Sign in or Register Home
DiamondRing.comYour Online Jewelry Shopping Network
 Ideal Cut Diamond Studs at James Allen 
Buy Sell Education Forum Directory Blog  
View Recent Products View Posts Ask Us Ask our Network Jewelers for a quote on a diamond/gemstone/jewelry




 
Post Reply New Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old just_looking
 
My Profile
Registered User : offline
Joined: 03-15-02
Posts: 7
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 0
Points: 10
just_looking is on a distinguished road


Quote this post and reply to it Post#1 @ 03-16-02 , 11:40 AM


In my diamond research I cam across http://www.gemesis.com
I haven't yet inquired as to their prices, and unfortunately they seem to offer only fancy yellow/orange stones. In any case I would be interested to here any of your expert opinions on these man-made stones, what you think they are worth, and what effect this is going to have on the diamond market in the next few years.



Diamond Search:

Carat:  to  Color:  to  Clarity:  to  


Old rodentman

    rodentman's Avatar
 
My Profile
DRC Watch Expert : offline
Joined: 08-10-01
Posts: 4,550
Years:
Last seen wearing: Rolex Seadweller
 
My Collection
Items Listed: 1
 
My Karma
Power: 201
Points: 8316
rodentman has a reputation beyond repute rodentman has a reputation beyond repute rodentman has a reputation beyond repute rodentman has a reputation beyond repute rodentman has a reputation beyond repute rodentman has a reputation beyond repute rodentman has a reputation beyond repute rodentman has a reputation beyond repute rodentman has a reputation beyond repute rodentman has a reputation beyond repute rodentman has a reputation beyond repute
Hits: Out=191, In=0


Quote this post and reply to it Post#2 @ 03-16-02 , 11:53 AM


The prices are shown on the individual items under "jewelry catalog." Just go in there and click on the one you want more info on.

They are not cheap.

They purport to be of the same hardness, chemical composition, specific gravity, and refractive index as naturally occuring diamonds. Can an expert discern these to be man-made?

The Rodentman

[Edited by rodentman on 03-16-02 at 10:57 AM]


rodentman signature
I don't have a telescope, but it's something I'm thinking of looking into.
Old gemesis
 
My Profile
Registered User : offline
Joined: 04-28-01
Posts: 9
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 0
Points: 10
gemesis is on a distinguished road
Hits: Out=267, In=0


Quote this post and reply to it Post#3 @ 03-16-02 , 01:19 PM


I wondered how long it would take for my photo's to make it to D.T..

The stones are not "cheap", at about 40% that of a Natural Fancy.

We at Gemesis are also quite interested in all observations and comments.

I would be pleased to forward any technical questions to one of our Scientists.

Bruce Davidson
Product Director

Old Jan

    Jan's Avatar
 
My Profile
Registered User : offline
Joined: 06-12-99
Posts: 7,748
Years:
 
My Feedback (49)
Feedback In: 
+29  0
Feedback Out:
+48  0
 
My Karma
Power: 272
Points: 11368
Jan has a reputation beyond repute Jan has a reputation beyond repute Jan has a reputation beyond repute Jan has a reputation beyond repute Jan has a reputation beyond repute Jan has a reputation beyond repute Jan has a reputation beyond repute Jan has a reputation beyond repute Jan has a reputation beyond repute Jan has a reputation beyond repute Jan has a reputation beyond repute
Hits: Out=16819, In=5945
Referrals: 24


Quote this post and reply to it Post#4 @ 03-16-02 , 02:09 PM


Hi Bruce,
Thanks for stopping by and showing us your product after X-mas. We were in kind of a rush that day, but it did look very nice.


Jan signature
For those that want to know the TRUTH about diamonds, just ask

Diamond Brokers of Florida
Old Jamesd

    Jamesd's Avatar
 
My Profile

Joined: 06-25-00
Posts: 1,530
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 0
Points: 10
Jamesd is on a distinguished road
Hits: Out=704, In=1


Quote this post and reply to it Post#5 @ 03-16-02 , 02:51 PM


Bruce,

Thanks for offering to respond to questions. Pretty products, IMO. I do have a few questions, though. As is tradtional here, I'll jump right in at the deep end with the more thorny questions and trust that you'll understand that as a chemistry graduate with experience of both chemical and spectrographic analysis the description of the product has made me curious.

The web site states that "Scientists identify materials by their chemical composition, specific gravity, hardness, refractive index, thermal oconductivity and a variety of other factors. The Gemesis Cultured Diamond(TM) is scientifically rated the SAME as a natural diamond" and "Our cultured diamond differs from natural diamond ONLY in that it is man-made". http://www.gemesis.com/right.html

This reads to me as clearly saying that the scientific tests used to identify synthetic diamonds will not work to identify these diamonds as synthetic. Is it right that they won't? Are the sentences intended to suggest to consumers that they can't be detected by those scientific tests?

