Talk:Sapphire

Whiskers in sapphire may not be rutile

There's been some work at the Caltech Geological and Planetary Sciences Division showing that the inclusions that appear to be rutile are actually nanopores - Thus the reason why they collapse during heating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.8.239 (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

synthetic star sapphire photo

STOP removing my photo. What the f**k is wrong with you. This is MY OWN PHOTO, I TOOK IT MYSELF. The page NEEDS an example of a synthetic star sapphire. LEAVE IT BE --Ragemanchoo (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the below - there is something very odd about this article in that it doesn't mention Kashmir and it states that 'The finest specimens are mined in Sri Lanka' which is just too sweeping a statement - looks like someone has an axe to grind!

To VSmith: I dont think you removing references to star sapphire, a minor DC comics character, or Kashmir producing the finest gem quality sapphire (which is widely agreed upon by gemologists - compare prices for sri lankan, burmese, or kashmiri stones at your local jewelry store) or any of your other tweaks are really valid. This is an encyclopedia where everyone is encouraged to include their factual knowledge about the subject. just because you think star sapphire is a minor comic character, doesnt mean somebody else would not be interested in that little piece of information. I don't know who the author was, but i liked that comment. Also, u claiming that a certain piece of info was "unencylopedic" is ridiculous. This isnt the Britannica. Everything factual is welcome and valid. Your edits are pedagogical and not in the spirit of wikipedia.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.157.146.237 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 8 September 2006

I agree with VSmith's revisions. If you want an encyclopedia page on a comic character, then make one, don't muck up a FACTUAL article. Under those circumstances, those who tidy these things up might just tolerate it. No, it isn't the Britannica, but neither is it a place to type whatever you please with no regard to relevance. Wikipedia's credibility suffers greatly from this sort of fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.196.248.69 (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture

It somewhat bothers me that "the" picture for "Sapphire" contains five uncut stones - and none of them blue. Sapphires are most widely known as blue gemstones, so it seems like a cut blue gem makes the most sense for the first picture. I know Sapphires come in all sorts of colors, but it doesn't make sense for the first picture to be that one. The "Gemology" icon itself is a Star Sapphire - why not use that photo? --DragoonWraith 15:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- It'd be nice to see a faceted stone among those. Blue would make the most sense, at least for the first picture in the article, because most people associate the gem with the color blue. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And now the top photo is a really fake-looking round stone. I supposed it could just be really small, hence its sloppy cutting and lack of a native cut pavilion. --24.21.148.155 (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Historical references (NOT mystical)

Took out the "mystical" in the title. There's nothing mystical about a stone representing a tribe, is like saying that a dove represents peace, and there's nothing mystical about it. We are just saying that the stone is a symbol of a tribe, not that the stone gives a tribe magic voodoo powers, so the word "mystical" is both unnecessary and misleading.

165.123.140.215 09:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... the word removed was mythical, not mystical. But, no big deal. Vsmith 11:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say 'historical,' either: the fact that it is a tribe's stone has absolutely nothing to do with history. Its more of a cultural reference--if it is the stone because it alludes to some story or something (in other words, if it is a reference)--if not, then it is a cultural symbol. 12.205.215.88 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Daph Moore

Include info from new article Sapphires

Is there some reason that we can't have a more complete article here by including the info from the newly created Sapphires article? I'm new at this so please help me understand what's been going on. JByrd 03:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sapphire from Sappho?

Where does the name "Sapphire" actually come from? Anyone know? Personally I've got a secret hope that it links to "Sapphic". XANTHIAS

Yeah, the similarity of sapphire and sappho is interesting... Mathwhiz90601 01:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't believe this

See Sapphire#Historical_and_cultural_references:

"Blue sapphires were first discovered in the Padar region of Kashmir in the 1880s, allegedly where a landslip had uncovered their occurrence."

This strikes me as just plain nonsense. Blue sapphires are older than that! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree and removed it again - needs a source if it's re-inserted. The last part of that paragraph was simple pov stuff. Vsmith 03:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read that statement that sapphires were found in that region in the 1880's it makes more sense. Could be a good inclusion into a sources section. SauliH 15:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sapphire & Ruby & and Corundum

Please, sapphire and ruby aren't mineral's names. The mineral is corundum. Sapphire and ruby are colored variety of corumdum. It is total incoherence to say chromium sapphire, because this is the ruby variety, or the red variety of corundum.

