Lab Created Diamond????? Yet another scammer for YG"S list

[dbucfanGG]

Originally Posted by Lee Little

Depending on the grade of each stone I would bet the results could be manipulated in favor of any of the 3 stones. If they all had to be the same low price then certainly the diamond would lose.
I like the purist idea as I am Macrobiotic anyway. That is useful to sell diamonds over CZ but doesn't help with Zircons. Reaching customers that shop by namebrands would make things easier for sure. I know I need to upgrade my customers. LOL. Thanks, Lee

[sundaysue]

Lee,

I agree with you. Diamonds have never meant that much to me. Give me colored gemstones anyday. I love the varieties. Besides that the diamond market is such a racket.

[Jung Kee]

Originally Posted by Lee Little

Ideal cut CZ can be bought very cheap from many places like Fire Mountain Gems or Rio Grande. The vast majority cannot tell them from diamonds even though they cost about $2.
Interesting point about doubling on white zircons. Thailand does sell lots of ideal cut white zircons. The fire is strong. Giddy? ....maybe...I certainly need to be more sensitive. People think they are diamonds when they see them and they are cheap and natural. Not saying these imitations are better, just wondering how to justify moving decimal points several places in price when selling diamonds. Thanks, Lee

Really? I'll have to look into that, can you give me a link or a name? Until this day, all the CZ stones I've seen have been in the range from extremely badly cut - to decently cut, but never as good as a well cut diamond with sharp, arrow-straight facet edges, absolutely flat facets with no scratches, good meeting points, good proportions and the right set of angles.

As for zircons, they are indeed very beautiful but far to brittle. Most of them will chip or fracture after a few years of use, however well you care for them. They just won't last a generation. Not even half a generation. Plus that the lot of them are heated, increasing their brittleness, and containing uranium and other unstable elements which in some stones present a considerable amount of radioactive radiation.

About how to justify the leap in price, all I can say is that market demand decides the price. Nothing else. There is no justice in trade. Diamonds have been consistently well marketed for the last four generations, live in a universe of their own in people's minds by now and thus the price on them are high. What else can be said is that CZ and white zircon may be more worth their prices than diamond, you get a lot of stone to a relatively low price, but that is an entirely another matter.

[Jung Kee]

And yes, give me a good amethyst and I'll choose it before any diamond any day.

[azurit]

I just have to agree on that coloured gems are so much more beatiful than diamond!

[The Other Robert]

Originally Posted by Lee Little

A mistake of nature?,... that sounds interesting. Can you help me back that line up? Where is the mistake? Rare, I can see but maybe only as rare as Peridot. Endless under a loupe sounds good also, I like that line. Sharp facets is one I knew and they do look good. A finer appreciation of the internal appearance........I will have to develope that one. 10 out of 10 is great but most people think that means it will cut glass which almost any gemstone will do that trick. At least it won't likely get scratched but neither will most other gemstones and they are likely to not be so brittle. At any rate, sounds like you can sell diamonds!! Thanks, Lee

The idea that a diamond is a mistake of nature goes along with the idea of how they were created. Deep within the earth, at temperatures and pressures only recently fathomed are where diamonds are grown. They date back (if you could date them as there is no way to do a carbon date on them) to basically the beginning of time, or at the very least millions of years ago. The simple fact alone that you cannot carbon date a diamond due to the fact that it does not degenerate is amazing. If you want more of an explaination of why its a mistake there is a PBS special on the nature of diamonds out there that will help. Further for the hardness factor, when you explain to a customer that the mohs scale is somewhat flawed because it doesn't tell that there is an extreme difference between a 9 and a 10 on the scale. The difference in hardness between a 5 and 6, even a 8 and 9, is tiny compared to the distance between a 9 and 10.

[Jung Kee]

Well, actually you can date diamonds, although through different methods than carbon-14-testing. Since you can't date a pure diamond, there simply is no clues due to that it is made up of pure carbon that is of a relatively stable kind, most methods used are testing inclusions of included diamonds and searches for heavy solids. Diamonds do degenerate over time though, turning into graphite, although too slowly to be perceived, even over a span of hundred lifetimes.

Most diamonds are between 150 million to 2 billion years old. The younger ones found only in Africa if my memory doesn't fails me.

[The Other Robert]

very true Jung Kee, I had learned how they date them, but had completely forgotten how... its a bit difficult to take the time to refresh my memory as it is that I'm doing this while at work , but thank you for the reminder. I would however be interested to hear where you heard the fact that diamonds degenerate with time (a really long time). I was under the impression that the non-degeneration was part of the wonder of diamonds... lets assume that we are talking about a D Flawless diamond just to be sure.

However, for the record, yes colored gemstones are beautiful and can be just as if not much more beautiful than diamond. The argument was between colorless stones/synthetics vs. diamonds. My opinion is that even though you will pay much more for a diamond, the previously stated pro's out weigh the pro's of the others. A diamond more of an investment, but it will last well into your children's children's lives... if cared for and not run over by a semi. Which brings on another point about the brittleness. If you have a well cut diamond with a medium girdle, or at least not a thin girdle, it will hold up just fine.... as long as its not run over by a semi!

[Crystal Star]

Originally Posted by rsmalser

The idea that a diamond is a mistake of nature goes along with the idea of how they were created. Deep within the earth, at temperatures and pressures only recently fathomed are where diamonds are grown. They date back (if you could date them as there is no way to do a carbon date on them) to basically the beginning of time, or at the very least millions of years ago. The simple fact alone that you cannot carbon date a diamond due to the fact that it does not degenerate is amazing.

It is my understanding that the carbon-14 dating system can only be used on organic matter, meaning matter that was once alive. Since diamonds are not alive in that sense, it is logical that they cannot date them using the carbon-14 method, which is flawed at best. Libby's original forumula was found to be incorrect in the 1950's, when high-altitude balloons found the amount of carbon-14 in the upper atmosphere, where it is formed, was much greater than that found at earth's surface (he thought them equal), and he chose to ignore the difference, making all his findings inaccurate.

Although I, too, love colored gemstones, when it comes to the ones I favor most, they've colored diamonds. Woo hoo!

[The Other Robert]

Originally Posted by Crystal Star

It is my understanding that the carbon-14 dating system can only be used on organic matter, meaning matter that was once alive. Since diamonds are not alive in that sense, it is logical that they cannot date them using the carbon-14 method, which is flawed at best. Libby's original forumula was found to be incorrect in the 1950's, when high-altitude balloons found the amount of carbon-14 in the upper atmosphere, where it is formed, was much greater than that found at earth's surface (he thought them equal), and he chose to ignore the difference, making all his findings inaccurate.

I appologize, at one time I knew what I was talking about, but I forgot . It's not carbon dating, that is only with organic items as you stated. It is through certain radioactive atoms in colored gemstones that they can date crystals. as the radioactive atoms decay, they are able to date them based on the rate of decay. With diamond, there is no decay because the bonds are so strong. There is no change within the diamond, no decay of those atoms because they don't exist in the diamond.

but, by dating other inclusions such as garnet, they are able to form a time frame that includes an age of up to 2-3 billion years old.