October 9-10; LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA: Annual show; Peninsula Gem and Geology Society; Los Altos Community Center, Sat. 10-5, Sun. 10-5; free admission
Welcome to the GemologyOnline.com Forum
A non-profit Forum for the exchange of gemological ideas
It is currently Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:00 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Quick discussion on "trade names"
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:59 pm 
Offline
Active Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:16 pm
Posts: 61
Location: Canada
As I was browsing through The Gemology Project I noticed that some of the gemstones are listed by either variety or old trade names. An example is Bowenite is a type of Serpentine and Bixbite is no longer used according to CIBJO as it's too close to another mineral called bixyite.

I have no problem going through the ones I know that are either varieties or no longer used and updating them but I figured I should double check what the, I don't want to say rules but, methods of consistency for naming gemstones would be.

Also, what kind of sources are we considering to be valid? Books only? Other websites (geology.com or gemdat.org/mindat.org for example)? Or is it essentially anything as long as it's reputable?

Figured I'd double check what the general census was before I started going through some of the stones and updated them a little to what I have from the Gem-A notes or something similar at least.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quick discussion on "trade names"
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:36 am 
Offline
Gemology Online Veteran

Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:42 pm
Posts: 952
Bixbite and bixbyite were both found by the same guy. Hence the confusing names.

The problem is that "red beryl" is just a terrible name for an amazing stone. and some people (not me) object to "red emerald", because emeralds are green (sort of like green amethyst bugs me.)

I think "Andúril" was the name of the sword in TLOTR and it meant "flame of the west", so I think Andúrilite would be a good name for it. But no one asked me. :-<


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quick discussion on "trade names"
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2020 1:05 am 
Offline
Gemology Online Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 7:58 pm
Posts: 908
Location: San Marcos, CA
The red variety of Beryl is bixbite, so why would anyone excludes it use as so just because it may be confused with a similar sounding mineral or gemstone. I'm confused?

_________________
The Gem Garden
San Marcos, CA


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quick discussion on "trade names"
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2020 1:42 am 
Offline
Active Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:16 pm
Posts: 61
Location: Canada
glhays wrote:
The red variety of Beryl is bixbite, so why would anyone excludes it use as so just because it may be confused with a similar sounding mineral or gemstone. I'm confused?


As I said, it's apparently no longer allowed to be called bixbite according to CIBJO. (https://gem-a.com/gem-hub/gem-knowledge ... e-gemstone)

Excerpt from the above link: Discovered by Maynard Bixby (1853-1935), a bookkeeper turned miner, these stunning crystals were initially brought to light at Maynard’s Claim in the Thomas Range, Utah in 1904. They were initially named ‘bixbite’ in honour of their finder by Alfred Eppler in 1912, but this term has fallen out of favour and lately been discredited by CIBJO because of the risk of confusion with bixbyite (a cubic, black, manganese iron oxide also discovered by Bixby in 1897).

So that's why I'm wondering if we should be switching the name to the now accepted Red Beryl and just have Bixbite in brackets or a note in the page or something.

dchallener wrote:
I think "Andúril" was the name of the sword in TLOTR and it meant "flame of the west", so I think Andúrilite would be a good name for it. But no one asked me. :-<


I would absolutely support this too! :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quick discussion on "trade names"
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:55 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:31 pm
Posts: 3771
Location: North Carolina
The bixbite/bixbyite confusion is unfortunate (one of the Smithsonian guides even mixed it up, though given it was a picture of an opaque metallic crystal next to a description of a transparent red gem I attribute this more to them not caring). Cibjo doesn't have the authority to forbid anything, though it's a good recommendation to avoid its use, a bit because of the confusion (not really a serious issue as bixbyite has zero gem potential and there's little to no potential for any mixup), but mostly because it isn't a very marketable name.
At this point red beryl should be fine, since anyone buying one probably has to seek it out. Red emerald was nice since it's similar in saturation, inclusion scene and value (hence being fine while "yellow emerald" clearly wasn't) but the constant arguing makes it too much of a headache. If there is ever a find that gives sufficient supply to be a serious commodity it might be ajother story.
LotR references are fun but iirc the name rights got sold to some horrible law firm who are really aggressive, probably not worth tangling with them even if it's technically fine.

_________________
https://www.etsy.com/shop/angryturtle


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quick discussion on "trade names"
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:22 pm
Posts: 20971
Location: San Francisco
Agreed.
CIBJO opinions may be added to the Gemology Project as a side note, when identified as a CIBJO comment. But please don't change existing information based on those opinions.

As Stephen pointed out, CIBJO is not recognized as the final word in gemology.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quick discussion on "trade names"
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2020 2:59 pm 
Offline
Active Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:16 pm
Posts: 61
Location: Canada
Stephen Challener wrote:
The bixbite/bixbyite confusion is unfortunate (one of the Smithsonian guides even mixed it up, though given it was a picture of an opaque metallic crystal next to a description of a transparent red gem I attribute this more to them not caring). Cibjo doesn't have the authority to forbid anything, though it's a good recommendation to avoid its use, a bit because of the confusion (not really a serious issue as bixbyite has zero gem potential and there's little to no potential for any mixup), but mostly because it isn't a very marketable name.
At this point red beryl should be fine, since anyone buying one probably has to seek it out. Red emerald was nice since it's similar in saturation, inclusion scene and value (hence being fine while "yellow emerald" clearly wasn't) but the constant arguing makes it too much of a headache. If there is ever a find that gives sufficient supply to be a serious commodity it might be ajother story.
LotR references are fun but iirc the name rights got sold to some horrible law firm who are really aggressive, probably not worth tangling with them even if it's technically fine.


