Talk:Morganite

Untitled
I'm afraid I found the original version of this page so full of marketing dis-information that I felt it necessary to edit it even without references. As time permits, I will add some appropriate referencing, and I would encourage anyone else who comes across it to do the same if they can. Apologies to the management if I've skipped some good form, I'm new at this. The version of this page I found was so remarkable in its falsehoods that it was being discussed on at least one gem trade website. Olneya 16:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I had not gotten to the second half of the article yet, but couldn't agree more. Will add and find references and info where appropriate Gem-fanat 15:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've read a little more into editing, I wonder if the thing to do would have been reversion to the latest "pre-marketing" version? At this point though, I've found one reference for the chromophore, looking for another as well- may be considered common knowledge if there are multiple references. The value as a gemstone section needs help too, but being such a minor stone, I'm having a bit of trouble tracking much down. Should be a fun bit of research though.Olneya 20:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Rephrased a couple of my edits, added two references on coloration. I'd like to reference Nassau directly, but don't have his book handy, so the NM Facetor's Guild article makes a handy backdoor ref. Mention is also made in this article to the variety of "pre-morganite" names for the mineral. I removed something similar in an earlier edit, as it was all muddled up with some illogical parallels drawn to "red emerald" (bixbite). At this point I think it would be a good idea to work some of the older naming back into the article. I'd also suggest that the "types of beryl" section is inappropriate here, belonging instead on the beryl wiki. Looking back at the edit history to try to get ideas for tidying up the format a little, I'm struck by the persistency of "pinkemeralds.com" at adding their link and associated dis-information.Olneya 03:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is funny you should say this, because Antoinette Matlins book about buying gems actually discusses Red Beryl (also known as Red Emerald) which is the only one rare variety of Beryl. And spamming to get their own product in is nothing new in wikipedia :-) Gem-fanat 13:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just tweaked your phrasing a bit on the red beryl, and added the link to the bixbite wiki. From the little I've found online about the two minerals, the coloring agent is generally thought to be the same, but I don't think there's been a huge amount of research into bixbite, as specimens can be hard to come by for any kind of destructive analysis. The point is, I should clarify that parallels to red beryl are appropriate, but my earlier edit had to do with the weird phrasing and logic in the earlier version, I suspect it was hacked up to try to enhance morganite's perceived rarity by these "pink emerald" people. --Olneya 04:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 00:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Can someone delete this redirect
I don’t think there is a reason to have a redirect for Morganite. Also the topic of morganite is notable enough for its own article.

There are Wikipedia articles for morganite in other languages.CycoMa (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually never mind there is another mineral called morganite that is not a gem.CycoMa (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)