First time posting and really new to this, bought a moldavite through a uk seller that got it from china. I was a bit dubious of it, looks and feels great but when I tested the sg it come back as 1.75 and I done it 3 times, I then tested another one I’ve had for years and it come back at 2.357 which I believe is correct. The only other thing I have is a polariscope and it showed light with a perfect dark cross through it (thin in the middle fat on the outer edges) the cross appears and disappears when rotating. The seller has agreed to take it back and refund which is great, but, do you think my suspicions of it being fake to be correct on these two tests alone? I’m saving up for more equipment
Moldavite is an interesting material for sure and challenging to validate natural vs man-made or the origin.
You mentioned the polariscope observation you did and I would be curious if you did a similar test on the other specimen? (the one with the more realistic SG measurement)
These two articles, if you haven’t seen them yet, are really good references. The second one (GIA article) is linked from within the IGS one. If you had access to a gemological microscope, I would suggest performing an immersion test on both specimens (per the GIA article) to look for the lechatelierite wires.
Thanks for the feedback, I think I’ve completely confused myself with sg readings, I followed the igs guidelines 8.53 / (8.53-3.60) = 1.73 done it 4 times now but I’m also seeing online ppl just dividing the dry weight by the weight in water and that brings it out at 2.369 now I’m totally confused
I tried to take a photo of it through a loupe but it didn’t really work, managed to get some close ups submerged and under the polariscope at its darkes and lightes points. I’m feeling rather let down with myself
Always take the Air measurement first, then the submerged. This will reduce any errors involving the “in air” values if any pockets of water collect in crevasses. Several topics here in the forum discuss ways to approach the measurement and as you have already explored the different setups in the IGS article repository.
From the images, it looks like you are using one of the vertical loupes with a built-in light. Those are very handy. It can be challenging to get a good image using a phone camera with this type of loupe because the eye-shield is a bit further out from the focal plane of the camera lens.
But the images are still quite clear and some surface features are visible.
Image2_jpg is interesting, I assume the stone is submerged in water, right? Several other images do look like the stone is submerged as well.
Thanks for the advice Troy it is very much appreciated! I did submerge it in water with a tiny drop of dish soap as I didn’t think I had mineral oil to hand. I went to buy some there and apparently mineral oil is what I rub my chopping board with so I actually had it all along lol. It’s all a big learning curve for me, I’m a trained jeweller, ask me to make a ring no problem, ask me to identify a gemstone…….. not so good. That’s why I am on here working my way through tutorials image 1 was a bad attempt at photography through my grandads watch repairers loupe which is a big black tunnel. The next two were under the polariscope then the others under water with back light diffused light. I think I should have picked something easier to start out with.
image 1 was a bad attempt at photography through my grandads watch repairers loupe which is a big black tunnel. The next two were under the polariscope then the others under water with back light diffused light. I think I should have picked something easier to start out with.