It is always correct to say: the blue variety of corundum which is the same sapphire.

"Sapphire" and "ruby" are popular names. The mineral's scientific name is corundum according to IMA (International Mineralogical Association). Zimbres 21:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an exercise in "Haarspalterei" - the German word for "hair-splitting" - by a Briton.

Sure, the amounts of chromium in a ruby, and titanium, etc., in a sapphire are tiny percentages of the overall masses of the stones. They can be called "dopants", just as similar substances are called in solid-state electronics. However, these impurities in rubies and sapphires are not mere "coloring agents". Far from it.
In a very important instance, it is the tiny impurity of chromium in a ruby that makes it possible for a ruby to act as the very heart of a laser - and a very importatant variety of laser at that. It is only in the doping of chromium atoms in a laser that a population inversion occurs in its distribution of electrons, and that is what makes stimulated emission of photons occur.
In other words, without the doping of chromium atoms ina ruby, all we would have would be a piece of ordinary aluminum oxide - and to Heck with "corundum". Also, the word "corundum" is to easy to confuse with "carborundum" or "conundrum".
It is much better to say "aluminum dioxide" or "alumina". 98.67.174.138 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Merger with Padparadscha

Reasons for proposal to merge Padparadscha with this article: 1) Information can easily be summarized in one paragraph and included into this article. Most information is redundant and article is not really written as encyclopedic entry (but more of an essay). 2) Given the not enormous resources for all gemstone pages, it is better to reduce amount of pages and make high quality of the combinations (in other words, do we really have the resources to write a proper article on Padparadscha). Merging would improve the quality of the Sapphire article. 3) Does Padparadscha warrant its own article ? How about so many other varieties, fancy named gemstones etc etc Gem-fanat 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree There is not enought different infomation to warrant a completly sperate page. I should also be noted the the term Padparsdscha is a modern marketing term and not a historical gem term as Ruby and Sapphire are.--Kevmin 23:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree to merge Padparadscha into part of Sapphire- The tag on the sapphire page indicates that its content would be moved to Padparsdscha, instead of the more appropriate other way around. I agree with a merge, but Sapphire should be the master page. Dachande 18:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops sorry about that. Yes that was the intention. Gem-fanat (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This also means eliminating the padparadscha article, since it will be part of the sapphire article. Padparadscha is corundum. And its not red, so its sapphire. Also, we really need a photo on a padparadscha stone. Anybody? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree: Unfortunately the sapphire entry is very poor and needs a great deal of work particularly with reference to origins and quality parameters. Padparadscha is a color of sapphire and no scientific method exist, or is likely ever to exist, that will separate padparadscha from any other variety. There is some controversy in the trade and lab communities as to the precise definition. I can certainly supply images of both heated and natural padparadscha sapphire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemwise (talk • contribs) 10:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We're still arguing about this? Padparadsha (and most people don't spell it with that "c") is SAPPHIRE. Make it part of the sapphire article. --98.232.182.66 (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Padparadsha example stone too orange

I've seen a lot of padparadshas, and this one (at least in its photo) is far too orange. Orange sapphire doesn't equal padparadsha, although a lot of less than reputable Ebay dealers in Thailand would like you to believe otherwise. Padparadshas are salmon colored. Pinkish-orange, orangy-pink, pink-orange. You get the idea. Its a great photo of a gorgeous stone though, but I think it'd be better in the Fancy Sapphire paragraph in the sapphire article. Its an orange sapphire. --67.189.16.236 (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Prices

i was just wondering about the prices of these gems per carat in the US. dalegdelph197211@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.243.228 (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Gemstone prices tend to be nonlinear; that is, the price for ten one carat gems of equal quality will usually be less than one equal quality ten carat stone.

