Diamond Simulant, Russian Star??? Options

[Tfoster]

My finacee and I are looking into buying a diamond simulant for my engagement ring. Since it was my idea I'm do the research and he is go to get whatever I would like. Anywho, this forum has really helped me so far and I was hoping to get some more help from you guys. I decided not to go with nexus their warranty is too hard to keep to and it seems to me that there are better simulants out there. I happened to across a diamond simulant called the russian star, not to be confused with the russian brilliant or asha diamond. They are different. I can't find any infomation other then their website. Has anyone heard of these are they pretty good? They seem comparable to the Asha diamond simulant and they don't seem to hide information about their product like Nexus does. I just want to find out as much as I can before making a decision. Thank you for the help.

[DiamondMaven]

I would look at the Rostar diamond simulant. You can "Google" them for more info.

Finally (and with all due respect to all those selling "glorified" diamond simulants out there who might read this entry), a simulant is...well.....a simulant!

For better or worse, it is still a fake. Thus, I never quite understood what makes one fake better than another.
Is it the longevity? The extra brilliancy? Perhaps.

Just to lend some perspective here, I have personally seen and inspected the "Asha" Diamond simulant.

In fact, my Wife owns one (a 2.00 "carat" princess cut "Asha" simulant).

I cannot tell you that the Asha looks any "better" than any other significantly cheaper simulant.

Sure, it looked really good in the begining...and maybe it even kept that shine for a bit longer than other simulants.... I cannot say for sure.....

However, over a period of about 3 months into the daily 'wear and tear" of simply being worn on my Wife's finger (we bought the Asha simulant as a fake for my wife to have when she didn't wish to wear her real diamond e-ring...and no, she does not operate a tractor.. and in fact, takes very good care of her jewelry ), the Asha turned "glassy" and "cracked" and that is what it looks like today . I don't think my Wife's Asha simulant looks any better today than any conventional CZ for an absolute fraction of the price.

I believe it is clear (today) even to a novice that my Wife's fake (Asha simulant) is not a real diamond. Sure, I may be a bit more sensitive than others as to what does or does not pass for a real diamond...still, I think it's pretty obvious.

This might have something to do with its big size (2.00ct. to match with her 2.04 real diamond...), but nevertheless, it is clearly a fake.

The creator and owner of Better Than Diamond (Parent Company of the Asha) is a really nice fellow and I have a great deal of respect for him (we do know each other).

The bottom line is, every simulant over time is going to go sour on you. This is simply because a simulant cannot mimic the longevity (and therefore the brilliancy) of a real diamond.

The Asha was/is touted as one of the "best" simulants out there. I purchased the stone hoping to become a believer that some fakes are truly "better" than others. Unfortunately (for me personally...I cannot attest to the experience of others...), the facts on the ground proved otherwise.

I should also mention, the fact that I sell authentic diamonds in no way precludes me from being objective with respect to simulants.

Indeed, I believe in the "value" and benefit that a simulant can provide in certain situations (budget limitations, having a good fake handy, temporary stone....etc..) and I actually purchased one at a considerable expense in comparison with conventional CZ's.

The point I'm trying to make is that with simulants there might just be a stronger arguement for the Law of Diminishing Returns.

At some point you really need to ask yourself whether you would pay a (sometimes) significant premium for a "better fake".

Only you can answer this question.

Hope this helps.

Regards.

This post has been edited by DiamondMaven: Monday, Nov 12 2007, 12:42 PM

[denverappraiser]

Judah,

I largely agree with you. Simulants have their place but they are not the same thing as real diamonds and remarkably good ones are often available for far lower prices at any typical jewelry store for folks who are interested.

As I recall, BTD has a pretty good warranty and that this is part of the justification for the prices although I’ve never done business with them so I’m not sure of this. You might call your friend there and ask for an exchange. It’s correct that the CZ based simulants show wear quite a bit faster than diamonds and need to be replaced occasionally if they’re worn regularly. Earrings, necklaces and infrequent rings do much better than rings. It also helps a lot to keep them clean. Although well cut CZ’s look quite a bit like diamond, a bit of dirt or oil changes this fairly quickly.

