[DF 8] On Gemstones and Carats

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by gruundehn

In real life Earth gemstones in the Middle Ages were polished not cut. And diamonds were not popular due to their lack of color. It was not until the modern cutting methods that created a play of colors from the interplay of light between the facets that diamonds became popular; that and a great publicity campaign by DeBeers.
In the Middle Ages the pricing would have been different than the modern method. It was: What does the customer look like they will spend? Even today there is a strong element of "An item of jewelry is worth what you think it is worth." in all transactions. Back then jewelry and gems were a status indicator and the bigger the rock, the higher your status was presumed to be.
Also, bear in mind that the designation of gems was a lot looser than present day. Green gems were lumped as emeralds but today a distinction would be made between emeralds and other green gems.
Fashon and style made a huge difference in price so you can get away with charging whatever you want when the players buy and giving whatever you want to give when they sell. They do not have to agree with what is offered but there would be, historically, no fixed method of determining a value independant of that.

First, a disclaimer: I am not an expert on gemstones.

I agree with the basic point, but have to disagree with a detail. Gemstones have been cut for thousands of years. Faceted stones came in sometimes around the 14th century, and more modern and brilliant cuts came in sometime around the mid to late 1400s and later.

Also value in modern day is largely based on the four Cs: Cut, Clarity, Color, and Carat. But that may be more detail that the OP wants.

[William]

Originally Posted by RyanW

And of course, several gem "stones" are not really stones in the truest sense. Pearl, jet, amber, opal, etc.

I understand you to be referring to the organic origin of these items, but still, jet, amber and opal are stones. Jet is a lignite, which means it will burn, because of its fossil origin, and amber is fossilized sap. I don't know why you wouldn't call opal a stone -- it's amorphous, but it's silica, not organic. Are you thinking of a specific definition?

You're quite right about the origins distinguishing some of them, though. In a setting where ridiculously large minerals are available in quantity, it may well be the case that the highest esteem is given to pearl, coral, amber, possibly exotic woods and fine furs, rather than pretty rocks.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by William

I understand you to be referring to the organic origin of these items, but still, jet, amber and opal are stones. Jet is a lignite, which means it will burn, because of its fossil origin, and amber is fossilized sap. I don't know why you wouldn't call opal a stone -- it's amorphous, but it's silica, not organic. Are you thinking of a specific definition?

I suppose I was actually thinking of the definition of mineral, rather than stone.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by RyanW

I suppose I was actually thinking of the definition of mineral, rather than stone.

Crystal perhaps? I don't think any of those are crystals at all, but then I don't think any of the opaque stones are crystals except some forms of hematite... which is "just" an iron ore and fundementally not that exciting unless you really like the look. I prefer it over just about all the so-called precious gem stones, but then I don't really like yellow gold that much and I'm sort of iffy about silver so I'm clearly in the minority.

Pewter, wrought iron, bronze/brass, copper, or steel and hematite or jasper - I'm clearly easy to shop for. Which just goes to show that decorative items are priced mostly on supply and demand.

[PseudoFenton]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Pewter, wrought iron, bronze/brass, copper, or steel and hematite or jasper - I'm clearly easy to shop for. Which just goes to show that decorative items are priced mostly on supply and demand.

Pewter is awesome, but still quite expensive (nowhere near the cost of silver and gold obviously, but even so). Wrought iron can be nice, but only because its common form these days is in old fashioned aesthetics. Same goes for bronze brass and copper, they're quite rare these days for made goods so tend to stand out a little more, plus they polish up really well.

But steel?? I can't see it sorry, okay I'd not turn down a fine steel sword, but its as common as common metals gets these days and hardly ever used in "art" because of it (unless its just the frame with something else around it). I can understand titanium, a personal love of mine, because of its other properties... but steel is just so regular now.

*shrug* I guess this does just go to show that everyone's tastes are different, and whilst some people want natural diamonds and non-farmed pearls... I'm quite content with base metals and synthetics. Although one day I'll get me a hunk of meteorite or have some inlaid into a ring, because its BEEN IN SPACE and therefore automatically awesome.

[Jonathan Willis]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Pewter, wrought iron, bronze/brass, copper, or steel and hematite or jasper - I'm clearly easy to shop for. Which just goes to show that decorative items are priced mostly on supply and demand.

Or put another way; bling (in any century) is less about the buyers taste and more about how valuable an item looks when worn.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by PseudoFenton

But steel?? I can't see it sorry, okay I'd not turn down a fine steel sword, but its as common as common metals gets these days and hardly ever used in "art" because of it (unless its just the frame with something else around it). I can understand titanium, a personal love of mine, because of its other properties... but steel is just so regular now.

That's actually half the attraction - it's a practical, hard-wearing metal with a lot of cultural associations with tools and weaponry. EDIT: the "classess" or "tradesman" associations are important as well.

I confess to a deep personal weakness for punk aesthetics (which fades into "goth" and "metal"), and even some of the stupider-looking heavy-metal excesses. Which is funny, because I'm the first to admit it's stupid looking.

But it has to be steel - nobody's going to take any studs or spikes seriously if they're gold or even bronze; it has to be steel (possibly chromed) or it looses the implications of "practical application", which means in turn it looses the impact as a threat display, which means you're not punk you're just a poser.

[PseudoFenton]

Originally Posted by Bruno

But it has to be steel - nobody's going to take any studs or spikes seriously if they're gold

Point. However I'd still raise the game and go with titanium, nothing gets more practical and hard-wearing that that! You can ever colour it without chroming so it'll keep any choice colour alterations from wearing off. But at least I can see the wavelength your on now, so I'll stop sidetracking the thread...

[schmeelke]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Quartz: "Well-formed crystals may reach several meters in length and weigh as much as 1,400 pounds (640 kg)."

^
~3.2 million carats! Worth ~$150 trillion according to DF8.

Not only is this one a powerstone, but it's enchanted as well. Even the shard in his hand is pretty big for a powerstone.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Bruno

It currently doesn't, despite having a whole bunch of decorative stones and not-really-stone materials that appear in single pieces significantly larger than traditional "gemstones".

Which is probably a decent enough abstraction for DF - it's not like the value per carat isn't completely made up as it is. But quartz, jade, jet, coral, etc and any of the bulk iron or copper ores should (in a more accuracy-concerned game) just be a fixed per pound measurement (SJG measures by the lb, as much as I'd prefer kg).

There was an article in Pyramid v2, about the value of precious and semi-precious gemstones. For precious gemstones, the carat weight was lifted to the 2nd power, possible with a linear component too (IIRC similar to the Powerstone rules for 3E and/or 4E), and that seemed sensible to me.

For semi-precious stones and materials, such as amber, the rule was that you lfited the carat weight to the power of 1.01. That seemed kinda sensible to me, since it seems to me that one lump of amber weighing 50 grams should be worth somewhat more than two lumps of amber each at 25 grams.

But then I tried the formula with some actual numbers, and it turns out that a 1 kilogram semi-precious stone (5000 carats) is only worth about 10% more than the same mass distributed amoung thousands of smaller stones (weighting 1-2 carats each).

So if you use that formula, it's not worth the bother. I do maintain that larger lumps of amber should be worth somewhat disproportionately more, but I haven't needed to solve the problem yet, so I don't know what kind of power to use, 1.05 or 1.1, to produce results that seem reasonable. Or that are even worth the bother. The Pyramid formula seems like a waste of time, performing an arithmetical calculation - even if it is a very simple one - for really no gain at all.