12.205.215.88 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Daph Moore

It is always a bad idea to include prices for numerous reasons: First, they change frequently, second; the market exists on several levels, which level: Third, they change frequently; fourth the grading grids are incredibly complex and without the grids any attempt at providing a price structure is meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemwise (talk • contribs) 11:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, but equally it would be useful information for someone reading up on sapphire. Perhaps a good external link would be a good solution (assuming someone knows of one - I don't)ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful to list auction prices of some sapphires, i.e. Christies and Sothebys. I'll keep my eyes out for some good ones. --24.21.148.155 (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Etymology for "sapphire" more likely Hebrew (sappir) than Sanskrit (shani priya)

I do not believe it is correct that the ultimate derivation of the Hebrew word "sapir" (sapphire or lapis lazuli) is derived from the Sanskrit "Shani Priya" (beloved of Saturn). I believe it to be indigenous to ancient Hebrew. The word "sapir" is mentioned in the earliest books of the Bible (Exodus); it is not some late interpolation. The Sanskrit designation only dates to the days of Ashoka, 3rd centurty b.c.e., by which time the Hebrew Bible had long been canonized and the Greek Septuagint was translated by the 70 Jewish elders in Alexandria, using the Greek form "sappheiros". The term "sapir" is clearly a derivative of the Hebrew root S-P-R, which denotes "scratch, scrape, inscribe, number, tally", and is the basis for words like "sefer" (book), "sofer" (scribe), "mispar" (number). Note: One of the Hebrew words for diamond, and also thorn, "shamir" is so named because of its derivation from the Hebrew root Sh-m-r (one of whose meanings is to hedge about with thorns). Likewise, the construction "sapir" would mean "scratcher, inscriber" (a direct reference to the act of using a very hard stone to inscribe cuneiform-type markings on a stone tablet). It is written in the rabbinical midrash Shabbos that the 10 commandments were inscribed on sapphire tablets, a kind of reverse form of this meaning?

It seems reasonable to me that the Greek term "sappheiros" was derived directly from the Hebrew "sapphire" or some Aramaic cognate word, and that this Greek term entered into India in the Greek kingdoms established by Alexander's army, e.g. Bactria. I believe that my theory is supported by bilingual Greek-Aramaic inscriptions left by Ashoka himself, such as this one in Kandahar in the 3rd century b.c.e

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AsokaKandahar.jpg

On the other hand, I am unaware of Sanskrit inscriptions and Indian influence in the Levant in a Biblical or antiquity time-frame.

One should not be so quick to accept claims that the modern word "sapphire" should be based ultimately on Sanskrit, simply because Sanskrit happens to be Indo-European and Hebrew is not. To the ancient Greeks and Romans, both languages would have seemed equally foreign. If anything, Hebrew/Phoenician would have been more familiar. Isn't the Greek word "alphabet" derived from the Hebrew/Phoenican "Aleph-Beth"?

205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Chambers only goes back as far as the Greek (which everyone seems to agree on), my Collins dictionary agrees with the Sanskrit -> Hebrew -> Greek etymology, but with "perhaps" for both these steps. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bargains

Visitors to annual Jaipur Gem Exhibition (Aug-Sep) in Rajasthan, INDIA, can see and buy best quality Kashmir Blue Sapphires. These are transparent and very clear with very small inclusions. Darker the color more the price. A flawless gem will cost double of a gem with inclusions. For bigger size and weight in carats the price grows geometrically. Big collection size stones of one inch could cost half a million US dollars. Usual gems are ring sized from 2mm to 10mm. There are also non-transparent opaque blue sapphires from sri lanka available in Jaipur at bargain prices of US$ 2 a carat. These are available as 10mm durms, one inch pendants of various shapes or beads. Most beads are heat treated and/or dyed. Astrologers prefer un-treated non dyed opaque or transparent pieces. The stones are cut and polished in small shed factories in Jaipur. You should bargain for lower price as quotes are usually high. Ask in 10 stalls before finalizing a deal. Ask for a cash discount while you count and pay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.216.31 (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why my edit was removed

This edit a few days back, was removed , allegedly for not having citations to prove it. This does not need a citation, as it can be demonstrated with plenty of quality star sapphires, just by holding them to a light. "A star sapphire, if it is small enough, pure enough, and translucent enough, will transmit a pinkish-orange light, when used viewing the sun, or a point light source. It is likely that the light of the gleaming star of a star sapphire does indeed have fewer components from the transmitted pinkish-orange bands." If there is a name for this phenomenon, someone will know and brush up the article. If there is no name for it, don't tell the Sapphire society socialites, since I am the first to publish it, and call the phenomenon Daggitude, in honor of my discovery. Sincerely, Bob Dagit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob dagit (talk • contribs) 20:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole idea is that if you present verifiable facts, that these were not observed by you alone. The idea being that Wikipedia does not source "self-observed" facts, but only those from reputable references: books, organizations, established experts and so on. Obviously there is enough discussion what that exactly entails, and we'll leave that to another area. But what it does surely not entail is the "self observed" information, verifiable or not. So in short: if you have a reputable source: quote them. Else.. well I think it was justifiably removed (whoever did it). Gem-fanat (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Let this discussion remain until some expert who has a bona fide academic bibliographic reference citation confirms it and states it using pure mineralogical nomenclature. Anyone else can just hold the star sapphire up to a point light source and see the phenomenon. Bob dagit (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

American or British English?

