[Jewelry making - Article 00265] - Re: [Orchid] Choice of Diamond Simulants

[Peter W . Rowe]

========[ Invite a Friend - http://www.ganoksin.com/invite.htm  ]========

>            I have a big problem contradicting Peter W.Rowe as his
>     points and opinions tend to be definitive so I hope that his
>     arguments are based on scientific fact and physical properties
>     rather than observation. 

    Now, please don't put me on some pedestal.  I can easily be wrong,
    and am so on occasion, just like anyone else.   I would welcome
    opinions that conflict with my own.  How else am I to learn new
    things?  Please don't be reticent to disagree with me, OK?   I base
    my opinions and statements on my experience and training, which is as
    a jeweler and gemologist, but I'm no scientist, nor always basing my
    statements on carefully researched facts.  I consider myself
    reasonably knowledgeable, but I'm certainly not infallible, and your
    experience as a cutter will give you a knowledge base quite different
    from my own.  Though I do a little cutting myself from time to time,
    I consider myself little more than a beginner when I sit down to a
    faceting machine.  Cabs I'm better with, but even then, I'm hardly
    the expert at cutting that you no doubt are.  So please feel free to
    contradict me.  In fact, the one area in which I do seem to outstrip
    many other Orchid members is in the degree two which I don't know how
    to write briefly, or to just plain shut up.  My posts are generally
    longer than needed.  Don't confuse that with authority.  It's just
    good exercise for my fingers, nothing more. 

    My arguments regarding the various synthetics are based more on
    remembered science than anything I just went back to the books to
    recheck, but as a G.G., I did study this stuff fairly thoroughly
    once, and have tried to stay up to date. You've no doubt done much
    more cutting of it than I have, but I submit to you that cutting
    behavior differs a lot from the way these materials will hold up in
    actual use by the public, or in the manufacturing process.  Working
    for a manufacturer, we often send our stuff to our dealer stores with
    C.Z.s set in place of center diamonds, so they can show the mountings
    more they way they will look after a diamond is set in.  Sometimes we
    do this with synthetic moissanite too, on request.  Now, I've never
    yet seen a synthetic moissanite come back with significant wear and
    tear from the stores,  and in the number of years we've worked with
    it, I can recall only one that was chipped in setting.  C.Z., by
    contrast, is a good deal easier to chip and break, and our polisher
    even manages, while polishing these platinum rings, to often rather
    soften the facet edges of the C.Z.s.  We're using Gessweins platinum
    compounds, which are aluminum oxide based, so this is no great
    surprise,  but these compounds have no damaging effect on the
    synthetic moissanites, and can pretty much turn a facetted C.Z. into
    almost a cabochon if you're not careful.  (yes, that IS a great
    overstatement, but implies correctly my degree of happiness over the
    issue when our polisher does this to yet another stone, which though
    cheap, I still then have to replace. sigh.)  And as a job shop in
    addition to a manufacturer, we see a LOT of jewelry that's been worn
    a while.  Obviously, not much of it is synthetic moissanite, but of
    those we have seen, my impression is that on average, they seem to
    hold up somewhat better than sapphire or ruby in terms of the little
    nicks and chips and abraded facet edges that corundum seems to
    acquire after some time in use.  This is based on a relatively small
    sample of stones I've seen (in the synthetic moissanite), that have
    been worn a while, but that's been our observation so far. C.Z. is not
    a bad or exceptionally fragile stone, but it simply does not hold up
    the same way in use.  Remember that hardness measurements are not
    the same as the much harder to quantify toughness, or real world
    behavior of a stone in use. When I suggested that one might wish to
    replace a CZ every few years, I didn't imply that it would not last
    longer, perhaps much longer, for some people.  But I've also seen
    plenty of them in various uses that simply no longer would fool anyone
    with the idea they were a diamond, within just a couple years wear. 
    Draw whatever conclusions you wish from this. 

Cheers
Peter

____________________________________________________________________
T h e   O r c h i d   L i s t
Open Electronic Forum for Jewelry Manufacturing Methods and Procedures
____________________________________________________________________
Orchid FAQ:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/orchid/faq.htm
Orchid Archives:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/orchid/archive
Orchid Galleries:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/orchid/gallery.htm
Invite a Friend:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/invite.htm
____________________________________________________________________
Tips From The Jeweler's Bench - Article Archive
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/borisat/tip_sear.htm
The Jeweler's Selected Bibliography List
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/jewelry-books
Buy Orchid Jewelry:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/shop
____________________________________________________________________
-Unsubscribe:
-Email: orchid-request AT ganoksin.com Body=unsubscribe subject=blank
____________________________________________________________________