Celestial Crystal vs. Swarovski Crystal...opinions?

[J's Girl]

Has anyone had any experience with the Celestial Crystal? I know it
doesn't come in as many nice colors as the Swarovski, but for the
clear and clear ab crystals, I thought it'd be a good substitution. I
know they are hand cut....does that mean that they're not at all
uniform? How off are they?

[Deborah]

"J's Girl" > wrote in message
> Has anyone had any experience with the Celestial Crystal? I know it
> doesn't come in as many nice colors as the Swarovski, but for the
> clear and clear ab crystals, I thought it'd be a good substitution. I
> know they are hand cut....does that mean that they're not at all
> uniform? How off are they?
>

Hi,

The best way to see the difference is to look at them side by side. The
Swarovskis are a much, much better crystal bead.
I've see the Celestial brand and in my opinon they do not compare.

Best,
Deborah

[Kandice Seeber]

I don't even think of Czech fire-polished as crystal. I think of it as
another type of glass bead. Czech is very high quality for what it is.
Swarvski is bar-none the best in quality, for crystal. I use both, but don't
use CC because it is lower quality crystal.

--
Kandice Seeber
Air & Earth Designs
http://www.lampwork.net

> says...
>
> [re comparing Swarovski & Celestial Crystal]
> >
> >The best way to see the difference is to look at them side by side. The
> >Swarovskis are a much, much better crystal bead.
> >I've see the Celestial brand and in my opinon they do not compare.
>
> That doesn't surprise me. But how does the CC stand up against less
expensive
> crystal beads, such as Czech fire-polished? Is it about the same, or
> considerably lower in quality?
>
> Celine
>
> --
> Handmade jewelry at http://www.rubylane.com/shops/starcat
> "Only the powers of evil claim that doing good is boring."
> -- Diane Duane, _Nightfall at Algemron_
>

[Deirdre S.]

I sometimes combine it with Swarovski, in coordinating colors. The
Swarovski really stands out in sparkly contrast, but the firepolish,
with its softer edges, feels better against the skin than the
sharp-faceted crystals.

So, I let the firepolish fill in around the back of a necklace, which
the wearer can feel, but most folks aren't going to see very much of,
while the 'good stuff' stays front and center, earning its keep in
dazzle-factor.

Deirdre

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 8:17:54 -0400, Kathy N-V
> wrote:

>I agree with Kandice on the fire polished stuff - IIRC, it's not crystal,
>merely faceted glass. It's very high quality, and quite pretty in its own
>right. I use a lot of it, especially in the richer colors.
>
>Kathy N-V

[Kaytee]

In article >,
(Lee S. Billings) writes:

>Swarovskis are a much, much better crystal bead.
>>I've see the Celestial brand and in my opinon they do not compare.
>
>That doesn't surprise me. But how does the CC stand up against less expensive
>
>crystal beads, such as Czech fire-polished? Is it about the same, or
>considerably lower in quality?

CCs look like acrylic to me.... Even after the "tooth test", it's hard to
believe they aren't acrylic.
They chip pretty badly, too.
Over all, I'd say go with the FP-- it holds up better, doesn't have sharp edges
and is (usually) cheaper priced.
Kaytee
"Simplexities" on
www.eclecticbeadery.com
http://www.rubylane.com/shops/simplexities

[Christina Peterson]

That's interesting. At first I thought you meant you use fire polish with
Swarovski in between.

Tina


"Deirdre S." > wrote in message
...
> I sometimes combine it with Swarovski, in coordinating colors. The
> Swarovski really stands out in sparkly contrast, but the firepolish,
> with its softer edges, feels better against the skin than the
> sharp-faceted crystals.
>
> So, I let the firepolish fill in around the back of a necklace, which
> the wearer can feel, but most folks aren't going to see very much of,
> while the 'good stuff' stays front and center, earning its keep in
> dazzle-factor.
>
> Deirdre
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 8:17:54 -0400, Kathy N-V
> > wrote:
>
> >I agree with Kandice on the fire polished stuff - IIRC, it's not crystal,
> >merely faceted glass. It's very high quality, and quite pretty in its
own
> >right. I use a lot of it, especially in the richer colors.
> >
> >Kathy N-V
>

[Deirdre S.]

You could certainly do that. It would make the Swarovski 'snap', since
its light-reflective properties are much better than the fire polish.
And it would serve to 'stretch' the more expensive Swarovskis.

Deirdre

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:12:11 GMT, "Christina Peterson"
> wrote:

>That's interesting. At first I thought you meant you use fire polish with
>Swarovski in between.
>
>Tina
>
>
>"Deirdre S." > wrote in message
...
>> I sometimes combine it with Swarovski, in coordinating colors. The
>> Swarovski really stands out in sparkly contrast, but the firepolish,
>> with its softer edges, feels better against the skin than the
>> sharp-faceted crystals.
>>
>> So, I let the firepolish fill in around the back of a necklace, which
>> the wearer can feel, but most folks aren't going to see very much of,
>> while the 'good stuff' stays front and center, earning its keep in
>> dazzle-factor.
>>
>> Deirdre
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 8:17:54 -0400, Kathy N-V
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >I agree with Kandice on the fire polished stuff - IIRC, it's not crystal,
>> >merely faceted glass. It's very high quality, and quite pretty in its
>own
>> >right. I use a lot of it, especially in the richer colors.
>> >
>> >Kathy N-V
>>
>