SOUL BODY GEMS · TESTED MATERIALS
Inside Euphoralite.
Euphoralite is a trade name trademarked by Gary Rowley. According to the provenance supplied with the trademark information, the material is said to come from the Black Hills of South Dakota. Gary mines and cuts the material himself, and the testing was carried out with his approval.
This directory includes specimens submitted by Soul Body Gems and additional pieces sent for testing by John Murphy to the same geologist. John Murphy’s submissions are credited individually. Each report describes the specimen examined; a trade name does not establish the composition of every piece sold under that name.
THE REPORT DIRECTORY
Explore the tested specimens
Entries will be numbered Euphoralite 1, 2, 3… until their individual trade names are confirmed. Original report sample IDs remain visible.
Euphoralite 1Banded pegmatite towerSample 92802 · July 28, 2021Schorl-bearing pegmatite and an iron-rich mica band.View findings and report ↓
What the analysis found
The main portion contains quartz, plagioclase, muscovite, schorl tourmaline and accessory apatite. The banded portion contains iron-rich mica in the biotite–phlogopite series; the researcher interpreted it as schistose country rock affected by pegmatitic fluids. The nearby plagioclase was more calcium-rich than the distal pegmatite portion.
Identification scope: These findings describe sample 92802, one specimen submitted by K. Bitner. The numbered Euphoralite label is a temporary directory name, not a mineral species or laboratory identification.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. 6 pages; the findings are summarized in text above.
Report images © Soul Body Gems, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Please acknowledge all three when referring to these results. Findings apply to the specimen examined.
Euphoralite 2White-blue towerSample 92803 · July 28, 2021Albite, muscovite and quartz; blue colorant unresolved.View findings and report ↓
What the analysis found
The bulk material is albitic plagioclase, muscovite and quartz. The report considers iron-bearing vivianite as a possible explanation for the blue coloration, but the researcher did not detect actual vivianite films. Vivianite therefore remains a hypothesis, not an identified constituent.
Identification scope: These findings describe sample 92803, one specimen submitted by K. Bitner. The numbered Euphoralite label is a temporary directory name, not a mineral species or laboratory identification.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. 4 pages; the findings are summarized in text above.
Report images © Soul Body Gems, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Please acknowledge all three when referring to these results. Findings apply to the specimen examined.
Euphoralite 3Olive-green tourmaline half towerSample 928067 · July 31, 2021Feldspar, tourmaline and a small microlite-group grain.View findings and report ↓
What the analysis found
The pegmatite contains potassium feldspar, likely microcline, and olive-green elbaite–schorl-series tourmaline that the researcher described as dominantly elbaitic. A small calcium-rich microlite-group grain was also found. The report describes its uranium content as negligible for this tiny grain; the specimen was interpreted as an evolved granitic pegmatite.
Identification scope: These findings describe sample 928067, one specimen submitted by K. Bitner. The numbered Euphoralite label is a temporary directory name, not a mineral species or laboratory identification.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. 3 pages; the findings are summarized in text above.
Report images © Soul Body Gems, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Please acknowledge all three when referring to these results. Findings apply to the specimen examined.
Euphoralite 4Pink-and-black towerSample 92809 · July 31, 2021Quartz, albite and iron-bearing tourmaline.View findings and report ↓
What the analysis found
The tested pegmatite contains quartz, sodium-rich albite and schorl–elbaite-series tourmaline. No mica or potassium feldspar was noted in the examined areas. The dark tourmaline color was attributed mainly to iron, with titanium possibly deepening it.
Identification scope: These findings describe sample 92809, one specimen submitted by K. Bitner. The numbered Euphoralite label is a temporary directory name, not a mineral species or laboratory identification.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. 3 pages; the findings are summarized in text above.
Report images © Soul Body Gems, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Please acknowledge all three when referring to these results. Findings apply to the specimen examined.
Euphoralite 5Short quartz towerSample 92808 · July 31, 2021Quartz with hematite along fractures.View findings and report ↓
What the analysis found
The examined 2.5 cm tower is essentially quartz with hematite in long fractures. The report notes elevated magnesium and aluminum along with iron, and offers breakdown of a phlogopite–biotite-series mica as a possible explanation. That mica origin is a hypothesis, not an identified component in this specimen.
Identification scope: These findings describe sample 92808. “Euphoralite 5” is a temporary directory label, not a laboratory mineral name.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. 3 pages; the findings are summarized in text above.
Report images © Soul Body Gems, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Please acknowledge all three when referring to these results. Findings apply to the specimen examined.
Euphoralite 6Baroque tourmaline and muscovite pieceSample 92794 · July 22, 2021Elbaite–schorl tourmaline with muscovite, microcline and quartz.View findings and report ↓
What the analysis found
The pegmatite contains tourmaline of the elbaite–schorl series, coarse low-iron muscovite, microcline and quartz. Iron decreases from dark tourmaline cores to lighter rims. The researcher noted a surface coating, likely applied to protect the muscovite and increase luster, and interpreted the sampled part as moderately evolved.
Identification scope: These findings describe sample 92794, one specimen submitted by K. Bitner. The numbered Euphoralite label is a temporary directory name; it is not a mineral species or laboratory identification.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. 4 pages; the findings are summarized in text above.
Report images © Soul Body Gems, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Please acknowledge all three when referring to these results. Findings apply to the specimen examined.
Euphoralite 7 · StormDeep purple lepidolite towerSample 92791 · July 19, 2021Lepidolite with minor albite and quartz; manganese-rich purple color.View findings and report ↓
What the analysis found
The dominant component is lepidolite, with minor albite and quartz. The intense purple color is associated with high manganese and very low iron. Elevated rubidium, tin, bismuth and gallium are consistent with a fractionated lithium–cesium–tantalum pegmatite. This report describes the examined tower, not every piece sold as “Storm.”
Identification scope: These findings describe sample 92791, one specimen submitted by K. Bitner. “Storm” is the supplied trade name; it is not a mineral species or laboratory identification.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. 4 pages; the findings are summarized in text above.
Report images © Soul Body Gems, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Please acknowledge all three when referring to these results. Findings apply to the specimen examined.
Euphoralite 8Dark blue, brown and white towerSample 92793 · July 20, 2021Albite and quartz with dark tourmaline and triphylite-dominant phosphate.View findings and report ↓
What the analysis found
The major matrix component is albite, with less abundant quartz. Dark-blue to nearly black masses belong to the schorl–elbaite tourmaline series. Brown masses are in the triphylite–lithiophilite phosphate series and are triphylite dominant. The specimen also has a resin coating; the report describes a phosphate-bearing pegmatite.
Identification scope: These findings describe sample 92793, one specimen submitted by K. Bitner. The numbered Euphoralite label is a temporary directory name; it is not a mineral species or laboratory identification.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. 4 pages; the findings are summarized in text above.
Report images © Soul Body Gems, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Please acknowledge all three when referring to these results. Findings apply to the specimen examined.
