Amber Real?

[Mochaccino]

Hello,

 

I'm thinking of adding some Dominican amber and Mexican Chiapas amber to my collection, but as always authenticity is a concern especially when buying online so I wanted to get some feedback as best as I could. Here's what I'm looking at:

 

1. Mexican Chiapas Amber with leaf. Seller has provided image under UV/black light so likely real? Also shipping directly from Mexico and the seller has a bunch of other authentic-looking ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Dominican amber with Ponerine winged ant and flies, 1.4 cm wide. I asked for photos under UV light and seller didn't provide any but instead said this is not a reliable test so I'm a bit concerned. Specimen itself also looks almost too clear/clean, though I'm aware Dominican amber is generally much clearer than other ambers.

 

 

 

 

What do people think? Thanks.

[daves64]

The Chiapas piece is actually sitting ON the UV light, instead of under it, so it's just showing the "black light" through the piece instead of properly showing the fluorescence, but it does appear to be real. Ask the seller if he can show a pic with the UV light shining ON the piece. As for the Dominican amber seller's saying UV light isn't a reliable test, that makes me wonder if that isn't copal or a possible fabrication using amber & plastic/man made resin. UV light, acetone & float tests are used as tests for amber, so "is not a reliable test" is the wrong answer in my opinion. I'd go for the Chiapas personally. 

[Mochaccino]

20 minutes ago, daves64 said:

The Chiapas piece is actually sitting ON the UV light, instead of under it, so it's just showing the "black light" through the piece instead of properly showing the fluorescence, but it does appear to be real. Ask the seller if he can show a pic with the UV light shining ON the piece. As for the Dominican amber seller's saying UV light isn't a reliable test, that makes me wonder if that isn't copal or a possible fabrication using amber & plastic/man made resin. UV light, acetone & float tests are used as tests for amber, so "is not a reliable test" is the wrong answer in my opinion. I'd go for the Chiapas personally. 

 

I did not even realize that was the case for the Chiapas amber, thanks! I'll ask them if they can provide a UV on the amber photo.

 

And the dominican amber seller does seem a little suspicious. I wasn't sure if the UV test is unreliable for certain types of amber, but if that isn't the case I'll pass on this one. 
 

Thanks, I'm glad I asked.

[Sjfriend]

Not an expert, not even close!, but the Dominican piece look too perfect. Without being able to test it yourself or really knowing the seller I'd pass.

[Randyw]

For comparison. Here is what a piece of dominican amber looks like with a blacklight shined on it from behind…

[Mochaccino]

@daves64 @Sjfriend @Randyw 

 

Thanks for all your input! I actually have an update from the dominican amber seller, who provided photos of the amber showing clear fluorescence under UV:

 

 

I was also suspicious of the dominican amber but it seems it's real. It makes me wonder if what the seller said about UV not always being a reliable test for dominican amber is true as well since I see no reason for him to lie at this point, but I've never heard of it before. Interesting.

[Randyw]

I like what those pictures are showing. Thats exactly what I’d expect to see.

in the thousand or so pieces of amber I’ve handled ( only a couple hundred were mine) I’ve never seen a real dominican amber piece not flouresce. Although i have heard of really old copal flourescing but it was on the boarderline between amber/copal so close enough not to matter. The difference between amber and copal is the amount of some of the volitile chemicals. As the resin ages the chemicals evaperate out. All this takes time. It goes from tree resin to copal to amber.  This of course takes time. The ages of amber is measured in the millions where copal is measured in the thousands and tens of thousands. Most think the change is mainly done around 2-5 million years depending on enviromental conditions although the amber continues to “age”  continually.  The oldest amber found was around 320 myo. The problem with dominican amber is the geology. The terrain is so broken that you can find amber deposits within yards of copal deposits. IE the top of a ridge may have one kind while the bottom may have the other. And with the upper weathering out they get mixed. so some dealers and collectors collect it all and call it amber. While others will market copal as young amber wich is I guess technically true but i think misleading…. Sorry (not sorry) to ramble on…

[Mochaccino]

21 hours ago, Randyw said:

I like what those pictures are showing. Thats exactly what I’d expect to see.

in the thousand or so pieces of amber I’ve handled ( only a couple hundred were mine) I’ve never seen a real dominican amber piece not flouresce. Although i have heard of really old copal flourescing but it was on the boarderline between amber/copal so close enough not to matter. The difference between amber and copal is the amount of some of the volitile chemicals. As the resin ages the chemicals evaperate out. All this takes time. It goes from tree resin to copal to amber.  This of course takes time. The ages of amber is measured in the millions where copal is measured in the thousands and tens of thousands. Most think the change is mainly done around 2-5 million years depending on enviromental conditions although the amber continues to “age”  continually.  The oldest amber found was around 320 myo. The problem with dominican amber is the geology. The terrain is so broken that you can find amber deposits within yards of copal deposits. IE the top of a ridge may have one kind while the bottom may have the other. And with the upper weathering out they get mixed. so some dealers and collectors collect it all and call it amber. While others will market copal as young amber wich is I guess technically true but i think misleading…. Sorry (not sorry) to ramble on…

Yeah I think it's quite convincing as well, looks similar to what my Burmese amber pieces show when under UV. I guess it's possible the seller wasn't distinguishing between some really old copal and amber. In any case I'll definitely be sticking to "amber" pieces that do fluoresce under UV. Thanks!

[Mousehead]

Both look good to me.  Notice the natural flow lines on the Dominican piece - that's one feature fakes are always missing.  Also, at 1.4cm, it's a pretty small one.  Not worth faking, imo.

[Mochaccino]

13 hours ago, Mousehead said:

Both look good to me.  Notice the natural flow lines on the Dominican piece - that's one feature fakes are always missing.  Also, at 1.4cm, it's a pretty small one.  Not worth faking, imo.

Oh those are flow lines? As in like boundaries where the resin flowed in the process of hardening? I always thought those were cracks. But then I guess the amber wouldn't stay together with cracks that big, unless it was glued?

 

 

[Mousehead]

First photo looks more like flows, second looks more like cracks – either way, I haven't seen attempts at cracking fake amber to make it seem authentic.

 

Real amber does commonly have natural cracks inside without needing to be glued.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Mousehead

[Mochaccino]

4 hours ago, Mousehead said:

First photo looks more like flows, second looks more like cracks – either way, I haven't seen attempts at cracking fake amber to make it seem authentic.

 

Real amber does commonly have natural cracks inside without needing to be glued.

Gotcha, thanks. And thanks everyone who helped, I'm very glad I asked. Looks like these are both good.