FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[Jordi Fabre]

The discussion is coming out the focus. The discussion is not if the vendor have the right to sell yellow beryls (irradiated or not) or if he should supply accurate details of the locality, but about if he (they) is (are) telling lies about the real locality and the (potential) treatment of the Beryls.

I believe the vendor should prove the reality of the locality he gives, not the buyers or watchers, and for the moment seems that vendor or vendors of this kind of stuff never gave any detail (or them were confuse or contradictory as mentioned before in this thread) about the "Tajikistan" locality.

After all this years it seems reasonable have more details about it, not just "Tajikistan".

[John S. White]

Not quite sure what Jordi's point is. I think we all agree that it is wrong for a dealer to sell minerals as naturally-colored and/or from a specific locality when he or she knows that information is false. But when the mineral appears on the market, I see no reason why it should not be sold as "shrouded in mystery." This, in fact, can add a lot of appeal to the pieces, even if many consider it improper. What are we to do with all of these yellow beryls, throw them away? They are nice crystals, at least the ones like that in my collection, less so the flat ones of an ugly color that occur with what appears to be zapped muscovite.

[Jordi Fabre]

[bob kerr]

[Jesse Fisher]

I completely agree with Alfredo on this one. There are two separate issues here - 1) are these natural or irradiated? and, 2) are they from Tajikistan?

Given the inability of anyone, after all the time these things have been on the market to offer any details what so ever about the supposed locality (including every Russian mineralogist and dealer I've spoken with) strongly suggests that the locality is fictitious.

I will guarantee that at least some of the material I've seen on the market labeled as coming from Tajikistan is fake. I have seen on numerous occasions specimens identical in habit and association to those from other well-known aquamarine locations including Ping Wu, China and Nager, Pakistan. There really appears to be no single or consistent set of habits and associations for this material, which suggests to me that someone is simply acquiring beryl specimens from any of a number of localities, treating them, and selling them on attributed to our "mystery" locality.

While I am not a expert on the topic of radiation-induced color change in minerals, it is my understanding that the darkening effect in quartz is related to the amount of Al that has substituted for Si in the crystal structure. If one has low-Al quartz, is the dose threshold necessary to induce a color change higher than would be needed to turn an associated aquamarine to helidor? If so, then one could expect to produce yellow beryl on white quartz. Over twenty years I'm sure the technicians doing this have had time to develop their technique.

Cheers,
Jesse

[John S. White]

I have to disagree with Jesse about the habit. The fine quality loose crystals usually free of matrix have a distinct habit that is virtually consistent throughout the lot. There are other, previously mentioned, flattened ones of an ugly color occurring with muscovite that could be from anywhere, China or Pakistan. I have not seen the habit I am referring to in abundance from Pakistan. Even if treated and even if not from Tajikistan (as seems to be the case) I suspect that they are from a totally different pegmatite than those that have produced most of the aquas from Pakistan. Their habit is uniform and distinctive.

As for Jordi's point, if the truth has not surfaced even after 20 years, then my guess is that it never will. To some extent his point is moot anyway, because one rarely sees them being sold today.

[Jesse Fisher]

John,
While not definitive, the habit of all those fine loose crystals free of matrix is identical to what comes from the Shigar Valley in Northern Pakistan, which just happens to have been one of the most prolific source of aquamarine over the past 20 years. Because if it's association with blocky albite rather than cleavelandite (typical of the Shigar pegmatites), I would hazard a guess that this is where the matrix specimen you posted a photo of is from, as well.

At any rate, I think it wise for people to be skeptical when faced with things like this. As we all know (or should know), where money flows fraud will follow.

Jesse

[bob kerr]

jesse - you are correct about the fact that Al is the impurity in quartz that causes the "smokey" response to gamma radiation. almost without exception these specimens have mica, lepidolite, feldspar and a whole raft of Al bearing minerals in association. i'm makeing the assumption that the quartz in association with these is milky due to impurities that contain Al - i think this is a very good assumption and as such should be very susceptible to darkening upon gamma irradiation. i will stand corrected if input from a more knowledgeable shows up.

to me the issue is; can a certain gamma exposure color the beryl and not darken at all the associated quartz - i doubt this can be done - but again, i'll stand corrected if input is received from a more knowledgeable souce shows up - which is the main reason i started this discussion.

bob

[alfredo]

Bob, the Al in quartz that leads to smoky colour on irradiation is present substituting for Si in the quartz lattice itself, invisibly, not as inclusions of Al-bearing minerals. The "milkyness" of quartz crystals is caused by myriad inclusions of liquid and/or gas (microscopic "bubbles"), not solid Al-bearing inclusions.

And, as David von Bargen has pointed out in the parallel Mindat thread on this topic, you only need to heat smoky quartz to get rid of the smoky color after irradiation. So it seems the support for natural origin is getting still weaker.