Euphoralite 9Small lepidolite towerSample 92799 · July 26, 2021Essentially lepidolite with elevated rubidium and a surface coating.View findings and report ↓
What the analysis found
The 4.5 cm tower is essentially monomineralic lepidolite. Elevated rubidium, some tin and low iron led the researcher to interpret a highly evolved pegmatite source. The specimen had an alcohol-soluble coating to enhance luster. The report's printed K/Rb ratio is incomplete, so no numerical ratio is presented here.
Identification scope: These findings describe sample 92799, one specimen submitted by K. Bitner. The numbered Euphoralite label is a temporary directory name, not a mineral species or laboratory identification.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. 3 pages; the findings are summarized in text above.
Report images © Soul Body Gems, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Please acknowledge all three when referring to these results. Findings apply to the specimen examined.
Euphoralite 10Coarse yellow muscovite towerSample 92800 · July 26, 2021Yellow muscovite and quartz; a less evolved zone in the pegmatite.View findings and report ↓
What the analysis found
This 4 cm tower consists of yellow muscovite and quartz. A small amount of iron accounts for the yellow color. Its low rubidium and K/Rb ratio around 85–90 led the researcher to infer a less evolved granitic pegmatite zone, possibly an outer zone. The muscovite appeared primary and early formed.
Identification scope: These findings describe sample 92800, one specimen submitted by K. Bitner. The numbered Euphoralite label is a temporary directory name, not a mineral species or laboratory identification.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. 3 pages; the findings are summarized in text above.
Report images © Soul Body Gems, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Please acknowledge all three when referring to these results. Findings apply to the specimen examined.
Euphoralite 11Deep-purple nearly monomineralic lepidolite towerSample 92795 · July 23, 2021Essentially all lepidolite with very high rubidium.View findings and report ↓
What the analysis found
The 5.5 cm tower was described as essentially monomineralic lepidolite, unlike common intergrowths with albite or quartz. Its very high rubidium and K/Rb ratio below 3 indicate a highly fractionated, evolved granitic pegmatite source. This is a distinct specimen from the “Storm” tower and the smaller lepidolite tower.
Identification scope: These findings describe sample 92795, one specimen submitted by K. Bitner. The numbered Euphoralite label is a temporary directory name, not a mineral species or laboratory identification.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. 3 pages; the findings are summarized in text above.
Report images © Soul Body Gems, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Please acknowledge all three when referring to these results. Findings apply to the specimen examined.
Euphoralite 12Very light pink to white towerSample 92797 · July 24, 2021Zoisite and sodic plagioclase with minor titanite and apatite.View findings and report ↓
What the analysis found
The principal mineral in the 5.5 cm tower was identified as zoisite, with abundant sodium-rich plagioclase, likely albite to oligoclase, and minor titanite and apatite. The report interprets it as an iron-poor metamorphic rock. This is a different mineral assemblage from the lepidolite and muscovite Euphoralite specimens.
Identification scope: These findings describe sample 92797, one specimen submitted by K. Bitner. The numbered Euphoralite label is a temporary directory name, not a mineral species or laboratory identification.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. 4 pages; the findings are summarized in text above.
Report images © Soul Body Gems, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Please acknowledge all three when referring to these results. Findings apply to the specimen examined.
Euphoralite 13Yellow muscovite tower with curved edgesSample 92801 · July 28, 2021Monomineralic muscovite colored yellow by iron.View findings and report ↓
What the analysis found
The 6 cm tower was identified as monomineralic muscovite. Iron accounts for its yellow color; a K/Rb ratio around 90–95 indicates low fractionation in the sampled zone. The report leaves open whether the muscovite formed as a primary pegmatite mass or replaced an earlier mineral.
Identification scope: These findings describe sample 92801, one specimen submitted by K. Bitner. The numbered Euphoralite label is a temporary directory name, not a mineral species or laboratory identification.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. 3 pages; the findings are summarized in text above.
Report images © Soul Body Gems, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Please acknowledge all three when referring to these results. Findings apply to the specimen examined.
Euphoralite 14 · GaiaFine-grained yellowish towerSample 92798 · July 26, 2021Intimate muscovite–quartz intergrowth; supplied trade name Gaia.View findings and report ↓
What the analysis found
The 5.8 cm tower is an intimate intergrowth of muscovite and quartz. Its K/Rb ratio around 24 points to a moderately evolved setting. The report suggests the muscovite may have replaced an earlier mineral through late-stage fluid activity, but does not identify a specific precursor.
Identification scope: These findings describe sample 92798, one specimen submitted by K. Bitner. “Gaia” is the supplied trade name, not a laboratory identification.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. 3 pages; the findings are summarized in text above.
Report images © Soul Body Gems, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Please acknowledge all three when referring to these results. Findings apply to the specimen examined.
Euphoralite 15 · StormSecond tower; XRF comparisonSample 92935 · January 24, 2023Closely resembles the separately tested Australian lepidolite-and-albite ring.View findings and report ↓
What the analysis found
This report measured trace and minor elements of a Storm tower by XRF. The researcher described its composition and appearance as very similar to the long-oval Australian lepidolite-and-albite ring and judged that they likely came from the same location. That is a comparison, not an independent geographic provenance test.
The ring report identifies lepidolite and albite; this tower report does not independently identify every mineral phase. It supports a close geological match between these two submitted objects despite their different supplied origins. Compare Storm sample 92791, a separate tower with its own analytical report.
Original XRF comparison report
Select a page to enlarge it. Two pages; sample 92935.
Report images © Soul Body Gems, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Please acknowledge all three when referring to these results.
Euphoralite — AscensionMontebrasite with blue tourmaline and quartzSample 92815 · August 2, 2021 · Submitted by John MurphyA montebrasite-rich pegmatite specimen with lesser blue elbaite–schorl tourmaline and quartz.View findings and report ↓
Testing and attribution
This specimen was submitted for testing by John Murphy to Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, the same geologist who analyzes Soul Body Gems specimens. The testing was undertaken in conjunction with Soul Body Gems, and this report is shared with John Murphy’s permission.
What the analysis found
The bulk of this 5.5 cm specimen is montebrasite, the hydroxyl-dominant member of the montebrasite–amblygonite series. Lesser amounts of blue tourmaline in the elbaite–schorl series and a little quartz occur near the bottom. The quartz was observed intergrown with the tourmaline.
Trace niobium, tantalum and tin led the researcher to interpret an association with orogenic granitic pegmatites. The report also records a coating soluble in ethanol. “Ascension” is the Euphoralite type or trade name supplied for this specimen; these findings describe sample 92815.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. All four report pages are included.
Submitted by John Murphy; analyzed by Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Shared by Soul Body Gems with John Murphy’s permission. Any reference to this report should acknowledge John Murphy, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum.
Understanding the report figures
Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (montebrasite)
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2. (elbaite-schorl series tourmaline)
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 3 in Fig. 2. (quartz)
- Element map: This map shows where the named elements occur within the analyzed area. Its colors represent the laboratory’s selected element channels, rather than the specimen’s visible colors. The caption below preserves any color key or distribution noted by the laboratory.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 6: X-ray map for phosphorus (red, silicon (green and iron (yellow).
