I think they look so so compared to the real deal.
Wink''s interlaps look more real than the ziamond (in my opinion). www.freecz.com
I have bought two stones in CZ from Wink and they are very very lovely stones.
A diamond has amazing properties that (to me) warrant that major mark-up over any other stone on the market. I have been analyzing diamond all day for the past two weeks almost, and I have to say, even the included diaomnds with yellow color look better than a CZ.
Some differences include that adamantine lustre a diamond has that no other stone has. That means it shines and sparkles unlike any other stone. It''s hardness is absolutely at the top of the scale, meaning these stones can be worn for YEARS and still show little wear and tear. A CZ will wear away (with good care) in one generation. They are very rarely seen in antique jewelery without abrasions on the table and top facets...They are simply too soft for daily wear and tear...
Also, they refelctive properties are so different to me (a somewhat training eye). I have CZ and at once they looked great, but now they just look fake. Their weight, their lustre, their refeactive properties, all look different. Personally I prefer CZ to Mossanite, as I think the double refraction of Moissanite is not too realistic, as well as the greenigh color, it supposedly has (haven''t seen it yet). CZ stones are actually used as master stone sometimes, as a cheap alternative to diamond grading stones that people use to figure out the color of diamonds by comparison...BUT CZ''s tend to yellow through time, so they are NEVER as accurate as a diamond, and truly, NOTHING sparkles quite like one. Add to that the rarity of a well cut, good quality stone in a nice size and you have why people prefer the REAL thing to a simulant...
Here are some comparison shots with my mom's 1.24ct, D, VVS2 w/ 1ctw princess diamonds set in mount, and my 1.5ct Interlap, both set in Platinum..
Here's a flanders interlap set in 18kt white gold with .40ct pave-set diamonds: