Moissanite

[MsP]

Hello everyone,
I recently bought a 1.25ct moissanite solitare and a pair or moissanite earrings. I was surprised to see the comments made about this stone on this board.

I am a younger individual who likes jewelry... sparkly jewelry. I have bought a few substantial diamond pieces but when I was in the market for a 1.25ct solitare I thought to myself, I don''t need this to last forever, I don''t need it for sentimental value, and I don''t need to spend so much money on it--- so why not try a moissanite over diamond. So I did and have been extremely pleased with the results. I agree that it does not perform as a diamond when placed right next to a diamond but alone it is still beautiful in its own right. I get many compliments on it and if they inquire what it is, I always tell them that it is a moissanite.

So, does anyone else have moissanite and been pleased with it? Have pictures to share?

Also, why did you go with moissanite over a simulant(asha, vg, signity, etc)?
Thanks!

 

[yowahking]

Part of the problem with that material is they way that it is marketed. To the consumer, it is an affordable way to have something that looks like diamond. To the jeweler, it is about how much profit you can make compared to diamonds. The company also scared the world about the fact that it tested diamond on old style diamnond testers. They would (in the beginning) go to a store where Suzy cutiepie salesperson knew nothing about diamonds. They hand the girl a stone with a hidden camera and watch her use a diamond tester. In the trade, we know that diamond testers only measure that a stone conducts heat. Most jewelers rarely use them as we know what to look for. So the one girl in the mall is now the reprentitive of the whole industry that can not tell the difference betweent the material. They also tried to have territories, since the material did not sell fast enough, they opened it up to some large suppliers that every jeweler now has a way to buy it. Now you don't have to overpay for it. CZ also has a place in the industry but those of us who were around at the unveiling of it saw $200 pct stones, now it is $2 per ct. The stone you have is pretty, as long as you know what it is, hopefully did not overpay for it, and understand that once you own it, there is not much resale value to it. Curious as to whether you got a stone that weighs 1.25ct or looks like a diamond of the same size? 1.25 diamond size will weigh almost double in CZ and about 1ct in Moissanite.

 

[MsP]

Its a 1.25 diamond equivilant. I only paid about $400, and the cheapest that I could find the setting alone was $220(its a branded setting, a modified stuller solstice). When I bought it, I liked the setting and thought that for that little bit of extra money, I could try the moissanite out and if I didn't like it replace it

. I agree that some jewelers are massively overcharging for it. My local jeweler charges $700 a ct for moissanite. On the internet its like $200 a ct.

I like it for what it is, but I've recently read that they chip very easily... I hadn't heard this before. I hope mine will last a while... I better be careful!

 

[Richard M.]

----------------
On 8/25/2004 8:26:49 PM Furthermore wrote:


Moissanite IS a simulant.............. it simulates diamond, QED. )))

----------------

It is also a man-made version of the rare natural mineral moissanite so it is both a synthetic AND a diamond simulant. My, ain't we picky LOL!

 

[MsP]

True, yet asha, vg, signity, etc are just cz(with the exception of asha which I guess has diamond coating). So yes, moissanite could be grouped with these materials because of the purpose of being a diamond simulant, but it is a completely different material, correct?

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 8/26/2004 7:10:30 AM anovice wrote:

True, yet asha, vg, signity, etc are just cz(with the exception of asha which I guess has diamond coating). So yes, moissanite could be grouped with these materials because of the purpose of being a diamond simulant, but it is a completely different material, correct?----------------

currect...

A big part of the problem with it is that it being marketed as a diamond simulant it has some good qualities all its own that is being held back by the stigma of the marketing.
zircon and clear sapphire are two others that have suffered a simular fate and never fully recovered.

 

[MsP]

I have been looking for a clear(white) emerald cut sapphire. I have seen a few but most have been too small. I'd looking for about a 2ct. For some reason I like colorless(of slightly tinted) stones because of my skintone.

 

[Richard M.]

----------------
On 8/26/2004 7:10:30 AM anovice wrote:

True, yet asha, vg, signity, etc are just cz(with the exception of asha which I guess has diamond coating). So yes, moissanite could be grouped with these materials because of the purpose of being a diamond simulant, but it is a completely different material, correct?----------------

Yes. A simulant is anything that pretends to be something else. Pilots use flight simulators to train in instead of real airplanes. Genuine gemstones like zircon (not CZ) have been used to simulate diamonds. A diamond simulant can be anything from glass to a wide variety of transparent natural or man-made minerals.

Synthetics are man-made versions of natural substances. They replicate the natural materials in every way except scarcity.

C & C moissanite is a synthetic but CZ isn't -- there's no natural mineral in the cubic form of zirconia. Baddeleyite is a mineral with the same chemical composition as CZ but it crystallizes in the monoclinic, not cubic, form. Confusing isn't it? (There's some controversy over this. In the 1930s there was a report of natural cubic zirconia but modern searching hasn't produced any).

Bottom line, moissanite and CZ are different materials but both are used to simulate diamond.

 

[CaptAubrey]

----------------
On 8/26/2004 7:10:30 AM anovice wrote:





True, yet asha, vg, signity, etc are just cz(with the exception of asha which I guess has diamond coating).
----------------

ashas do not have a diamond coating. they are coated with "diamond-like carbon," which is essentially graphite with a few diamond bonds. the hype these things have gotten is beyond me.

