• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Diamond or Cubic Zirconium?

HighRiser

Graduate Poster
H
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
1,920
Location
High above Indianapolis
Several years ago I found a diamond ring in the gutter. I posted 'found' notices about it around the neighborhood, but got no sincere responses. After a few weeks I put the ring away in a drawer and pretty much forgot about it until I ran across it last night.

It seems to have been run over by a car, was badly bent, and had asphalt embedded in the mouting. I cleaned it up pretty well, but when I tried to straighten out one of the more severe deformations the main stone popped out. I happen to own a small precision beam scale (don't ask me why) and this stone weighs 6/10 of a gram. Three carats, I believe.

If it is a diamond then it may conservatively be worth $2000 US, according to the little bit of research I did last night. That's a pretty big 'if' in my mind.

So my question is: Do any of you know how to differentiate diamond from CZ? Thus far I have confirmed that it can't be scratched by a steel screwdriver, it can't be wetted, and it doesn't transmit light from the bottom point through to the top facet.
 
Check this out.

Thus, if you submerge a cubic zirconia in a glass of water, the gemstone virtually disappears, while a diamond is still easily visible.
Click to expand...

I've also heard you can tell from the "sparkle pattern." Same basic idea--the index of refraction is different. But I don't know how do it myself.
 
There's another thing I remembered...the molecular crystal pattern of diamonds and cubic zirconias is different, so while diamond crystals can be cut nearly perfectly at certain angles, those same angles can only be achieved in zircons with tiny little bevels along the edges. If you know what to look for, you can supposedly see these bevels with a jeweler's lupe. A decent mid-grade lupe is a worthwhile investment for anyone, BTW.
 
Dump it in baby oil. Shine a bright light on it. If it still sparkles, it's a diamond.

Anyway- you have something against cubic zirconia?
 
HighRiser said:
Back from jeweler. It's CZ. Too heavy for its size verified by side-by-side comparison.

I have nothing against CZ. But my wallet would have been happier...
Click to expand...


Have some fun with it. cz is still very hard.

I found a loose stone a few years ago and wanted to test it without a trip to the jeweller's. I hit it with a hammer and dented the hammer and broke off chunks of the cement it was sitting on. I was very encouraged.

However, after a few strikes, I got a crumbly shard off he edge of the stone, and concluded it was cz.

-graeme
 
HighRiser said:
I have nothing against CZ. But my wallet would have been happier...
Click to expand...

But would it have been $2000 as in "you have to pay for jeweler that much to get a similar stone" or $2000 as in "the jeweler will pay you that much to get it from you"?

In the world of diamond merchandise there is a world of difference between those ...
 
You could always gold-plate it. Then you'd have gold-plated cubic zirconium which is much more valuable.
 
you could crush it up and glue it to a pair of tweezers and then you would have a pair of zircon encrusted tweezers and that would be mighty fine.

then move to Montana etc.
 
I hate to even mention this, but though diamonds are very hard they can be shattered by a sharp blow -- as from a hammer -- in the right place and along the right direction. (Or maybe that should say WRONG place, etc.) Taking an unidentified stone to a jeweler is probably the safest thing to do.

bob: Yippee i o ti yay!

[edit] Three substances: Zirconium is a chemical element, symbol Zr. Zircon is a mineral, sometimes of gem quality, natural (though often heat-treated to change the color), found on tweezers in a certain Zappa song; chemically it is ZrO2, zirconium oxide. Cubic zirconia is an artificial stone that combines hardness with spectral disperson for brilliance; it's zirconium silicate, ZrSiO4.

[edit edit] Wikipedia says cubic zirconia does occur in nature, but it's exceptionally rare. How about that?
 
Last edited:
Okay, if it took that much trouble to identify it, why is everyone so hung up on diamonds? I don't get it. In certain scientific circles I can see that a diamond would be useful, but from a purely decorative point of view, if it takes that much to discern one from the other, what's the point in spending thousands on a diamond??
 
I am accepting donations of spare diamonds if anyone has any they don't want.



Chicks will be chicks, skeptic or no.
 
3point14: I think it's easy enough for a jeweler to tell the difference, but not a layperson. I certainly wouldn't be able to test without researching it. Why diamonds? Tradition! (Oy, again with "Fiddler on the Roof;" what is it with me today?)

I'm not interested in buying diamonds or cubic zirconias. Give me a good, clear artificial alexandrite any day.
 
Gems were historically used as money. A gem was the most compact way to carry a large sum of money. A piece of jewelry was the most convinient way to carry a gem. Covering yourself with gems and shiny metal was not only nice to look at, but it also screamed "FILTHY RICH!" in case you wanted anyone to know that. Giving a woman an engagement ring was giving her a large sum of money in an attractive package. That demonstrated that you had enough money to set up a household, and also gave her the opportunity to let her friends see that as well. Note that the engagement ring is traditionally the one with the big rock--the wedding ring is more conservative.

Why were gems money? Same reason gold, silver, and copper were money.;)
 
A little more on "why diamonds?" I can say why they're used as the traditional engagement-ring gem. Supposedly it dates back to the betrothal in 1447 of Archduke Maximilian of Austria, who gave his intended a diamond ring. But diamonds were uncommonly used as gems until centuries later, and even then the connection with engagement seems not to have been a regular thing.

In the end it was heavy marketing by De Beers Group (who control most of the world's diamond market) since the 1930s that has made so many people think it's some kind of mandatory thing -- "Engagement=diamond and don't you DARE to cheat that darling little lady out of a treat bought from our virtual monopoly!"

I am not fond of De Beers, nor their tactics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom