Читать книгу Gem-Stones and Their Distinctive Characters - George Frederick Herbert Smith - Страница 5

GEM-STONES

CHAPTER I

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

BEAUTY, durability, and rarity: such are the three cardinal virtues of a perfect gem-stone. Stones lacking any of them cannot aspire to a high place in the ranks of precious stones, although it does not necessarily follow that they are of no use for ornamental purposes. The case of pearl, which, though not properly included among gem-stones, being directly produced by living agency, yet holds an honoured place in jewellery, constitutes to some extent an exception, since its incontestable beauty atones for its comparative want of durability.

That a gem-stone should be a delight to the eye is a truism that need not be laboured; for such is its whole raison d’être. The members of the Mineral Kingdom that find service in jewellery may be divided into three groups, according as they are transparent, translucent, or opaque. Of these the first, which is by far the largest and the most important, may itself be further sub-divided into two sections: stones which are devoid of colour, and stones which are tinted. Among the former, diamond reigns supreme, since it alone possesses that marvellous ‘fire,’ oscillating with every movement from heavenly blue to glowing red, which is so highly esteemed and so much besought. Other stones, such as ‘fired’ zircon, white sapphire, white topaz, and rock-crystal, may dazzle with brilliancy of light reflected from the surface or emitted from the interior, but none of them, like diamond, glow with mysterious gleams. No hint of colour, save perhaps a trace of the blue of steel, can be tolerated in stones of this category; above all is a touch of the jaundice hue of yellow abhorred. It taxes all the skill of the lapidary to assure that the disposition of the facets be such as to reveal the full splendour of the stone. A coloured stone, on the other hand, depends for its attractiveness more upon its intrinsic hue than upon the manner of its cutting. The tint must not be too light or too dark in shade: a stone that has barely any colour has little interest, and one which is too dark appears almost opaque and black. The lapidary can to some extent remedy these defects by cutting the former deep and the latter shallow. In certain curious stones—for instance tourmaline—the transparency, and in others—such as ruby, sapphire, and one of the recent additions to the gem world, kunzite—the colour, varies considerably in different directions. The colours that are most admired—the fiery red of ruby, the royal blue of sapphire, the verdant green of emerald, and the golden yellow of topaz—are pure tints, and the absorption spectra corresponding to them are on the whole continuous and often restricted. They therefore retain the purity of their colour even in artificial light, though certain sapphires transmit a relatively larger amount of red, and consequently turn purple at night. Of the small group of translucent stones which pass light, but are not clear enough to be seen through, the most important is opal. It and certain others of the group owe their merit to the same optical effect as that characterizing soap-bubbles, tarnished steel, and so forth, and not to any intrinsic coloration. Another set of stones—moonstone and the star-stones—reflect light from the interior more or less regularly, but not in such a way as to produce a play of colour. The last group, which comprises opaque stones, has a single representative among ordinary gem-stones, namely, turquoise. In this case light is scattered and reflected from layers immediately contiguous to the surface, and the colour is due to the resulting absorption. The apparent darkness of a deep-coloured stone follows from a different cause: the light passing into the stone is wholly absorbed within it, and, since none is emitted, the stone appears black. The claims of turquoise are maintained by the blue variety; there is little demand for stones of a greenish tinge.

It is evidently desirable that any stones used in jewellery should be able to resist the mechanical and chemical actions of everyday life. No one is anxious to replace jewels every few years, and the most valuable stones are expected to endure for all time. The mechanical abrasion is caused by the minute grains of sand that are contained in ordinary dust, and gem-stones should be at least as hard as they—a condition fulfilled by all the principal species with the exception of opal, turquoise, peridot, and demantoid. Since the beauty of the first named does not depend on the brilliancy of its polish, scratches on the surface are not of much importance; further, all four are only slightly softer than sand. It may be noted that the softness of paste stones, apart from any objections that may be felt to the use of imitations, renders them unsuitable for jewellery purposes. The only stones that are likely to be chemically affected in the course of wear are those which are in the slightest degree porous. It is hazardous to immerse turquoises in liquids, even in water, lest the bluish green colour be oxidized to the despised yellowish hue. The risk of damage to opals, moonstones, and star-stones by the penetration of dirt or grease into the interior of the stones is less, but is not wholly negligible. Similar remarks apply with even greater force to pearls. Their charm, which is due to a peculiar surface-play of light, might be destroyed by contamination with grease, ink, or similar matter; they are, moreover, soft. For both reasons their use in rings is much to be deprecated. Nothing can be more unsightly than the dingy appearance of a pearl ring after a few years’ wear.

It cannot be gainsaid that mankind prefers the rare to the beautiful, and what is within reach of all is lightly esteemed. It is for this reason that garnet and moonstone lie under a cloud. Purchasers can readily be found for a ‘Cape-ruby’ or an ‘olivine,’ but not for a garnet; garnets are so common, is the usual remark. Nevertheless, the stones mentioned are really garnets. If science succeeded in manufacturing diamonds at the cost of shillings instead of the pounds that are now asked for Nature’s products—not that such a prospect is at all probable or even feasible—we might expect them to vanish entirely from fashionable jewellery.

A careful study of the showcases of the most extensive jewellery establishment brings to light the fact that, despite the apparent profusion, the number of different species represented is restricted. Diamond, ruby, emerald, sapphire, pearl, opal, turquoise, topaz, amethyst are all that are ordinarily asked for. Yet, as later pages will show, there are many others worthy of consideration; two among them—peridot and tourmaline—are, indeed, slowly becoming known. For the first five of the stones mentioned above, the demand is relatively steady, and varies absolutely only with the purchasing power of the world; but a lesser known stone may suddenly spring into prominence owing to the caprice of fashion or the preference of some great lady or leader of fashion. Not many years ago, for instance, violet was the favourite colour for ladies’ dresses, and consequently amethysts were much worn to match, but with the change of fashion they speedily sank to their former obscurity. Another stone may perhaps figure at some royal wedding; for a brief while it becomes the vogue, and afterwards is seldom seen.

Except that diamond, ruby, emerald, and sapphire, and, we should add, pearl, may indisputably be considered to occupy the first rank, it is impossible to form the gem-stones in any strict order. Every generation sees some change. The value of a stone is after all merely what it will fetch in the open market, and its artistic merits may be a matter of opinion. The familiar aphorism, de gustibus non est disputandum, is a warning not to enlarge upon this point.