Is the chemical composition different from that of natural diamond? Specifically, is there any difference in the proportion of radioactive and non-radioactive carbon atoms? Natural diamonds are very old and can be expected to have no radio-carbon response. Carbon obtained from natural materials which have died within the last few millenia will have some detectable radioactivity from the radioactive carbon atoms. This is the basis for the very commonly used radio-carbon dating of objects.

Are there any flux chemicals or non-diamond carbon present to make the chemical composition different?

Please confirm that no tests which have been reported in the professional literature on diamond identification have discussed a method of examination under which these diamonds would perform differently from a natural diamond of the same color. Examples include spectrogaphic techniques, magnetic response and microscopic examination looking for flux or other non-natural inclusions or crystal shapes.

Other than the techniques above, are there any scientific examination techniques which can tell the difference between these diamonds and natural diamonds?

I note that they are called cultured and that you've used the word in quotes here. Are these synthetics made starting with a seed of natural diamond, which might well justify them being called cultured as long as the bulk of the material is otherwise identical to natural diamond? It would be a real pleasure to find a product using the word cultured which really does mimic the pearl growth mechanism.

Are the products marked in any way to make it easy for a jeweler with minimal tools to distinguish them from natural diamonds? How?

Thanks in advance for your responses to my curiosity about the description of the product.

[Edited by Jamesd on 03-16-02 at 01:55 PM]

Old VanGraff

    VanGraff's Avatar
 
My Profile
Registered User : offline
Joined: 03-05-01
Posts: 2,634
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 101
Points: 10
VanGraff is on a distinguished road
Hits: Out=17694, In=5866
Referrals: 35


Quote this post and reply to it Post#6 @ 03-16-02 , 04:04 PM


Quote:
Originally posted by Jamesd
I note that they are called cultured and that you've used the word in quotes here.


Hi James,
This is an extract from an email I received from Carter Clark the owner of Gemesis, he is member of DT.
Maybe this will clear your question about the word "cultured" diamonds.

"I note the discussions concerning the word "cultured" and find a misunderstanding of the facts. The FTC has neither given the term a "safe haven" status nor have they found sufficient evidence to advise against its use. Actually, their ruling indicates that the term would more likely to be misleading if it were applied to imitation gemstones, not synthetic. It is interesting to note that the FTC also indicated that the term "synthetic" itself was misleadiing, siince most consumers were likely to interpret that as "fake."

The term "cultured" is in use for other gemstones as noted by the FTC. Its acceptance is enhanced by the introduction of the Ramaura Cultured Ruby into the Smithsonian's Hall Of Gems as noted in "Gemstone News", National Jeweler, February 16, 2001.

In any regard, we do not intent to fall on our swords over the issue. Much more important is our attempt to bring a new and exciting jewelry product to the consumer and do so in a very legitimate format.

We wish to take every precaution against our gemstones being passed as naturals. We have been looking a several methods to provide retailers an easy identification process, much as De Beers is doing to promote their brand name. In addition, we will be providing a grading certificate to further provide a high level of consumer confidence. We are working with GIA, IGI, EGL and others in this regard."



VanGraff signature
Sincerely

Juan Manuel
Old gemesis
 
My Profile
Registered User : offline
Joined: 04-28-01
Posts: 9
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 0
Points: 10
gemesis is on a distinguished road
Hits: Out=267, In=0


Quote this post and reply to it Post#7 @ 03-16-02 , 04:32 PM


Firstly to Jan. Thanks, it was my first chance to go home for the season in many years and glad to show you our product.

Jamesd, Dr. Alexander Novikov will respond to your questions later today, and I know Thomas could fill you in as well on methods of identification other than the "to good to be true" factor.

I personally believe that affordable tools will emerge in the next few years to read new Ion Beam identifications many will use to identify and brand products.

And to Mr. Van Graff, the extract certainly sounds like our CEO and note that we can use a Natural or Synthetic seed to grow our diamonds.

Bruce Davidson




Old Jamesd

    Jamesd's Avatar
 
My Profile

Joined: 06-25-00
Posts: 1,530
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 0
Points: 10
Jamesd is on a distinguished road
Hits: Out=704, In=1


Quote this post and reply to it Post#8 @ 03-17-02 , 03:06 PM


Thanks Juan and Bruce. I do agree with the interpretation of the ruling that non-diamond artifical products would be far less appropriately described as cultured. Not so sure I agree that using the word synthetic is undesirable, for it is the most acurate description, even more so than cultured.

Bruce,

Yes, too good to be true is one way, though I'm not sur ehow many consumers would know the right price to expect for colored diamonds, given the far smaller volume of them and lack of really easy ways to see what prices are normal.



Old DiamondExpert

    DiamondExpert's Avatar
 
My Profile
Registered User : offline
Joined: 10-31-99
Posts: 918
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 90
Points: 42
DiamondExpert is on a distinguished road
Hits: Out=1831, In=2


To be general,
Quote this post and reply to it Post#9 @ 03-17-02 , 03:43 PM


synthetic diamonds can usually be identified by one or more distinctive features involving color zoning, graining, metal inclusions and fluorescence. Also, some are magnetic and some show anomalous double refraction due to strain.

[Edited by DiamondExpert on 03-17-02 at 02:44 PM]


DiamondExpert signature
Gary
Old gemesis
 
My Profile
Registered User : offline
Joined: 04-28-01
Posts: 9
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 0
Points: 10
gemesis is on a distinguished road
Hits: Out=267, In=0


Quote this post and reply to it Post#10 @ 03-17-02 , 06:41 PM


Gary is correct, and sorry Dr. Novikov was unavailable this weekend. He noted that as far as any radioactive carbon atoms are concerned that we could use any purified carbon as a source.

I have also found that most consumers are not framiliar with the price of fancys or understand how difficult and expensive this process is. We are pleased at the prices we do offer and note that they will "not pop out of gumball machines" in my lifetime as many seem to fear.

Our future marketing is focused more on the product as made and cut in America
and the very interesting technology behind it, rather than just the word "Cultured".

Bruce

Old WUPSTER
 
My Profile
Registered User : offline
Joined: 09-07-02
Posts: 13
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 0
Points: 10
WUPSTER is on a distinguished road


Quote this post and reply to it Post#11 @ 09-07-02 , 08:18 PM


JamesD wrote:

> The web site states that "Scientists identify materials by their chemical
> composition, specific gravity, hardness, refractive index, thermal
> oconductivity and a variety of other factors. The Gemesis Cultured Diamond(TM)
> is scientifically rated the SAME as a natural diamond" and "Our cultured
> diamond differs from natural diamond ONLY in that it is man-made".
> http://www.gemesis.com/right.html
...
> Is the chemical composition different from that of natural diamond?
> Specifically, is there any difference in the proportion of radioactive and
> non-radioactive carbon atoms? Natural

This actually is not a chemical difference, this is a physical difference.
If the gem is composed of carbon, then the relative proportion of C14 and
C12 does not represent a chemical difference and hence cannot be detected by
any chemical test.

> Please confirm that no tests which have been reported in the professional
> literature on diamond identification have discussed a method of examination
> under which these diamonds would perform differently from a natural diamond of
> the same color. Examples include spectrogaphic techniques, magnetic response

I watched a TV special recently on the topic of synthetic diamonds.
Apparently there is a difference in terms of fluorescence under UV light
that DeBeers has seized on as a good way to help people determine whether a
diamond is natural or man-made. I don't recall the exact reason why, but it
has to do with one or the other (man-made or natural) having more
imperfections in the cubic lattice.

> Other than the techniques above, are there any scientific examination
> techniques which can tell the difference between these diamonds and natural
> diamonds?

According to the special I watched, there are several ways to tell the two
apart. But the critical thing I think gemesis is saying, is that their
stones ARE diamonds. So there is no way to tell them 'apart' from a diamond.

> Are the products marked in any way to make it easy for a jeweler with minimal
> tools to distinguish them from natural diamonds? How?

Why should they be marked?
There is nothing dishonest about making a diamond and
selling it without going out of your way to mark it as synthetic.
Gemesis is not obligated to protect the business model of the diamond
industry against advances in science.

Old Paul-Antwerp

    Paul-Antwerp's Avatar
 
My Profile

Joined: 06-28-01
Posts: 295
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 0
Points: 10
Paul-Antwerp is on a distinguished road
Hits: Out=347, In=0


Quote this post and reply to it Post#12 @ 09-08-02 , 06:05 AM


Having seen the product, I would like to add some very interesting point, that clearly show the uniqueness of this product.

In natural fancy colour diamonds, the cutting is performed in such a way, that the colour of the stone becomes more saturated. This is achieved by cutting deeper stones, with thicker girdles. Also, shapes with a high brilliancy are avoided, and that is why you find so few brilliants and even princess-shapes in fancy colours.

