Chemistry: Hydrated calcium aluminum silicate.
Crystal system: Orthorhombic; in nodular masses with radiating crystalline structure; distinct crystals rare.
Color: Semi-transparent to translucent; brownish yellow, yellowish green, light green, colorless; phenomena: chatoyant.
Hardness: 6 – 6.5
Cleavage: Distinct: 1 direction, basal; fracture: brittle, uneven.
Specific gravity: 2.88 – 2.94 (gem)
Refractive index: 1.61 – 1.64; 1.63 mean; Biaxial positive; 0.03
Luster: Vitreous.
Dispersion: -
Dichroism: -
Occurrence: Deposited in cavities in igneous and serpentine rocks; Australia, China, South Africa, Pakistan, USA.
Notes
Common mineral; may look like emerald, jade; faceted, cabochon, slab.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Life Of Brian
Memorable quotes from the movie:
Ex-Leper (Michael Palin): Okay, sir, my final offer: half a shekel for an old ex-leper?
Brian (Graham Chapman): Did you say ex-leper?
Ex-Leper (Michael Palin): That's right, sir, 16 years behind a veil and proud of it, sir.
Brian (Graham Chapman): Well, what happened?
Ex-Leper (Michael Palin): Oh, cured, sir.
Brian (Graham Chapman): Cured?
Ex-Leper (Michael Palin): Yes sir, bloody miracle, sir. Bless you!
Brian (Graham Chapman): Who cured you?
Ex-Leper (Michael Palin): Jesus did, sir. I was hopping along, minding my own business, all of a sudden, up he comes, cures me! One minute I'm a leper with a trade, next minute my livelihood's gone. Not so much as a by-your-leave! 'You're cured, mate.' Bloody do-gooder.
Ex-Leper (Michael Palin): Okay, sir, my final offer: half a shekel for an old ex-leper?
Brian (Graham Chapman): Did you say ex-leper?
Ex-Leper (Michael Palin): That's right, sir, 16 years behind a veil and proud of it, sir.
Brian (Graham Chapman): Well, what happened?
Ex-Leper (Michael Palin): Oh, cured, sir.
Brian (Graham Chapman): Cured?
Ex-Leper (Michael Palin): Yes sir, bloody miracle, sir. Bless you!
Brian (Graham Chapman): Who cured you?
Ex-Leper (Michael Palin): Jesus did, sir. I was hopping along, minding my own business, all of a sudden, up he comes, cures me! One minute I'm a leper with a trade, next minute my livelihood's gone. Not so much as a by-your-leave! 'You're cured, mate.' Bloody do-gooder.
Duke Ellington
'I like any and all of my associations with music - writing, playing, and listening. We write and play from our perspective, and the audience listens from its perspective. If and when we agree, I am lucky.'
The War Of The World
Good Books: (via Emergic) Amazon.com has a review from Booklist:
Ferguson's broadest work to date, this sprawling book folds the author's previous theories of empire and economics into an international history of twentieth-century violence. What went wrong with modernity, he asks, such that the Fifty Years War from 1904 to 1953 could be the bloodiest in history, and why did so much violence happen at particular times (such as the early 1940s) and particular places (such as eastern Europe). To the common answers of ethnic conflict and economic volatility, Ferguson adds, perhaps unsurprisingly, the decline of empires. Consistent with Empire and Colossus, the problem was frequently that the empires of the twentieth century were too strong not to fight, but that they were too weak, as illustrated by an analysis of Britain's reluctance to intervene in Germany before 1939. Coupled with ubiquitous and persistent notions of racial superiority and the ill-fitting contours of nation-states, the borderlands of empires--Manchuria, Poland, the Balkans--became the killing fields of the twentieth century. In chronicling what he labels the "descent of the West," Ferguson challenges many scholars on many fronts, and deploys a broad spectrum of sources--from war novels to population data to his perennial attention to the bond markets. His ultimate conclusion--that the War of the World was the suicide of the West--is tinged with regret about what might have been, and perhaps even a Gibbon-esque anxiety about the coming Asian century.
The Guardian wrote in a review:
According to Ferguson, the 20th-century bloodbath was down to the dreadful concatenation of ethnic conflict, economic volatility and empires in decline. Despite genetic advances that revealed man's essential biological similarities, the 1900s saw wave upon wave of ethnic strife thanks (pace Richard Dawkins) to a race "meme" entering public discourse. Across the world, the idea of biologically distinct races took hold of the 20th century mindset to deadly effect.
Tensions along increasingly conscious ethnic faultlines (in regions such as the eastern edges of Germany) frequently spilt over into conflict during periods of economic volatility. For extremities of wealth and poverty proved far more incendiary than the steady, immiserating effects of economic depression. When ethnicity and financial turbulence then occurred in the context of retreating or expanding empires - British, German, or Soviet - the capacity for bloodshed proved even greater. And, as a final thought, the 20th century witnessed not the triumph of the west, but its inexorable descent.
