There was a controversy a few years back about filling the naturally occurring carbon flaws in diamonds to enhance their appearance. Nothing necessity " wrong " with that , but selling it at a higher price when the carat weight wasn’t actual because of the filler.
@romanigypsyeyes , I am sure your ring is lovely and special to you , but man -made, lab created , synthetic is not the same as a naturally occurring stone.
I wouldn’t judge you or anyone else who consciously chooses any kind of stone , or lack of a stone for that matter , so try not to take it so personally when others choose something different.
And my reference to costume jewelry was about just that…not engagement rings. I do not wear costume jewelry at all
Costume jewelry = non precious metals , plated in gold , silver , enamels , etc. I cannot wear surgical steel or any other plated costume jewelry, especially in my ears.
And even if I could, I don’t because it isn’t my taste to wear that type of jewelry although I admire it on others
Given that chemically (and physically, if crystal structure falls under something other than chemistry to you) the emphasis-added bit in the above is untrue, what is the actual difference? Is it purely age? Or something else? I want to know what I’m missing—because clearly, it’s a deeply-held belief by many on this thread that there is an obvious, very important difference between them, but I’m honestly not getting what this obvious thing is.
Then you like the story of the stone. Which is fine, but that doesn’t make it different from a lab-grown stone.
Everyone is entitled to their preference, but to say that they’re different is just wrong. They are the same stone. If it matters to you that it was in the earth for a long time and then mined by humans, fine, that is fine, but that doesn’t make the STONE different.
Vast majority of “natural” sapphires are heat-treated to improve appearance. Apparently, quite a few are subjected to other “coloring” techniques. Only a few of us posting in this thread could afford a “natural” sapphire that has not been treated in any way. Then why overpay for something that has been de-naturalized vs. something identical that was born that way?
I can completely understand someone who is after a real diamond vs. a diamond-like substitute. Just don’t get the same pining for the “real deal” with corundum stones…
Gemologists can distinguish natural stones from synthetic ones. They can have different inclusions and growth lines. Although synthetic stones are chemically the same as natural ones, they may not be the same internally when viewed under a microscope. Just saying.
The way I see it, there is something for everyone. Buy what you like and what fits your budget, values, etc.
But in the context of this thread’s topic, I would not assume that a bride would be happy with a lab grown stone. To me that is a risky assumption.
Posters are saying the lab and natural stones are the same stone–they are the same chemical composition, but not equal in age, geographical origin or manufacture. Many of us prefer a natural stone since it had a unique origin in the earth, with unique forces of nature acting quite randomly in its creation. Sort of like a romance.
Interesting how the scientists appreciate the chemical purity and do not mind that the stones are all exact duplicates of each other. Some of us prefer the random irregularities nature provided which result in unique colors and brilliance, making one stone quite different than another. The placement of the impurities often dictate the stone’s individual clarity and color.
The icy blue of the Hope Diamond cannot be reproduced in the lab, that’s why it is priceless. If you are just looking at the carbon composition, go for that cheap lab product.
What shade of blue is a synthetic sapphire? I have a beautiful blue sapphire and diamond ring set in 18K yellow gold made by Bulgari. It’s a vibrant, cornflower blue - more saturated blue than any other sapphire I’ve seen. It has “life” and depth of color that I cannot imagine could be replicated in a synthetic stone, where the color is completely uniform throughout the stone. Additionally, cheaper stones tend to be very dark blue, not the vibrant blue one thinks of.
Yes, the synthetic stones are a deep navy (ultramarine blue), while natural sapphires have a range of cornflower, cobalt, cerulean and lighter ultramarine hues.
I’m a jewelry snob, so shot me. I only wear “real” jewelry, and I do have a lot of it. You’ll never see me at the jewelry rack at the local clothes stores. I stand by the thought that unless you know without a shadow of a doubt she doesn’t mind a synthetically lab grown gem, go natural.
I color my hair, it is natural looking, but it cannot replicate naturally blonde children in the sun.
If a gemologist can tell, then there is a difference between the two. My emeralds are perfect, but to me there is beauty in imperfections.
If you don’t care more power to you, but be very sure before giving an engagement ring with a fake stone.
Interestingly, diamonds are valued in the opposite direction of what you mention. The closer a diamond gets to flawless and colorless, the more expensive. Maybe when we can make perfect, flawless diamonds, the flawed, occluded, non-colorless ones will become more expensive than the colorless + flawless
So true, clear colorless diamonds, are often held as the most desirable. I believe there is a company making flawless, colorless lab diamonds already, at about half the price (?), but they are not particularly popular yet. Yet the huge yellow diamond at the Smithsonian is prized for its individual color and clarity, as is the bluish Hope diamond.
With colored gemstones, the variety in hue can be rare and unique–like the large rubies in the Smithsonian–there is one which is a warm tomato red, and another one is magenta-red, both beautiful, both unique. As for emeralds, some prefer the warm, lighter green hue over the deep pine green manufactured in the lab.
Most people get to “know” their precious stones after wearing them for a while - the stone may show different colors depending on the light. Also, quality stones are cut to enhance their color and minimize imperfections, so each stone is truly unique. There is a natural quality that IMO can’t be replicated. A couple of random thoughts:
Years ago, H wanted to give me a ruby ring for a significant event, so we met with the jeweler (who flew in from Paris, so this was a big deal) who showed me several stones. The nicest stone - a rich, saturated oxblood oval stone nosebleed expensive, had a very noticeable divot on the underside. I was surprised to learn that most rubies sport fairly significant imperfections - this one was going to be on the underside and the setting would cover it. I decided on another type of stone altogether - couldn’t wrap my head around that.
Sapphires/corundum are twice as dense as diamonds, so a 2 carat sapphire will appear about the same size as a 1 carat diamond.
Many posts since last night. I am now in the camp saying give the ring with the Pearl, and say," let’s shop together." "My mom’s friends had so many different views on my replacing with synthetic stone (cuz no one killed while mining, cuz too $$$ for a student) and others saying “You may want to chose your own ring”. “Just know I love you and want you to be happy”
Also, there are several processes that are used to grow corundum gemstones. Color of Industrial grade materials doesn’t really matter compared to strength - no one really will see the ruby check valve until the pump unit breaks.
GIA has a series of articles on this topic.
Back in the day that I worked at a jeweler , cubic zirconia was becoming popular . When they are very clean , they look not bad , but compared to a diamond , they were so dull and lifeless when exposed to things we do routinely with our hands such as washing, applying hand lotion , etc.
I clean my rings often and take them off when I am prepping food.
I had a sapphire and diamond ring that I gave to my daughter. It was given to me by her dad. It had a flaw that was strategically set behind one of the prongs . It was 3/4 carat and the diamonds were small , but full cut , not single cut. It definitely looked smaller than a 3/4 carat diamond.
I am not sure if she still wears it or not . I have plans for the nice pieces that I have to be divided by my three daughters and also some pieces of jewelry that were given to me by my in-laws to pass down to my step daughter as well if she wants them.
Oh and also for a point of reference, a pearl ring is prone to breaking because they are fragile and brittle. That is another natural VS cultured, VS synthetic topic. Cultured is still real but not naturally occurring ( a piece of MOP or other material inserted into the oyster to force a pearl to be formed , but not synthetics )
Natural pearls are very rare and therefore pricey.
I always liked baroque pearls for their imperfections and irregularities in shape. Many times, their colors are beautiful
the color of both synthetic and natural stones can be altered via diffusion treatment: