FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Tom Mazanec]

I read that, to be a gem, a mineral must have three characteristics:
Rare
Beautiful
Durable
Is there a mineral considered beautiful which is durable, but is common?

[Bob Harman]

Just to name 2: QUARTZ and QUARTZ variety AMETHYST. Both durable and common ("durable" might be a somewhat subjective term). CHEERS.....BOB

[alfredo]

This type of question is interesting, and generally leads to long and animated discussion, but ultimately is impossible to answer. Why? Because no two humans will ever agree on exactly where the boundary is between "common" and "rare", nor between "beautiful" and "ugly", or between "durable" and "fragile".

All these qualities are spread over infinitely variable ranges. Imagine if measuring temperature by degrees had not yet been invented, so the weather forecasters on TV could only use the words "hot" and "cold" to describe tomorrow's weather. Useful? Not much. And peoples' tastes in temperature vary; as "hot" day for me might still be chilly for someone else. Similarly for "beautiful" - Could we all agree on a numerical scale of beauty? Impossible. Which is more "beautiful", a carved green nephrite or a colorless faceted diamond? I'd go for the nephrite as being more beautiful, and consider the diamond less beautiful; probably more people would think the reverse... just a matter of taste, not science.

Similarly for "common" versus "rare" - How to define the boundary? We couldn't even make any such thing as a "scale of rarity" until we answer questions like: Which is to be considered more rare, a mineral that is found by the ton at only one locality on Earth and nowhere else at all, or a mineral that is sparsely disseminated at hundreds of localities around the globe? No one doubts that diamond qualifies as a gem, but it is found at many hundreds of localities around the world and is thus one of the more common minerals from a mineralogical perspective. How rare can it be when it's available for sale in many tens of thousands of jewelry shops? Compare that to, say, a faceted zektzerite or chambersite. But if you define "rare" as: "I've sifted TONS of soil in my garden and haven't found a single one!", then yes, diamond is rare.

Perhaps it's the fault of our limited vocabulary, and fuzzy definitions, but I fear there are no answers to this type of question. Or rather, there are too many answers, and too few people who will agree with the answers. Gems are matters of personal taste - If you personally would enjoy wearing it, it's a gem. if you personally had a hard time finding it, it's a "rare gem".

[Bob Harman]

While I fully agree with Alfredo's comments, as related to jewelry, there still remains the ends of the spectrum: rare minerals <---------> common minerals and durable minerals <---------> fragile minerals.
So, no one would dispute that quartz is a common mineral. And the fact that several varieties such as clear quartz, smoky quartz (heat treated or natural is irrelevant for this discussion) and amethyst are durable enough so that they are very commonly used for jewelry.

Regarding jewelry, discussions related to the ends of the spectrum are still possible and seem valid to me. CHEERS.....BOB

[Peter Megaw]

My first instinct was to simply agree with Alfredo and not pick up the thread...but I can't help myself.

I would argue that a "gem" is a faceted mineral versus a "gemstone" which is mineral material by virtue of its physical characteristics (durability, hardness, transparency etc.) and attractiveness (to someone) is suitable for faceting into a gem or fashioning into a cabochon. Durability comes into it mostly if you're talking about incorporating the product into jewelry that will be worn. Art Grant, Mike Gray and John Bradshaw are masters of faceting gemstones of great beauty and value from mineral material of extreme softness (cf. gypsum) and fragility (cf. fluorite or nifontovite) but which will never survive in jewelry. Many of these cost more than some diamonds, rubies and sapphires, so they certainly qualify as gems in a market sense.

The jewelry trade routinely distinguishes between precious and semi-precious stones...indicating that from a commercial perspective there are steps of value along the spectrum that get reflected in prices. But those steps are a moving target depending on market fashion, supply and marketing efforts by the suppliers. It also depends on where you are. (Generalizing here) In the West folks pay enormous amounts for slight gradations in the quality of diamonds, whereas in the East similar attention is given to jade.

Arguing over where to drive the golden spike between any of these subjective categories is entertaining perhaps but ultimately personal...and pointless

De gustibus non est disputandum

[Peter Megaw]

Missed picking up on Tom's last point...

Plenty of minerals are beautiful and durable...and to my taste I prefer most of them as crystals rather than gems.

[Dale Hallmark]

I certainly agree with that. Once a mineral is turned into a nice jewel I lose 95% of my interest in it.

Dale

[Tobi]