| Original Message: Some Issues Raised Here. |
|---|
|
Lots of ideas have been brought up, that, unfortunately, cloud the waters much more than they clarify anything. Some of this is mistaken due to poor terminology and mistaken ideas (though popular and often-repeated). Some of it verges on what I tend to think of as "magic ideas," proposed when scientific information is available and reliable. Stefany quotes, "A lapis imitation known as 'Swiss Lapis,' or 'German Lapis' is created from dying paler varieties of chalcedony, ironstone or quartz jasper with ferrocyanide." The problem here is one of faulty phrasing on the part of the "expert." I have said this stuff over and over for YEARS...,but it seems to remain an under-appreciated distinction. In the artificial coloring of minerals for jewelry and ornament applications, there are two VERY DIFFERENT approaches that have been traditionally taken for at least two centuries—and probably much longer (for some of them). The stones (usually in the microcsystalline quartz group—chalcedonies and agates, and perhaps jaspers) can be DYED—or they can be treated via the BEIZEN method (using chemicals to copy nature and impart color). Beizen stones ARE NOT DYED. Dyed stones are not "beizen." Nevertheless, outside of Germany, very few authorities have made any effort to distinguish between these techniques and the results they create. Thus, they say or write "dyed," when this is technically inaccurate. Backtracking for a second—the development of artifiically coloring and "enhancing" stones goes back to ca. 3,000 BCE, and has been practiced in one form or another for a very long time. But it was the technologically savvy Germans at Idar-Oberstein, at least since the 19th C., who made these skills into a scientific art. They provided colored stones to the rest of the world, and in the late 20th and early 21st Cs., the technology was transfered to Brazil and China (respectively). Now, the Chinese, particularly, are running with it, and going crazy. To be as brief as possible, any stone can be dyed—this dying consisting of using organic pigments, that result in shallow penetration (so the stones are not usually colored in-the-mass), that are also temporary treatments. They are reversible, and prone to destruction via heat and exposure to ultraviolet (as from the sun!). Dyed stone eventually FADE! In contrast, beizen stones are PERMANENTLY colored—because the process introduce metallic elements into the lattice of the stone (just as nature does). The result is a stone that is colored in-the-mass (not always 100 % successful, but usually so), and that is not attacked by heat or radiation (ultraviolt). In terms of commerce, and being an astute collector—do you want to by a cheap dyed stone that's going to fade..., or do you want a high-tech permanent job that will look good forever? This is presuming we are still in the context of "enhancing" stones. I think most people would agree that a naturally-colored stone is superior to any that we are presently discussing. However, particularly NOW, the percentage of natural untreated stones is way in the minority—though there are plenty. So, suggestions that the material we are discussing here has merely been "dyed," may completely miss the point. What I see in this material is not an accumulation of "dye." At the very least, the dye (if that's what it is) has colored a PART of the stone itself. Then, if the material is not dyed, but rather is beizen, this application likewise has changed the blue parts of the material—and is not "dyed," and the color is not itself foreign to itself, but rather just colors that material. OK. About frankly-fake materials that have been coming out of China for the past seven-or-so years. The first successful one was what is called "strawberry quartz," OR "cherry quartz." (There has been some suggestion that these "are different stones," and that "one is real and one isn't." However, these are just two different popular names for THE SAME MATERIAL exactly—and that material happens to be GLASS.) Right after "strawberry quartz" was introduced, the following year, it was available in other colors..., and now is routinely passed- off as any variety of semi-precious transparent stones. The idea that the Chinese are making a "glass stone" that faithfully resembles the convolutions of agate and/or jasper—and that I or anyone might not recognize it, is nonsense! I have not spent forty years in this field, studying minerals and glass, in order to be fooled by some new amazing product. (Thus my admonition that this is a "magic syndrome.") The question remains—is this a natural stone or a treated stone? I am reasonably sure it's not a "dyed" stone. But, knowing what the Chinese are now pursuing, I think it might be an enhanced beizen stone. I am certain it is not a "glass stone." But, seeing some of the varieties of chrysocolla that are exploited, and knowing a new variety from México has been discovered (thanks Thomas!), I am convinced there's every possibility that this is what the present stone may be. I still have to wonder about a stone that is called "Swiss lapis," that is a color more resembling turquoise or any of the sky-blue stones (?). The beads I have seen, so-called (though I don't know that it was correct), were somewhere between lapis-blue and turquoise-blue—but closer to a dark blue. Jamey All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|