On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 02:01:01 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry
wrote:


George,

The best substitute for a diamond, in my opinion, is a natural zircon.
Zircon is not cubic zirconia (CZ), but a completely natural crystal
with a high refractive index of around 1.95. That refractive index
alllows it to exhibit the fire that you also see in diamonds. And it
costs a lot less.

Dan,

Two comments.

first, note that this newsgroup has a rather low volume of messages. That
translates to very long message retention times on some servers. The message
you responded to, for example, was over a year and a half old, so no doubt the
original poster will never see your suggestion. That doesn't mean you shouldn't
or cannot post such replies, just know that you are, in essence, starting a new
discussion.

Second, as to zircon being a good substitute for diamond, I'd offer some
caution there. It does have a high refractive index, which leads to great
brilliance and fire (two different properties) if well cut. In fact, the
dispersion (fire) is substantially more than with diamond itself in many cases,
though this varies depending on the zircon's properties (which vary due to
radioactive decay damage to the crystal structure between so-called high and low
zircon). Some zircon's look a lot like diamonds, some have less fire, and
others have way too much...

The big problem with natural zircon has to do with durability. They're not all
that hard, so if the OP had an objection to, say, amethyst, the zircon won't be
better. Many of them are also uniquely prone to abrasion, with worn/crumbly
looking facet edges being almost diagnostic with these once they've been worn a
while.

But you're right, in that for a natural stone, they are one of the better ones
if one wishes to duplicate the appearance of diamond.

Peter Rowe
moderator
rec.crafts.jewelry