Jay King – GIA claims rainbow calsilica is manmade, not a natural stone
I was looking up rainbow calsilica and according to the GIA, it’s manmade, not natural. We can’t post links here, so the report is in the 2002 Gems and Gemology journal of the Gemological Institute of America, page 362 specifically.
"Our examination of the two Rainbow Calsilica samples proves that this is a manufactured material. Specifically, the presence of synthetic pigments and of a paraffin-like substance precludes a natural origin. The latter substance has apparently been used to stabilize the material; samples that lack this polymer reportedly separate easily along some of the color layers (S. F. McClure, pers. comm., 2002). Our samples appear to have been made of pulverized carbonate rock that was mixed with pigments and stabilized with a polymer."
So disapointing, they believe that the material was placed in the "mine" in Mexico.
So, buy it if you like the looks, but it’s not a natural stone. Just thought I’d share. We can post the truth here, right? I don’t want to break any rules.
I read that a world renowned mineralogist analyzed the stone from Chihuahua, Mexico.
He concluded the stone was naturally occuring, and the green & blue colors come from a mineral called allophone clay.
It’s like buying Fordite, which is a lovely material but is manmade (it’s made of layers of auto paint that dripped off in automobile factories). I see both Fordite and Rainbow Calsilica at gem shows, often. In the case of Fordite, the fact that it’s man-made is part of its appeal and legend.
To Jay’s credit, though, the Rainbow Calsilica claims actually do remain somewhat a mystery — I’ve seen a LOT of really bad "rainbow calsilica" out there that is quite obviously manufactured, and it’s quite possible that the GIA was testing some of that. The Chinese are producing some awfully garish so-called "rainbow calsilica." The rainbow calsilica that’s most often used in top-quality Southwestern and Native American jewelry is a much better grade of stuff – I have a few of Jay’s pieces of rainbow calsilica, and it’s very pretty and not at all like the Chinese stuff.
Also, Jay has specifically talked about the controversy many times on the air – he’s been very open about it.
So I think, since we can’t be sure of what sort of samples the GIA tested in 2002, the jury may still be out. Personally, I’ve always believed ALL of it is man-made, but that doesn’t detract from the appeal of the stone to me.
Hi Memphisvette- When you say it’s been on the forum many times…is that b/c it’s ‘almost common knowledge’ here in the forum, that is? I’m new to forum (2 weeks) and I’m fascinated! :womansurprised: Shop HSN for over decade, along w/other’s, and this is FIRST time I’ve ever heard this…AND I THOUGHT I WAS SOMEWHAT ‘INFORMED’. LOL :womanlol: Don’t I feel silly :womanembarrassed: …mislead actually! I really like it :heart:…BUT, if it’s man-made, they should disclose that-espec. when they speak so in-depth about the mines/cutting etc…as to ‘educate’ us! As they tend to lead one to believe it’s a ‘natural occurring’ stone, as opposed to having a ‘natural origin’ but man ‘configured’! If I were a ‘collector’, even as a novice-I’d like to know-EXACT ORIGIN! THANKS FOR SHARING THIS Myra1…guess we really do learn something new everyday…:smileyhappy: VERY INTERESTING…
this has been on the forum many times.
Posted in Jewelry
07.09.15 3:35 AM