We use cookies to show content based on your preferences. If you continue to browse you accept their use and installation. More information. >

FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board
The place to share your mineralogical experiences


Spanish message board






Newest topics and users posts
28 Mar-09:37:50 Re: 2 unknowns co-occurring with caledonite, grand reef mine, az (Cfrench58)
27 Mar-19:47:08 Re: 2 unknowns co-occurring with caledonite, grand reef mine, az (Pete Richards)
27 Mar-16:15:44 Re: 2 unknowns co-occurring with caledonite, grand reef mine, az (Cfrench58)
27 Mar-15:18:59 Re: 2 unknowns co-occurring with caledonite, grand reef mine, az (Alfredo)
27 Mar-14:39:29 2 unknowns co-occurring with caledonite, grand reef mine, az (Cfrench58)
27 Mar-05:21:48 Re: the mim museum in beirut, lebanon (Mim Museum)
27 Mar-05:03:26 Re: trying to find information on rose/pink quartz and tourmaline associations. (Ning)
27 Mar-02:39:50 Re: the mim museum in beirut, lebanon (Tobi)
27 Mar-00:23:28 Re: collection of volkmar stingl (Volkmar Stingl)
26 Mar-00:53:41 Re: collection of volkmar stingl (Volkmar Stingl)
25 Mar-13:32:10 Re: collection of michael shaw (Michael Shaw)
25 Mar-00:25:58 The mizunaka collection - quartz (Am Mizunaka)
23 Mar-13:35:22 Re: collection of firmo espinar (Firmo Espinar)
22 Mar-08:32:28 Re: collection of michael shaw (Michael Shaw)
22 Mar-04:20:41 Re: the mim museum in beirut, lebanon (Mim Museum)
21 Mar-22:49:19 Re: green seam. Looks like it in a state of decay. (Ning)
21 Mar-22:47:40 Re: green seam. Looks like it in a state of decay. (Ning)
21 Mar-22:45:25 Re: green seam. Looks like it in a state of decay. (Ning)
21 Mar-15:34:23 Re: the mizunaka collection - quartz (Am Mizunaka)
21 Mar-14:35:08 Re: jim’s mineral collection (Jim Wilkinson)
21 Mar-14:15:36 The 4th phoenix heritage mineral show (phms) hosted by mineralogical society of arizona (m (Chris Whitney-smith)
21 Mar-04:36:10 Re: the mizunaka collection (Tobi)
21 Mar-04:11:47 Re: jim’s mineral collection (James Catmur)
20 Mar-23:34:15 The mizunaka collection - quartz (Am Mizunaka)
20 Mar-18:13:16 Re: jim’s mineral collection (Jim Wilkinson)

For lists of newest topics and postings click here


RSS RSS

View unanswered posts

Why and how to register

Index Index
 FAQFAQ RegisterRegister  Log inLog in
 {Forgotten your password?}Forgotten your password?  

Like
111802


The time now is Mar 28, 2024 15:15

Search for a textSearch for a text   

A general guide for using the Forum with some rules and tips
The information provided within this Forum about localities is only given to allow reference to them. Any visit to any of the localities requires you to obtain full permission and relevant information prior to your visit. FMF is strictly against any illicit activities related to collecting minerals.
Smokey: natural or lab?
  
  Index -> Incorrect classification and fakes
Like


View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Turbo




Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 260
Location: Delaware


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: 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.



striations.jpg
 Description:
 Viewed:  21758 Time(s)

striations.jpg



smokeys.jpg
 Description:
For comparison, the one on the right is lab irradiated.
 Viewed:  21764 Time(s)

smokeys.jpg



Smokey2.jpg
 Description:
 Viewed:  21729 Time(s)

Smokey2.jpg



smokey.jpg
 Description:
 Viewed:  21777 Time(s)

smokey.jpg



underside.jpg
 Description:
Underside of the specimen
 Viewed:  21717 Time(s)

underside.jpg


Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

GneissWare




Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 1287
Location: California


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: 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
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

Turbo




Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 260
Location: Delaware


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: 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
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

GneissWare




Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 1287
Location: California


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: 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
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

alfredo
Site Admin



Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 979


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: 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
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

Turbo




Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 260
Location: Delaware


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: 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.


linear trace 1.jpg
 Description:
 Viewed:  21670 Time(s)

linear trace 1.jpg



linear trace 2.jpg
 Description:
 Viewed:  21680 Time(s)

linear trace 2.jpg



Linear trace3.jpg
 Description:
 Viewed:  21667 Time(s)

Linear trace3.jpg


Back to top
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

Turbo




Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 260
Location: Delaware


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: 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
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

jimB




Joined: 07 Sep 2009
Posts: 51
Location: Tucson, Arizona

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: 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
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

GneissWare




Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 1287
Location: California


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: 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
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

Les Presmyk




Joined: 06 Dec 2007
Posts: 372
Location: Gilbert, AZ

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: 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
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

chris
Site Admin



Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 538
Location: Grenoble


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: 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
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

David Von Bargen




Joined: 09 Jul 2009
Posts: 41
Location: Milwaukee

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: 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
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

Turbo




Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 260
Location: Delaware


Access to the FMF Gallery title=

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: 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
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   

Les Presmyk




Joined: 06 Dec 2007
Posts: 372
Location: Gilbert, AZ

View user's profile

Send private message

PostPosted: 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
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Like
   
Display posts from previous:   
   Index -> Incorrect classification and fakes   All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1
    

 
Jump to:  
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 vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


All pictures, text, design © Forum FMF 2006-2024


Powered by FMF