The Gemesis-product however, has a very saturated colour, and while cutting, it is important to kind of lighten the colour. This is reached by cutting them to the best proportions, and in shapes like brilliants.

I can witness that the result is amazing. These are beautiful fancy yellow stones, with an extraordinary brilliance in the stone. I even feel that the pricing is low, and not high.

Live long,

Paul

Old Jamesd

    Jamesd's Avatar
 
My Profile

Joined: 06-25-00
Posts: 1,530
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 0
Points: 10
Jamesd is on a distinguished road
Hits: Out=704, In=1


Quote this post and reply to it Post#13 @ 09-08-02 , 03:37 PM


wUPSTER,

Sounds as though you'e never studied university level chemistry. Differences in isotppoic composition and even in the difference between L and R orientiation of molecular structures with identical molecular weight are chemical difference. Not differences which are covered in high school chemistry but they are most certainly differences in chemical composition.

People are willing to pay more for naturally produced products than synthetic products. Since they are, it is a deceptive practice not to disclose origin.

Paul,

That's good to hear, for people might have noted that I rather like a yellow color in diamonds and these sound like an excellent product, even if I have some reservations about the absolute accuracy of the description.

Were you able to conveniently measure any differences in spectrographic or other response of these compared to natural diamonds?

Old Paul-Antwerp

    Paul-Antwerp's Avatar
 
My Profile

Joined: 06-28-01
Posts: 295
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 0
Points: 10
Paul-Antwerp is on a distinguished road
Hits: Out=347, In=0


Quote this post and reply to it Post#14 @ 09-09-02 , 12:59 PM


James,

I did not check the synthetic nature to that extent, especially since I knew they were synthetics.

But just as important as stressing the synthetic nature, which Gemesis sufficiently does according to me, is to stress the fact that these stones are diamonds.

There is a clear distinction between a simulant for diamonds and a synthetic diamond. The latter one is extremely difficult to produce, and there is an enormous difference in value according to me.

As such, a synthetic diamond also has the same physical properties that produce the beauty of a diamond. This clearly cannot be said about any simulant, be it cz, moisannite, or any of the older simulants.

With the cost and the difficulty of producing these stones, one also has an aspect of rarity, that is of course relative.

For me personally, while knowing that the stone is synthetic, I feel that they are very valuable. Considering that for many people, participating in this forum, cut is king in diamonds, I think that most of them would agree with me on this.

My first reaction to these stones was: it is only synthetic, I would never pay that much for it.

Then, I got to know the product better. If well cut, it has a face-up-colour that is comparable to the rarest natural fancy yellows. Because of the fine cut, you generally get a more spready stone than a natural fancy colour for the same weight. Because of the saturation of the colour, you can cut them into brilliants (or princesses), which is very rare in fancy colours, and that is why you get a much higher brilliance in these stones than in most natural fancy colours.

So now, if I would want to have a fancy colour diamond, I would definitely be interested in this one, because it not only gives me colour, it also has more life than most natural colours, while it is a lot cheaper.

I am sorry if I repeated myself; I hope it kind of clarifies a bit more.

Live long,

Paul

Old adamasgem

    adamasgem's Avatar
 
My Profile

Joined: 06-28-00
Posts: 95
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 0
Points: 10
adamasgem is on a distinguished road
Hits: Out=977, In=1303
Referrals: 1


Quote this post and reply to it Post#15 @ 09-09-02 , 02:13 PM


Quote:
Originally posted by gemesis
Gary is correct, and sorry Dr. Novikov was unavailable this weekend. gumball machines" in my lifetime as many seem to fear.


Bruce


Elly Rosen (Appraisal Information Services){ http://ais.polygon.net } were discussing this subject.

May I make a few points:

POINT 1) The subject of this discussion as to using the word "real" would be a violation of FTC guides as an unfair and deceptive practiced if used in conjuction with synthetic diamonds.

section 23:24 Misuse of the words "real," "genuine," "natural," "precious," etc.

It is unfair or deceptive to use the word "real," "genuine," "natural," "precious," "semi-precious," or similar terms to describe any industry product that is manufactured or produced artificially.

POINT 2) I believe that Gemesis is using Nickel catalyst growth techniques (and then a HPHT cycle to drive out the yellow). These are very easily screened as synthetic using visNir spectroscopy at room temperature. Some Nickel related lines may be visible using a hand held spectroscope. Structured luminescence should also exist in most of these synthetics.
See http://www.gis.net/~adamas/russian.html for examples

POINT 3) Synthetics grown using cobalt catalyst will be more difficult for labs to detect..

see http://www.gis.net/~adamas/debeers.html

POINT 4) Is this the same Dr Novikov from the Ukraine that was involved with Tom Chatham's unfortunate ill fated effort to produce commercial quantities of colorless synthetic diamonds in Russia a few years back?

