Thanks for your reply.

The word "reconstructed," as you say, should be reserved for a material made from the ground particles of whatever the parent material would have been—i.e., ground up turquoise, or coral, or whatever—that has been put back together with glue (usually or typically epoxy, at least since the 1970s).

The word has a specific meaning and inference. Nevertheless, in my experience, it is seldom used, in favor of the much-misunderstood and misused "reconstituted." This is entirely different, and has little value in a mineralogical context. Reconstituting involves putting back something that was previously removed. Take the water out of potatoes, dry and flake them, and you can produce a product that will result in "instant mashed potatoes" by returning the water, and stirring. These potatoes are reconstituted. This is not done with minerals (as far as I know). But people LOVE this word, and use it frequently. Sometimes amber is said to be "reconstituted" (incorrectly).

Prior to the modern use of epoxy, some other glue was used to bind dust, to form reconstructed materials. In China, this was apparently done using wood, bone, and ivory dust. Possibly stone dust—but I'm not positive. The resulting materials are usually called "composition." However, many people don't realize this was done, and the stuff is misidentified as "wood" or "bone" or "ivory." I have some antique beads that were sold as "fish bones from a Nile River fish." But they are carved Chinese beads....

I don't think the issue of cheapness should have much to do with reconstructing magnesite. The idea is not to make an expensive material go farther. I suppose the idea is to make a material that will accept the further treatments they have in store. What is your reasoning?

Take care. Jamey