Gem Collector Prices

[jayc]

A

greed Jeff would be good on GC but would they actually give him anything worth selling at a reasonable price?

Some items on Gumporia not as good quality as Claires Accessories

 

[historymystery]

Some items on Gumporia not as good quality as Claires Accessories

You can see much better ones on GemSelect or even Etsy. And much cheaper.

 

[Ant7t]

As I write, I am watching a video about lapidary. Agate Dad, if you're interested, but he has been playing with Fordite. GC have sold that, I know. It's glorified paint drippings. And there's GC et al, who say they never sell fake or non-natural. Ford paint became a gemstone, when?

 

[AndyW]

As I write, I am watching a video about lapidary. Agate Dad, if you're interested, but he has been playing with Fordite. GC have sold that, I know. It's glorified paint drippings. And there's GC et al, who say they never sell fake or non-natural. Ford paint became a gemstone, when?

Firstly, I watch Agate Dad too .

Secondly, Fordite is only a gemstone because someone wanted to make money out of the paint residue left from the collapsed car industry in Detroit. Some bits are pretty, for sure, and can make unusual jewellery pieces but it's as much a gemstone as Bakelite, Yttrium Garnets or Swarovski crystals, none of which you can make at home but Fordite you can. Stated as "rarer than diamonds" by some (which semi-precious gemstone isn't?!), it's a historical curiosity but that's about it.

GC did have a small selection a few years ago. Bought one (before I was more assiduous about checking the internet for facts) but sent it straight back, feeling an idiot for paying so much for layered paint. Much more suited to Jewellery Maker or Hobby Maker than Gem Collector.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

I'm mixed on Fordite - it's not technically a gemstone, but 'proper' Fordite has some history to it, and it's no longer available. There is some newer 'Fordite' on the market that isn't 'proper' Fordite because it's come from a completely different process that is still used today - therefore, it has no historical value.

I personally don't think that Pearls and Amber (or anything else that is organic) should be referred to as Gemstones either because they're not stones.

We could even go a step further and say that resin-filled Rubies and reconstituted Turquoise, that is compressed fragments of multiple stones, should not be considered 'real' gemstones either. To me, a filled Ruby has as much meaning and value as a piece of glass. They're junk.

I think things like Fordite and Roman Glass have a place - but it should be law that they're forced to declare exactly what they are more precisely. Non-gemstones should not be called 'gemstones'.

 

[Ant7t]

Firstly, I watch Agate Dad too .

Secondly, Fordite is only a gemstone because someone wanted to make money out of the paint residue left from the collapsed car industry in Detroit. Some bits are pretty, for sure, and can make unusual jewellery pieces but it's as much a gemstone as Bakelite, Yttrium Garnets or Swarovski crystals, none of which you can make at home but Fordite you can. Stated as "rarer than diamonds" by some (which semi-precious gemstone isn't?!), it's a historical curiosity but that's about it.

GC did have a small selection a few years ago. Bought one (before I was more assiduous about checking the internet for facts) but sent it straight back, feeling an idiot for paying so much for layered paint. Much more suited to Jewellery Maker or Hobby Maker than Gem Collector.

He's good. A random YouTube recommendation. Initially his laugh annoyed me, but now, it seems odd if he doesn't. But that's an aside.

Thinking as I write. Initially (my word for the post? ) I thought it was a real stone. Then when discovering it was just paint, as nice as it looks, it's quite expensive: at least on GC. That said, and this is the thinking as I write bit, IF it's paint layers, originally from the 50's and 60's: maybe later, maybe earlier, but I think the years I mentioned, what's to say it's safe for 'current' sale. Lead Paint and all that.

 

[Ant7t]

I'm mixed on Fordite - it's not technically a gemstone, but 'proper' Fordite has some history to it, and it's no longer available. There is some newer 'Fordite' on the market that isn't 'proper' Fordite because it's come from a completely different process that is still used today - therefore, it has no historical value.

