Discussion:
Are some gemstones too fragile for every day use?
(too old to reply)
George Mauer
2009-03-27 01:09:56 UTC
Permalink
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.
m4816k
2009-03-30 17:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Mauer
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
Graver
2009-03-31 18:30:52 UTC
Permalink
To: rec-crafts-***@moderators.isc.org

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:09:56 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry George Mauer
Post by George Mauer
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.
(snip)


George,


You'd be suprised at what you can find on Ebay in the way of
Sapphires, I've purchased some beautiful yellow, as well as flawless
reds that in reality are in the same family as Rubies. I've purchased
1/2 carat Moissanite for very good prices that make a great look. I
think you should stay with round stones, as they'll have more settings
for you to choose from, and also you'll get the most flash from a
brillant round cut.

Just some thoughts.
m4816k
2009-04-01 10:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graver
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:09:56 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry George Mauer
Post by George Mauer
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.
(snip)
George,
You'd be suprised at what you can find on Ebay in the way of
Sapphires, I've purchased some beautiful yellow, as well as flawless
reds that in reality are in the same family as Rubies. I've purchased
1/2 carat Moissanite for very good prices that make a great look. I
think you should stay with round stones, as they'll have more settings
for you to choose from, and also you'll get the most flash from a
brillant round cut.
Just some thoughts.
Graver,

I wouldn't recommend anyone who's not overly familiar with the subject of
gemstones, to buy them from Ebay. There are indeed some wonderful offers and
great prices, but also quite a lot of folks who are waiting for uninformed
buyers. With today's level of treatments and imitations used to sell
gemstones (or "gemstones"), I'd be very cautious. IMO, for any gem newbie
it's more important who you buy from, than what you buy.
George Mauer
2009-03-31 18:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Hope this helps.
Peter Rowe
Wow. Boy does it help! Thank you so much Peter and m4816, today's
going to be a far more informed trip to the jewlers.
Peter W. Rowe
2009-03-31 18:34:16 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:31:09 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry George Mauer
Post by George Mauer
Wow. Boy does it help! Thank you so much Peter and m4816, today's
going to be a far more informed trip to the jewlers.
You're welcome. By the way, it's spelled "jewelers". Missing that "e" makes it
look, well, odd. Almost ... well... ( oh never mind.. :-) )
George Mauer
2009-04-01 03:23:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter W. Rowe
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:31:09 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry George Mauer
Wow.  Boy does it help!  Thank you so much Peter and m4816, today's
going to be a far more informed trip to the jewlers.
You're welcome.  By the way, it's spelled "jewelers".  Missing that "e" makes it
look, well, odd.  Almost ... well...   ( oh never mind.. :-)  )
Darn spell check, didn't notice the little red line this time.
Peter W. Rowe
2009-04-01 03:25:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:23:26 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry George Mauer
Post by George Mauer
Darn spell check, didn't notice the little red line this time.
On my news/mail client (forte agent), the spell check isn't real time. You have
to actually use it before hitting send. Easy to forget. Also easy to let it
correct errors, only find afterwards that it got the spelling right for wrong
usages, so the correctly spelled words are grammatically odd. Ya just can't win
sometimes.

cheers

Peter
charles
2009-04-01 10:44:58 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:25:21 -0700, Peter W. Rowe
Post by Peter W. Rowe
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:23:26 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry George Mauer
Post by George Mauer
Darn spell check, didn't notice the little red line this time.
On my news/mail client (forte agent), the spell check isn't real time. You have
to actually use it before hitting send. Easy to forget. Also easy to let it
correct errors, only find afterwards that it got the spelling right for wrong
usages, so the correctly spelled words are grammatically odd. Ya just can't win
sometimes.
cheers
Peter
There's an option to always spell check before sending any message.

In FA 2.00 it is under options>general preferences>spell checking.
Peter W. Rowe
2009-04-01 10:50:24 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:44:58 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry charles
Post by charles
There's an option to always spell check before sending any message.
In FA 2.00 it is under options>general preferences>spell checking.
I know. But for moderating purposes, that actually gets in the way, running
into oddities with font mismatches that occur when converting messages people
send to the group that land in my incoming email, to outgoing messages actually
going to the group. It ends up spell checking even some of the headers, which
always bogs down. As well, I don't really consider it always appropriate for
me to be spell correcting the messages other people write. I'm a moderator, not
an editor, and not everyone appreciates having a nanny oversee what they write.
So when I edit or correct, it's only as needed, usually to fix the glitches that
occur in the conversion from incoming to outgoing message. That's already
enough fuss sometimes, without also bothering with other peoples spelling.

cheers

Peter
Mr G H Ireland
2009-04-10 02:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter W. Rowe
 By the way, it's spelled "jewelers".
Not here in England, it isn't! Here, it is "jewellers"

G.H.Ireland
--
_ _________________________________________
/ \._._ |_ _ _ /' Orpheus Internet Services
\_/| |_)| |(/_|_|_> / 'Internet for Everyone'
_______ | ___________./ http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk
p911z
2009-05-28 17:32:40 UTC
Permalink
I think you should consider Corundum, Quartz or Topaz. They all are
durable stones having a hardness of 8 and above on Moh's scale and
thus can be used for daily wear. Another reason, they all come in a
variety of colors, so you can get a wide choice of colors to chose
from.
Peter W. Rowe
2009-05-28 17:34:23 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 28 May 2009 10:32:40 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry p911z
Post by p911z
I think you should consider Corundum, Quartz or Topaz. They all are
durable stones having a hardness of 8 and above on Moh's scale and
thus can be used for daily wear. Another reason, they all come in a
variety of colors, so you can get a wide choice of colors to chose
from.
One correction here. Quartz is the defining mineral for the mohs hardness
scale's 7. It is not as hard as corundum (sapphire,ruby, and a 9 on that scale)
or topaz.

Peter
robynahawk
2009-04-01 03:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Mauer
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 - I think you have a Jeweler that actually knows her stuff!

This is a link to a Wikipedia Article on the Mohs Scale of Hardness:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness

When looking for a stone that you want to wear daily - this should be
your FIRST resource.

Kunzite is a 6.5 - so too soft for everyday wear. If you knock on
something it tends to get small feathery fractures inside the stone.
When it was introduced (by Tiffany's) it was referred to as the
"Evening Stone" as it shouldn't be exposed to sun for extended
periods - the color has a tendency to fade.

Quartz (Amethyst) is a 7 - and while it would hold up to frequent wear
- it can get scratched up - but then too it is fairly inexpensive and
could be replaced when the stone starts to show wear.

Topaz is an 8 - the only Topaz that will show wear is the Vapor
Deposition Treated "Mystic" varieties as it is a surface treatment.
Again - cheap enough to replace.

Interesting she didn't mention the Beryl Family - also an 8 but more
of them are natural colors so less chance of getting that worn look -
maybe she just doesn't have any Morganite (more of a peachy pink).

As the previous posters have mentioned Spinel is an excellent option -
but I have to disagree with Peter - I don't think that Alexandrite is
in your price range. However - since you were considering a
synthetic stone in Moissanite you may want to look at the Russian Lab
Grown Alexandrite - you can get the showy size you are looking for
with the added bonus of "color change"!

Other inexpensive and showy looks might be a Malaya Garnet - pinky
purple - or a Rubellite Tourmaline!

Go to your bookstore - get a copy of Gemstones of the World by Walter
Schumann (short sweet and easy to read) - and do some research!

