with these gems, there are doubtless several hard and beautiful stones which are found in less abundance, but which remain less costly because in less demand. Yet there is something to be said in favour of the high position commonly given to the diamond, the ruby, the emerald, the sapphire, and we may add the pearl and the opal: they all possess a very conspicuous and obvious beauty. By brilliancy and colour they force themselves upon our attention, while the spinel, the jargoon, and the tourmaline generally need to be studied, to be looked into, that their merits may be discovered. But the argument that beautiful stones ought not to be employed in the higher kinds of bijouterie unless they are costly is an unworthy one. It will not bear criticism. Why should not moonstones, even if they can be bought for a shilling apiece, be introduced into goldsmiths' work of the most artistic sort? Surely they may rank at least with coloured enamels, which are of extremely small money value, but which are prized highly when employed with skill in well-designed jewels.
It has been before stated that the caprice of fashion influences and alters the market value of precious stones from time to time. The peridot, the amethyst, the cat's-eye, and the aquamarine have each had their day, and then been abandoned for new favourites. Even the emerald has suffered vicissitudes, and so has the opal. The causes of such changes in the popular esteem in which particular species of gems are held cannot often be traced. A new fashion is set or an old one restored, and once set is blindly followed. The introduction of a little-known gem, however beautiful it may be, is generally a most difficult matter. A jeweller who was in the first rank of artistic workers was showing a customer a bracelet beautifully set with the rich green garnets of Bobrovka. This lady admired the stones and the workmanship immensely, but spoke of the former as emeralds. The jeweller honestly said: "They are not emeralds, but a rare sort of garnet from the Ural