I personally don't think that Pearls and Amber (or anything else that is organic) should be referred to as Gemstones either because they're not stones.

We could even go a step further and say that resin-filled Rubies and reconstituted Turquoise, that is compressed fragments of multiple stones, should not be considered 'real' gemstones either. To me, a filled Ruby has as much meaning and value as a piece of glass. They're junk.

I think things like Fordite and Roman Glass have a place - but it should be law that they're forced to declare exactly what they are more precisely. Non-gemstones should not be called 'gemstones'.

I agree. I find it hard to call them, or hear them called, gem 'stones'. Amber being fossilised resin, is still not a stone, even if fossil implies such. I can, off the top of my head, only think of three items of organic origin: Jet being the other one. Maybe they could be called Gems of organic origins, not stones.

Another 'I agree'.

 

[Qwerty123]

He's good. A random YouTube recommendation. Initially his laugh annoyed me, but now, it seems odd if he doesn't. But that's an aside.

Thinking as I write. Initially (my word for the post? ) I thought it was a real stone. Then when discovering it was just paint, as nice as it looks, it's quite expensive: at least on GC. That said, and this is the thinking as I write bit, IF it's paint layers, originally from the 50's and 60's: maybe later, maybe earlier, but I think the years I mentioned, what's to say it's safe for 'current' sale. Lead Paint and all that.

The only time I can remember seeing Fordite on air was a GC show with Matt Bennett covering and to be fair he gave quite a detailed explanation as to what it was and how it was formed. Whilst I can completely understand why some wouldn't be interested in owning any I could also see that some people who aren't particularly interested in gemstones having more of an interest in it than typical stones so it could well be a way for someone to introduce a friend or family member into the world of gemstones who wouldn't ordinarily be interested.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

The only time I can remember seeing Fordite on air was a GC show with Matt Bennett covering and to be fair he gave quite a detailed explanation as to what it was and how it was formed. Whilst I can completely understand why some wouldn't be interested in owning any I could also see that some people who aren't particularly interested in gemstones having more of an interest in it than typical stones so it could well be a way for someone to introduce a friend or family member into the world of gemstones who wouldn't ordinarily be interested.

Ironically, the first two 'stones' that got me into collecting were............. Fordite and Meteorite.

I've gone on to have about 4000+ 'proper' stones in my collection since.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

Gem Collector selling a "White Aquamarine" this hour.

So, Goshenite then..............

 

[Solent Warship]

Gem Collector selling a "White Aquamarine" this hour.

So, Goshenite then..............

Someone sent a message to Jim saying same, he got a little flustered then said it's aquamarine because of the iron percentage of the stone. Going onto say that green aquamarine is emerald. I don't know enough to say he's right or not.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

Someone sent a message to Jim saying same, he got a little flustered then said it's aquamarine because of the iron percentage of the stone. Going onto say that green aquamarine is emerald. I don't know enough to say he's right or not.

Its BS. If had impurities such as iron, then it would have colour.

Its white because it has no impurities!

 

[Solent Warship]

Its BS. If had impurities such as iron, then it would have colour.

Its white because it has no impurities!

I get lost when they go on about it takes this to make this. Like copper in Paraiba and this copper belt they go on about in Congo.

 

[AndyW]

Someone sent a message to Jim saying same, he got a little flustered then said it's aquamarine because of the iron percentage of the stone. Going onto say that green aquamarine is emerald. I don't know enough to say he's right or not.

I'm not surprised he was flustered. Good on the person for calling out this type of BS. Emeralds are green aquamarine?! What utter doodoo. It'll be amethysts being sold as purple citrine next. When you contort the language this to create a sense of something new, like this, it can make you look a bit silly. Why don't they just be straightforward and sell the stones for what they are? The Cavills have been selling colourless beryl for years, heck, I think Cherry has it as her engagement ring stone.