I agree they don't have the authority to forbid it but as they are putting out ISOs regularly then I would say it's a safe bet to follow what they're suggesting. That said I wasn't saying that we should be calling it anything else other than Red Beryl, which it technically is. I wasn't going to be calling it by Andúrilite.

Barbra Voltaire, FGG wrote:
Agreed.
CIBJO opinions may be added to the Gemology Project as a side note, when identified as a CIBJO comment. But please don't change existing information based on those opinions.

As Stephen pointed out, CIBJO is not recognized as the final word in gemology.


Should we be changing Bixbite to at least include (Red Beryl) beside it or something? I realize CIBJO isn't the final word on gemmology but even in my course, which is based on the Gem-A course notes, we were told not to use Bixbite any more as it's no longer what it should be called.

I'm assuming Gem-A is a reputable enough 'word' regarding gemmology. :D

_________________
FCGmA, and soon to be MVP, CAP-CJA, Owner.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quick discussion on "trade names"
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2020 3:04 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:22 pm
Posts: 20971
Location: San Francisco
Again, you can always add notes or additions to the Gemology Project.
How about Red Beryl formally known to the trade as Bixbite.

I'm saying this because trade names are valid to a point. Our industry IS the trade. It is not a scientific branch of mineralogy, IMO.

Green amethyst? Of course amethyst is not green.
Heat treated or irradiated pale green quartz, trade name: Green Amethyst.

How about something like that?



Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quick discussion on "trade names"
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:32 pm 
Offline
Active Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:16 pm
Posts: 61
Location: Canada
I wasn't implying that I would remove it, that's for sure. I understand the trade names are still sometimes used and we should know them but some, like "water sapphire", have fallen completely out of favour due to them being misleading. That doesn't mean that there won't be someone trying to sell stones under these old trade names because when you hear of "water sapphire" the average consumer would probably think that it's a special type of sapphire and instead they're buying an Iolite.

As I said in my first post here, I just wanted to see what people thought about their (the trade names) uses or how we should be arranging/using them in the Gemology Project. If it's better to leave it as Bixbite I'm fine with that and I can update the information in there to include that bixbite is now being suggested to no longer be used by various bodies including CIBJO and that it should just be called red beryl. Or should we update the variety name in the Gemology Project to say something like Red Beryl (Bixbite) and explain why we're just using both in the page?

Though none of this really answered the other question and you sort of brought it up again in your previous post Barbra, what should we be considering as reputable sources or authorities when creating pages or updating gemstone information? I noticed you have Alan's Gem Testing Techniques, as do I. Should we be updating with the information he has in there? Should we just use what is available in the GIA or Gem-A constants sheets for their exams or something?

Then we should also consider what information would be considered more accurate? I have probably 10 different books with gemmological information in them and while they are all near each other in their ranges I don't think there's a single stone they have the same information for everything except diamond. Should we just take the widest ranges or the most up to date ones?

_________________
FCGmA, and soon to be MVP, CAP-CJA, Owner.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quick discussion on "trade names"
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:25 pm 
Offline
Gemology Online Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 7:58 pm
Posts: 908
Location: San Marcos, CA
Attachment:
X0271189.jpg
X0271189.jpg [ 363.78 KiB | Viewed 633 times ]


Just a reference image for someone finding themselves on this post, along with Barbra's article.
This plate and several others my wife and I collected some years ago.
I researched some of my wife's GIA literature (lab manual, reference guide, etc..) and red beryl seems to be the call as well.
Although the term Bixbite is mentioned only as "proposed variety name bixbite never gained wide acceptance."

All very interesting stuff!

_________________
The Gem Garden
San Marcos, CA


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quick discussion on "trade names"
PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2020 10:01 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:31 pm
Posts: 3771
Location: North Carolina
Yup, don't want it to be read as being overly critical, it's an important question as there are tons of trade names of lesser and greater significance.

The big thing is we need to avoid trademarks which masquerade as trade names, like "aquaprase" "czarite" and "zultanite". Some dealers want it both ways, for soemthing to be widely known under a trade name but for them to have sple commercial usage of it, which is pretty bad for everyone in the trade (miners, sellers, customers) but them. The GIA has helped by sometimes uncritically using these trademarks as if they are trade names.
Yeah, sorry. It isn't directly relevant it's just a pet peeve.

_________________
https://www.etsy.com/shop/angryturtle


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Quick discussion on "trade names"
PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 5:58 pm 
Offline
Gemology Online Veteran

Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 9:42 pm
Posts: 952
fíon dearg is Irish for "wine red".
Perhaps Fiondeargite ?

The red beryl from the violet claims is about that color.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Gemology Style ported to phpBB3 by Christian Bullock