Read the complete report as text
Analytical Result Report
Sample id: 92815 (Ascension)
Submitted by: J. Murphy
Date submitted: July 22, 2021.
Date completed: August 2, 2021.
Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.
Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 5.5 cm maximum dimension.
Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (montebrasite)
Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2. (elbaite-schorl series tourmaline)
Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 3 in Fig. 2. (quartz)
Fig. 6: X-ray map for phosphorus (red, silicon (green and iron (yellow).
Table 1: Some interesting trace elements present in the montebrasite (in wt. %).
Iron
0.04
Calcium
0.30
Niobium
0.02
Tantalum
0.03
Tin
0.01
Manganese
0.02
Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) is a very interesting specimen from a granitic pegmatite. The bulk of the specimen is montebrasite, a member of the montebrasite-amblygonite series. Montebrasite is the hydroxyl-dominant member of the series. Lesser amounts of blue tourmaline in the elbaite-schorl series (Fig. 4) is also present near the bottom as is a little quartz (Fig. 5).
The X-ray map (Fig. 6) shows that the quartz is intergrown only with the tourmaline. The trace element content of the montebrasite (Table 1) shows elements that indicate an affiliation with orogenic pegmatites, those that are the result of a compressional region, a continent-continent collision. These elements include niobium, tantalum, and tin. Like all the other specimen, this one had a coating that was soluble in ethanol.
Date: Augst 2, 2021 Signature
Euphoralite — DivineLepidolite and albiteSample 92846 · September 4, 2021 · Submitted by John MurphyLepidolite and albite.View findings and report ↓
Testing and attribution
This specimen was submitted for testing by John Murphy to Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, the same geologist who analyzes Soul Body Gems specimens. The testing was undertaken in conjunction with Soul Body Gems, and this report is shared with John Murphy’s permission.
What the analysis found
The specimen consists essentially of lepidolite and albite. The report measured 1.10 wt.% rubidium and a K/Rb ratio of 8.4; together with tin and tantalum, the researcher interpreted this as evidence of a very evolved pegmatite.
Divine is a supplied Euphoralite type or trade name. These findings describe the individual tested specimen, sample 92846.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. All 3 report pages are included.
Submitted by John Murphy; analyzed by Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Shared by Soul Body Gems with John Murphy’s permission. Any reference to this report should acknowledge John Murphy, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum.
Understanding the report figures
Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (lepidolite).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2. (albite).
- Element map: This map shows where the named elements occur within the analyzed area. Its colors represent the laboratory’s selected element channels, rather than the specimen’s visible colors. The caption below preserves any color key or distribution noted by the laboratory.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 5: X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 2. Potassium = green, sodium = red.
Read the complete report as text
Analytical Result Report
Sample id: 92846 (Divine Euphoralite)
Submitted by: J. Murphy
Date submitted: Aug. 16, 2021.
Date completed: September 4, 2021.
Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.
Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 4.5 cm maximum dimension.
Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (lepidolite).
Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2. (albite).
Fig. 5: X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 2. Potassium = green, sodium = red.
Table 1: Some interesting minor, major and trace elements present in the specimen (in wt. %).
Iron
0.06
Calcium
0.03
Manganese
0.08
Tin
0.09
Tantalum
0.08
Rubidium
1.10
Titanium
0.01
Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) is essentially composed of lepidolite (Figs. 2, 3 and 5) and albite (Figs. 2, 4 and 5). The rubidium content is remarkable high (Table 1) which yields a K/Rb ratio of 8.4. The presence of in and tantalum is high as well, attesting to a very evolved pegmatite.
Date: September 4, 2021 Signature
Euphoralite — ShadowPlagioclase, mica, quartz and apatiteSample 92849 · September 4, 2021 · Submitted by John MurphyPlagioclase, mica, quartz and apatite.View findings and report ↓
Testing and attribution
This specimen was submitted for testing by John Murphy to Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, the same geologist who analyzes Soul Body Gems specimens. The testing was undertaken in conjunction with Soul Body Gems, and this report is shared with John Murphy’s permission.
What the analysis found
The report labels this specimen Dragon’s Shadow Euphoralite. It identifies schistose country rock outside the pegmatite, composed of plagioclase (likely oligoclase), phlogopite–biotite-series mica, quartz and apatite. It is more magnesium- and iron-rich than the pegmatite.
Shadow is a supplied Euphoralite type or trade name. These findings describe the individual tested specimen, sample 92849.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. All 4 report pages are included.
Submitted by John Murphy; analyzed by Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Shared by Soul Body Gems with John Murphy’s permission. Any reference to this report should acknowledge John Murphy, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum.
Understanding the report figures
Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (plagioclase, likely oligoclase).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2. (phlogopite-biotite series).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 3 in Fig. 2. (quartz).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 6: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 7 in Fig. 2. (apatite).
- Element map: This map shows where the named elements occur within the analyzed area. Its colors represent the laboratory’s selected element channels, rather than the specimen’s visible colors. The caption below preserves any color key or distribution noted by the laboratory.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 7 : X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 2. Sodium: red, potassium: green, calcium: pink.
Read the complete report as text
Analytical Result Report
Sample id: 92849 (Dragon’s Shadow Euphoralite)
Submitted by: J. Murphy
Date submitted: Aug. 16, 2021.
Date completed: September 4, 2021.
Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.
Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 2.5 cm maximum dimension.
Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (plagioclase, likely oligoclase).
Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2. (phlogopite-biotite series).
Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 3 in Fig. 2. (quartz).
Fig. 6: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 7 in Fig. 2. (apatite).
Fig. 7 : X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 2. Sodium: red, potassium: green, calcium: pink.
Table 1: Some interesting minor, major and trace elements present in the specimen (in wt. %).
Iron
3.77
Manganese
0.05
Phosphorus
0.23
Magnesium
2.67
Titanium
0.45
Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) is a specimen from outside the pegmatite, it is the schistose country rock which is composed of plagioclase, likely oligoclase (Figs. 2 and 3), A mica of the phlogopite-biotite series (Figs. 2 and 4), quartz (Figs. 2 and 5) and apatite (Figs. 2 and 6). The composition is much more magnesium and iron-rich than the pegmatite (Table 1).
Date: September 4, 2021 Signature
Euphoralite — Dragon SkinAlmandine-bearing phylliteSample 92868 · January 16, 2022 · Submitted by John MurphyAlmandine-bearing phyllite.View findings and report ↓
Testing and attribution
This specimen was submitted for testing by John Murphy to Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, the same geologist who analyzes Soul Body Gems specimens. The testing was undertaken in conjunction with Soul Body Gems, and this report is shared with John Murphy’s permission.
What the analysis found
The specimen is phyllite with almandine garnet porphyroblasts: larger garnet crystals in a fine-grained quartz and biotite–phlogopite mica matrix. Iron dominates the garnet’s divalent cations. The researcher interpreted a low to intermediate metamorphic grade.
Dragon Skin is a supplied Euphoralite type or trade name. These findings describe the individual tested specimen, sample 92868.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. All 3 report pages are included.
Submitted by John Murphy; analyzed by Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Shared by Soul Body Gems with John Murphy’s permission. Any reference to this report should acknowledge John Murphy, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum.
