Yes, Thank you.
I had seen this. I actually have a bit of vintage turquoise from my dad that he purchased in the 1970's-1980's that originated from the Gem Blue mine and the Kingman mines, but I also have a much bigger amount of what I assume to be vintage chrysocolla from the same era and not turquoise (it looks similar to your stones.) some of it was mixed in with lots of agates and jaspers and not labelled originally. I was curious if any of my chrysocolla might actually have turquoise too. I'm guessing not, but I can't really tell from your description. It may be one of those things where I'll just assume it's all chrysocolla.
There are tests that can be run such as hardness and density, which is not super reliable but helps. Acid testing is also a way to go if there is extra material to test. Chrysocolla is a copper silicate and thus will not react to the acid as where turquoise, which is a copper aluminum phosphate dissolves slowly in hydrochloric acid. I have also run phosphate tests using ammonium molybdate on some stones I suspect of being turquoise since chrysocolla does not contain phosphate. Therefore a positive test can confirm turquoise.
One reason I seriously doubt this is chrysocolla is the fact that chrysocolla tends to occur in rounded shapes such as botryoidal or bubble forms.
A major issue I have had for a long time is that the term "chrysocolla" gets used loosely by a lot of people to name any unidentified copper ores, which leads to a lot of confusion of what chrysocolla is. In fact I have so called "experts" call stones that were too hard, too dense, that tested positive for high levels of phosphate and dissolve in acid still call these stones chrysocolla when it is impossible for it to be chrysocolla. I even had one idiot down in Quartzite that called the hard material I had that tested positive for high levels of phosphate and again reacted to acid "crapcolla". This is jewelry made from the material, which all tests indicate turquoise. It took a polish with no problem and did not require any stabilization. Chysocolla tend to be very soft (2.5-3.5) and would likely need stabilization.
20161108_230632-1 - Copy by
James Sloane, on Flickr
Here are some unstabilized cabs made from the same material.
20160828_164515 by
James Sloane, on Flickr
20160828_164113 by
James Sloane, on Flickr
20160828_163842 by
James Sloane, on Flickr
20160828_164157 by
James Sloane, on Flickr
20160828_164640 by
James Sloane, on Flickr
20160828_164758 by
James Sloane, on Flickr
20160828_164825 by
James Sloane, on Flickr
Why would any person who actually knows what they are talking about call this "crapcolla" especially when all tests have ruled out any possibility of it being chrysocolla? And it is obviously not crap regardless. Some people seem to have a knee jerk reaction and they see a copper mineral and immediately it is chrysocolla in their mind.
And I have seen a lot of people refer to "silicated chrysocolla" simply as chrysocolla leading to more confusion. "Silicated chrysocolla" is not a chrysocolla. It is a chalcedony stained with copper salts. So this leads to more confusion as to what chrysocolla actually is.