Marty Haske

Last edited by adamasgem : 09-09-02 at 02:16 PM.
Old WUPSTER
 
My Profile
Registered User : offline
Joined: 09-07-02
Posts: 13
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 0
Points: 10
WUPSTER is on a distinguished road


Quote this post and reply to it Post#16 @ 09-09-02 , 03:02 PM


> wUPSTER,
>
> Sounds as though you'e never studied university level chemistry. Differences
> in isotppoic composition and even in the difference between L and R
> orientiation of molecular structures with identical molecular weight are
> chemical difference. Not differences which are covered in high school
> chemistry but they are most certainly differences in chemical composition.

Paul,

Differences in isotopic composition are not referred to as chemical differences. Through several years of advanced chemistry which I enjoyed in college, I learned some basics of chemical terminology. Different isotopes of the same element are not referred to as being 'chemically' different. This is customarily referred to as a physical difference. This nuance in terminology can be found easily in any textbook or with a quick web search. Different isotopes of the same element (with interesting but rare exceptions, such as Hydrogen/deuterium where mass can affect reaction kinetics in some instances) have identical chemical properties, whereas they have different physical properties. If there were a chemical difference between isotopes of the same element, it would be a lot easier to make nuclear weapons, so we should be thankful for this. I do not know why you mention L and R isomers, which is not what we are talking about.

Here are some examples of scientific usage from a few chemistry dictionaries and from the web:

http://whyfiles.org/083isotope/2.html
"Recall that the isotopes of an element are chemically identical, but physically different."

http://talc.geo.umn.edu/courses/2303/notes13.htm
"Isotopes of an element have identical chemical properties - same number of protons in the nucleus, and the same electronic configuration (same charge, same ionic radius); hence, same 'chemical properties'. But isotopes do differ in their mass. What properties might be affected by this? Physical properties."

http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Pre...hydrology.shtml
"Isotopes are atoms of an element that are chemically identical, but physically different."

Here are some definitions of 'isotope':

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~stm/TG/Pub...nsmutation.html
1. Definition: Isotope. The species (elemental identity) of an atom is determined by the number of protons in the nucleus, while its isotope variety is determined primarily by the number of neutrons. A given element may have many isotopes, all of which are chemically identical.

http://www.ans.neep.wisc.edu/~ans/p...e.rxtrs/1a.html DEFINITION: Isotope: When we talk of the isotopes of an element, such as hydrogen above, we mean that the isotopes have the same number of protons (making them chemically identical) but different numbers of neutrons. A set of isotones have the same number of neutrons but different numbers of protons. Finally, a set of isobars all have the same atomic mass, but different numbers of neutrons and protons.

1. isotope
Definition:
An alternate form of an element that has the usual number of protons but a nonstandard number of neutrons; the fewer or additional neutrons give the isotope a different atomic weight than the regular element and may make the isotope radioactive, but otherwise an isotope has the same chemical action as the regular element. Because of this, isotopes (such as radioactive carbon) are used as tracers in biological systems or processes.

http://www.academicpress.com/inscig...996/isotope.htm
isotope
a member of a chemical-element family that has two or more nuclides with the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons, so that while they have the same chemical attributes, they often display different physical attributes; e.g., carbon-12, which is stable, and carbon-14, which is radioactive. Thus, isotopic.

The bottom line is, a difference in the C14 to C12 ratio would not make it inaccurate to state that a synthetic diamond is chemically identical to a natural diamond.

> People are willing to pay more for naturally produced products than synthetic
> products. Since they are, it is a deceptive practice not to disclose origin.

I agree with you about this, which is why I definitely believe that it is a good thing that there are ways to tell the two apart. Debeers likes the fluorescence test because it can be set up in a local jeweler's shop fairly easily.

Having said that, my point is only that I don't see why someone who makes artificial stones should feel they need to go out of their way to mark them as such. I agree that the consumer has the right to know whether they are buying a real or a man-made stone. But at the same time, the consumer may also prefer a stone that is not specifically marked in any way. Jewelers should just learn to tell them apart, as needed. If a stone comes from a reputable source with a certificate, there is no need to test for this, anyway.

Tom

Old DiamondExpert

    DiamondExpert's Avatar
 
My Profile
Registered User : offline
Joined: 10-31-99
Posts: 918
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 90
Points: 42
DiamondExpert is on a distinguished road
Hits: Out=1831, In=2


WUPSTER,
Quote this post and reply to it Post#17 @ 09-09-02 , 03:35 PM


an informative, accurate and non-combative reply, but I think they were meant for Jamesd, not Paul.