Alfredo

[bob kerr]

even though the Al needs to be in the quartz lattice, it is clear that a good bit of Al was around during the formation of these specimens so i still think it's a good assumption that there would be a good bit of Al in the milky quartz lattice.

and for heating smokey to clear it up - wouldn't this also impact the heliodor? there's lots of demonstrations of treated aquas and heliodors going to goeshenite with heating. the question is one of the right temperture and duration to clear the quartz and not clear the heliodor.

a friend of mine is gonna try an experiment with this - heat both smokey and heliodor and attempt to see what happens. it may not be the exact case but should be instrutive.

bob

[bob kerr]

what happened to daid von bargen's post?

never mind - that was on the mindat board - got my boards confused.

bob

[alfredo]

Good news, Bob. Experiment beats mere arguments every time. I'm looking forward to the results!

I suppose if someone wanted to go to a lot of trouble, the REE distribution in the associated feldspars might indicate the region of origin? (One would also have to create a database of trace element signatures for numerous pegmatites of known source.)

[lluis]

Good evening, Bob

Here is link to page where you can see a smoku quartz with an aqua.
So, as you could see, radiation acts in different ways

https://www.buenavistagemworks.com/gallery/photo1.htm
(link normalized by FMF)

Could be a case of a maxixe beryl... Who knows?

For albite, well, if you see in mindat, seems that albite is still white even having dark smokey quartz
https://www.mindat.org/gallery.php?min=3689

Curiously, also, seems that quartz has some reluctancy ti be homogeneous and get a smoky tone that is not continous.

As examples.
https://www.mindat.org/photo-194309.html
https://www.mindat.org/photo-276201.html
https://www.mindat.org/photo-276312.html
https://www.mindat.org/photo-147533.html

The last is wonderful

I suppose, as you said that should be treated with a alligned focus of gamma rays...
Only rims are smokey :-)

If you like, I can continue.

But , and I use not capitals, that mean shouting, as you use :-) , you will to beleive that they are natural.
No one till now has been able to show the mine (well, the Gentle Krustle mine now (that I suppose that is a well known farsi name.... I will ask my friend that speaks farsi,.... Curious); piss, err, Zelatoya Vada is not more there....)
No one has been able to show that they are different from Paki and China ones (sorry, Mr. Sampson White, but I see same as Jesse, And besides, same as the russian expert)
All data shows that could be very well irradiated beryls.
And, if you want to add more things, a dealer in Vietnam, selling a lot of "vietnamese" heliodors, sold also extremely rare green gemmy amazonite.
Take a thing in account: amazonite seems to be changed to green by irradiation.
Then tke a chunk of Ittrongay orthoclase (gemmy), and irradiate it: wonder of wonders, green and asking astronomical prices....

Sorry, Bob.

Seller/s should provide *data*, with a GPS position, to let see the rest of unbelivers that we are wrong. Of course, in casw we are.... :-)

Besides, you see that there is no need to heat smokey.
Just some quartzs decide that the do not go smokey.... :-)

And (more) besides, the last example, main body is milky (as per you, full of Al substitutions),
Nevertheless, facts are that heretic (heretikos: the right to choose), that insist to be white...

So, as Alfredo pointed, well, the case is for me very clear.

I thank you a lot your question.
I searched the net a lot, and I find several answers.
Only some placed.

With best wishes

Lluís

[Jolyon Ralph]

Although I respect John White greatly, I have to disagree with his view that material such as this needs to be treated as genuine until it is proven to be fake.

This is a dangerous path to go down - and one that only makes it more attractive for people to fake minerals.

As scientists, we should be naturally suspicious of anything that is out of the ordinary, and the onus of proof needs to be in cases like this for those who believe they are genuine to reassure us that they they are.

In the three biggest mineralogical frauds of recent times (the himmelsfurst silvers, the tadjikistan beryls and the hollowed galenas from bulgaria) - each came with the same suspicious story - lack of any evidence of natural formation (eg photos of material in-situ), and the same trickle of high value specimens into the market, followed by a small flood of similar pieces, followed by the mysterious disappearance of those involved in the original supply. None of that on its own is evidence of fraud, but when taken into the big picture along with other more direct evidence it paints a very suspicious picture.

There is too much money involved in these things for people to be naive about the possibility of fraud.

If you can't prove something is fake, it doesn't mean it should be treated as genuine. Be suspicious.

Jolyon

[Jim]

This thread and the one on Mindat about these beryls are fascinating to watch from my perspective, because I'm a research psychologist who studies how people form and maintain beliefs -- and that includes exotic and delusional beliefs as well.

I also find the argument "prove they are fake" to be oddly reversed. The fact that the source/mine has not been conclusively documented is a huge red flag. The same was true for the hollowed galenas, as Jolyon noted. It made me smile that a young, budding mineralogist (Jessica) showed superb critical thinking and brought a strong verdict on that claim. It was an object lesson for all.

Cheers,

Jim