The Boston Globe interviewed Ferguson and had this to say in its introduction:
Ferguson maintains that the United States is unquestionably an imperial power, but because Americans don't like to think so, the US often fails to fulfill its imperial responsibilities. One crucial case in point for Ferguson is Iraq, where, in his view, an imperial power less in denial about itself would have known that such an invasion required forethought, vast resources, and the willingness to stick around for a very long time.
The theme of empire is central to the new book, as well. Ferguson believes the real problem with an empire shows up when it declines, at which time genocidal hatred is liable to break out among the ethnic groups it had governed. That's what happened, he argues, in the extraordinarily-often inter-ethnically-violent 20th century, and what he worries may be underway in the Middle-East.
Here is a quote by Ferguson: 'The really troubling thing is that all the things that happened in Central and Eastern Europe in the 1930s and 40s could happen in the Middle East now. The ingredients are there: You've got ethnic and religious hatred, economic volatility, and an empire- the American empire-declining and losing control. Not a great scenario.'
The past is often a guide to the future. Ferguson's analysis of conflict in the previous century holds a lot of clues for what can happen next.
I think The War of The World is a fascinating book because you learn a lot from the past and understand the future given the conflicts that we continue to face today.
Ferguson's broadest work to date, this sprawling book folds the author's previous theories of empire and economics into an international history of twentieth-century violence. What went wrong with modernity, he asks, such that the Fifty Years War from 1904 to 1953 could be the bloodiest in history, and why did so much violence happen at particular times (such as the early 1940s) and particular places (such as eastern Europe). To the common answers of ethnic conflict and economic volatility, Ferguson adds, perhaps unsurprisingly, the decline of empires. Consistent with Empire and Colossus, the problem was frequently that the empires of the twentieth century were too strong not to fight, but that they were too weak, as illustrated by an analysis of Britain's reluctance to intervene in Germany before 1939. Coupled with ubiquitous and persistent notions of racial superiority and the ill-fitting contours of nation-states, the borderlands of empires--Manchuria, Poland, the Balkans--became the killing fields of the twentieth century. In chronicling what he labels the "descent of the West," Ferguson challenges many scholars on many fronts, and deploys a broad spectrum of sources--from war novels to population data to his perennial attention to the bond markets. His ultimate conclusion--that the War of the World was the suicide of the West--is tinged with regret about what might have been, and perhaps even a Gibbon-esque anxiety about the coming Asian century.
The Guardian wrote in a review:
According to Ferguson, the 20th-century bloodbath was down to the dreadful concatenation of ethnic conflict, economic volatility and empires in decline. Despite genetic advances that revealed man's essential biological similarities, the 1900s saw wave upon wave of ethnic strife thanks (pace Richard Dawkins) to a race "meme" entering public discourse. Across the world, the idea of biologically distinct races took hold of the 20th century mindset to deadly effect.
Tensions along increasingly conscious ethnic faultlines (in regions such as the eastern edges of Germany) frequently spilt over into conflict during periods of economic volatility. For extremities of wealth and poverty proved far more incendiary than the steady, immiserating effects of economic depression. When ethnicity and financial turbulence then occurred in the context of retreating or expanding empires - British, German, or Soviet - the capacity for bloodshed proved even greater. And, as a final thought, the 20th century witnessed not the triumph of the west, but its inexorable descent.
The Boston Globe interviewed Ferguson and had this to say in its introduction:
Ferguson maintains that the United States is unquestionably an imperial power, but because Americans don't like to think so, the US often fails to fulfill its imperial responsibilities. One crucial case in point for Ferguson is Iraq, where, in his view, an imperial power less in denial about itself would have known that such an invasion required forethought, vast resources, and the willingness to stick around for a very long time.
The theme of empire is central to the new book, as well. Ferguson believes the real problem with an empire shows up when it declines, at which time genocidal hatred is liable to break out among the ethnic groups it had governed. That's what happened, he argues, in the extraordinarily-often inter-ethnically-violent 20th century, and what he worries may be underway in the Middle-East.
Here is a quote by Ferguson: 'The really troubling thing is that all the things that happened in Central and Eastern Europe in the 1930s and 40s could happen in the Middle East now. The ingredients are there: You've got ethnic and religious hatred, economic volatility, and an empire- the American empire-declining and losing control. Not a great scenario.'
The past is often a guide to the future. Ferguson's analysis of conflict in the previous century holds a lot of clues for what can happen next.
I think The War of The World is a fascinating book because you learn a lot from the past and understand the future given the conflicts that we continue to face today.
The Scandal Sweeping Russia’s Art Market
Konstantin Akinsha writes about Russian faker's incredible talent + experts inability to authenticate genuine paintings despite their years of experience + the skills required to survive as an art dealer in Russia @ http://artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=1975
This reminds me of the 'origin craze' among gemstone collectors, especially Burmese rubies, Kashmir blue sapphires, Colombian emeralds, Golconda diamonds + lately with treated vs. untreated stones. Despite technological advances in gem identification and detection of treatments, famous gem testing laboratories still make spectacular mistakes. Many won't admit it, but that's the truth.