Regards,


DiamondExpert signature
Gary
Old bingostu
 
My Profile
Registered User : offline
Joined: 01-22-01
Posts: 338
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 79
Points: 10
bingostu is on a distinguished road
Hits: Out=925, In=0


intended use and deception
Quote this post and reply to it Post#18 @ 09-10-02 , 02:02 AM


resp to:Having said that, my point is only that I don't see why someone who makes artificial stones should feel they need to go out of their way to mark them as such. I agree that the consumer has the right to know whether they are buying a real or a man-made stone. But at the same time, the consumer may also prefer a stone that is not specifically marked in any way. Jewelers should just learn to tell them apart, as needed. If a stone comes from a reputable source with a certificate, there is no need to test for this, anyway.

Tom
`````````````
OK, once again this is seems to be a call for intentional deception there are federal laws against that (or did you skip the FTC stuff that Marty posted).

Oh, you are going to rely on a jeweler to be careful with a certificate? What about all the filled or drilled diamonds that some jewelers convieniently forget to inform their customers about?

BTW< I have NEVER heard of a consumer that didn't want to know if the stone he is buying ISN'T real!

Do you know what kind of lawsuits you are inviting by NOT disclosing???

I'm sorry, but this arguement doesn't pass the smell test...

bingostu

Old WUPSTER
 
My Profile
Registered User : offline
Joined: 09-07-02
Posts: 13
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 0
Points: 10
WUPSTER is on a distinguished road


Re: intended use and deception
Quote this post and reply to it Post#19 @ 09-10-02 , 02:34 AM


bingotsu wrote:

> OK, once again this is seems to be a call for intentional deception there are
> federal laws against that (or did you skip the FTC stuff that Marty posted).

A 'call for intentional deception'?

> Oh, you are going to rely on a jeweler to be careful with a certificate? What
> about all the filled or drilled diamonds that some jewelers convieniently
> forget to inform their customers about?

I think you are right about this, a dishonest jeweler could definitely 'fail to be careful' with a certificate. As you mention, I am sure that some fill and drill diamonds without disclosing that, or substitute a stone of different color or clarity than the one the consumer thinks s/he is buying. Do you think most of the people who buy stones have any idea whether their stone is color D or F or G? And as you say, deception could also occur with the synthetic versus natural issue. You and I having both agreed that deception can occur with diamonds in several different ways, what makes the synthetic versus natural issue so much different from other dishonest things that could be done, that special intrusive measures need to be taken to try to stop it? When a lab grades a gem, should they inscribe it with the various ratings such that the consumer can view them with a loupe?

> BTW I have NEVER heard of a consumer that didn't want to know if the stone he
> is buying ISN'T real!

Yes, Bingotsu, which is why I have been agreeing all along that people want to know this.

> Do you know what kind of lawsuits you are inviting by NOT disclosing???

I am not clear on what you are saying here. First, what do you mean by, I am inviting lawsuits by not disclosing. What am I not disclosing? I've mentioned that I don't believe stones need to be inscribed with a notification that they are man-made. Who is going to sue me for this, and what am I not disclosing?

If you mean that a synthetic gem maker who doesn't inscribe their gems with notification that they are synthetic risks being sued, I don't see why they would, if they represent the stones accurately. Further we also need to consider what will happen when other firms around the world start producing synthetic gems. Will we attempt to sue them in a US court to enforce inscribing them? Will this work?

> I'm sorry, but this arguement doesn't pass the smell test...

I get the impression that you are accusing me of some kind of ulterior motive, which puzzles me because I am not involved in the diamond or jewelry industry. (Other than that I am thinking about MAYBE buying a diamond sometime.) What kind of ulterior motive would you accuse me of, rather than just accept that this is my valid & honest opinion?

If I were to drop a few kilobucks on a man-made gem, I don't want to take my loupe and excitedly check out my new stone, only to find the Gemesis logo staring back at me. This is really tacky. If someone is going to make a synthetic rock, let it be just a plain simple rock, synthetic.

It will be a losing battle to try to encourage/require/etc. synthetic diamond makers to inscribe the gems somehow with a notification that they are synthetic. There are already at least 2 firms in the States who can produce them (gemesis and chatham) and I have found at least one other firm on the 'net somewhere. Plus, the technology exists in Russia and is bound to spread and be duplicated in other nations. You will never be able to guarantee that everyone is marking their stones. It is better to focus on developing the already fairly easy ways of telling them apart, and develop those. There are several ways to tell synthetic from natural stones.

