How is a diamond optically different from simulants?

[tenbinko]

I know that this is a diamond education site and the focus is on diamonds; my only intention is to find out what makes our expensive purchases worthwhile, to learn about that something that natural diamonds have that simulants don't. Many of us (myself included) have already spent a great deal of money buying natural diamonds... I'd hate to see somebody else with a diamond simulant that looks just as good as, or even better than, the real natural thing. And I've read on this forum that "Synthetic diamonds generally have the same chemical composition and crystal structure as natural diamonds and should not be confused with simulants like cubic zirconia and moissanite, which have different optical and physical characteristics."

Optically only, how is a real diamond different from simulants? According to my research, the only thing I found was that diamonds would generally exhibit more fire than simulants such as CZ, but would NOT be as brilliant?? Is that why some experts prefer bigger crown areas and smaller tables, to maximize the most distinguishing quality of real diamonds?

Just the optical diferences... I've researched ways labs can tell one from the other, but for us, it's in real life that we want to be able to show our friends that we've got these gems from mother nature.

And Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

 

[jstarfireb]

Here's a good explanation of the optical differences between diamonds and some popular simulants:
http://www.crystalandglassbeads.com...-zirconia-swarovski-whats-the-difference.html

Moissanite in particular actually has a higher refractive index and dispersion than diamond, but (1) the double refraction may cause a fuzzy appearance, and (2) it has a slight green tint which many people dislike.

Also, at 10 on the Mohs scale, diamond is the hardest substance known, meaning that it's more durable than any simulant.

For these reasons as well as the intangible benefit of having something mined from the earth instead of created in a lab, I prefer diamonds over any simulant.

 

[diamonds-are-friends]

moissanite offers more fire than diamonds due to its refractive index.

 

[denverappraiser]

A lot of the simulants look a lot like diamonds and are available for a whole lot less. That’s just the way it works. A properly cut CZ in anything like normal viewing conditions is completely indistinguishable from a similarly cut diamond. There are tricks, like hardness or thermal conductivity that make them easy enough to separate; there are lighting conditions, like high magnification or underwater that make it pretty easy; but overall there are substitutes are pretty darned good if you want one.

Does that mean diamonds are without merit?

I suppose it depends on your purpose. If the idea is to impress an onlooker then there are definitely cheaper ways to get the same result. Something that looks like a diamond may be every bit as good. Gold plating can look just like 18k, and platinum looks remarkably like steel and many other metals if you don’t resort to chemical or other tests. A picture of a Rembrandt looks just like a Rembrandt for a fraction of the price and if you hang one over your fireplace the neighbors will never know the difference unless you choose to tell them. So? Just because it looks like a diamond doesn’t make it a diamond any more than looking like a Rembrandt makes it a Rembrandt.

I have this picture hanging in my office. Translated it means ‘This is not an apple’. What is it then? It looks like an apple. It’s a picture of an apple. Actually it’s a photograph of a painting of an apple. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s not the same thing.

 

[TC1987]

Ha! Somebody else thinks platinum can look like steel, lol. If you know how to put a mirror polish on steel or even cast iron, those metals can look pretty, like jewelry metals, right up until the moment the rust blooms.

With cz, the game is over as soon as the cz gets dirty, which is essentially as soon as you start to wear it. CZs must be kept clean or their performance deteriorates immediately. Moissanite does better than CZ when dirty, but you still have the issues of the tint and the bi-refracion and the "unique" characteristics of its fire to content with.

If you buy a premium cut or idea or superideal cut diamond, there's just nothing else that looks like it. And if you know what to look for, it should be pretty immediately obvious at 4-6" whether you are looking at simulants or a real diamond.

 

[denverappraiser]

To be sure, clean CZ look a lot more like clean diamonds than dirty CZ looks like dirty diamonds and abraded CZ’s (they show wear very differently) look decidedly different from either. I’m a big fan of diamonds, just like I’m a big fan of apples, but this is not incompatible with recognizing that, done well the fakes are pretty good and very inexpensive. We’re definitely treading on the line of what the forum will allow and if the thread gets deleted it, so be it. I think it’s a fair question. In terms of looks alone, what’s the difference between diamond and the various simulants?

For clean, new, properly cut, and properly set stones when compared to the same in diamonds of sufficient quality and viewed in the right conditions: Very little.

That’s a lot of qualifiers in the above sentence, but that’s the nature of this sort of discussion and it’s hard to generalize. The same holds if you go the other direction. Bad imitations don’t look all that much like good diamonds under much of any viewing condition.

One of the curious assumptions in this sort of discussion is what a diamond is ‘supposed’ to look like. Diamonds do not all look the same, as evidenced by this entire forum. Crappy diamonds are actually harder to imitate than good ones. If it looks like a dirty sugar cube it’s probably real, although it’s possibly a real stone other than a diamond.