 

[Richard M.]

----------------
On 8/26/2004 1:19:06 PM CaptAubrey wrote:




ashas do not have a diamond coating. they are coated with 'diamond-like carbon,' which is essentially graphite with a few diamond bonds. the hype these things have gotten is beyond me.



Boy, do I ever agree about the hype! I researched the things some time back and came to the conclusion they must be diamond-coated with some vapor deposition process. That left me wondering how in heck they could be polished without removing the coating, and what kind of reading they'd give on a reflectometer like the old Jemeter. Would you share the source of your info on graphite?

 

[CaptAubrey]

----------------
On 8/26/2004 3:34:55 PM Richard M. wrote:







Boy, do I ever agree about the hype! I researched the things some time back and came to the conclusion they must be diamond-coated with some vapor deposition process. That left me wondering how in heck they could be polished without removing the coating, and what kind of reading they'd give on a reflectometer like the old Jemeter. Would you share the source of your info on graphite?

----------------

i don't have a specific source except for my familiarity with the subject. but i looked a few things up. this is what they say on the asha site:

Our Asha® diamond simulants employ a patent pending form of "Amorphous
Diamond" which is man-made and "composed of a multitude of tiny diamond
crystals all aligned together*". Its amorphous crystal structure allows it to
better bond with materials it is combined with.

"amorphous diamond" is a term often used for diamond-like carbon by manufacturers:

http://www.diamonex.com/abouttech_dlc.htm

though most physicists frown upon it because it is not really diamond, just a form of carbon:

http://www.e6.com/e6/page.jsp?pageid=600401070

the differences have to do with the bonds between the carbon atoms. graphite bonds are what are called sp2 bonds (after the electron orbitals involved); diamond bonds are sp3. under certain conditions of temperature and pressure, it is possible to deposit graphite that has a certain percentage of sp3 bonds, although that doesn't make it diamond.

i doubt asha's need to be polished afterward because the coating (to keep the stone from turning brown) has to be so thin it's not detectable except with advanced instrumentation.

 

[Richard M.]

Thanks Capt. A. -- great info. "Amorphous Diamond" strikes me as one of the more outragous oxymorons I've encountered. The dictionary definition of diamond is "a pure or nearly pure form of carbon crystallized in the isometric system."

When you realize Ashas are coated with the same form of "diamond" they put on artificial hip sockets to make them last a bit longer it all comes into perspective. The marketers never sleep.

 

[MsP]

The durability was one concern about asha vs moissanite. Asha has a lifetime warranty against *anything* (except for theft, loss, intentional breakage, etc). Moissanite has no warranty(except for manufacturing defects). The setting I wanted was going to cost me 220 plus the cost of setting the stone($100) so I figured for a little bit more I could get it with a moissanite. So far so good.

If you want something sparkly, and don't need the status of a diamond(and yes, I believe that many people see diamonds as status symbols... sad) I think moissanite is a great alternative... but realize that it is NOT just like a diamond. It looks different up close(from a few feet it doesn't though) but is extremely reasonably price, IMO.

I still love diamonds, still have and continue to purchase diamonds. BUT, I like moissanite too. I'm thinking a takara(or gemesis) stone may be in my future...

Thanks!

 

[goldengirl]

When I first browsed this site and read about moissanite, I decided to look into it as an inexpensive alternative for an engagment ring that I could suggest to my honey.

From my online searches, it all looked GREAT, but I was concerned about the ones that said in some lights, it looked a little green.

I stopped into a local B&M (and maybe it was just this PARTICULAR B&M, who knows), and the moissanites I saw looked like...how do I put this delicately? ....baby poo.

It was the most awful thing EVER. Does your stone face up better? Maybe it was just the lighting? Whatever it was, I RAN, and am now diligently searching for a diamond!

 

[pearcrazy]

I have a pair of 1 carat total weight moissanite round stud earrings. In smaller weights (1c and under) moissanite looks great. I paid around $150 for the pair. I got moissanite since it was cheaper than diamond but more durable and realistic looking than CZ. I'm also considering a 3 stone ring with moissanite and ceylon sapphires to wear on my right hand when I'm home and in place of engagement ring when I'm travelling.

 

[Cave Keeper]

One swallow does not make a ... (and, I don't mean that 'swallow').

----------------
On 9/3/2004 6:25:48 PM goldengirl wrote:

:
I stopped into a local B&M (and maybe it was just this PARTICULAR B&M, who knows), and the moissanites I saw looked like...how do I put this delicately? ....baby poo.
:
It was the most awful thing EVER.
----------------

 

[goldengirl]

LOL, I guess, but they were smaller stones (like .25-.5ct) and that's why I thought it was so stranged that they faced up so sickly green...I had understood moissanites to be typically fairly white, and SLIGHTLY green in some lighting.

I'll have to stop in somewhere else, and see how they look in a different store...

 

[MsP]

I compared a 1ct moissanite to a 1ct H VS2, decent cut, diamond. The moissanite looked a little softer and not as crisp as the diamond. This makes sense because of the refraction.

Also, a moissanite should not be green to the point where it is obvious in all lights. When I did this comparison at the jeweler I walked outside and that particular moissanite didn't flash much green at all.

It is still all personal preference, though.