Neil

[DiamondMaven]

Neil,

Good points re: keeping a cz clean.

However, consider that diamonds also have a tremendous affinity to the oils of our skin.
Real diamonds get dirty too. When they do, they do not refract the same brilliancy they would otherwise refract when they are clean.

This is analogous to a transparent window with a shade pulled over it and no light entering the room. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with the window itself. Rather, it is covered by a shade which prevents the light from passing through and into the room.

The difference here is that a diamond when properly cleaned, will revert back to its original beauty and brilliancy.
Whereas even the "best" cz, once done in by the daily (and similar) 'wear & tear', will never again look the same as it did in the begining.

This is a simple fact.

Thus, in my personal situation, I am not inclined to look into the nature of any accompanying warranty, much less to keep umounting the stone from its setting and exchanging/returning my Wife's Asha every few months when it goes sour.

Personally, it just isn't worth the incredible hassle...but maybe that's just me....

Therefore, had I known then what I found out within 3 months of purchasing the Asha (with respect to the drastic decline in beauty and appearance), I (personally) never would have paid the significant difference for the Asha over any conventional cz, just for the "security" of a warranty.

Such a warranty and under these conditions does not justify the initial expense IMO.

Regards,

This post has been edited by DiamondMaven: Monday, Nov 12 2007, 02:28 PM

[denverappraiser]

For most people it takes several years before the wear becomes obvious and unacceptable but obviously this depends on the wear of the user. CZ’s are not suitable for a ring worn constantly.

I agree about the premium for the higher end ones. Actually, I’m a bit baffled by it. I wouldn’t have mentioned the warranty at all except that you said you already have one. Darned good looking stones are available for $20/ct retail yet people seem remarkably eager to pay 10x that. You’re right, they still aren’t diamonds. To call them ‘better than diamonds’ seems like a bit of puffery but it’s hard to overlook the fact that a nicely cut CZ is usually under 1% of the price. At least in that regard they are definitely ‘better’. Whether this outweighs some of their drawbacks depends on your budget constraints. For some it’s an entirely reasonable alternative. Are Ashas better than ‘regular’ CZ’s? In some ways yes, but betterthancz.com isn’t nearly as compelling a name. My wife and I own several CZ’s. We don’t own any Ashas. I guess that’s a vote against but that’s just me. They have lots of happy customers including folks who are well aware of the alternatives.

To answer Tfoster’s question: I’ve never heard of Russian Star but I don't find the website especially persuasive. What makes them 'better than CZ'?

Neil

[Feydakin]

I am a huge fan of using quality white sapphire, or even white Topaz as a replacement for diamonds.. Both are natural gemstones and can look stunning in their own right..

I like some of the new CZs as well, but I always try to steer people to natural stones when possible.. Besides, when someone asks your wife is that "real", she'll be able to say yes

[arrow2fast]

I am a huge fan of using quality white sapphire, or even white Topaz as a replacement for diamonds.. Both are natural gemstones and can look stunning in their own right..

I like some of the new CZs as well, but I always try to steer people to natural stones when possible.. Besides, when someone asks your wife is that "real", she'll be able to say yes

I would like to buy white sapphire ring and earrings online, but don't know where to find good quality ones in a nice settings.

thanks.

[Kerensky]

Neil,

Good points re: keeping a cz clean.

However, consider that diamonds also have a tremendous affinity to the oils of our skin.
Real diamonds get dirty too. When they do, they do not refract the same brilliancy they would otherwise refract when they are clean.

This is analogous to a transparent window with a shade pulled over it and no light entering the room. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with the window itself. Rather, it is covered by a shade which prevents the light from passing through and into the room.

