Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:22 pm Posts: 21602 Location: San Francisco
Certainly BJBecker you can choose to spend your time and money anyway you wish.
I just don't want anyone reading this thread to get the impression that this instrument would be a serious option for someone working or hoping to work professionally within our industry. It's not.
This method is too time consuming, and the results are unreliable.
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:00 am Posts: 1133 Location: Monterey, CA
Barbra Voltaire wrote:
With all due respect, how long do you think one would last as a salaried gemologist/appraiser if it took 1/2 a day to compile enough information to make a "best guess" on a stone's identity.
I believe extrapolating from a beginner just learning how to use an instrument to a salaried appraiser is a bit of a stretch.
Quote:
Heaven forbid if this mystery stone was a yellow scapolite.
Why should that be so? One quick look would show if the B/D ratio was right or wrong. But then, most gem ID teachers don't know about B/D because their training is 30 years out of date. Basil Anderson knew all this in 1980.
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:00 am Posts: 1133 Location: Monterey, CA
Barbra Voltaire wrote:
I just don't want anyone reading this thread to get the impression that this instrument would be a serious option for someone working or hoping to work professionally within our industry. It's not.
This method is too time consuming, and the results are unreliable.
Many of us believe all those “serious professional gemologists”, as well as students, could use a little help.
After all, gemological teachers haven’t adopted any new instruments for basic gem identification for over 45 years. As we all know, they are still stuck with OTL.
You previously acknowledged that you didn’t understand my method. Now, you say is too time consuming, and the results are unreliable.
May I ask, “Where is your data?” Time Consuming? Unreliable? Not a serious option for someone working or hoping to work professionally within our industry? I do not think so.
Certainly, this is not an instrument one would proudly display for showing off, but when the nitty gritty job of identifying OTL gems is at hand, it pays its way in the back room.
Suppose I gave to one of those “serious professionals,” or even a student, the task of identifying a lot of ten stones I wish to purchase for my collection. They are all round brilliants of less than 25 points in size. I know their names are supposed to be Sphalerite, Titanite, Zircon, Zinkite, Cerussite, Cassiterite, Powellite, and 3 OTL synthetics? All I want to know is if the names are correct. I do not need any a written certificate. How do you think one might proceed?
I am indeed serious to learn the approach to this simple problem in gemstone identification that you would recommend.
P.S. I would predict most “serious professionals” would opt out of that job, because they couldn’t see how to make a profit and/or they didn’t have the capability and wouldn’t admit it. On the other hand, students would probably do it for Free, just to get the experience. For you students, you have a time limit of 2 hours.
After all, gemological teachers haven’t adopted any new instruments for basic gem identification for over 45 years. As we all know, they are still stuck with OTL.
I seems to me that Dr Hannemann has dismissed all modern instruments being produced. I know he was in discussion with the owners of the GemmoRaman at Tucson. And just for the record, the GemmoRaman do handle OTL minerals completely. It does not give the RI but it makes an ID which, if you are interested. can lead you to the RI.
If the Hannemann refractometer had been such a useful tool for jewelers and gemmologists it would have been standard by now, wouldn't it?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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