decorative products. The differences between these materials has very little to do with which "forest they come from." However, their relative geological ages is probably quite pertinent (fossilization being a process that generally takes time—though circumstantial acceleration is certainly not impossible). Geological age is NOT "determined from the impurities or inclusions." However, a specimen that includes flora or fauna that existed millions of years ago is clearly not merely hundreds or thousands of years old (as is the case with copal). Since I didn't suggest what you are remarking upon, I fail to see your point. "Reconstituted amber is real amber made from shavings, scraps and bits of amber that have been melting down and pooled. There is nothing inauthentic about reconstituted amber." I agree with you in spirit, but not in phrasing. I don't believe I remarked that pressed amber was in any way "inauthentic." I DO believe that pressed amber is OFTEN misrepresented as "natural amber" when it is not that. "Man-made amber, what most of us would call plastic amber, I am guessing was in[t]roduced in the '40s or '50s." This is nonsense! There is no such thing as "man-made amber." Amber has not (yet) been synthesized. Only imitated. As I stated earlier, phenolic plastics were used to imitate amber beginning in 1926. Prior to that time, earlier plastics were also so-used—though they provided inferior imitations. The use of Cellulose acetate, or Celluloid (a somewhat reasonable amber imitation) may go back to soon after 1869, when it was originally developed. You are really off the mark here. "I would make it from polystyrene...." I have proposed the use of polystyrene as an imitator in the past. Another chemically-savvy person challenged me on this topic, and I had to agree I was probably mistaken. Nevertheless, it is clear that some thermolabile plastic that is lighter than water is or has been used to imitate amber. I demonstrated this in my 1975 article. Possibly, you have little idea how frustrating it is to repeat facts I have published long ago, and have repeated many times already—compounded by suggestions that are themselves poorly presented and that challenge me on points I have not even made. Lordy..., do I need to get some sleep. Jamey All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|