Understanding the report figures
Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (almandine).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 4. (quartz and biotite, possibly some muscovite as well).
Read the complete report as text
Analytical Result Report
Sample id: 92868 (Dragon Skin Euphoralite)
Submitted by: J. Murphy
Date submitted: Jan 9, 2022.
Date completed: Jan. 16, 2022.
Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.
A Bruker Titan XRF unit was used in the analysis and operated at 50 kV for 30 seconds, 25kV for 30 seconds and 10 kV for 30 seconds.
Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 3.3 cm maximum dimension.
Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (almandine).
Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 4. (quartz and biotite, possibly some muscovite as well).
Table 1: Some interesting minor, major and trace elements present in the specimen (in wt. %).
Iron
4.40
Manganese
0.01
Calcium
1.11
Magnesium
1.61
Titanium
0.67
Chromium
0.02
Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) is a specimen of phyllite with almandine porphyroblasts, a pelitic metamorphic rock. The almandine is very low in manganese and a little richer in magnesium, but iron is the dominant divalent cation (Figs. 2 and 3). The matrix is fine-grained quartz and mica species of the biotite-phlogopite series.
This is low to intermediate metamorphic grade, the next higher grade would produce schist.
Date: January 16, 2022 Signature
Euphoralite — ElectricZoned muscovite–lepidolite mica with albiteSample 92819 · August 3, 2021 · Submitted by John MurphyZoned muscovite–lepidolite mica with albite.View findings and report ↓
Testing and attribution
This specimen was submitted for testing by John Murphy to Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, the same geologist who analyzes Soul Body Gems specimens. The testing was undertaken in conjunction with Soul Body Gems, and this report is shared with John Murphy’s permission.
What the analysis found
The specimen contains lepidolite, muscovite and albite. The mica crystals have muscovite cores and lepidolite rims. The reported K/Rb ratios are approximately 19 in bulk and 12 in the lepidolite, interpreted as geochemical evolution. A coating soluble in ethanol was recorded.
Electric is a supplied Euphoralite type or trade name. These findings describe the individual tested specimen, sample 92819.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. All 4 report pages are included.
Submitted by John Murphy; analyzed by Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Shared by Soul Body Gems with John Murphy’s permission. Any reference to this report should acknowledge John Murphy, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum.
Understanding the report figures
Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (lepidolite)
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2 (muscovite).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 4 in Fig. 2 (albite).
- Element map: This map shows where the named elements occur within the analyzed area. Its colors represent the laboratory’s selected element channels, rather than the specimen’s visible colors. The caption below preserves any color key or distribution noted by the laboratory.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 6: X-ray map fpr Si (red) and Na (blue). Red is both lepidolite and muscovite, blue is albite.
Read the complete report as text
Analytical Result Report
Sample id: 92819 (Electric)
Submitted by: J. Murphy
Date submitted: July 22, 2021.
Date completed: August 3, 2021.
Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.
Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 6.5 cm maximum dimension.
Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (lepidolite)
Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2 (muscovite).
Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 4 in Fig. 2 (albite).
Fig. 6: X-ray map fpr Si (red) and Na (blue). Red is both lepidolite and muscovite, blue is albite.
Table 1: Some interesting trace elements present in the muscovite (in wt. %).
Iron
0.05
Rubidium
0.55
Bismuth
0.01
Manganese
0.06
Tantalum
0.03
Zinc
0.02
Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) consists of both lepidolite (Figs. 2 and 3) and muscovite (Figs. 2 and 4) as well as albite (Figs. 2, 5, and 6). The mica crystals are evidently zoned with a core of muscovite and a rim of lepidolite which is interesting to see in masses of micas. Furthermore, the bulk ratio of K/Rb is around 19 which is moderately evolved geochemically but when the lepidolite is analyzed by itself, the K/Rb ratio is 12 which indicates considerable evolution. Like all the other specimen, this one had a coating that was soluble in ethanol.
Date: August 3, 2021 Signature
Euphoralite — ExoticMuscovite, albite, quartz and tourmalineSample 92851 · September 4, 2021 · Submitted by John MurphyMuscovite, albite, quartz and tourmaline.View findings and report ↓
Testing and attribution
This specimen was submitted for testing by John Murphy to Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, the same geologist who analyzes Soul Body Gems specimens. The testing was undertaken in conjunction with Soul Body Gems, and this report is shared with John Murphy’s permission.
What the analysis found
The specimen mainly contains muscovite, albite, quartz and schorl–elbaite-series tourmaline. Iron exceeds manganese; a muscovite K/Rb ratio near 30 led the researcher to interpret a less evolved portion of a pegmatite.
Exotic is a supplied Euphoralite type or trade name. These findings describe the individual tested specimen, sample 92851.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. All 4 report pages are included.
Submitted by John Murphy; analyzed by Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Shared by Soul Body Gems with John Murphy’s permission. Any reference to this report should acknowledge John Murphy, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum.
Understanding the report figures
Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (muscovite).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2. (albite).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 3 in Fig. 2. (quartz)
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 6: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 4 in Fig. 2. (tourmaline – schorl-elbaite series)
- Element map: This map shows where the named elements occur within the analyzed area. Its colors represent the laboratory’s selected element channels, rather than the specimen’s visible colors. The caption below preserves any color key or distribution noted by the laboratory.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 7: X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 2. Sodium: red, potassium: green, silicon: orange.
Read the complete report as text
Analytical Result Report
Sample id: 92851 (Exotic Euphoralite)
Submitted by: J. Murphy
Date submitted: Aug. 16, 2021.
Date completed: September 4, 2021.
Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.
Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 5.8 cm maximum dimension.
Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (muscovite).
Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2. (albite).
Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 3 in Fig. 2. (quartz)
Fig. 6: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 4 in Fig. 2. (tourmaline – schorl-elbaite series)
Fig. 7: X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 2. Sodium: red, potassium: green, silicon: orange.
Table 1: Some interesting minor, major and trace elements present in the specimen (in wt. %).
Iron
0.63
Manganese
0.02
Phosphorus
0.02
Titanium
0.02
Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) consists mainly of muscovite (Figs. 2 and 3), albite (Figs. 2 and 4), quartz (Figs. 2 and 5) and tourmaline of the schorl-elbaite series (Figs. 2 and 6). Iron is dominant over manganese (Table 1) and the K/Rb ratio is muscovite is about 30, thus the specimen came from a less evolved portion of a pegmatite.
Date: September 4, 2021 Signature
Euphoralite — GoldenMuscovite and albiteSample 92818 · August 3, 2021 · Submitted by John MurphyMuscovite and albite.View findings and report ↓
Testing and attribution
This specimen was submitted for testing by John Murphy to Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, the same geologist who analyzes Soul Body Gems specimens. The testing was undertaken in conjunction with Soul Body Gems, and this report is shared with John Murphy’s permission.
What the analysis found
Soul Body Gems supplied Golden as the Euphoralite type name; the original report header calls sample 92818 Snowball. The tested specimen mainly contains muscovite and albite, with muscovite more abundant. A K/Rb ratio near 25 and minor tin and tantalum informed the pegmatite interpretation. A coating soluble in ethanol was recorded.