If at some point synthetic diamonds become relatively widespread, then a test for natural/synthetic should be added to the standard series of tests a gemologist or jeweler will perform when looking at a stone, if there is any reason to doubt its pedigree.

And this is basically just my opinion, not part of some conspiracy or the result of ulterior motives.

Old Ragemanchoo

    Ragemanchoo's Avatar
 
My Profile
Registered User : offline
Joined: 10-14-01
Posts: 540
Years:
Last seen wearing: Great big YG lion ring.
 
My Karma
Power: 93
Points: 1562
Ragemanchoo has a brilliant future Ragemanchoo has a brilliant future Ragemanchoo has a brilliant future Ragemanchoo has a brilliant future Ragemanchoo has a brilliant future Ragemanchoo has a brilliant future Ragemanchoo has a brilliant future Ragemanchoo has a brilliant future Ragemanchoo has a brilliant future Ragemanchoo has a brilliant future Ragemanchoo has a brilliant future
Hits: Out=684, In=0


Quote this post and reply to it Post#20 @ 09-10-02 , 03:19 AM


Another site offering synthetic diamonds is www.lucentdiamonds.com ... I like their site, I wish they would update it more often, though.

Somebody said early-on in this thread that Gemesis seems to only offer yellow and orange diamonds, and yellowish-oranges, etc. They have some green diamond jewelry, too, varying shades of green.

Gemesis -- If you can see this, I like your site!! Add some more photos to the jewelry gallery. If you're getting in VVS-quality crystals, you should offer Asscher cut diamonds. They require a cleaner stone than other cuts. I love Asscher cuts...

If I were to get into the market for a fancy colored diamond, I would consider synthetics like these.

Here's a "barion" yellow from the Gemesis site. Looks more like a Flanders to me. You be the judge...

Last edited by Ragemanchoo : 09-10-02 at 03:28 AM.
Attached Images
flanders.gif
 
Old Jamesd

    Jamesd's Avatar
 
My Profile

Joined: 06-25-00
Posts: 1,530
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 0
Points: 10
Jamesd is on a distinguished road
Hits: Out=704, In=1


Quote this post and reply to it Post#21 @ 09-11-02 , 01:41 PM


Wupster,

As you noted, it is inaccurate to write that different isotopes are chemically identical, because their reaction kinetics can differ, even though they undergo the same reactions. It's still a good enough approximation for most uses, including the purposes of the pages you referred to. Just not good enough when you're considering analytical chemistry and want to know if there are ways to distinguish between two samples.

If it affects the normal chemical properties, including things commonly used in chemical analysis, like melting point, mass spectrograph, IR spectrum or reaction kinetics, it has a different chemical composition.

I mentioned L and R because those can have the same elemental composition, the same number of atoms, the same chemical bonds, the same isotopes and still have a different chemical composition, with only the bond angles different. An even closer equivalence than having different isotopic composition. Yet you wouldn't want the FDA to approve a drug as having the same chemical composition unless that composition matched the required L or R ingredient to make it biologically active. Similarly, you wouldn't accept a radioactive marker with an identical declared chemical composition which didn't include any of the radioactive component, even if it consists of the same elements. The chemical compositions declared to the FDA (chemical composition is the wording the FDA uses to state what it requires) must include such details and do when it makes a difference in biological activity.

The point of the chemical composition questions is that if there are any significant differences in composition, not just gross ones like being mostly carbon instead of mostly CZ, that can be detected.

Saying that these diamonds are made of diamond instead of CZ would be good and completely accurate. Saying they have the same chemical composition would only be accurate if there's nothing at all different between them and the natural equivalents which a thorough analytical chemist could identify.

If it is nickel catalysis, as mentioned by Marty, and the nickel lines show up in IR spectroscopy, these do not have the same chemical composition as natural diamond unless the same concentration of nickel is present in the normal variations of natural diamond of comparable color. The detection of nickel by traditional chemical reactions or IR or mass spectroscopy would prove that they have a different chemical composition. The same would apply if cobalt residue could be detected by a mass spectrograph or other means. No need to wonder about isotopes of carbon if elements not present in natural diamond are there.

Marking may be necessary because it is at least theoretically possible to produce a synthetic which has a composition which can't be distinguished from that of natural diamond. When that happens, either the values of the two must be the very close or the vast majority of the synthetics must be marked in some way, perhaps ways detectable by inexpensive spectroscopic means rather than engraved girdles.

Paul,

Thanks. These are an interesting product, sounding in many ways like a superior product to the natural diamond.
The possibility of it being economically viable to produce excellent cuts is particularly interesting.

marty,

