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)