Talk:Diamond simulant

message: Moved from Talk:Diamond
===Cubic zirconia===
Cubic Zirconia - $5/carat - can get scratched, over time loses it's lustre, doesn't fool experts.
Statements where reasonable people may disagree
*Cubic Zirconia doesn't sparkle as much.
** Perhaps some brands of cubic zirconia don't sparkle as much as ideal cut diamonds.  Other brands cut to different proportions, or to more precise proportions, to make sparkly CZs.
** Stick to the objective characteristics (index of refraction, dispersion, etc.), and add explanations to those.
New technology has produced a new breed of Russian CZ which are far superior to older versions. They look and feel more optically correct to a perfect diamond.
~Ender
===Moissanite===
Moissanite - $300/carat - almost as hard as diamond, more brilliant
* Moissanite is not nearly as hard as diamond. Remember, the Mohs scale of mineral hardness is not linear. Though Moissanite falls at about 9 on Mohs, and diamond at 10, diamond is actually about four times harder than Moissanite. See this page for a decent explanation of scales of mineral hardness: http://www.inlandlapidary.com/user_area/hardness.asp
Actually, the scale is exponential; The Mohs scale between 9 and 10 is 140 times difference in hardness, not 4. Simulated moissanite (synthetic silicon carbide) is not even close to being as hard as a diamond.
~Ender
Mohs scale of mineral hardness disagrees, listing the difference at 4 times. Slightly off topic, I find the article as a whole to be very biased, in subtle language, towards conveying an impression of diamonds as the perfect gemstone. E.g. the part where less sparkly gemstones are 'lifeless' and sparkly-er gemstones are 'tacky and unreal'. So... diamonds are just right? Are we playing Goldilocks here?
~ Wahming (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter what Charles and Colvard market moissanite as - it has been perceived by the market as a simulant of diamond, white clear stones of high refraction that are marketed as an alternative for Engagement ring major stones are certainly a diamond alternative and simulant. Additionally, charles and colvard are a primary supplier to secondary suppliers who market the stone in their own way. That is what matters. SauliH 02:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Moissanite - $300/carat - almost as hard as diamond, more brilliant
* Moissanite is not nearly as hard as diamond. Remember, the Mohs scale of mineral hardness is not linear. Though Moissanite falls at about 9 on Mohs, and diamond at 10, diamond is actually about four times harder than Moissanite. See this page for a decent explanation of scales of mineral hardness: http://www.inlandlapidary.com/user_area/hardness.asp
Actually, the scale is exponential; The Mohs scale between 9 and 10 is 140 times difference in hardness, not 4. Simulated moissanite (synthetic silicon carbide) is not even close to being as hard as a diamond.
~Ender
Mohs scale of mineral hardness disagrees, listing the difference at 4 times. Slightly off topic, I find the article as a whole to be very biased, in subtle language, towards conveying an impression of diamonds as the perfect gemstone. E.g. the part where less sparkly gemstones are 'lifeless' and sparkly-er gemstones are 'tacky and unreal'. So... diamonds are just right? Are we playing Goldilocks here?
~ Wahming (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter what Charles and Colvard market moissanite as - it has been perceived by the market as a simulant of diamond, white clear stones of high refraction that are marketed as an alternative for Engagement ring major stones are certainly a diamond alternative and simulant. Additionally, charles and colvard are a primary supplier to secondary suppliers who market the stone in their own way. That is what matters. SauliH 02:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Moissanite]]

message: This article has been removed from the Ga list as it has failed WP:WIAGA criteria 2b. Feel free to renominate the article once these issues have been addressed. Tarret 23:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: I changed the introduction so that the topic is defined right away, per style guidelines. The reasons people make and buy diamond simulants should come in later; it moved it to the end of the introduction. (The article on Meat analogue doesn't begin "Ethical concerns about the raising and slaughter of animals for meat has lead to..."). Any objections to this can be given here. ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 21:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motive for use should not precede definition