View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Turbo
Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 260
Location: Delaware



|
Posted: Oct 08, 2009 18:27 Post subject: Smokey: natural or lab? |
|
|
I recently purchased this smokey that is 9 cm x 8 cm on its longest sides. It was labeled "Arkansas," but after doing some web research I discovered that Arkansas smokies are rare. The guy who sold it to me thought it was natural, but didn't seem to know for certain. I'm skeptical. How can I determine if this is natural or just another lab-irradiated piece?
I noticed immediately that it does not have the blackened look that many fake smokies have, but that may be because the crystals are smaller than those specimens.
Here are some details: s-faces are present on at least 6 of the crystals (bias toward right-handedness), crystals show variation in width of m-faces (plenty of growth variation). There is no matrix on this piece. Base is lighter with more inclusions. Striations are visible in one of the photos below.
Let me know what you think. I hope this thread will help others in distinguishing lab-treated from natural specimens. Thanks.
Description: |
|
Viewed: |
24095 Time(s) |

|
Description: |
For comparison, the one on the right is lab irradiated. |
|
Viewed: |
24099 Time(s) |

|
Description: |
|
Viewed: |
24066 Time(s) |

|
Description: |
|
Viewed: |
24119 Time(s) |

|
Description: |
Underside of the specimen |
|
Viewed: |
24069 Time(s) |

|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
GneissWare

Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 1287
Location: California



|
Posted: Oct 08, 2009 19:37 Post subject: Re: Smokey: natural or lab? |
|
|
I haven't really seen natural smokies from Arkansas, though like you, I have heard they exist. Most irradiated crystals are quite dark as you have shown. What might leave me to believe (based on nothing but hunch) that these are natural is the presence of what seems to be faint phantoms.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Turbo
Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 260
Location: Delaware



|
Posted: Oct 08, 2009 20:04 Post subject: Re: Smokey: natural or lab? |
|
|
GneissWare wrote: | I haven't really seen natural smokies from Arkansas, though like you, I have heard they exist. Most irradiated crystals are quite dark as you have shown. What might leave me to believe (based on nothing but hunch) that these are natural is the presence of what seems to be faint phantoms. |
Is a phantom just the dark clouds or does it have to assume the outline of a crystal?
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
GneissWare

Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 1287
Location: California



|
Posted: Oct 08, 2009 20:19 Post subject: Re: Smokey: natural or lab? |
|
|
The prominent crystal (seen in Smokey2.jpg) seems to have a linear trace that looks like a phantom in the photo.
There may be others here who have seen irradiated crystals with these kinds of subtleties, but I haven't.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
alfredo
Site Admin

Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 1011



|
Posted: Oct 08, 2009 21:30 Post subject: Re: Smokey: natural or lab? |
|
|
The natural smokys from Bolivia usually have phantoms. When radiation (natural or artificial) turns quartz smoky, it can affect different growth zones differently, depending on the traces of other elements they contain (Al & Fe, I think), hence the phantoms. So I don't think phantoms would help distinguish natural from artificially irradiated smoky quartz, unfortunately.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Turbo
Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 260
Location: Delaware



|
Posted: Oct 08, 2009 21:40 Post subject: Re: Smokey: natural or lab? |
|
|
Here are some better pictures of that same linear trace (or a reflection of it) from different angles.
Description: |
|
Viewed: |
24029 Time(s) |

|
Description: |
|
Viewed: |
24034 Time(s) |

|
Description: |
|
Viewed: |
23982 Time(s) |

|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Turbo
Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 260
Location: Delaware



|
Posted: Oct 08, 2009 21:44 Post subject: Re: Smokey: natural or lab? |
|
|
alfredo wrote: | The natural smokys from Bolivia usually have phantoms. When radiation (natural or artificial) turns quartz smoky, it can affect different growth zones differently, depending on the traces of other elements they contain (Al & Fe, I think), hence the phantoms. So I don't think phantoms would help distinguish natural from artificially irradiated smoky quartz, unfortunately. |
That's what I was thinking. No matter what the source of radiation, it's working on already established aluminum artifacts.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jimB
Joined: 07 Sep 2009
Posts: 51
Location: Tucson, Arizona


|
Posted: Oct 08, 2009 22:35 Post subject: Re: Smokey: natural or lab? |
|
|
Hi Turbo,
I don't think of any smoky quartz as originating in Arkansas. I suggest you talk to Jim Coleman or Gary Fleck and ask if in their experience they have seen such. It is a big world and anything is possible but I am skeptical.
_________________ JimB |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
GneissWare

Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 1287
Location: California



|
Posted: Oct 08, 2009 22:46 Post subject: Re: Smokey: natural or lab? |
|
|
Assuming one can believe everything on Mindat, there are photos of smoky quartz from Arkansas. For example, https://www.mindat.org/photo-114604.html There are others as well.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Les Presmyk
Joined: 06 Dec 2007
Posts: 372
Location: Gilbert, AZ


|
Posted: Oct 09, 2009 08:47 Post subject: Re: Smokey: natural or lab? |
|
|
Since no one has commented on the appearance of the human induced Arkansas smoky quartzes, I will see if I can remember the history. Back in the 1970's, before the crystal healing fervor hit our hobby, there was a lot of Arkansas quartz on the market, all of it colorless. Having travelled back to Crystal Springs, Hot Springs and Mr. Coleman's operation about 1966, I purchased one legitimate smoky quartz at one of the gas station turned quartz dealers. It was a humble specimen, barely worth picking up but it was dark, and nothing like either of the photos.
As I remember the facts, there was, and maybe still is, a food irradiation plant in the Hot Springs area. An enterprising individual sent a basket of quartz crystals through the process, and to his or her delight, ended up with dark, almost black, smoky quartz crystals. Now, here was a way to sell more Arkansas quartz in a market that was saturated. So, a quantity of Arkansas smoky quartz hit the market. All of it looked much like the specimen on the right, very evenly black throughout the crystal but with a tell-tale whiteness at the base of the specimens.
I have not seen a smoky specimen from Arkansas, natural or not, like the plate on the left of the photo. If it is from Arkansas, I would be suspicious of the smoky portion being natural.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
chris
Site Admin

Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 538
Location: Grenoble



|
Posted: Oct 09, 2009 09:34 Post subject: Re: Smokey: natural or lab? |
|
|
Hi,
I agree with Lees. I had a chat with a guy on Mindat some years ago about smokeys from Arkansas. He told me they existed but they only were very lightly smoked. The color of your plate is definitely too strong to be natural (assuming it is Arkansas quartz).
Might be a good guess to consider them irradiated.
Christophe
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
David Von Bargen
Joined: 09 Jul 2009
Posts: 41
Location: Milwaukee


|
Posted: Oct 09, 2009 11:58 Post subject: Re: Smokey: natural or lab? |
|
|
Lab made. Smokies from Arkansas are fairly rare and tend not to be near that quality. Probably pulled out without a full dose.
>From Ask Mikey (Mike Howard - Arkansas Geol Survey)
" Natural smoky tends to be smoky to the base, whereas irradiated tends to have a white crystal base next to the matrix rock."
https://rockhoundingar.com/askmikey/askMqtz02.html
(link normalized by FMF)
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Turbo
Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 260
Location: Delaware



|
Posted: Oct 09, 2009 12:56 Post subject: Re: Smokey: natural or lab? |
|
|
Plus, if it was natural, it would be worth more than $38, which is what I paid for it.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Les Presmyk
Joined: 06 Dec 2007
Posts: 372
Location: Gilbert, AZ


|
Posted: Oct 09, 2009 13:06 Post subject: Re: Smokey: natural or lab? |
|
|
Significantly more but it is nice specimen, regardless. I remember when these first hit the markets that the dealers who handled them said the human created smokiness would never be a problem because the labels would state how the smoky part was derived. My observation was what happens when the label is separated from the specimen and I was assured that would never happen.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|