Golden is a supplied Euphoralite type or trade name. These findings describe the individual tested specimen, sample 92818.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. All 3 report pages are included.
Submitted by John Murphy; analyzed by Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Shared by Soul Body Gems with John Murphy’s permission. Any reference to this report should acknowledge John Murphy, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum.
Understanding the report figures
Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (muscovite)
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2 (plagioclase – albite).
Read the complete report as text
Analytical Result Report
Sample id: 92818 (Snowball)
Submitted by: J. Murphy
Date submitted: July 22, 2021.
Date completed: August 3, 2021.
Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.
Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 3.5 cm maximum dimension.
Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (muscovite)
Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2 (plagioclase – albite).
Table 1: Some interesting trace elements present in the muscovite (in wt. %).
Iron
0.14
Rubidium
0.34
Tin
0.02
Manganese
0.19
Tantalum
0.03
Zinc
0.12
Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) consists mainly of muscovite (Figs. 2 and 3) and albite (Figs. 2 and 4). Fig 5 shows that muscovite is more abundant than albite. Table 1 shows that the muscovite is not highly evolved from a geochemical point, the K/Rb ratio is around 25. However, the presence of a little tin and tantalum indicate that it has evolved past a primitive geochemical signature. Like all the other specimen, this one had a coating that was soluble in ethanol.
Date: August 3, 2021 Signature
Euphoralite — Golden GaiaMuscovite with a small mass of quartzSample 92816 · August 2, 2021 · Submitted by John MurphyMuscovite with a small mass of quartz.View findings and report ↓
Testing and attribution
This specimen was submitted for testing by John Murphy to Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, the same geologist who analyzes Soul Body Gems specimens. The testing was undertaken in conjunction with Soul Body Gems, and this report is shared with John Murphy’s permission.
What the analysis found
The bulk of the specimen is muscovite, with a small mass of quartz at the back. Rubidium measured 0.52 wt.% and the K/Rb ratio was approximately 19. The researcher interpreted a moderately evolved granitic pegmatite associated with compressional conditions.
Golden Gaia is a supplied Euphoralite type or trade name. These findings describe the individual tested specimen, sample 92816.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. All 3 report pages are included.
Submitted by John Murphy; analyzed by Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Shared by Soul Body Gems with John Murphy’s permission. Any reference to this report should acknowledge John Murphy, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum.
Understanding the report figures
Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (muscovite)
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of the quartz area on the other side of the specimen (quartz)
- Element map: This map shows where the named elements occur within the analyzed area. Its colors represent the laboratory’s selected element channels, rather than the specimen’s visible colors. The caption below preserves any color key or distribution noted by the laboratory.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 5: X-ray map for potassium (red).
Read the complete report as text
Analytical Result Report
Sample id: 92816 (Golden Gaia)
Submitted by: J. Murphy
Date submitted: July 22, 2021.
Date completed: August 2, 2021.
Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.
Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 5 cm maximum dimension.
Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (muscovite)
Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of the quartz area on the other side of the specimen (quartz)
Fig. 5: X-ray map for potassium (red).
Table 1: Some interesting trace elements present in the muscovite (in wt. %).
Iron
0.87
Bismuth
0.02
Niobium
0.01
Tantalum
0.06
Rubidium
0.52
Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) is a very interesting specimen that formed in a granitic pegmatite, in the type that is related to compressional regimes. The bulk of the specimen is muscovite with f(Figs. 2 and 3) fairly high rubidium content (Table 1). The potassium/rubidium ratio is approximately 19 which indicates a moderately evolved pegmatite from a geochemical point of view. The X-ray map shown in Fig. 5 shows homogenous distribution of potassium, thus muscovite in the area of the specimen shown in Fig. 2. In the back of the specimen is a small mass of quartz (Fig. 4).
Date: August 2, 2021 Signature
Euphoralite — HarmonyMuscovite, lepidolite, albite and tourmalineSample 92845 · September 4, 2021 · Submitted by John MurphyMuscovite, lepidolite, albite and tourmaline.View findings and report ↓
Testing and attribution
This specimen was submitted for testing by John Murphy to Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, the same geologist who analyzes Soul Body Gems specimens. The testing was undertaken in conjunction with Soul Body Gems, and this report is shared with John Murphy’s permission.
What the analysis found
The specimen contains muscovite, lepidolite, albite and a nest of schorl–elbaite-series tourmaline. The mica K/Rb ratios and measurable tin and tantalum indicate chemical evolution. The report describes an epoxy patch around the tourmaline nest, possibly intended to prevent crumbling.
Harmony is a supplied Euphoralite type or trade name. These findings describe the individual tested specimen, sample 92845.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. All 4 report pages are included.
Submitted by John Murphy; analyzed by Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Shared by Soul Body Gems with John Murphy’s permission. Any reference to this report should acknowledge John Murphy, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum.
Understanding the report figures
Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (muscovite).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2. (lepidolite).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 3 in Fig. 2. (tourmaline elbaite-schorl series). Some zinc is present which overlaps with the sodium peak.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 6: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 4 in Fig. 2. (albite).
- Element map: This map shows where the named elements occur within the analyzed area. Its colors represent the laboratory’s selected element channels, rather than the specimen’s visible colors. The caption below preserves any color key or distribution noted by the laboratory.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 7: X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 2. Potassium = green, sodium = red, iron = blue. Right: Carbon = yellow
Read the complete report as text
Analytical Result Report
Sample id: 92845 (Harmony Euphoralite)
Submitted by: J. Murphy
Date submitted: Aug. 16, 2021.
Date completed: September 4, 2021.
Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.
Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 4.3 cm maximum dimension.
Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (muscovite).
Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2. (lepidolite).
Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 3 in Fig. 2. (tourmaline elbaite-schorl series). Some zinc is present which overlaps with the sodium peak.
Fig. 6: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 4 in Fig. 2. (albite).
Fig. 7: X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 2. Potassium = green, sodium = red, iron = blue. Right: Carbon = yellow
Table 1: Some interesting minor, major and trace elements present in the specimen (in wt. %).
Iron
0.07
Calcium
0.10
Manganese
0.11
Tin
0.03
Tantalum
0.01
Rubidium
0.68
Titanium
0.01
Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) is essentially composed of two micas: muscovite (Figs. 2, 3), and 7 and lepidolite (Figs 2, 4 and 7). Albite is also present (Figs. 2, 5 and 7) as well as a nest of tourmaline of the schorl-elbaite series (Figs. 2, 6, and 7). The K/Rb of the muscovite is 15.5, that of the lepidolite, 12.0, indicative of chemical evolution which is also supported by the presence of quantifiable tin and tantalum (Tale 1). Around the tourmaline nest is a patch of some sort of epoxy (Figs. 2 and 7) which may have been placed there to prevent the tourmaline from crumbling.
Date: September 4, 2021 Signature
Euphoralite — IceLepidolite, quartz and blue tourmalineSample 92817 · August 2, 2021 · Submitted by John MurphyLepidolite, quartz and blue tourmaline.View findings and report ↓
Testing and attribution
This specimen was submitted for testing by John Murphy to Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, the same geologist who analyzes Soul Body Gems specimens. The testing was undertaken in conjunction with Soul Body Gems, and this report is shared with John Murphy’s permission.
