Talk:Emerald/Archive 1

Archive 1

Format

My wife was (sigh) reviewing gem articles, and happened upon this article. She bitched at me that the formatting was horrible. Now, it should be said that she was using IE6 with the "larger" font setting (+1 from normal). So I moved the images into the table, and it stopped breaking the page at weird points. However, I don't think that's so great, either. When I went back to my laptop (Firefox 1.6a1, "deer park"), at normal text size, and viewed the last revision, it seemed that it was a little better, but still broken. The images were appearing under the table on the bottom right. Part of the problem here is that there's a whole lot more content in the table than in the article. I'm not sure how to fix it, but my wife would be happy if somebody did. aa v ^ 03:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Played with it a bit - looks OK on my low res screen (using Opera). Does it work for both of you? :-) Vsmith 05:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures/TV

Why are TVs and cameras "emerald unfriendly?" (Cause the emerald to appear to have poor quality?) Evan Robidoux 10:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Funky sentence

The amount of oil entering an emerald microfissure is equivalent to the dot at the end of this sentence.

Should this really be here? Self references don't make for good prose, and technically, the dot's size varies depending on font size. An actual value would be much more useful. Authenticity 00:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I reworded it, but it still seems unscientific.--Mo-Al 04:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Units for temperature gradient

with a temperature gradient of 10 to 25 C.

A temperature gradient is typically reported in temperature/length, such as degrees C per meter. 26 Sep 2006

The above mentioned data was retrieved from Kurt Nassau's "Gems made by man" book. Waisberg 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)waisberg

Citing references

Why the tag about citations at the top? Which parts other than the non-scientific bits are inadequately referenced?Olneya 04:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added some referencing for chemistry, as well as a bit in the synthetic section (more work needed here, basic info is correct, maybe needs some sourcing). I changed the FTC link to the actual FTC website rather than that of Tairus's, though the info is the same, I thought it more appropriate. Also removed a couple sentences after that reference, as they seemed to have little point other than to suggest that one type of synthetic is superior to another- questionable from a neutral POV. Reworked the UV luminescence part in synthetics, as the two references I have availabe flatly contradict what was written before.Olneya 15:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm continuing to tidy this article up, the treatment discussion and repeated references to inclusions seemed a bit clunky, so I've tried to streamline a bit. I'm thinking the first 1 1/2 paragraphs of the synthetic section can stand as is with no ref, as its pretty general history. The last part though, after mention of Linde's patents, strikes me as out of place, and I doubt it would make much sense to someone un-familiar with hydrothermal crystal growth.Olneya 01:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis

Is emerald still the least known synthesis of all the inorganic gemstones? I know they were making progress with homogeneous gems such as diamond. --James S. → talk 07:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where you get the impression that synthetic emeralds are the least well known synthetic gem, I would have guessed that some of the more exotic synthetics - like synthetic tourmaline - would be least well known. As it stands, basic information on synthetic emerald, corundums, quartz, and all the diamond simulants and synthetics is pretty readily available - there are several books that cover the subject and are likely to be available in larger bookstores (Simon & Schuster's Guide to Gems & Precious Stones, for example). Olneya 13:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Localities

I am going to add some information regarding mining localities, principally in Columbia.T.E. Goodwin 02:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Added Yukon, Canada Prof.rick 22:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oval stone in image - Emerald or Green Beryl?

• how much would one of these giant crystals cost? i want an opal cus its my birthstone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.251.160 (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Is that stone really an emerald? It appears to be too light to be an emerald, more like a green beryl (Green Beryl is a term to describe beryls of a light green color). Andros 1337 19:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

yep its an emerald, its a whole emerald crystal rough, so its not going to be as refined as a cut and polished emerald. also, its commonly known now that most emeralds undergo treatment before they are considered jewelry fit. during these treatments the emerald's color takes up a much deeper tone and higher saturation.. a green beryl would appear nearly colorless in a crystal rough...

• • • That last generalization is not really true in my experience. Though oiling of cut emeralds is a common and accepted pratices in the gem industry, the oil must be colorless. The use of green tinted oils is not considered acceptible, nor is any other treatment that enhances the color. Natural emeralds can be quite dark in color, and it is misleading to suggest that a cut emerald's color must automatically be due to treatments.Olneya 04:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• how about telling us something useful - like how they are formed geologically, where they are mined, annual supply and demand, values per carat, etc etc

Images

could someone add more pics? 96.28.44.166 (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

citations

as im no expert on wikipedia i dont know how to do citations. http://www.emeralds.com/specimens/specimens/mining.html would this website show that "Emeralds come from three main emerald mining areas in Colombia: Muzo, Coscuez, and Chivor"? Leithal92 (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I added it. Good find! Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Geology and composition

• how about telling us something useful - like how they are formed geologically

• • since this is part of the geology project, formation would seem to be exceedingly important. I know they can form by hydrothermal processes and can be found in formations where there's quartz, but even putting that in with documentation would be minimal. there ought to be composition information as well. I'd work on this, but I'm already committed to a couple of other projects, where I'm delinquent due to being too willing to take things on. Dismalscholar (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I'd like to help but am swamped with college exams. :( it really isnt the best page though and it needs help.Leithal92 (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Properties determining value

This section begins with the sentence: "Emeralds, like all colored gemstones, are graded using four basic parameters – the four Cs of Connoisseurship: Color, Cut, Clarity and Crystal."

I believe this is incorrect. The 4th C of gemstone grading has been "Caret weight", not "Crystal". This is supported by a simple Google search of "gemstones 4 C's" and Wikipedia's own page on "Diamond cut".

A search on "Crystal" as the 4th C shows that this is a new, proposed, grading system apparently created by a Richard W. Wise in the last decade.

The article should be modified to either remove the text about Crystal, or to explain that this is not the currently accepted system of 4C's of gemstone grading and is only an unaccepted new idea or alternate system.

The current text reads like a statement of fact, which it isn't.

Gcronau (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)gcronau

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Emerald/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald its original source being a Semitic word _izmargad_ Are You sure? Not: izmaragd? It looks better and sounds better;) Regards Joanna joanna@zdomu.waw.pl

Last edited at 01:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emerald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117015242/http://www.gem-a.com:80/publications/journal-of-gemmology/issues-2008-to-date/cronin-2012.aspx to http://www.gem-a.com/publications/journal-of-gemmology/issues-2008-to-date/cronin-2012.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711082633/http://www.gem-a.com/media/27904/2006%2030%201%20to%202.pdf to http://www.gem-a.com/media/27904/2006%2030%201%20to%202.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)