Robyn Hawk
Looking for a Gemshow in your Area?
http://GemShows.blogspot.com
Peter W. Rowe
2009-04-01 03:52:31 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:22:36 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry robynahawk
Post by robynahawk
George - I think you have a Jeweler that actually knows her stuff!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness
One thing to keep in mind about mohs hardenss is that it's simply an order, not
a good linear scale. Diamond, at 10, is some 40 times harder than sapphire at
9, depending on how you measure it. And sapphire is harder than beryl by more
than the interval between quartz and topaz. Also, hardness is only the measure
of how easily the stone can be scratched. It is not the same as toughness, or
the resistance to chipping and breaking. Spinel, for example, is a bit softer
than sapphire, but it's a good deal tougher and harder to chip. One can
illustrate the difference with a piece of glass, and a piece of plastic like
nylon. A sharp corner on the glass easily scratches the softer nylon. But drop
them both on the floor, and the plastic bounces while the glass shatters.
Topaz, as you note, is harder than quartz. But it's not as tough, what with a
perfect cleavage direction.
Post by robynahawk
When looking for a stone that you want to wear daily - this should be
your FIRST resource.
Kunzite is a 6.5 - so too soft for everyday wear. If you knock on
something it tends to get small feathery fractures inside the stone.
When it was introduced (by Tiffany's) it was referred to as the
"Evening Stone" as it shouldn't be exposed to sun for extended
periods - the color has a tendency to fade.
Not just a tendancy. It WILL fade, though how fast depends on the intensity of
the light and the duration. Also, like topaz, it too has a direction of perfect
cleavage (this is a direction through some types of crytals along which it's
much easier to split the crystal.)
Post by robynahawk
Quartz (Amethyst) is a 7 - and while it would hold up to frequent wear
- it can get scratched up - but then too it is fairly inexpensive and
could be replaced when the stone starts to show wear.
Topaz is an 8 - the only Topaz that will show wear is the Vapor
Deposition Treated "Mystic" varieties as it is a surface treatment.
Again - cheap enough to replace.
Some is cheap. In the pinkish tones, you can get into the so-called "imperial"
topaz, which depending on quality and size, can get at least into the hundreds
of dollars per karat. Still likely within the budget, but I don't think I'd
call them all exactly cheap. Also, though they are an 8 in hardness, their
slight brittleness and that cleavage direction does make them vulnerable to
chipping and breakage, even if they don't get too scratched up.
Post by robynahawk
Interesting she didn't mention the Beryl Family - also an 8 but more
of them are natural colors so less chance of getting that worn look -
maybe she just doesn't have any Morganite (more of a peachy pink).
Good call. I forgot that one too. Morganites aren't as common as some, nor are
they a bright pink, but they are indeed pretty, and so long as you stay out of
top quality aquamarines, or any decent quality of emerald, they can be
affordable. Personally, I like the golden beryls better. Bright clean lively
golden colors, and not excessively priced.
Post by robynahawk
As the previous posters have mentioned Spinel is an excellent option -
but I have to disagree with Peter - I don't think that Alexandrite is
in your price range. However - since you were considering a
synthetic stone in Moissanite you may want to look at the Russian Lab
Grown Alexandrite - you can get the showy size you are looking for
with the added bonus of "color change"!
I didn't imply that natural alexandrite was in the price range. I said they're
costly. I might have added that in the finest qualities, they can be among the
most costly gems you'll find around, if indeed you can even locate a stone in
those rare qualities. You can find moderatly priced ones on the net, but
frankly, most of them are somewhat less than stunning in appearance. And I'm
being tactful with that characterization.... :-) However, as you note, you CAN
find good and attractive synthetic alexandrite. The russian ones are nice, as
you mention. Personally, I also quite like the Chatham ones. as well. Maybe
it's just that "made in the U.S." thing right now... But Tom Chatham is a neat
guy, and no doubt appreciates the business.
Post by robynahawk
Other inexpensive and showy looks might be a Malaya Garnet - pinky
purple - or a Rubellite Tourmaline!
Go to your bookstore - get a copy of Gemstones of the World by Walter
Schumann (short sweet and easy to read) - and do some research!
Another good call. There are also many good sites on the net with decent
gemological info for free. Be a bit wary of any who are coupling it with a
strong attempt to sell you gems, but nevertheless, there's a lot of good
gemological info on the net. Wikipedia has a goodly amount, for example.


Peter
M***@home.com
2010-11-06 09:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Mauer
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-Zircon-Cut-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
Peter W. Rowe
2010-11-06 09:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graver
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

Loading...