What the analysis found
The specimen mainly contains lepidolite and quartz, with a few blue areas identified as schorl–elbaite-series tourmaline. A K/Rb ratio of 7 led the researcher to interpret highly evolved granitic pegmatite material, likely from a core margin or core zone. A coating soluble in ethanol was recorded. The report itself dates completion August 2, 2021, despite the filename’s August 3 date.
Ice is a supplied Euphoralite type or trade name. These findings describe the individual tested specimen, sample 92817.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. All 4 report pages are included.
Submitted by John Murphy; analyzed by Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Shared by Soul Body Gems with John Murphy’s permission. Any reference to this report should acknowledge John Murphy, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum.
Understanding the report figures
Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (lepidolite)
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2 (quartz).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of the bluish tourmaline.
- Element map: This map shows where the named elements occur within the analyzed area. Its colors represent the laboratory’s selected element channels, rather than the specimen’s visible colors. The caption below preserves any color key or distribution noted by the laboratory.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 6: X-ray map of the specimen for silicon (red) and potassium (red), so the bright green shows the quartz and the more brownish area is the lepidolite.
Read the complete report as text
Analytical Result Report
Sample id: 92817 (Ice)
Submitted by: J. Murphy
Date submitted: July 22, 2021.
Date completed: August 2, 2021.
Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.
Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 6 cm maximum dimension.
Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (lepidolite)
Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2 (quartz).
Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of the bluish tourmaline.
Fig. 6: X-ray map of the specimen for silicon (red) and potassium (red), so the bright green shows the quartz and the more brownish area is the lepidolite.
Table 1: Some interesting trace elements present in the muscovite (in wt. %).
Iron
0.14
Tin
0.02
Manganese
0.19
Tantalum
0.03
Zinc
0.12
Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) consists mainly of lepidolite (Figs. 2, 3 and 6) and quartz (Figs. 2, 4 and 6). This specimen came from a granitic pegmatite, the portion it was taken from indicates high degree of geochemical evolution, the K/Rb ratio is 7 which is very low. Likely, the material came from the core margin or core zone of a pegmatite. A few blue areas are tourmaline of the schorl-elbaite series. (Fig. 5). Like all the other specimen, this one had a coating that was soluble in ethanol.
Date: August 2, 2021 Signature
Euphoralite — IlluminationGreen tourmaline and muscoviteSample 92817 · August 3, 2021 · John MurphyView findings and report ↓
Green tourmaline and muscovite.
Sample 92817 · August 3, 2021
Testing and attribution
Submitted for testing by John Murphy to Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, the same geologist who analyzes Soul Body Gems specimens. Testing was undertaken in conjunction with Soul Body Gems; shared with John Murphy’s permission.
What the analysis found
Green schorl–elbaite-series tourmaline occurs with muscovite. Iron accounts for the tourmaline’s green color. The mica K/Rb ratio near 16 was interpreted as moderate geochemical evolution. The report records a coating soluble in ethanol.
Illumination is the supplied Euphoralite type or trade name. Findings describe this individual specimen.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. All 3 pages are included.
Submitted by John Murphy; analyzed by Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Shared with John Murphy’s permission. References should acknowledge John Murphy, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum.
Understanding the report figures
Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (elbaite-schorl series tourmaline)
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2 (muscovite)
Read the complete report as text
Analytical Result Report
Sample id: 92817 (Illumination)
Submitted by: J. Murphy
Date submitted: July 22, 2021.
Date completed: August 3, 2021.
Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.
Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 4 cm maximum dimension.
Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (elbaite-schorl series tourmaline)
Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2 (muscovite)
Table 1: Some interesting trace elements present in the muscovite (in wt. %).
Iron
0.63
Tin
0.17
Niobium
0.02
Tantalum
0.08
Rubidium
0.65
Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) is a specimen of green tourmaline of the schorl-elbaite series (Figs 2-3) with muscovite (Figs. 2 and 4). This is a specimen from a granitic pegmatite. The muscovite indicates moderate geochemical evolution of the pegmatite sone where this specimen was recovered from, the K/Rb ratio is approximately 16. The tourmaline belongs to the schorl elbaite series and has an iron content of 3.7-4.5 wt. % FeO. The iron is responsible for its green color. Like all the other specimen, this one had a coating that was soluble in ethanol.
Date: August 3, 2021 Signature
Euphoralite — LunaFine-grained yellow muscoviteSample 92844 · September 4, 2021 · John MurphyView findings and report ↓
Fine-grained yellow muscovite.
Sample 92844 · September 4, 2021
Testing and attribution
Submitted for testing by John Murphy to Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, the same geologist who analyzes Soul Body Gems specimens. Testing was undertaken in conjunction with Soul Body Gems; shared with John Murphy’s permission.
What the analysis found
The specimen is essentially fine-grained, very uniform yellow muscovite. Its K/Rb ratio of 12.6, together with detectable tin and tantalum, was interpreted as evidence of an evolved pegmatite.
Luna is the supplied Euphoralite type or trade name. Findings describe this individual specimen.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. All 3 pages are included.
Submitted by John Murphy; analyzed by Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Shared with John Murphy’s permission. References should acknowledge John Murphy, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum.
Understanding the report figures
Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (muscovite).
- Element map: This map shows where the named elements occur within the analyzed area. Its colors represent the laboratory’s selected element channels, rather than the specimen’s visible colors. The caption below preserves any color key or distribution noted by the laboratory.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 2. Potassium = green, sodium = red. Note uniform and overwhelming potassium signal.
Read the complete report as text
Analytical Result Report
Sample id: 92844 (Luna Euphoralite)
Submitted by: J. Murphy
Date submitted: Aug. 16, 2021.
Date completed: September 4, 2021.
Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.
Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 4.8 cm maximum dimension.
Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (muscovite).
Fig. 4: X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 2. Potassium = green, sodium = red. Note uniform and overwhelming potassium signal.
Table 1: Some interesting minor, major and trace elements present in the specimen (in wt. %).
Iron
0.81
Calcium
0.05
Manganese
0.02
Tin
0.14
Tantalum
0.04
Rubidium
0.75
Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) is essentially composed of yellow muscovite. The muscovite is fine-grained and very uniform. Its K/Rb is 12.6 which indicates an evolved pegmatite. The presence of detectable tin and tantalum supports this as well.
Date: September 4, 2021 Signature
Euphoralite — PangeaMuscovite with manganese oxide filmsSample 92867 · January 16, 2022 · John MurphyView findings and report ↓
Muscovite with manganese oxide films.
Sample 92867 · January 16, 2022
Testing and attribution
Submitted for testing by John Murphy to Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, the same geologist who analyzes Soul Body Gems specimens. Testing was undertaken in conjunction with Soul Body Gems; shared with John Murphy’s permission.
What the analysis found
The specimen is essentially muscovite, with uniform aluminum and silicon distribution. Dark areas are thin manganese oxide films along mica cleavage planes. A K/Rb ratio of 25 was interpreted as moderate geochemical evolution.
