Skip to table of contents

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Gemology and Jewelry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why is the title "Birthstones" as opposed to "Birthstone," the singular is better. When I type in "tractor" in Wikipedia, I expect to see a page named "tractor," not "tractors." --Coching (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the set of stones is what the article is about, not the idea of a solitary item like a tractor. --71.110.67.30 (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that "Birthstone" would be a better title. People ask themselves, "What's my birthstone?", and do not generally seek a reference to "birthstones". The 'tractor' example above is quite right. But I don't really see why it ought to be changed at this point, and the article does refer to the complete list and not just one stone.--Djathinkimacowboy 00:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done a great deal of fine-tuning to the article. Mainly it needed some of the uncited material and unconstructive prose removed. Also the sections have been reformatted and in some cases retitled to better reflect the content. This thing needs work. I'll see what I can do as time allows me, and gladly welcome any assistance.--Djathinkimacowboy 00:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two references used inline- the AGTA and the Jewelers of America pamphlet- do not disagree and are both allowed per Wikipedia citation rules. In fact, the JA pamphlet is a guide to gems in general, though it does include the birthstone month of a gem if it has one. The AGTA specifically names the modern birthstones used by jewelers in America. Both lists and references should be kept. I post this because the AGTA list was deleted and should not have been, in my opinion. It's too confusing for those who are seeking only the modern list. This could be modified if anybody could find a chart we could place in the lead.--Djathinkimacowboy 05:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of lists of modern birthstones. Each organization seems to have its own list, and each one seems to have one stone that none of the others have. I've looked at a lot of them, and the list below seems to reflect the general consensus, as seen on these websites: ^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

January - garnet

February - amethyst

March - aquamarine

April - diamond^[1][2][3][4] or^[5] white topaz

May - emerald

June - pearl^[1][2][3] or^[4] alexandrite^[5]

July - ruby

August - peridot

September - sapphire October - opal^[1][2][3] or^[4] pink tourmaline^[5]

November - citrine, pearl

December - blue topaz^[1][2][3][5] or^[4] tanzanite

All the stones on this list are included on dozens of lists. I changed this Wikipedia article to reflect this list, but someone else reverted my change. Although they didn't provide any source at all for their alternate alleged list. Is there any reason to believe that some other list is more authoritative than this list I've put together?

This list I put together goes for both the US and UK. Is there any reason to believe some other list is more authoritative for the UK than this list I've put together? - 173.171.162.145 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph should tell where/in which cultures birthstones are from/are commonly used etc. It should also be expanded in other manners too, it is too thin currently. --Lucasdealmeidasm (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Birthstone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jewellers-online.org/pages/tips.php?id=2&idnew=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222185020/http://www.jewelers.org/pdf/ConsEdcn/Gemstone%20Leaflets.pdf to http://www.jewelers.org/pdf/ConsEdcn/Gemstone%20Leaflets.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added more about the april gemstone, the diamond- like in minecraft- a rare ore/mineral. https://theuselessweb.com/ thanks to https://theuselessweb.com/ i found out what i wanted to do. Gemstones. :-)

Diamonds are valuable and yet, super rare. September's are Saphhier. (I think i spelled it wrong)Ilovehanna04 (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[reply]

re: "Diamonds are valuable and yet, super rare."

They aren't rare, this is a myth propagated by the DeBeers Corporation to keep people buying diamonds. 50.125.249.133 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "Birthstones by timeframe" table seems to have a redundant column for US (2019) and US (2022) (used to be 2021), with a source for the 2022 entry as some shady blog post. Does this article really need to be updated every year with a variety of blog posts about someone's opinion on what should be the birth stone that month? 50.125.249.133 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article does not need redundant info linked to commercial sources. I have removed it (again). 76.119.40.77 (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current link to Kuntz's "The curious lore of precious stones" contains a blurred, unreadable page. I found a clean copy at the Smithsonian (link to book). 73.218.17.248 (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that a reference is made to the 2021 update of Japan's list of birthstones, yet there is no list on the page of what these are. I cannot read Japanese and do not trust my computer to accurately translate for me, so I am making this an open request for a suitable column to be added to the table. Cynthia-Coriníon (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there are many websites confirming that there are TWO birthstones for january, garnet and rose quartz Realpala (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good to me. im not sure what sources you have but i wouldn't object if you went ahead and edited the article to include them, with citations. Cynthia-Coriníon (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC) Cynthia-Coriníon (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]