For you all here, what do you think? Should this article be written in America nor British English? For example, the article mentions numerous times "aluminium", a Commonwealth spelling (instead of aluminum, which is almost purely American and Canadian), and I wrote "jewellery" instead of "jewelry" because I noticed this difference. I believe we should officially establish whether or not the article should follow American or Commonwealth spelling. I personally choose Commonwealth on this one, because I believe that "aluminium" sounds better than "aluminum" in this article (more scientific?), and the other spellings aren't too confusing (like -paedia and -rrhoea endings, which probably confuse lots of American English speakers). Cheers, – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 08:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It is specious on its face to claim that "aluminum" is almost a purely American and Canadian spelling. One thing that Europeans have trouble recognizing is the huge number of college & university students, over many decades, who have traveled to the United States and Canada to study, and to earn their bachelor's degrees and/or graduate degrees. Furthermore, the vast majority of them came to English-speaking North America to study these subjects:

physics, chemistry, aerospace engineering, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, metallurgy, and related subjects.

If one attends college in North America for years, where everyone spells the name of the element "aluminum", then one learns to spell it "aluminum" also - and especially people who spoke little or no English in their home countries, which is actually quite common.

To summarize, there are millions & millions of people in these places who spell the word "aluminum", which they learned in North America, and they continue to do so: China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, Jordan, South Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Taiwan, and Yemen. I personally have taught college-level electrical & electronics engineering (where aluminum is very common) to students from all of the above countries (in some cases, a lot of them), who returned home. In addition, I taught taught a few students from African countries, Greece, Palestine, Burma, whom I do not know what their plans were, and some others whom I knew were immigrants in the U.S., and they came from Afghanistan, Laos, Russia, Vietnam, and maybe a few other places. In any case, the spelling of the word as "aluminum" was a matter of course at my colleges and universities,and there was no question about it.98.67.174.138 (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the word "aluminum" has one fewer syllable than "aluminium" does, which maked the former word more efficient to use than the latter one is. From the point-of-view of the science of Information Theory, such efficiency in communications really is worth something. Furthermore, words such as these are also more efficient to use in writing: jewelry, beveling, detailing, equaling, groveling, leveling, modeling, quarreling, and unraveling. There are fewer excess letters in these words, and hence they are more efficient.98.67.174.138 (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In general I think that all of Wikipedia is written in American English, not in British. In the case of aluminium versus aluminum, I would go for aluminium somve this is the formal name of the element Al, and that is what we refer to, not the metal that is used in daily use. Gem-fanat (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First, articles are not supposed to be one or the other. The English Wikipedia is NOT in American English: both are equally valid. That said, the convention is for topics that are predominately British related, British English is the one that should be used. For North American topics, American English should be used. For those that are not specific to one or the other location, such as this article, the original version determines what the article should remain. The first version in the history spells color, not colour. Therefore, this article should be in American English, and any British spellings should be changed. Aluminium is an exception, because the IUPAC name is aluminium, so that is an official spelling, and not specific to American or British English. Aluminium should remain, but the other words, such as jewellery should be reverted to American English as per Wikipedia convention. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The above is the usual British mumbo-jumbo. The Wikipedia is incorporated as a non-profit organization under the laws of the United States of America; it is operated on Internet servers located in the United States; and the copyright laws of the United States of America govern everything in it. That makes it as American as it can be, and American English should be used in all of it, in every article

If the British, Australians, South Africans, Nigerians, New Zealanders, Irish, Guyanans, etc., want their own Wikipedia-B in which to write British English, surely let them do so.

Furthermore, since the Internet was invented and developed in the United States, by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the United States Department of Defense, which created the ARPANET, let the British, French, Russians, Indians, etc., create their own Internet, too. We can live with that....00:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for shedding light on this for me! – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 16:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please consult the WP:ENGVAR policy, follow it and do avoid centric views. Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations/External Links

Whilst I certainly agree we need more citations and external links can be used better, there are tons of other pages I feel that discussion is more appropriate for. I checked the external links and they are in fact non-profit, no ads and have a large amount of additional information which is not represented in the Wikipedia article. All requirements for external links.

