Could be - the hardness variation parallel to striae versus perpendicular is significant. And yes, when minerals have similar hardness tiny differences can give different results. But it would not scratch deeply. Tourmaline is definitely one likely candidate.mbasko said:Did you try the SG with lower increment scales? Tourmaline SG is 2.8 to 3.3 so it's getting close?Dihusky said:that said my scales only go down to 0.5ct so smaller stones will never be super accurate.
Goldierocks - I did some research & found some suggestion that tourmaline is anisotropic or can display different properties (like hardness) in different directions? Not sure if this could be enough variance to allow quartz to scratch it one way?
Also if both are 7 mohs could quartz scratch it giving the impression its <7 but really 7 mohs too?
Not trying to make tourmaline the "winner" but anything else seems to far away in the SG, hardness etc. Maybe it is Zivianite"or "Ziviahuskite"
Too small in the photosilver said:Any idea's on these from post #630 ?
https://www.prospectingaustralia.co...953/1555756836_1555573607_20190417_164704.jpg
"still contained within basalt" - I missed your comment that they occur in basalt. That just about excludes tourmaline completely (extremely rare in basalt, except as a later introduction - basalt magmas lack significant boron). Do you have a photo of the crystals in basalt? I looked at your earlier photos and I assume you nmean the thin crust is basalt - any photos of them embedded in larger bodies of basalt?Martyz said:Sorry about the quality of my photos. They are taken on an iPhone looking through a loupe. I will try and get a more detailed shot of that crystal and some other samples I have. Most of the specimens of crystal still contained within basalt seem to be heavily fractured so Im not sure how representative they are of a properly formed crystal. The larger gem quality specimens came from alluvial gravels in a creek bed and have undergone significant weathering.
goldierocks said:"still contained within basalt" - I missed your comment that they occur in basalt. That just about excludes tourmaline completely (extremely rare in basalt, except as a later introduction - basalt magmas lack significant boron). Do you have a photo of the crystals in basalt? I looked at your earlier photos and I assume you nmean the thin crust is basalt - any photos of them embedded in larger bodies of basalt?Martyz said:Sorry about the quality of my photos. They are taken on an iPhone looking through a loupe. I will try and get a more detailed shot of that crystal and some other samples I have. Most of the specimens of crystal still contained within basalt seem to be heavily fractured so Im not sure how representative they are of a properly formed crystal. The larger gem quality specimens came from alluvial gravels in a creek bed and have undergone significant weathering.
Any clues as to the name of the basalt unit?
Yes it is possible although I have not seen an example involving tourmaline. It is also possible for a basalt to be altered at a later time by boron-rich fluids when a granite intrudes nearby (but this would cause other mineralogical changes in the basalt itself). Hence my question re the unit name. I know people don't like giving localities, but in many cases a broad locality would be helpful, and a rush on some of these things as a result is unlikely (pretty, interesting, but often not particularly valuable). Minerals such as you mention (and zircon, sapphire etc) are quite common inclusions in basalt. Some are formed from the magmas, others incorporated along the way (xenocrysts - "stranger" crystals, if composite lumps they become xenoliths = "stranger" rocks). In Victoria we have basalts with xenoliths of mantle material, and vein quartz, and granite and even limestone altered to other minerals. I don't discount such possibilities in this case, but they seem large and abundant.Lefty said:goldierocks said:"still contained within basalt" - I missed your comment that they occur in basalt. That just about excludes tourmaline completely (extremely rare in basalt, except as a later introduction - basalt magmas lack significant boron). Do you have a photo of the crystals in basalt? I looked at your earlier photos and I assume you nmean the thin crust is basalt - any photos of them embedded in larger bodies of basalt?Martyz said:Sorry about the quality of my photos. They are taken on an iPhone looking through a loupe. I will try and get a more detailed shot of that crystal and some other samples I have. Most of the specimens of crystal still contained within basalt seem to be heavily fractured so Im not sure how representative they are of a properly formed crystal. The larger gem quality specimens came from alluvial gravels in a creek bed and have undergone significant weathering.
Any clues as to the name of the basalt unit?
Is it possible for basalt magma to have punched through a pre-existing tourmaline pegmatite and carried it to the surface in the magma? I have some very similar basaltic-looking rocks with pyrope garnets, some kind of mica and black spinel embedded in them in near identical-looking little "capsules" in the rock. I believe that the pyrope garnets and pleonaste form differently the tourmaline, just wondering if that was a possibility?
Hardness & SG of spinel likely too high for these.Goldpick said:What about black spinel, would be more likely than tourmaline.
Me tooLefty said:The colour reminds me of Dravite tourmaline
Good and useful photos, but sadly no longer looking very trigonal.Martyz said:Sorry but I cant download the last two shots as the file is too big.
Enter your email address to join: