Diamond Dealers on Hot Seat

Séimí mac Liam wrote:

Except...that the garnet would be worth around $12,000 today versus being
worth about what I paid in the seventies.

$12,000.00 for a garnet, ... not very likely, unless it's huge, and of
exceptional gem quality. And even then that amount would be
questionable. I'd like to see the specs on that stone. I'd be
moderately certain that it's current value would be a few hundred
dollars at best.

and the topaz would be worth 10-15
times what I paid versus being worth, again, about what I paid.

That also depends, and greatly on the quality, size and cut of the
stone. In general fine topaz is a great deal more valuable then garnet.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

"Peter W.. Rowe," wrote in
news
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:00:03 -0700, in ?õ "Séimí mac Liam"
wrote:

Nor should they. I bought my wife two rings from a "reputable" jeweler
in the city where we lived. One was represented as a garnet and the
other as a topaz. Given the reputation of the store, I didn't bother
to check out the stones for thirty years, at which time I found I had
bought a synthetic ruby and a smoky quartz. My friend, the colored
stone dealer, explained that this was common practice at the time and,
to a lesser extent, is today.

No, it's not, nor has it been, not exactly. The word Topaz properly
means the mineral, and gems that consist of the mineral topaz, but the
word has had a long time traditional usage also to denote smokey quartz.
That's not just a dishonest or imprecise jeweler, that was a long time
traditional usage of the word. And incorrect one, but even so,
traditional. Not so common today.

As to the garnet, well, Garnet colored, ie dark red versus the bright
ruby red of fine ruby, synthetic corundum has never been properly
called garnet, unless the word simulated or imitation is included. Even
30 years ago, calling that synthetic a garnet without qualification
would have been considered unethical, as it would today. Nevertheless,
in so called 'birthstone" jewelry and things like "mothers rings", the
use of such synthetics has long been common and routine. Sounds like you
ran into a sales person who didn't know the first thing about gemology.
Sadly, that too, is still common enough, not just in this country, but
everywhere in the world.


So long
as the value of the piece was near to what was represented, no harm, no
foul.

Again, nope. I think your friend was trying to soften the blow. It was
not, 30 years ago, any more than today, considered just OK if the values
were right.

Except...that the garnet would be worth around $12,000 today versus
being worth about what I paid in the seventies. and the topaz would be
worth 10-15 times what I paid versus being worth, again, about what I
paid.

Now here's where I get REALLY curious. First, with your "topaz", or
smokey quartz. True, Topaz is more valuable. But if it's a smokey
quartz color, ie a brown to grey brown color, the value of a real topaz
gem in that color is not likely to be very high. The valuable ones
generally occur in colors that do not match those quartz gems that
commonly were sold as topaz. I'll bet you'd still only have a 20 dollar
stone were it topaz. And Garnet? just how big IS that dark red rock of
yours? Dark red garnets generally are almandite or something similar.
That's pretty cheap stuff, even in large sizes. A really large one
might be a hundred bucks. Thousands? I think not. Again, some are
more valuable, like the green tsavorites, and some of the other more
exotic ones. But the only ones likely to be substituted for by a
synthetic corundum are dark red. Generally that would have been, as
today, with the almandite variety. At best, a pyrope, which is more
money, but those are not often seen in commercial jewelry, and are
almost always quite small. Even an unusually large one is not liekly to
fetch the estimate you're quoting. None of the red garnets in that
color range has undergone some unusual transformation in the marketplace
to turn it from a common gem 30 years ago to something unusually
valuable today. Yes, they're more, but so is everything. Inflation and
all... In fact, even your synthetics (which due to their harder nature,
will have been worn down much less in the last 30 years) are worth a lot
more today than they were 30 years ago. A decent thumbnail sized dark
red ring stone might cost twenty or thirty dollars from some suppliers
these days, while thirty years ago, it might have cost two or three...

cheers

Peter

A small task for you, Peter. Find a 12x14x7 rhodolite garnet, Umbralite
color, loop clean, emerald cut, excellent cut. Tell me what the price is
on it. I can't find anything like that.

--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

"Peter W.. Rowe," wrote in
news
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:00:03 -0700, in ?õ "Séimí mac Liam"
wrote:

Nor should they. I bought my wife two rings from a "reputable" jeweler
in the city where we lived. One was represented as a garnet and the
other as a topaz. Given the reputation of the store, I didn't bother
to check out the stones for thirty years, at which time I found I had
bought a synthetic ruby and a smoky quartz. My friend, the colored
stone dealer, explained that this was common practice at the time and,
to a lesser extent, is today.

No, it's not, nor has it been, not exactly. The word Topaz properly
means the mineral, and gems that consist of the mineral topaz, but the
word has had a long time traditional usage also to denote smokey quartz.
That's not just a dishonest or imprecise jeweler, that was a long time
traditional usage of the word. And incorrect one, but even so,
traditional. Not so common today.

As to the garnet, well, Garnet colored, ie dark red versus the bright
ruby red of fine ruby, synthetic corundum has never been properly
called garnet, unless the word simulated or imitation is included. Even
30 years ago, calling that synthetic a garnet without qualification
would have been considered unethical, as it would today. Nevertheless,
in so called 'birthstone" jewelry and things like "mothers rings", the
use of such synthetics has long been common and routine. Sounds like you
ran into a sales person who didn't know the first thing about gemology.
Sadly, that too, is still common enough, not just in this country, but
everywhere in the world.


So long
as the value of the piece was near to what was represented, no harm, no
foul.

Again, nope. I think your friend was trying to soften the blow. It was
not, 30 years ago, any more than today, considered just OK if the values
were right.

Except...that the garnet would be worth around $12,000 today versus
being worth about what I paid in the seventies. and the topaz would be
worth 10-15 times what I paid versus being worth, again, about what I
paid.

Now here's where I get REALLY curious. First, with your "topaz", or
smokey quartz. True, Topaz is more valuable. But if it's a smokey
quartz color, ie a brown to grey brown color, the value of a real topaz
gem in that color is not likely to be very high. The valuable ones
generally occur in colors that do not match those quartz gems that
commonly were sold as topaz. I'll bet you'd still only have a 20 dollar
stone were it topaz. And Garnet? just how big IS that dark red rock of
yours? Dark red garnets generally are almandite or something similar.
That's pretty cheap stuff, even in large sizes. A really large one
might be a hundred bucks. Thousands? I think not. Again, some are
more valuable, like the green tsavorites, and some of the other more
exotic ones. But the only ones likely to be substituted for by a
synthetic corundum are dark red. Generally that would have been, as
today, with the almandite variety. At best, a pyrope, which is more
money, but those are not often seen in commercial jewelry, and are
almost always quite small. Even an unusually large one is not liekly to
fetch the estimate you're quoting. None of the red garnets in that
color range has undergone some unusual transformation in the marketplace
to turn it from a common gem 30 years ago to something unusually
valuable today. Yes, they're more, but so is everything. Inflation and
all... In fact, even your synthetics (which due to their harder nature,
will have been worn down much less in the last 30 years) are worth a lot
more today than they were 30 years ago. A decent thumbnail sized dark
red ring stone might cost twenty or thirty dollars from some suppliers
these days, while thirty years ago, it might have cost two or three...

cheers

Peter


These are both stones in the 15-20 carat range and not birthstone or mother
rings.

--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99