Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconGemology and Jewelry: Gemstones Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Gemstones subpage.
WikiProject iconRocks and minerals Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconAventurine is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Cool, someone got the details down. I was surprised not to find an entry for Aventurine, so cobbled something together from memory, pending research. Looks like I can skip that now :)

Query, however: "Aventurine is often banded and an overabundance of fuchsite may render it opaque, in which case it may be misidentified as malachite."

Given the radically different hardnesses of aventurine and malachite, surely this is trival to catch? Or am I missing something? Syntax 15:44, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

For those with any sort of instruction in gem or mineral identification, it would indeed be trivial to catch. Hardness tests on finished and set stones are religiously avoided, for obvious reasons. As a gemmologist I've seen some unbelievable misidentifications (well, unbelievable to me); synthetic spinel mistaken for peridot; labradorite mistaken for orthoclase moonstone; hematite mistaken for black diamond, etc. In all of these examples the deception fooled the seller (benefit of the doubt) which in turn inflamed the uninformed buyer.
Sure, they're all easy enough to differentiate with proper examination, but the point I tried to imply was a cursory glance might fool someone. I've reworded the sentence in question to better reflect this. Might be useless info to you or I, but I thought I'd include it as a caution to the "layman." Hope that clears things up, and my apologies for rambling. :) -- Hadal 08:05, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Shamless Ad. in Wiki Article ???[edit]

Why is McLarens Bay Mica Stone Quarry, a commercial interest, mentioned in this wikipedia article? The multiple mentions of McLarens even include a URL link within the text of the article (as opposed to below in the links section, as is usually the case). This seems to be an abuse of wikipedia. Will the author please address this matter? -- Rodney L.

Thanks for pointing that out - I just removed it. The promotional bit was added by an anon. editor back in May and I had overlooked it, got too many pages on my watchlist :-) Cheers, Vsmith 22:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Should we have a piccy of Aventurine, I've got one of some green aventurine lying around. If you could tell me how to upload it &c. I'll sort it out --Tc1415 21:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please can someone give an idea of size, such as a scale bar. This is very basic stuff. Not including these is bad practice and makes the images of very little value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I have answered here. Best regards Rhanyeia 12:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with Chalcedony[edit]

Gem-fanat (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have undone the merge. See Talk:chalcedony. — Hyperdeath(Talk) 20:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)]Reply[reply]