 

[AndyW]

The other thing I've noticed is that the colourless Cambodian zircon they're selling is SI clarity. Like the Tanzanian "Singida" stones they sell, they just seem quite "veiled", no obvious major inclusions but it's as if the stones are dusty inside. I love zircon - I have some very sharp, precision cut unheated Nigerian zircon (no heat makes them look just like an Argyll diamond!) but I've avoided these recent Cambodian ones because they're high prices (NYBlue thing in Jan 2024 gave them an excuse they're milking somewhat) and I strongly suspect that the stones just won't perform well in anything other than strong, focussed lighting in a camera box.

I think that you can see it in the video for this piece on Gems (USTQ02).

Has anyone bought any recently?

 

[TheManWithNoName]

I'm not surprised he was flustered. Good on the person for calling out this type of BS. Emeralds are green aquamarine?! What utter doodoo. It'll be amethysts being sold as purple citrine next. When you contort the language this to create a sense of something new, like this, it can make you look a bit silly. Why don't they just be straightforward and sell the stones for what they are? The Cavills have been selling colourless beryl for years, heck, I think Cherry has it as her engagement ring stone.

It really boils my blood when something is made out to be 'new' or 'rare,' but in reality, it’s just been given a misleading name.

For example, I’ve seen 'Golden Aquamarine' on Gem Collector, which is likely intentional because most people won’t recognise the real name, 'Heliodor' - a name that’s less appealing than 'Golden Aquamarine.' They’ve also referred to Morganite as 'Pink Emerald' in the past too.

The ironic part? When they had Bixbite in stock, they called it 'Red Emerald' - even though Bixbite is much rarer. You’d think they’d want to stick to the name 'Bixbite,' but I guess they rely on the average person being more familiar with the name 'Emerald'.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

The other thing I've noticed is that the colourless Cambodian zircon they're selling is SI clarity. Like the Tanzanian "Singida" stones they sell, they just seem quite "veiled", no obvious major inclusions but it's as if the stones are dusty inside. I love zircon - I have some very sharp, precision cut unheated Nigerian zircon (no heat makes them look just like an Argyll diamond!) but I've avoided these recent Cambodian ones because they're high prices (NYBlue thing in Jan 2024 gave them an excuse they're milking somewhat) and I strongly suspect that the stones just won't perform well in anything other than strong, focussed lighting in a camera box.

I think that you can see it in the video for this piece on Gems (USTQ02).

Has anyone bought any recently?

I've got colourless Zircon from three different countries – including the Tanzanian material. All of mine are fairly equal in quality.

I suspect the 'dusty' appearance of Gemporia's material is likely due to poor cutting rather than the actual quality of the stones. Some of the cutting across the Gemporia brand has been shocking for the past two or three years. Facets that don't meet at the points, gaps between facets, misshapen facets, fish eyes, and windowing – you name it.

They've had the Cambodian material for years - they had that in stock around 14 years ago when I was buying - so that was likely cut in Jaipur. The Tanzanian material is more recent. Someone on here made a good point on here a month or two ago that with Gemporia buying so much from China now, perhaps their stones are being cut there too. Who knows. Perhaps their Tanzanian material is being cut there now?

Some of the cutting flaws are very obvious on screen when the camera zooms in - even some of the Lorique stones look awful these days. They used to be their higher end 'class above' stones.

You know your stuff when it comes to stones, so you'll already know this, but poor cutting prevents light from reflecting properly around the stone, which significantly impacts its appearance.

It would also be interesting to know whether their stones are graded by a lab or if Gemporia is grading them 'in-house' based on their own opinions. Years ago, I’d have been confident that everything was lab-tested. These days, especially with items like Troth’s Jadeite, I’m not so convinced.

If they’re grading in-house, it raises the question of what they’re classing as 'inclusions.' In my opinion, an inclusion is any visible imperfection. Some people only consider black specks or visible impurities inside stones as inclusions - but not air/gas bubbles that can also get trapped in stones.

