Are some gemstones too fragile for every day use?

Hello,
I am looking for an engagement ring and I've determined that my price-
range ($1500) should be enough to allow me to get a decent mounting
with a nice bling-y semi-precious stone. Probably I would like
something large, shiny and purple or pink.

I've been talking to a lot of jewelers about this and one recommended
to me that for an engagement ring that will be worn daily I should not
do amethyst or kunzite, or topaz because these are too fragile and
will scuff and chip with every day use. Out of the stones that we
discussed she basically only recommended sapphire, diamonds, and
moisannite (ok, ruby too but thats way out of my range).

In your opinion, is that a fair assessment or is that just her opinion
that will vary from jeweler to jeweler?

Thanks so much for helping me out.

"George Mauer" wrote in message
...
Hello,
I am looking for an engagement ring and I've determined that my price-
range ($1500) should be enough to allow me to get a decent mounting
with a nice bling-y semi-precious stone. Probably I would like
something large, shiny and purple or pink.

I've been talking to a lot of jewelers about this and one recommended
to me that for an engagement ring that will be worn daily I should not
do amethyst or kunzite, or topaz because these are too fragile and
will scuff and chip with every day use. Out of the stones that we
discussed she basically only recommended sapphire, diamonds, and
moisannite (ok, ruby too but thats way out of my range).

In your opinion, is that a fair assessment or is that just her opinion
that will vary from jeweler to jeweler?

Thanks so much for helping me out.


I would agree with her and maybe add spinel to the list - it's quite durable
and availabe in both pink and purple. But I'm not a professional, so feel
free to ask around.


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3973 (20090329) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

there are many gemstones are available in the market for your daily use like Sphalerite,Sure, pearls & opals etc.

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:09:56 -0700, George Mauer
wrote:

Hello,
I am looking for an engagement ring and I've determined that my price-
range ($1500) should be enough to allow me to get a decent mounting
with a nice bling-y semi-precious stone. Probably I would like
something large, shiny and purple or pink.

I've been talking to a lot of jewelers about this and one recommended
to me that for an engagement ring that will be worn daily I should not
do amethyst or kunzite, or topaz because these are too fragile and
will scuff and chip with every day use. Out of the stones that we
discussed she basically only recommended sapphire, diamonds, and
moisannite (ok, ruby too but thats way out of my range).

In your opinion, is that a fair assessment or is that just her opinion
that will vary from jeweler to jeweler?

Thanks so much for helping me out.


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.

Here are some examples (none of these were greater than $1000):

http://www.dansstarrgems.com/Sold-Zi...ut-Stones.html

You can get a colorless zircon fairly inexpensively too. I once cut a
zircon as a diamond replacement and only charged the guy $250. There
are quite a few hobbyist gem cutters who would be happy to cut one for
you.

Dan Starr

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

Originally Posted by

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:09:56 -0700, George Mauer
wrote:

Hello,
I am looking for an engagement ring and I've determined that my price-
range ($1500) should be enough to allow me to get a decent mounting
with a nice bling-y semi-precious stone. Probably I would like
something large, shiny and purple or pink.

I've been talking to a lot of jewelers about this and one recommended
to me that for an engagement ring that will be worn daily I should not
do amethyst or kunzite, or topaz because these are too fragile and
will scuff and chip with every day use. Out of the stones that we
discussed she basically only recommended sapphire, diamonds, and
moisannite (ok, ruby too but thats way out of my range).

In your opinion, is that a fair assessment or is that just her opinion
that will vary from jeweler to jeweler?

Thanks so much for helping me out.


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.

Here are some examples (none of these were greater than $1000):

http://www.dansstarrgems.com/Sold-Zi...ut-Stones.html

You can get a colorless zircon fairly inexpensively too. I once cut a
zircon as a diamond replacement and only charged the guy $250. There
are quite a few hobbyist gem cutters who would be happy to cut one for
you.

Dan Starr

Gemstones allow you to bring a lot of color to your jewelry. From the deep purple of amethyst to the shocking pink sapphire to the gentle butter-yellow tourmaline, gemstone jewelry allows you to show more of your personality. But remember that gemstones, too, have different grades of quality, and it is important to educate yourself about the qualities that are assessed to determine the overall value of your chosen stone.

-Adapted

Personally I like the trend now that is leaning towards colored gemstones instead of diamonds for weddings and engagement jewelry. Colored gemstones are far more rare then diamonds to begin with. A 1ct. high end favorite garnet engagement ring would be far more impressive then a 1ctor even 2ct diamond one any day IMHO, not to mention far more durable as well since garnets are not as prone to fracture as diamonds are. Many folks still love diamonds, but frankly, I love rarity and that is what colored gemstones offer over diamonds.