Pangea is the supplied Euphoralite type or trade name. Findings describe this individual specimen.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. All 4 pages are included.
Submitted by John Murphy; analyzed by Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Shared with John Murphy’s permission. References should acknowledge John Murphy, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum.
Understanding the report figures
Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (muscovite).
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: Backscattered electron image of the specimen, different area.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 4. (muscovite).
- Element map: This map shows where the named elements occur within the analyzed area. Its colors represent the laboratory’s selected element channels, rather than the specimen’s visible colors. The caption below preserves any color key or distribution noted by the laboratory.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 6: X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 4. Silicon: red, aluminum: green..
Read the complete report as text
Analytical Result Report
Sample id: 92867 (Pangea Euphoralite)
Submitted by: J. Murphy
Date submitted: Jan 9, 2022.
Date completed: Jan. 16, 2022.
Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.
A Bruker Titan XRF unit was used in the analysis and operated at 50 kV for 30 seconds, 25kV for 30 seconds and 10 kV for 30 seconds.
Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 4 cm maximum dimension.
Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (muscovite).
Fig. 4: Backscattered electron image of the specimen, different area.
Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 4. (muscovite).
Fig. 6: X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 4. Silicon: red, aluminum: green..
Table 1: Some interesting minor, major and trace elements present in the specimen (in wt. %).
Iron
0.88
Manganese
0.12
Rubidium
0.36
Zinc
0.06
Titanium
0.02
Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) is an interesting specimen. It is essentially composed of muscovite alone (Figs. 2-6). The X-ray map (Fig. 6) shows homogenous aluminum/silicon distribution. The K/Rb ratio is 25 which moderately evolved geochemically. The dark areas are thin films of manganese oxide that formed along cleavage planes of the muscovite. This is typical pegmatite material.
Date: January 16, 2022 Signature
Euphoralite — Red DragonPotassium feldspar-rich pegmatite with schistSample 92820 · August 3, 2021 · John MurphyView findings and report ↓
Potassium feldspar-rich pegmatite with schist.
Sample 92820 · August 3, 2021
Testing and attribution
Submitted for testing by John Murphy to Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, the same geologist who analyzes Soul Body Gems specimens. Testing was undertaken in conjunction with Soul Body Gems; shared with John Murphy’s permission.
What the analysis found
The specimen contains a potassium feldspar-rich portion of granitic pegmatite in contact with foliated metamorphic country rock. The country rock contains microcline, quartz, biotite–phlogopite-series mica and apatite. The report describes it as schist, with iron and magnesium concentrated in the mica, and records a coating soluble in ethanol.
Red Dragon is the supplied Euphoralite type or trade name. Findings describe this individual specimen.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. All 5 pages are included.
Submitted by John Murphy; analyzed by Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Shared with John Murphy’s permission. References should acknowledge John Murphy, Alexander Falster and the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum.
Understanding the report figures
Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (potassium feldspar - microcline). Country rock section.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2 (quartz). Country rock section.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 4 in Fig. 2 (biotite-phlogopite series mica). Country rock section.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 6: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 5 in Fig. 2 (apatite). Country rock section.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 7: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 5 in Fig. 2 (potassium feldspar - microcline). Pegmatite portion
- Element map: This map shows where the named elements occur within the analyzed area. Its colors represent the laboratory’s selected element channels, rather than the specimen’s visible colors. The caption below preserves any color key or distribution noted by the laboratory.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 8: X-ray maps: left: potassium:red, sodium: blue. Potassium shows where micas and potassium feldspars are, blue shoows plagioclase. Middle: potassium:red, sodium: blue, iron: yellow. Iron-ich micas show up very well. Right: calcium: orange, phosphorus: teal. Bright spots are apatite
Read the complete report as text
Analytical Result Report
Sample id: 92820 (Red Dragon)
Submitted by: J. Murphy
Date submitted: July 22, 2021.
Date completed: August 3, 2021.
Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.
Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 3.2 cm maximum dimension.
Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (potassium feldspar - microcline). Country rock section.
Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2 (quartz). Country rock section.
Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 4 in Fig. 2 (biotite-phlogopite series mica). Country rock section.
Fig. 6: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 5 in Fig. 2 (apatite). Country rock section.
Fig. 7: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 5 in Fig. 2 (potassium feldspar - microcline). Pegmatite portion
Fig. 8: X-ray maps: left: potassium:red, sodium: blue. Potassium shows where micas and potassium feldspars are, blue shoows plagioclase. Middle: potassium:red, sodium: blue, iron: yellow. Iron-ich micas show up very well. Right: calcium: orange, phosphorus: teal. Bright spots are apatite
Table 1: Some interesting minor, major and trace elements present in the muscovite (in wt. %).
Reddish potassium feldspar
Country rock
Rubidium
0.06
0.03
Phosphorus
0.05
0.19
Magnesium
0.05
2.68
Iron
0.22
6.77
Calcium
1.1
0.08
Titanium
0.45
0.01
Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) consists of a potassium feldspar-rich portion of a granitic pegmatite with foliated, metamorphic country rock in contact. The country rock section is composed of potassium feldspar (microcline (Figs 2-3), quartz (Figs. 2 and 4), biotite-phlogopite series mica (Figs. 2 and 5) and apatite (Figs. 2 and 6). The pegmatitic feldspar’s EDS scan is shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 8 shows X-ra maps that help visualize the distribution of feldspars, quartz, micas and apatite. Select elements are shown in table 2 to contrast the two portions. The country rock is essentially a schist with biotite-phlogopite as the main iron and magnesium mineral. Like all the other specimen, this one had a coating that was soluble in ethanol.
Date: August 3, 2021 Signature
Euphoralite — SnowballQuartz and albite with lepidolite and tourmalineSample 92821 · August 5, 2021 · John MurphyView findings and report ↓
Testing and attribution
Submitted for testing by John Murphy to Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, the same geologist who analyzes Soul Body Gems specimens. Testing was undertaken in conjunction with Soul Body Gems; shared with John Murphy’s permission.
What the analysis found
The specimen consists mainly of quartz and albite, with a little lepidolite and minor elbaite–schorl-series tourmaline described as dominantly elbaitic. The researcher interpreted it as material from the interior of a granitic pegmatite, including cleavelandite units. A lepidolite K/Rb ratio of 12 indicates a fractionated system. The report also records a coating soluble in ethanol.
Snowball is the supplied Euphoralite type or trade name. Findings describe this individual specimen.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. All 4 pages are included.
Submitted by John Murphy; analyzed by Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Shared with John Murphy’s permission. References should acknowledge all three.
Understanding the report figures
Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (quartz).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2 (plagioclase - albite).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 4 in Fig. 2 (lepidolite).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 6: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 5 in Fig. 2 (tourmaline -elbaite-schorl series)
Read the complete report as text
Analytical Result Report
Sample id: 92821 (Snowball)
Submitted by: J. Murphy
Date submitted: July 22, 2021.
Date completed: August 5 2021.
Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.
Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 2.7 cm maximum dimension.
Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (quartz).
Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2 (plagioclase - albite).
Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 4 in Fig. 2 (lepidolite).
