On , in rec.crafts.jewelry "Andrei Vesselovski" wrote:


I didn't say silly, -- I said trade names. And by nonsense, I meant that if
there
any logic in the Demantoid Garnet name, perhaps Ruby Spinel could be
considered as a legitimate name.


Well, there IS at least a little logic, or so thought the folks who gave it that
name way back when, in that it's high refractive index and surface luster are
higher than other garnets, and reminded folks of that seen in diamonds. So
Demantoid indicates that similarity in how bright and lively the stones are, a
similarity that's even more obvious when you remember that at the time that name
was given, diamonds were cut in "old mine" cut proportions, which can easily
look a lot more like demantoid garnets in terms of brilliance and dispersion,
etc, than do the much more pristine and perfect looking modern diamond cuts.
Demantoid at least indicates some derivative or resemblance to diamond. It's
not the same as saying "diamond garnet". "Ruby Spinel" doesn't change the word
ruby, so the use to indicate resemblance isn't as clear. On the other hand,
Rubellite tourmaline also derives it's name, or so it seems, from at least the
same root word as Ruby... So how about another derivation: Perhaps "Rubinesque
spinel"? To be used, of course, not for just any red spinel, but only those
with a noticably thick and rotund and perhaps well rounded cut (grin. You CAN
tell I'm joking, now, I hope... )

I don't really have a problem with gem names that may suggest some marketing
scheme or resemblance to some better known family of gems, so long as the normal
use of that term is reasonably consistant within the market, and not misleading.
Tanzanite is just a name. So is Tsavorite. While both may have been chosen
with marketing in mind (just as Alexandrite was chosen for political reasons),
this doesn't negate the fact that in both cases, the use of these names does not
confuse anyone as to the identiy of the stone. The name, chosen for whatever
reasons, is well understood consistantly within the gemological community and
within the public, at least those of the public who have any idea what gems are
about.


Some confusion can exist in just which colors constitute a
Padparadsha sapphire, but certainly the gemological community and jewelry
industry has little trouble with any of these three.

Actually, there are a lot of confusion with "Padparadsha":
http://www.padparadscha.info/No1/page1.htm

True enough, at the present time. But I submit that most of the current
confusion is recent, brought about by the development of new treatments, making
the identification and even definition of what is or is not a "real" padparadsha
sapphire more and more a muddy issue. But before these treatments and
synthetics and whatnot became available, the word was then clear enough. Of
course, as with any gem name that defines a color range, some will disagree with
the borderlines of that color range, but we see this with other gems too. When
is a ruby red enough to call ruby, or so pinkish that it cannot be called ruby
any more, but is pink sapphire? These distinctions are common enough in
gemology, and not the fault of the names. Padparadscha is also a color range,
and though it's somewhat more loosely defined depending on who you talk to,
There is little doubt about it's use for the finest examples, or the "target
color range". If people cannot quite decide what the best color is, or the
borderlines of the color that make this distinct from other sapphires, this can
be unfortunate, but it is not the fault of the name itself. The same would be
the case in almost any other name we might choose, from peachy/orangy sapphire,
to "Joe's sapphires". A similar case exists with emerald, a name we don't
question. But just what constitutes an emerald has, in the past, been up for
some discussion, with regard to nice light green beryls that were not green due
to chromium. The confusion is not with the name, but with the chemistry we'll
allow the name to be used for.

Put this next to the original topic of this thread, the identity of a stone
labeled or mislabeled "tavolite", and we see the confusion about just what is
or is not a padparadscha is a somewhat different issue. Here, we're wondering
whether that name is perhaps some unknown marketing name applied to probably
some well known common synthetic. For example, there are commercial brands of
synthetics where the brand name is used for any color available in that line,
and the line can include, depending on the color, flame fusion spinel or
corundum, triplets, doublets, or other synthetics, or even glass, yet they're
sold under that one name as a brand. THAT disguises the true identity of the
stones, perhaps to add marketing cachet and percieved value to otherwise cheap
junk.

cheers

Peter