Answers on "Andesine-Labradorite" color source!

[YH]

It'll be interesting to see Dr. Rossmans report.

[Tim]

Nice shooting GemJunkie! Care to share the technique? Fluid used, lighting, camera set-up etc? We can all learn from that...
Excellent work!

[Gem Junkie]

My pleasure Barbra! I had fun with that and learned some new things too. (My thanks to Spauwe and Doos for the tip/info on mineral oil!)

Thanks for the compliments Spauwe! I just wish the pictures came out more crisp. I would think they should for a 6.0 MP camera.

Anyway, my technique was simple:

Camera: Canon PowerShot S3 IS
Lighting: Fluorescent (overhead)…provided the truest color
Fluid: Basic mineral oil (used with a transparent plastic gem jar)
Set the camera to “Program” and “Super Macro,” then get as close as possible (without blocking any of the light) and take the picture.

No fancy equipment here.

[JLWhite]

The recently-posted immersion pictures are consistent with what I'm used to seeing in cutting the Oregon material. Oregon sunstone usually has pseudo-cylindrical or spherical "pockets" of color surrounded by clear material (the opposite of what you see with diffusion-treated gems). As a cutter, if you can't make the color stretch the full diameter of the stone, you usually try to place it in the center near the culet to spread the color as evenly as possible in the finished gem. Those pics are consistent with that approach. This stone of mine was cut that way. Even though the stone appears to be an evenly-spread color, in reality there was a strip of color along the keel, with clear material above.

From a purely "naked eye" visual standpoint, there is nothing suspicious about the immersed "andesines," IMO. As others have said, it seems that there has been far too much study of this material for it to be so simply explained, particularly since few others (none that have posted here so far) have andesines with color concentrations matching the IGS stone.

Personally, I am highly suspicious of andesine, for the myriad reasons stated here and elsewhere. However, like others have said, I think we need to make sure there is definitive analytical evidence before jumping to conclusions. For me, I don't see this report as providing that....

[Gem Junkie]

Jeff, thanks for posting your observation about the material being consistent with Oregon sunstone. I was thinking the same thing.

I’ve been preoccupied with the part of Robert’s report about copper/iron diffusion treatment. Particularly when he stated that “If it is diffusion treated with a copper/iron combination the treatment should not go very far into the stone.” and his subsequent results from breaking open the stone to find that the coloration was “only partial.”

I don’t know if you can tell from the photos I posted (probably not), but the bulk of the color in the red stone is almost dead-center in the middle of the stone. It doesn’t come anywhere near the edges (from ANY angle).

This just does not seem consistent with the evidence of diffusion treatment of any kind.

[Alberto]

This just does not seem consistent with the evidence of diffusion treatment of any kind.

Hi,
for what i see from the pics, surface diffusion can be definitely excluded.
ciao
alberto

[Alberto]

Gary Roskin (google for credentials) commented a post on JCKonline 2 days ago.

Gemology and the identification of gemstone enhancements has become a huge challenge for the desk gemologist. It was early in this decade when the jewelry industry was flooded with incredibly beautiful sapphires, all incorrectly labeled as being only heat treated. It took several laboratories, using extremely sophisticated and very expensive pieces of equipment (AGTA, GIA, CalTech, & Chrystal Chemistry,) in order to figure out just what it was that made these sapphires so vibrantly colorful. They were identified as beryllium diffusion treated. Since then, we realize that we all must wait for those who have the equipment to do all of the testing necessary in order to come to the right conclusion. It's fun for those of us who have some gem equipment and a microscope to talk about what we've found in the andesine we've tested. But to jump to a conclusion prior to hearing from these other labs is currently not the best process. By the way, the three research laboratories currently testing andesine have not to my knowledge ever been involved in or accused of any scandals. So again, have patience. These laboratories do not buy or sell gemstones, and are only interested in finding out the truth.

ciao
alberto

[Gem Junkie]

I think a lot of people are seeing this whole thing as a lump-sum deal. Let’s say the labs do come back with some definitive evidence of treatment (or not). Does that mean ALL of these stones are treated (or not)? Not necessarily. One can’t say that ALL sapphires are diffusion treated just because the labs tested SOME that are.

