Talk:Gems

I have a feeling that this page is going to get very unwieldy. It may be better if we use size/gem type only instead of colour/type/size/gem type - unless we can determine that DOES play into value. Also, do we want to use values of gems that have not had PG/CV cast on them? --Ysselt 20:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be fine for the moment, and we can (soonish) break it off into real item pages and use Semantic MediaWiki to include the gem types/colors into the page. --Callek 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Colors definitely make a difference in price. There's also additional modifiers like banded, faceted, spotted, etc. that alter the price as well. I have a pretty large spreadsheet I've been working on that breaks down price by size, color, modifier, gem and quality. Azhag 03:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone actually found an aquamarine gem, malachite stone, or turquoise stone since the changes? I suspect they've been replaced with aquamarines, malachites, and turquoises. --StoicPriest

I went through and kind of reorganized the gems with two descriptors to be a sub set of the second descriptor. I think it looks a bit better this way plus this should help with determining the value change. For example blue moonstone has a subset of swirled blue moonstone, one would be able to see the value change of a tiny blue moonstone and a tiny swirled blue moonstone and get an approximate value change for the added swirled description. Yamcer 06:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is purely a data gathering page, not for display. I want to see what factors play into the values of gems. As for Clarified gems... do they still have to fall within the standard gem value range or is it modified?-Moderator Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi^(talk) 07:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)