 

[Ella]

A reminder that we don't allow discussion of simulants on the forum, but as long as the discussion is revolving around a scientific question, we can allow it.

Please keep the conversation on the OP's question so the thread can remain.

 

[Karl_K]

Since Ella gave her blessing to discuss this in a limited manner I will now respond.

I don't have a lot of experience with Moissanite but the few I have seen optically did not look a lot like diamond.
The ones I have seen to me had a bit of a muddy appearance in diffused lighting rather than the crisp look of a well cut diamond. (Combo of double refraction and not the best cutting)

I do have experience with CZ having designed and had cut stones made from it.
When the proportions are optimized for CZ then can be every bit as optically beautiful as diamonds with similar play of light in diffused lighting and good fire and the same level of brightness face up and with modest tilt.
To me the crystal when you look past the cut at the material have a different look with diamond looking smoother than even well polished CZ.
The big downside is they don't last very long in rings without damage.

 

[tenbinko]

I appreciate everybody's response. It's hard not to worry a bit after buying three diamonds... As laymen, people like me, in real life, with no access to lab equipment and such, could only view and talk about diamonds from mainly their optical characteristics, and I was hoping that I could find some reassuring answers regarding the unique, intrinsic qualities of diamonds.

I've learned a lot and am grateful. The experts' answers or even generalizations, and the specific scientific numbers linked to by others, were quite enlightening and more convincing than random, general descriptions all over the web.

I find this kind of expert input on this forum invaluable.

 

[Roxy]

Since Ella gave her blessing to discuss this in a limited manner I will now respond.

I don't have a lot of experience with Moissanite but the few I have seen optically did not look a lot like diamond.
The ones I have seen to me had a bit of a muddy appearance in diffused lighting rather than the crisp look of a well cut diamond. (Combo of double refraction and not the best cutting)

I do have experience with CZ having designed and had cut stones made from it.
When the proportions are optimized for CZ then can be every bit as optically beautiful as diamonds with similar play of light in diffused lighting and good fire and the same level of brightness face up and with modest tilt.
To me the crystal when you look past the cut at the material have a different look with diamond looking smoother than even well polished CZ.
The big downside is they don't last very long in rings without damage.

This is really interesting. Since you're allowed to talk about the optical differences of simulants, have you experts had an opportunity to look at a variety of simulants available out there now? You mentioned Moissanite & CZ, but what about something like Diamonique. I think that's how its spelled, I'm not very familiar w/ simulants at all.

 

[Karl_K]

but what about something like Diamonique.

It is mostly CZ sold under QVC's brand name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamonique

 

[ChristineRose]

There are not that many materials out there still being used as diamond simulants.

Moissanite is fairly expensive and is usually marketed for what it is. It's not really that diamond-like, as noted by Karl.

Some people who prefer a natural simulant will look at white sapphire or white topaz or zircon. These are always sold as what they are. They are beautiful stones, but hard to pass off as a diamond, even to your future mother-in-law.

Glass is of course found in very cheap jewelry, but it doesn't fool anyone.

There are some antique simulants out there, but they will be found in old jewelry, labeled for what they are, and some people collect them. They are also not really that diamond-like. There's a long list of possibilities, including some beautiful hand-cut glass pieces, but you won't encounter them unless you like antiques.

CZ is everywhere. It's both the cheapest and most diamond-like of all the simulants. If you see any sort of simulant with a clever name like "Diamonique" or "Diamond Nexus" assume it's a CZ. Dishonest sellers have no reason to pay extra for something that looks less diamond-like when they can buy a $5 CZ and resell it for $100 or $1000.

Anytime you see something mysterious which is too cheap to be a real diamond, assume its a CZ and its worth about $5.

 

[kenny]

I appreciate everybody's response. It's hard not to worry a bit after buying three diamonds

I think one thing that keeps the value of real diamonds secure is ... no guy wants to see the look on her face when she finds out he proposed with a fake.

 

[Karl_K]

Anytime you see something mysterious which is too cheap to be a real diamond, assume its a CZ and its worth about $5.

This is pushing it and im reporting my post for review.
Precision cut cz can run up to a few hundred dollars particularly for fancies but you are paying for cutting not the material itself. There are honest sellers who call it CZ and sell it at higher price levels. Not all CZ is $5.

 

[ChristineRose]

The higher quality stuff (hand cut, coated, etc.) is not sold as diamonds or under a cute misleading name. Why bother selling nicer stuff if you are dishonest?

Anyhow I made a point of not saying that because I'm trying not to talk about simulants. If you see something that isn't clear about itself, assume it's a CZ--and a cheap one at that.

