Birthday thingy & anecdote request

[shweta_narayan]

(I'd consider any anecdotes to be part of the birthday present, so extra-invite them this time!)

The stones shown here are of unquestionable high birth, of course.  verified by astrologers and gemstone geneaologists both, and proven by the continued strength of the Padishah Begum and her lands.

However, I have heard of disturbing events of late --

Comments

[zwol]

I have no story, but I want to know whether synthetic gemstones are considered highborn. (Assume for sake of argument that they are crystallographically perfect.)

[shweta_narayan]

Did you see asakiyume's musing on this right above you? :)

[zwol]

On cultured pearls, yes. Which have the advantage of having come out of an oyster just like natural pearls. Perhaps synthetic mineral gems would come in for even more snobbery, then? Never having come anywhere near the depths of the Earth. And yet, a lab-grown ruby could be truly indistinguishable from a mined ruby, whereas a cultured pearl is always going to be a thin layer over a glass bead, unless the pearl culturer is prepared to use grains of sand and wait decades instead of years. ... Which might make it even worse for the ruby, now I think of it.

[voidmonster]

I've been hearing persistent rumors that a group of high born Hessonite gems, after returning from an expedition to unnamed lands, have begun agitating to have Emerald deemed inferior by birth. Of the three rumors circulating two cite the regular inclusions and the third simply decries Emeralds as inferior.

Of course the primary source for these rumors is a group of extremely well-connected Nephrite stones who've been intricately worked and themselves thus charged with rising above their station. "Elevated by hand over nature," as the gemstones have said.

To date there hasn't been much comment on a recently shown, extremely large yellow diamond. I expect that's mostly down to all the bluster-then-hush over Emerald.