This reminds me of the 'origin craze' among gemstone collectors, especially Burmese rubies, Kashmir blue sapphires, Colombian emeralds, Golconda diamonds + lately with treated vs. untreated stones. Despite technological advances in gem identification and detection of treatments, famous gem testing laboratories still make spectacular mistakes. Many won't admit it, but that's the truth.
The Most Eye-Popping Celebrity Bling
Lea Goldman writes about the most buzzed-about bling in Hollywood + the hip-hop industry's affinity for bling (a term coined in the early '90s by New Orleans rappers the Cash Money Millionaires) + competition among the world's famous jewelers for the red carpet spotlight + other viewpoints @ http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/26/celebrities-bling-hollywood-biz-cz_lg_0726celebbling.html
Further Franchising The Name De Beers And Changing The De Beers LV Business Model
Chaim Even-Zohar writes about De Beers LV business model + sub-sub-sub franchising concept + a new definition for distribution system + other viewpoints @ http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullEditorial.asp?TextSearch=&KeyMatch=0&id=25636
Composite vs Assembled Opal
Composite opal
These stones are partly made up of opal and partly of the rock which the opal was found in. The rock may be ironstone, quartzite, sandstone or another matrix. This type also includes pseudomorphs in which the opal has replaced another substance. Composite opal consists of a single mass and should not be confused with assembled stones.
Assembled stones normally consist of two parts (doublets) or three parts (triplets) cemented or fused together for providing a better wearing surface; to obtain a large stone from two smaller pieces of natural material; to produce a stone of apparently better color and appearance; for the purpose of supplying a rigid backing or support for fragile materials.
Doublet
Opal doublets consist of a thin slice of precious opal cemented onto a plastic, black onyx, glass or potch (common opal) back. To lower the cost, the top surface is normally flat. Better (and more expensive) doublets are made with thicker pieces of opal, and the surface is domed. Black cement is used to give a dark background for the translucent opal. This gives the appearance of an expensive black opal. Crystal opal makes the best doublets and gray opal the worst. The identification of doublets is not normally difficult, but one must be careful of opal doublets with a potch backing because some solid opals also have a potch backing.
Triplet
As the name implies, opal triplets consist of three parts. The middle section is a thin slice of precious opal, the back is the same as on a doublet, and the top is usually made of rock crystal quartz or another transparent colorless material. This top piece gives the stone greater durability and also magnifies the play of color, thus increasing the beauty. In general, triplets are worth more than doublets. Clear resin is used to cement the quartz top to the opal, and dark resin to cement the opal to the back. Synthetic opal (Gilson) has also been used in place of natural opal for making opal doublets and triplets.
Opal doublets and triplets are easily identified. Unlike other assembled stones, they are not intended to deceive the buyer. They are produced in order to make use or otherwise useless material, and provide the beauty of a fine solid opal at a fraction of the price.
These stones are partly made up of opal and partly of the rock which the opal was found in. The rock may be ironstone, quartzite, sandstone or another matrix. This type also includes pseudomorphs in which the opal has replaced another substance. Composite opal consists of a single mass and should not be confused with assembled stones.
Assembled stones normally consist of two parts (doublets) or three parts (triplets) cemented or fused together for providing a better wearing surface; to obtain a large stone from two smaller pieces of natural material; to produce a stone of apparently better color and appearance; for the purpose of supplying a rigid backing or support for fragile materials.
Doublet
Opal doublets consist of a thin slice of precious opal cemented onto a plastic, black onyx, glass or potch (common opal) back. To lower the cost, the top surface is normally flat. Better (and more expensive) doublets are made with thicker pieces of opal, and the surface is domed. Black cement is used to give a dark background for the translucent opal. This gives the appearance of an expensive black opal. Crystal opal makes the best doublets and gray opal the worst. The identification of doublets is not normally difficult, but one must be careful of opal doublets with a potch backing because some solid opals also have a potch backing.
Triplet
As the name implies, opal triplets consist of three parts. The middle section is a thin slice of precious opal, the back is the same as on a doublet, and the top is usually made of rock crystal quartz or another transparent colorless material. This top piece gives the stone greater durability and also magnifies the play of color, thus increasing the beauty. In general, triplets are worth more than doublets. Clear resin is used to cement the quartz top to the opal, and dark resin to cement the opal to the back. Synthetic opal (Gilson) has also been used in place of natural opal for making opal doublets and triplets.
Opal doublets and triplets are easily identified. Unlike other assembled stones, they are not intended to deceive the buyer. They are produced in order to make use or otherwise useless material, and provide the beauty of a fine solid opal at a fraction of the price.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)