I personally think there’s a decent chance that there are various “types” of these stones out there; some treated, some not, some from one locale, some from another. Keeping this possibility in mind, I think it’s wise for those who own the stones to do their own tests on them and learn what they can about them (or, if nothing else, to rule OUT what they can about them). After all, if/when these official reports come out, isn’t there a chance that your stone might not be the same as the ones the Major Labs tested, particularly with all of the conflicting data we’ve received to-date?

With any gemstone, I think it’s essential to do (even basic) testing on a stone-by-stone basis.

And I agree with Barbara 100%, “Read the studies thoroughly. Keep asking questions. Don't accept something just because it was written.”

[JB]

One more word for suling or other interested parties.
Many people do not like JTV's marketing strategies. I have often stated my displeasure with their tactics and misdirections. It is a giant leap to assume that a carnival type selling strategy is synonymous to fraud.

As much as I disagree with their advantageous rhetoric, aimed at uniformed consumers, I can't for the life of me perceive of why a company with a half a billion dollars in revenue would risk killing the Golden Goose by perpetrating a fraud on a gemstone that equates to only a small fraction of their inventory.

Why would they risk that? If they had never sold 1 labradorite, they could have easily made up the difference with some other flavor of the month gemstone or parcel extravaganza.

Frankly, if I had to sit in one of the JTV host chairs, day after day and babble on about the same gem or same gem parcel, it's hard to say what might come out of my mouth.

They must pay their hosts well to be so enthusiastic at trying to create an exciting spin on the same old merchandise day after day.

If it was me, I'd probably be saying something like,"Please somebody buy my crap so I can get some new crap and don't have to keep talking about this same crap."

I wouldn't last long.

[dragonstek]

Hi

JB i could use some good crap , how much you selling your crap for

NO really i just did the same thing with the baby oil and the stones
5 green all showing the same exact like the pictures , color is on the inside with a white rind around the outside , no facet color concentrations , basically almost disappeared except for the green color
6 red ones , same thing
2 peach color ones which disappreared in the baby oil
1 green/red one shows the green on the inside and the red on the outside with white around the top and bottom again

yes these where bought from jtv , when they first came out the 3 green ones ,and 2 red ones , the rest was in a parcel, and i bought them for study stones

[JB]

JB i could use some good crap , how much you selling your crap for

Maybe I should have said "stuff."

All of these immersion cell results are a good demonstration as to why it's best not to make broad generalizations based on a few random samplings. That's the kind of mistake a good teacher will tell their students to avoid.

[gem-n00b]

All of these immersion cell results are a good demonstration as to why it's best not to make broad generalizations based on a few random samplings. That's the kind of mistake a good teacher will tell their students to avoid.

Isn't it a little scary that intelligent grown-ups would NEED such a demonstration? Aren't we all supposed to know better?

[cat-foster]

Thanks for all your follow up tests. I guess I will have to go purchase some mineral oil. Personally, I am more interested in markers so that I or the GIA I might take it to will be able to confirm whether what I have is color treated or not. I finally got my one nice bi-color I got from JTV auction a few years ago as my avatar. I found it hard to believe it would have been color treated since most of it is yellow. Also, some JTV purchasers have complained their stones lost most of their color. Personally none of mine have, but if labs could confirm under what circumstances that would occur, that would be nice also. Beats breaking the stone. I posted some of my pics sans immersion on myspace page, but the last time I tried giving URL on JTV blog, folks said it took them to their own pic site, so I am not going to try here.

[Barbra Voltaire, FGG]

Theorhetically, even if you noticed an individual stone appeared to have color concentrations along facet junctions, would that be 100% confirmation that the stone was diffused?

No, I don't believe so, because this pagioclase is heavily color zoned, it could erroneously appear that a stone had color concentrations if cut in the right (or wrong) way.

No?

[Alberto]

Theorhetically, even if you noticed an individual stone appeared to have color concentrations along facet junctions, would that be 100% confirmation that the stone was diffused?

No, I don't believe so, because this pagioclase is heavily color zoned, it could erroneously appear that a stone had color concentrations if cut in the right (or wrong) way.

No?

yes (agree...)