Thanks for your comments. I agree that these are not real diamonds even if they are really carbon in diamond structure and an otherwise superior product to the more common substitutes.

Old WUPSTER
 
My Profile
Registered User : offline
Joined: 09-07-02
Posts: 13
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 0
Points: 10
WUPSTER is on a distinguished road


Quote this post and reply to it Post#22 @ 09-11-02 , 10:20 PM


Quote:
Originally posted by Jamesd
Wupster,

As you noted, it is inaccurate to write that different isotopes are chemically identical, because their reaction kinetics can differ, even though they undergo the same reactions.


JamesD,

Sometimes it's best to cut your losses and just admit you were wrong about something. It's not a big deal.

In case you missed them the first time, I will regurgitate again a few of the references that specifically and directly addressed this question, demonstrating that correct usage holds that different isotopes of the same element are chemically identical:

http://whyfiles.org/083isotope/2.html
"Recall that the isotopes of an element are chemically identical, but physically different."

http://talc.geo.umn.edu/courses/2303/notes13.htm
"Isotopes of an element have identical chemical properties - same number of protons in the nucleus, and the same electronic configuration (same charge, same ionic radius); hence, same 'chemical properties'. But isotopes do differ in their mass. What properties might be affected by this? Physical properties."

http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Pre...hydrology.shtml
"Isotopes are atoms of an element that are chemically identical, but physically different."

It is an interesting curiosity that with very light elements like hydrogen, the mass of various isotopes can differ significantly and a difference can be seen in reaction kinetics (which could be viewed as a physical property in this case). Such effects are negligible with heavier elements. This does not affect, of course, equilibrium constants or anything else of the sort, since the chemical properties of isotopes of the various elements are identical. I probably shouldn't have even tossed this comment out anyway, I mentioned it only as a curiosity and you likely wouldn't know about it/be distracting the issue by referring to it if I hadn't.

It simply is not correct, established usage to call different isotopes of the same element 'chemically different'. If you want to use the term 'chemically different' that way, you will be the only one to do so.

'Chemical properties' is a term that refers specifically to those properties shared among all atoms with the same number of protons in the nucleus. This is the very essence of what is meant by the term 'chemical property'. This is why your usage was incorrect when you said that a diamond with a different C14/C12 ratio than a second diamond should be considered 'chemically different' as a result of that difference. When you want to refer to properties that differ among atoms because their atomic weight differs, you are referring to 'physical properties'.

I listed a ton of references above demonstrating that different isotopes of the same element are defined as being chemically identical. I could fill ten pages of this site with references specifically addressing your attempt to use the term this way and demonstrating that it is wrong, but it would be a waste of space because I've already demonstrated it sufficiently.

If you want current usage of chemical terminology to change, you can start a campaign to this end, but you are currently alone on this. Why are you so resistant to admitting you goofed on this one? Perhaps you are a bit ashamed that you made the high school chemistry crack and it turned out that you were the one who was way off.

It really shouldn't be such a big deal to have someone point out that your usage was incorrect. Most people would just note it and move on. I suggest you change to be in sync with the rest of the scientific world, rather than vice versa.

Last edited by WUPSTER : 09-11-02 at 11:20 PM.
Old diamondangel
 
My Profile

Joined: 11-06-00
Posts: 1,953
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 0
Points: 10
diamondangel is on a distinguished road


RE : Real man-made Diamonds
Quote this post and reply to it Post#23 @ 09-12-02 , 12:01 AM


Lol...isn't that an oxymoron?

Old muzzman
 
My Profile
Registered User : offline
Joined: 11-27-01
Posts: 97
Years:
 
My Karma
Power: 72
Points: 10
muzzman is on a distinguished road
Hits: Out=0, In=2


Quote this post and reply to it Post#24 @ 09-12-02 , 03:27 AM


The diamonds are made by real men, not the type who eat quiche.

Remember, diamonds don't make the man. The man makes the diamonds.

Read Messages in: DIAMONDS All forums
Newer:
Up a Topic Farsi Jewelers on Ebay Gorgeous Ring by Horizon
Up a Topic Bezel design Ring Can stone be swapped out posted in JEWELRY by Shopsalott
Older:
Down a Topic For the Flander s Brilliant lover by diamondangel
Down a Topic Fancy Deep Yellowish Orange Diamond posted in JEWELRY CLASSIFIEDS by RSSD
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:
 
Advanced Search

Contact Us - Guidelines - Privacy Policy - Refer a Friend - Top^


Google Custom Search

XHTML | CSS
Logged in as Unregistered
Powered by: vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1998 - Present, DiamondRing.com. oHraDaco.
All times are GMT -4. The current time is 06:08 PM.
Validation #36ae2b1b.