The flagging says there are not enough/no citations given. That is incorrect, there are in fact 12., not sufficient perhaps but a whole lot more than many Wikipedia articles.

Is there room for improvement ? Absolutely, especially after the merger with Padparadscha. But I think flagging it this way is a bit too much, especially in comparison what's the standard in Wikipedia right now. Gem-fanat (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is room for improvement. Someone told me that each paragraph should have at least two or three inline citations. Although external links are nice, inline citations make it look like you have specific information for a specific argument (see what I tagged at the Blue sapphire section), instead of generic citations. Inline citations are helpful because it provides better attribution than external links. However, that is simply what I heard from someone else. In order to get this up to GA or FA class, though, we will need a lot more citations, because much of the information appears (key word is appears) to be original research. For example, could you please find a website that says that green in sapphires is detrimental to its value? Cheers, – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 16:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Will help with improvement in the coming weeks/months. Gem-fanat (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

American vs British English

Per WP:MOS this article has been in American English since it was first written (see earliest version in history) and so should remain in American English. An "IP" editor has been unilaterally changing the article to British English. Is there something I am missing here that says this article should be converted to British English, or am I justified in reverting this change? Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"IP" means "Internet Protocol", and why would someone, in an article that is on the Internet, want to use "IP" to mean anything else? The Internet Protocol, as developed by the Advanced Research Projects Agency on the ARPANET, is at the very heart of the operation of the Internet as a packet-switched network. Nobody should misuse or reuse "IP", just as nobody should misuse or reuse "U.S.A.", "U.K.", "NATO", in any way.

The IUPAC uses "colour" (eg: http://old.iupac.org/goldbook/A00075.pdf). Since we already use "aluminium", per another IUPAC standard, it made sense to be consistent. 129.194.8.73 (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that unlike chemical/elemental names, such as "aluminium", the IUPAC usage of "colour" does NOT mean it is a standard in the same way as naming conventions. The IUPAC naming should be used for the names of elements and chemicals, as it is used for aluminium, but that does not mean Wikipedia needs to use British spellings for other non-name words like color simply because IUPAC does. The official IUPAC spelling of the chemical named "aluminium" is "aluminium". IUPAC uses "colour", but that does not mean it is the "official" spelling of the word, since the IUPAC is in place to standardize the names of chemicals and elements, not to standardize the spelling of all words used to describe those chemicals. To put it another way, "aluminium" is the international name for element "13, in any language. However, that does not mean that an article on the, for example, German wikipedia needs to change the spelling to "colour" instead of using the German word for color (No, I don't know what the word is.), just because a document by IUPAC uses "colour". The point is that the usage of a certain spelling by IUPAC does not mean Wikipedia needs to use that spelling. Wikipedia's MOS is the guideline. "Aluminium" is an exception because it is the "official" spelling for element #13, and the IUPAC is not the place to determine the official spelling of color so their use of the "colour" spelling is irrelevant. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The German word for "color" is "die Farbe", and one of my very favorite words in German is "das Farbfernsehgerät", a neuter noun that means "color television set". I have loved color TV ever since my family was able to get one during the summer of 1967, or maybe a little later. In any case, Star Trek premiered in September 1966, and I could only watch the episodes in black & white during the 1966 - 67 TV season. Man, it is a great program in B & W, but it is spectacular in color!98.67.174.138 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As noted above by Seeker 4 Talk "Aluminium" is an officially recognized and regulated name for an element. In this same manner the IUPAC designates the American version "sulfur" over the British version "sulphur", as the offical spelling for element #16. The Gold book was compiled by Alan D. McNaught and Andrew Wilkinson of the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, of the U.K., so it is not surprising to find colour and not color, however this is does not make British English the preferred English of the IUPAC. Of equal or greater importance is the fact that "sapphire" is an unrecognized mineral varietal name, which falls under the auspices of the International Mineralogical Association, which has decided to go only to the species level. Thus, the Wikipedia American vs. British English WP:MOS rules apply here. Since this article was started in American English, color is the spelling version to use. I will change the article back. --Kevmin (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Pokemon There is also a pokemon game called Sapphire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.249.215 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)