They believe they have a way.

Post #318,237 by Andrew Grygus 12/7/09 12:02:41 PM Reply	They believe they have a way. I think it was X-Ray splatter but I don't remember for sure. They are hoping it will be an easy way to tell man-made from natural diamonds. Of course, identifying them isn't going to help in the long run. When people get used to gem quality diamonds at US $2.00/carat (manufacturing cost target), who really cares if its natural or not.
Post #318,239 by folkert 12/7/09 1:20:59 PM Reply	Exactly. At $2/carat price point... what difference does it make, especially since they look same.
Post #318,262 by mhuber 12/7/09 8:41:04 PM Reply	Diamonds are valuable because they are expensive. The look isn't the thing. A diamond is a pretty boring gem, really. And the more perfect, the more boring. Until you get to the ridiculously large, all a diamond has going for it is the message "somebody spent a pile of money on me". At $2.00/carat, glass is more romantic. This from a guy who's ring has a stone on it he can't identify, that he found in the sand in the Sahara.
Post #318,272 by drook 12/8/09 1:32:14 AM Reply	Naive question I thought (part of) the reason diamonds are valued as a gemstone is because of the way they reflect and refract light when cut well. Granted, those big hunks of crystal people hang from their rear-view mirrors do that, too. But are diamonds objectively better than other clear crystals at reflecting and refracting light? -- Drew
Post #318,273 by Andrew Grygus 12/8/09 2:40:19 AM Reply	The short answer is "yes". The refraction of diamonds makes them very brilliant - if cut in a very precise way at the proper angles - nothing else like it. A few crystals get close to the ballpark but not quite in it. Of course manufactured diamonds do just as well as natural ones, with fewer flaws.
Post #318,287 by drook 12/8/09 11:12:19 AM Reply	That's what I suspected, but ... I don't know if I've ever heard that from someone who wasn't paid by DeBeers. But if it's true, then diamonds in jewelry are still better than a random piece of glass of the same shape. How much better is a good question, but not three months' salary worth. -- Drew
Post #318,288 by crazy 12/8/09 11:37:43 AM Reply	Wanna give me an education? Buzzwords, web pointers I can believe, etc. If I'm going to go in and make a deal, at least i should know what I'm negotiating for. Keep in mind the setting will obscure it a bit, only the top of the diamond will be seen since there is a white gold collar around the top.
Post #318,290 by boxley 12/8/09 11:44:30 AM Reply	go here, this is a respectable outfit http://gia4cs.gia.ed...54CFQwJswodjmWesQ but a little like having an MSCIE, different practitioners vary. At least the general stuff is there
Post #318,291 by drook 12/8/09 11:48:21 AM Reply	It still needs to be clear Light goes in the visible face, bounces around, comes back out different angles and different colors. If you've got an occlusion in the middle, the light stops there and doesn't come back out. That why, unlike opaque stones like opal, you don't need just one good face -- it has to be good all the way through. -- Drew
Post #318,297 by Another Scott 12/8/09 12:48:14 PM Reply	Better? Dunno. As Andrew says, diamond has a pretty high refractive index which gives lots of fire and color when the light is refracted. Here's a pretty good page on diamond properties: http://nature.berkel...//wisc/Lect6.html Diamond (C) Refractive Index = 2.42 Lead Glass (SiO2+PbOx) Refractive Index ~ 1.70 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_glass Cubic Zirconia (ZrO2) Refractive Index = 2.15Â2.18 http://en.wikipedia....ki/Cubic_zirconia Moissanite (Silicon Carbide) Refractive Index = 2.65-2.69 http://en.wikipedia....n_carbide#Jewelry The angles of the facets would need to be adjusted as the refractive index changes. There are other differences in the materials that affect how the light is scattered (e.g. birefringence). HTH a little. Cheers, Scott.
Post #318,254 by static 12/7/09 5:35:50 PM Reply	Latest advertising suggests they're playing on perception. That is, they're implying artificial gemstones are inferior to natural ones. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #318,267 by Andrew Grygus 12/7/09 9:53:57 PM Reply	When the opposite is more likely true.
Post #318,274 by crazy 12/8/09 4:00:45 AM Reply	I'll be buying one today or tomorrow. I'll insist that at least 10 children died for my diamond or it just won't feel like it has any value.
Post #318,276 by folkert 12/8/09 4:07:50 AM Reply	Just make sure... you buy it from a DeBeers sanctioned/supported seller. All will be right in the world crazy knows.
Post #318,279 by crazy 12/8/09 7:12:24 AM Reply	Clueless Local guy. He could be selling me a glass fake for all I know. Key issue is he has to make the ring. It is a special nurses / healthcare worker ring. No edges. Nothing to snag. Nothing to cut a person with at all. Of course, it is also good for me.
Post #318,301 by folkert 12/8/09 1:33:59 PM Reply	Something like... Trained/Certified by the Gemological Institute of the Americas or some such crap. Sure, get a DeBeers Diamond, its really the only one to get right now. Most of the Synthetic ones are "taken" off the market by some as yet unknown presence. Only time and quantity will force DeBeers.
Post #318,280 by Another Scott 12/8/09 7:16:00 AM Reply	Congrats!

Welcome to IWETHEY!