Some stones, for example, Moldavite often contain little, if any, black specks or 'impurities' - but it can have a lot of air/gas bubbles. Therefore, it's for that reason that I think anything visible should be considered an inclusion.

The only exception to this rule, in my opinion, is Amber. Gemporia presenters often point out "inclusions" in Amber (knowing that inclusions in Amber may increase its value), but most of the time, these are just air bubbles that add no value. I’m only interested in inclusions that look interesting and increase value, like insects. The bigger or rarer the insect, the more valuable the Amber. So far, I’ve yet to see any Amber from Gemporia with insects inside – which means its value is minimal.

 

[Solent Warship]

I've got colourless Zircon from three different countries – including the Tanzanian material. All of mine are fairly equal in quality.

I suspect the 'dusty' appearance of Gemporia's material is likely due to poor cutting rather than the actual quality of the stones. Some of the cutting across the Gemporia brand has been shocking for the past two or three years. Facets that don't meet at the points, gaps between facets, misshapen facets, fish eyes, and windowing – you name it.

They've had the Cambodian material for years - they had that in stock around 14 years ago when I was buying - so that was likely cut in Jaipur. The Tanzanian material is more recent. Someone on here made a good point on here a month or two ago that with Gemporia buying so much from China now, perhaps their stones are being cut there too. Who knows. Perhaps their Tanzanian material is being cut there now?

Some of the cutting flaws are very obvious on screen when the camera zooms in - even some of the Lorique stones look awful these days. They used to be their higher end 'class above' stones.

You know your stuff when it comes to stones, so you'll already know this, but poor cutting prevents light from reflecting properly around the stone, which significantly impacts its appearance.

It would also be interesting to know whether their stones are graded by a lab or if Gemporia is grading them 'in-house' based on their own opinions. Years ago, I’d have been confident that everything was lab-tested. These days, especially with items like Troth’s Jadeite, I’m not so convinced.

If they’re grading in-house, it raises the question of what they’re classing as 'inclusions.' In my opinion, an inclusion is any visible imperfection. Some people only consider black specks or visible impurities inside stones as inclusions - but not air/gas bubbles that can also get trapped in stones.

Some stones, for example, Moldavite often contain little, if any, black specks or 'impurities' - but it can have a lot of air/gas bubbles. Therefore, it's for that reason that I think anything visible should be considered an inclusion.

The only exception to this rule, in my opinion, is Amber. Gemporia presenters often point out "inclusions" in Amber (knowing that inclusions in Amber may increase its value), but most of the time, these are just air bubbles that add no value. I’m only interested in inclusions that look interesting and increase value, like insects. The bigger or rarer the insect, the more valuable the Amber. So far, I’ve yet to see any Amber from Gemporia with insects inside – which means its value is minimal.

The cutting and grading is done inhouse. Emily said the other night that they've trained their own people for cutting etc. She even said they've trained Indian women to do carving and I must say some of them are garbage.
When it aired on TV you could see the inclusions in the stones and the lob sided cutting but now it's only on app or fb the viewing area is so small you can't see anything.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

The cutting and grading is done inhouse. Emily said the other night that they've trained their own people for cutting etc. She even said they've trained Indian women to do carving and I must say some of them are garbage.
When it aired on TV you could see the inclusions in the stones and the lob sided cutting but now it's only on app or fb the viewing area is so small you can't see anything.

Sounds like the cutting is still done in Jaipur then. Did she state that grading is done 'in-house' too? If so, that rings alarm bells.

 

[Solent Warship]

Sounds like the cutting is still done in Jaipur then. Did she state that grading is done 'in-house' too? If so, that rings alarm bells.

Yeah they have their own lab she said.
On Gemporia they say that they pick one or two pieces to be valued by external valuer.
But I've just thought all the certificates say "Birmingham assay office"
So who is certifying that what you get is what they say it is.