DeBeers has “conflict free diamonds” too (or so they claim) although perhaps not “Conflict Free tm”.
And you can get CZ’s just as pretty and MUCH bigger. You won’t be able to tell the difference. Get them in a good setting and your friends won’t be able to either.
Yeah but if you buy a CZ for an engagement ring and she goes to get it appraised for, uhm, insurance purposes there’ll be hell to pay.
Why? I mean, if you lie to your fiance, then sure. But if you tell her it’s a CZ due to the despicable politcal activities of DeBeers, then that’s different.
IIRC there is a process that can manufacture extremely pure true diamonds.
It’s a process that was originally intended for producing new materials for the semiconductor industry. Pure crystalline materials are very useful and extensively used, buts its the impurities that are a significant factor in reducing yield rates for silicon chips. Control over the impurities is alo crucial in prodcuing the desired properties of the material.
It turns out that this process works to produce diamonds, not synthetic but entirely real diamonds, and its this process that De Beers sees as the greatest potential threat to its cartel.
I can’t rememember too much about it, expect that its a process of deposition and does not require the enormous pressures that the better known Russian process employs.
Yeah, here’s a link about the Canadian diamond industry. Canada is coming on pretty strong in the diamond market, doubt it’ll do much for the haters.
There are women who value their engagement rings as something other than their dollar value, y’know. I like mine because it is sparkly and pretty, and because I got it from someone I dearly love.
And some of us do actually have rings appraised so we can put a rider on our renters’ or homeowners’ insurance covering them. I had to put a rider like that on my renters’ insurance, because otherwise it only covers jewelry up to a certain amount.
I know it but unless you agree ahead of time with your GF that her engagement ring will be a CZ so she can get something bigger and/or save money I am reasonably certain most women would be pissed off to find their new diamond was a fake. Understandable really since their new fiance just tried to pull a fast one on her which does not bode well for the relationship.
And yes, getting the diamond appraised for insurance is not only legitimate but smart although talking to my ex who did that she said the side effect of knowing its value while not important was a point of interest to her.
I agree absolutely.
In fact, I think it’s better for most couples to pick out the ring together, rather than the man surprising the woman with it. Mr. Neville and I did that, and I’m very happy with my engagement ring. Maybe some women would rather be surprised, but if I’m going to wear a ring every day for the rest of my life, I’d rather have some input in picking it out.
Read my link to a Wired Magazine article in Post #13 for more info on this.
I guess, if you claimed the stone was a diamond, sure. :dubious:
Ditto. Or an emerald, or ruby, or opal, or amethyst. Oh, or better yet, an aquamarine!
Just basically, something pretty, with lots of color. Diamonds are just so blah. I think they make better accent stones (think Diana’s engagement ring from Charles-the big sapphire surrounded by diamonds).
I think the only way I’d accept a diamond is if it were an antique, or a family heirloom. Otherwise, no diamonds, thanks.
There is one issue when choosing a non-diamond stone for an engagement ring- some stones are harder than others, and some are more brittle than others. If you’re going to wear your engagement ring every day (and why get a unique and beautiful ring if you’re not going to?), I’ve heard that you should get a stone with a hardness greater than 7 on the Mohs scale. 7 is the hardness of quartz (which is very common- sand is made up at least partly of quartz), so anything softer than that can be damaged by things you’re likely to come into contact with.
Diamonds are, of course, a 10 on the Mohs scale. Sapphires and rubies also work well as stones for everyday wear, at 9. Topaz is an 8 and aquamarines are between 7.5 and 8. Opals range between 5.5 and 6.5, though, so they might not stand up so well.
I seem to recall from when I was looking for an engagement ring (yes, I did consider this when I was choosing a stone for my engagement ring) that emeralds, while resistant to scratching (hardness 7.5 to 8), are not terribly durable and are likely to get damaged in an engagement ring. I also recall (but can’t find a cite) that supposedly jade is the most durable stone.
By the way, Guin, I think Mr. Neville is going to want to kill you. I saw some beautiful rings on there, but one of them was almost $20,000. I think I will show him, though, just because it’s fun to see him react to something like that 
(He’s only in his 30s- I guess when he gets older and more likely to actually have a heart attack, I will have to stop doing this. But for now, I get to have my fun.)
Heh. You know what I just noticed about that vintage ring site? There are no ring sizes in the descriptions. It’s a site for people who want to spend $50,000+ on a ring that’s not even being purchased to be worn!
Ah good, aquamarines seem pretty durable! I just adore them, although my birthstone is ruby.
Please tell us Mr. Neville’s reaction, Anne!
It’s true, at least according to the GIA appraiser in my family.
Go for moissanite. I am surprised that moissanite did not come up at all in the CZ vs. diamond thread. Jewelers cannot tell them apart from real diamonds with the naked eye.
In the end, though, it’s all about status symbols, and a whole lot of women feel that the more money invested into a ring, the more they are loved. If the diamonds market collapsed we’d move onto emeralds or something. I hate this mentality. Give me a plain gold band anyday and put the money towards a down payment on a house.
I could have sworn that I read an article by Cecil once about De Beers (not the one linked above in this thread) in which he pretty bluntly stated that they had their own (essentially) mini-military which kept laborers (sometimes children even) digging.
Doing a search of the archive now, though, I don’t see anything like that. Given that I knew nothing of the diamond market previous to having read whatever article that was, nor having read anything further on the topic till now, I’m not sure why I would think that though if it isn’t what he wrote…
Did an article get poofed?
[QUOTE=CalMeacham]
Despite all the recent articles about the de Beers manipulations of the market and such, it’s worth pointing out that diamonds do have qualities that make them admired and desirable – their extreme hardness (hardest in natrure at STP), their very high refractive index (among the highest in the visible) and chromatic dispersion (which makes them much more readily sparkle in different colors),QUOTE]
Those qualities are admirable for saw blades and disco lights. I agree. I'll find another beacon of eternal admiration. :DYou can get rings sized- I’ve had my engagement ring re-sized. If you bought a really expensive ring, they’d probably even do it for free- the shop where I got my engagement ring did.
He made a little squeaking sound… 
No…look around the site further. They state that most of the rings can be resized, and that the description will say if the ring can’t be resized. I saw a few star gems that I drooled over, and I considered telling my husband about them (I never got an engagement ring, just a wedding ring, we were POOR back then), but I’d really rather upgrade my computer, or get a new game console, even if they don’t last as long.
My ideal ring would be a triple aquamarines gold ring. The stones would be emerald cut, since that’s my favorite-the center would be the largest, with two smaller aquamarines on each side, also emerald cut.