 

[madelise]

I appreciate everybody's response. It's hard not to worry a bit after buying three diamonds

I think one thing that keeps the value of real diamonds secure is ... no guy wants to see the look on her face when she finds out he proposed with a fake.

Lol, this reminds me of the Everybody Loves Raymond episode.. of Raymond needing to replace the e-ring with a real diamond, years later.

 

[isaku5]

My e-ring, although not huge, is often mistaken for a sim. I really don't care that much anymore as DH and I know the truth and that's what matters.

 

[denverappraiser]

There are not that many materials out there still being used as diamond simulants.

Moissanite is fairly expensive and is usually marketed for what it is. It's not really that diamond-like, as noted by Karl.

Some people who prefer a natural simulant will look at white sapphire or white topaz or zircon. These are always sold as what they are. They are beautiful stones, but hard to pass off as a diamond, even to your future mother-in-law.

Glass is of course found in very cheap jewelry, but it doesn't fool anyone.

There are some antique simulants out there, but they will be found in old jewelry, labeled for what they are, and some people collect them. They are also not really that diamond-like. There's a long list of possibilities, including some beautiful hand-cut glass pieces, but you won't encounter them unless you like antiques.

CZ is everywhere. It's both the cheapest and most diamond-like of all the simulants. If you see any sort of simulant with a clever name like "Diamonique" or "Diamond Nexus" assume it's a CZ. Dishonest sellers have no reason to pay extra for something that looks less diamond-like when they can buy a $5 CZ and resell it for $100 or $1000.

Anytime you see something mysterious which is too cheap to be a real diamond, assume its a CZ and its worth about $5.

Excellent summary of what's out there but I agree with Karl that the pricing issue is both off-topic and incorrect. There are some pretty expensive CZ cutters out there and it's an interesting question whether they're 'worth' their price but to the extent that they are properly representing what they're doing and what they're selling I see no problem with them asking a lot for their work. If they get it, good for them. If not, tough. That's the way marketplaces work.

I would also put in a token plug for some of those older simulants like synthetic rutile. You'll see them occasionally in antique pieces but I haven't seen it sold new since the advent of CZ in the 70s. I agree they don't look particularly diamondlike if you look at them critically but they are pretty cool in their own right.

 

[Lew Lew]

Can people really tell the difference up close? I was looking at comparison pictures and videos that were on Jewels by Erica Grace's smugmug site of an OEC diamond, OEC Amora moissanite, and OMC Asha cz, and they all looked like diamonds to me!

 

[denverappraiser]

Can people really tell the difference up close? I was looking at comparison pictures and videos that were on Jewels by Erica Grace's smugmug site of an OEC diamond, OEC Amora moissanite, and OMC Asha cz, and they all looked like diamonds to me!

Many of them do look a lot like diamonds but I refer back to my previous post that a photograph of something that looks a lot like a photograph of a diamond is NOT the same thing.

 

[Karl_K]

Can people really tell the difference up close? I was looking at comparison pictures and videos that were on Jewels by Erica Grace's smugmug site of an OEC diamond, OEC Amora moissanite, and OMC Asha cz, and they all looked like diamonds to me!

There are some tell tail clues if you know what to look for if looking close enough but the average person couldn't likely tell.
It is really a shame that they are sold/marketed/slandered as diamond imitators/substitutes as they are actually very beautiful when cut right and could stand on their own.

 

[fashionbabee]

I would like a travel ring to wear on vacation or if I am going out (clubs) and thought about getting my intended on getting an Asha 'diamond's one for that purpose and I think a few ladies have travel rings on this site (which is what gave me the idea) but at the same time I also wondered about optical differences!

 

[AprilBaby]

I see a "depth" difference in diamond vs excellent cut sim. The sim looks like you are looking thru a glass table at the facets while the diamond has more "depth" . It's very hard to explain.

 

[fashionbabee]

no April Baby I thought in some pics I have seen that I thought the same thing, but I wasn't sure if that was the case!

For a vacation ring that is going to get sand/sun tan lotion/sea water etc then I think it would be fine but I do think I have seen the difference you have talked about but I have never seen a Sim V diamond in real life.

I will hopefully be getting my e-ring soon and then later the travel ring and I will be comparing them both with interest! I definitely HOPE to see a difference with the money that will be spent on the diamond e-ring vs the Asha travel ring!!!!!!

 

[leyhuong]

To me, the main difference is the sentiment of owning a diamond, which will never be replaceable by a man-made gem. Diamonds have the age of billions of years. Again, it is the feeling within you that counts the most. If a person does not feel a difference in wearing something else that looks/appears like a diamond, feel free to do so. It is okay