Fig. 6: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 5 in Fig. 2 (tourmaline -elbaite-schorl series)
Table 1: Some interesting minor, major and trace elements present in the specimen (in wt. %).
Iron
0.03
Phosphorus
0.01
Manganese
0.01
Calcium
0.07
Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) consists mainly of quartz (Figs. 2-3), albite (Figs. 2 and 4) with a little lepidolite (Figs. 2 and 5) and minor tourmaline of the elbaite-schorl series (Figs. 2 and 6) with dominantly elbaitic composition. It was derived from a granitic pegmatite’s interior where the cleavelandite units were. Cleavelandite is a platy variety of albite, the sodium-dominant plagioclase. Potassium /rubidium ratio measured from the lepidolite is 12 which indicates a fractionated system, consistent with the suggestion that it came from the interior of the pegmatite. Like all the other specimen, this one had a coating that was soluble in ethanol.
Date: August 5, 2021 Signature
Euphoralite — TranscendenceAlbite, quartz and schorl–elbaite tourmalineSample 92850 · September 4, 2021 · John MurphyView findings and report ↓
Testing and attribution
Submitted for testing by John Murphy to Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, the same geologist who analyzes Soul Body Gems specimens. Testing was undertaken in conjunction with Soul Body Gems; shared with John Murphy’s permission.
What the analysis found
Albite is the dominant mineral, accompanied by quartz and tourmaline of the schorl–elbaite series. The researcher interpreted the specimen as material from the outer, less evolved zones of a pegmatite, where iron dominates over manganese.
Transcendence is the supplied Euphoralite type or trade name. Findings describe this individual specimen.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. All 4 pages are included.
Submitted by John Murphy; analyzed by Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Shared with John Murphy’s permission. References should acknowledge all three.
Understanding the report figures
Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (albite).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2. (quartz).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 3 in Fig. 2. (tourmaline – schorl-elbaite series
- Element map: This map shows where the named elements occur within the analyzed area. Its colors represent the laboratory’s selected element channels, rather than the specimen’s visible colors. The caption below preserves any color key or distribution noted by the laboratory.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 6 : X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 2. Sodium: red, potassium: green.
Read the complete report as text
Analytical Result Report
Sample id: 92850 (Transcendence Euphoralite)
Submitted by: J. Murphy
Date submitted: Aug. 16, 2021.
Date completed: September 4, 2021.
Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.
Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 3.5 cm maximum dimension.
Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (albite).
Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2. (quartz).
Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 3 in Fig. 2. (tourmaline – schorl-elbaite series
Fig. 6 : X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 2. Sodium: red, potassium: green.
Table 1: Some interesting minor, major and trace elements present in the specimen (in wt. %).
Iron
0.39
Manganese
0.02
Phosphorus
0.06
Titanium
0.01
Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) consists mainly of albite (Figs. 2 and 3), quartz (Figs. 2 and 4), and tourmaline of the schorl-elbaite series (Figs 2 and 5). Albite is dominant (Fig. 6). This likely taken from the outer, less evolved zones of a pegmatite where iron dominates over manganese (Table 1)
Date: September 4, 2021 Signature
Euphoralite — TransformationQuartz, potassium feldspar and lacroixiteSample 92848 · September 4, 2021 · John MurphyView findings and report ↓
Testing and attribution
Submitted for testing by John Murphy to Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum, the same geologist who analyzes Soul Body Gems specimens. Testing was undertaken in conjunction with Soul Body Gems; shared with John Murphy’s permission.
What the analysis found
The specimen contains quartz, potassium feldspar (likely microcline), and lacroixite. Lacroixite is a sodium aluminum phosphate, contrasted in the report with lithium-bearing montebrasite. The researcher describes the bulk composition as less highly evolved, while highlighting the unusual mineral combination.
Transformation is the supplied Euphoralite type or trade name. Findings describe this individual specimen.
Original analytical report
Select a page to enlarge it. All 4 pages are included.
Submitted by John Murphy; analyzed by Alexander Falster at the Maine Mineral & Gem Museum. Shared with John Murphy’s permission. References should acknowledge all three.
Understanding the report figures
Use this guide alongside the written findings and the original report transcript. It explains the purpose of each analytical figure and preserves the laboratory’s own figure labels. The interpretations apply to the tested specimen; signals alone do not establish the identity of every similar-looking stone.
- Electron microscope image: This view shows small-scale regions selected for analysis. Its brightness contrast helps distinguish regions with different compositions; it is not a photograph of their natural colors. Numbered spots connect this view to the analyses listed in the report.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (potassium feldspar, likely microcline).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2. (quartz).
- Elemental spectrum: The peaks record characteristic X-ray signals from elements in the analyzed spot or area. This is an analysis of that location, not automatically of the entire specimen. Any mineral identification or uncertainty named in the laboratory caption is retained below.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 3 in Fig. 2. (lacroixite).
- Element map: This map shows where the named elements occur within the analyzed area. Its colors represent the laboratory’s selected element channels, rather than the specimen’s visible colors. The caption below preserves any color key or distribution noted by the laboratory.
Laboratory figure caption: Fig. 5: X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 2. Phosphorus: orange, silicon: blue.
Read the complete report as text
Analytical Result Report
Sample id: 92848 (Transformation Euphoralite)
Submitted by: J. Murphy
Date submitted: Aug. 16, 2021.
Date completed: September 4, 2021.
Operating conditions: An AMRAY 1830 SEM operated at 25 kV acceleration potential, 26 mm working distance, 15 degrees sample tilt, coated with 250 Å carbon. Using the X-ray fluorescence attachment with 35 kV potential in conjunction with the EDS system.
Fig. 1: Photograph of the specimen. 3.5 cm maximum dimension.
Fig. 2: Backscattered electron image of the specimen.
Fig. 3: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 1 in Fig. 2. (potassium feldspar, likely microcline).
Fig. 4: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 2 in Fig. 2. (quartz).
Fig. 5: Energy dispersive spectral analysis of spot 3 in Fig. 2. (lacroixite).
Fig. 5: X-ray map of the area shown in Fig. 2. Phosphorus: orange, silicon: blue.
Table 1: Some interesting minor, major and trace elements present in the specimen (in wt. %).
Iron
0.55
Manganese
0.05
Tin
0.02
Magnesium
0.55
Titanium
0.01
Summary of findings: This specimen (Fig. 1) is very interesting! It is composed of quartz (Figs. 2 and 3), potassium feldspar, likely microcline (Figs. 2 and 4) and lacroixite (Figs, 2,5 and 6)! Lacroixite is a sodium aluminum phosphate, similar to montebrasite but montebrasite contains lithium instead of sodium. In bulk composition, this material is not as highly evolved, see magnesium content for example but the interesting mineralogy is certainly a surprise!
Date: September 4, 2021 Signature
Reports will appear here as we add and verify them.
No reports match that search. Try a number, sample ID, or mineral.
How to read these results
The report attached to each entry records the findings for one submitted specimen. Similar appearance or a shared trade name does not guarantee identical composition. We will distinguish laboratory findings from vendor descriptions and our own observations.