This line—pulled out of context, so there’s a big caveat right there—caught my eye, because of the presupposition that synthetic≠real.
This fascinates me. To my mind, this reflects a triumph of marketing over substance (all hail the brilliance of De Beers!), but others may differ. So, I wonder, what else could be going on here? What is it that makes something pulled out of the ground “real” in a way that something that is identical (and formed using the same processes, actually) except for not needing to be rinsed off as a first step is not?
I think the source of confusion comes from the fact that people often call cubic zirconia a “synthetic diamond,” and because pretty much everyone knows that CZ is not diamond, people assume that other synthetic stones are similarly different from the “real deal.”
“What is it that makes something pulled out of the ground “real” in a way that something that is identical (and formed using the same processes, actually) except for not needing to be rinsed off as a first step is not?”
It’s probably along the same lines as thinking I want granite counter tops not ones that look like granite or I want real wood floors not laminate. Both serve the same function and may look identical but some people want the real thing.
“Both serve the same function and may look identical but some people want the real thing.”
Countertops are not a good analogy, because their chemical composition differs from that of granite, yet synthetic sapphire IS chemically and physically identical to the thing pulled out of the ground.
According to the all-knowing Wikipedia, the modern tradition of diamond engagement rings is largely owing to a marketing campaign begun by DeBeers in 1939 after the price of diamonds collapsed.
Obviously, a better marketing campaign is needed for synthetic gemstones. I suggest that they should be marketed as Science Stones as opposed to Dirt Stones.
Lol, Hunt. One issue with that is that first, science needs to be marketed as cool. I feel that public opinion currently ranks science lower than dirt.
“Can a jeweler or an expert tell the difference between a synthetic one and a real one? I’m not taking about the general public.”
So, words of a chemist are not good enough? Corundum is corundum… The color is due to what would be considered minor impurities. And apparently the vast majority of the “natural” stones are heat-treated to enhance their color. So if you want the most natural sapphire possible, find the one that has not been heated to remove flaws.
I believe legally the synthetics have to be marked (usually with a tiny serial number or some such) precisely because nobody can tell the difference. They really are identical, just like if you combined hydrogen and oxygen to create water. The resulting water is actually water, and a synthetic sapphire is an actual sapphire.
I prefer natural stones with their imperfections rather than lab grown stones of the same composition, particularly if they came by their color and clarity naturally. Fine, untreated natural stones are rare, and that is a value in itself.
CTMom, did your natural stones come with a GIA certificate that they have not been heat-treated or color enhanced in any other way? If so, wow. Those would be extremely pricy. We are not taking about $3k for a carat.
This thread is making me love my sapphire ring even more than I already loved it. And it is very likely a synthetic…wasn’t all that pricey. But it’s beautiful.
Corundum is corundum… The color is due to what would be considered minor impurities. And apparently the vast majority of the “natural” stones are heat-treated to enhance their color. So if you want the most natural sapphire possible, find the one that has not been heated to remove flaws.