The difference here is that a diamond when properly cleaned, will revert back to its original beauty and brilliancy.
Whereas even the "best" cz, once done in by the daily (and similar) 'wear & tear', will never again look the same as it did in the begining.

This is a simple fact.

Thus, in my personal situation, I am not inclined to look into the nature of any accompanying warranty, much less to keep umounting the stone from its setting and exchanging/returning my Wife's Asha every few months when it goes sour.

Personally, it just isn't worth the incredible hassle...but maybe that's just me....

Therefore, had I known then what I found out within 3 months of purchasing the Asha (with respect to the drastic decline in beauty and appearance), I (personally) never would have paid the significant difference for the Asha over any conventional cz, just for the "security" of a warranty.

Such a warranty and under these conditions does not justify the initial expense IMO.

Regards,

Yes, this is the worrying thing with all the 'treated' CZ, how long will the treatment hold up? BTD no longer seems to warrant its Asha stones (which seem only to be treated on the crown?).

That said, there are reports here of CZ holding up well over many years. Hadar says that their 'Russian Brilliants' do not deteriorate over a lifetime (say 50 years?) and so do DNL. Both are not coated stones but claim that the stone surface (all) is hardened by an annealing process (and, in the case of Hadar) that the base CZ in its products do not have some microscopic inclusions that (they claim) cause the deterioration of clarity/colour of CZ not so treated.

Owen

This post has been edited by Kerensky: Friday, Jul 24 2009, 07:08 PM

[m987]

I know that Diamond Nexus would really like to turn this entire forum into their own, but seriously, lets stick to just a few Diamond Nexus threads. This is starting to get ridiculous. The thread you are responding to is over 1.5 years old (as are the other half dozen threads you have managed to dig up). Moreover, you are repeating the same arguments and statements in all.

And on a side note, you keep repeating the untruth that the Asha is untreated on the pavilion. Please read the following post and educate yourself a bit on the truth: http://www.diamond.info/forum/index.php?s=...ost&p=22701

[Kerensky]

> I know that Diamond Nexus would really like to turn this entire forum into their own, but seriously, lets stick to just a few Diamond Nexus threads. This is starting to get ridiculous. The thread you are responding to is over 1.5 years old (as are the other half dozen threads you have managed to dig up). Moreover, you are repeating the same arguments and statements in all.

This is because I refute (finding them where *you* placed it) bad information on DNL stones and bully/sneer at those who who are happy to appreciate DNL simulants for the beauties they truly are. If you don't like this, stop posting garbage. Better yet, post a general retraction of the garbage you have posted over years, insisting it is some orthodoxy to be adopted by all that post here (or else otherwise suffer your disparagement and abuse).

> And on a side note, you keep repeating the untruth that the Asha is untreated on the pavilion. Please read the following post and educate yourself a bit on the truth: http://www.diamond.info/forum/index.php?s=...ost&p=22701

Thank you for the reference. It seems that the misunderstanding arises from some poor wording taken from the Asha site, 'Asha is the only diamond simulant in the world that employs a patent pending form of "Amorphous Diamond" which is man-made and "composed of a multitude of tiny diamond crystals all aligned together*". These microscopic diamond crystals are infused into the Asha crystal through the Amorphous Diamond Treatment (ADT) process to give Asha an upper layer that is both simulant and man-made diamond (SP3 carbon bonds, the same carbon bonds as a diamond)'.

To which one should add that BTD, makers of Asha ®, will no longer warrant their process against degradation, though both DNL and Hadar offer lifetime warranties on their diamond simulants. The following quote from a Diamond Review verified jeweller further up this page bears repetition here. Caveat Emptor. ' .... Therefore, had I known then what I found out within 3 months of purchasing the Asha (with respect to the drastic decline in beauty and appearance), I (personally) never would have paid the significant difference for the Asha over any conventional cz, just for the "security" of a warranty.' QED?

This post has been edited by Kerensky: Monday, Jul 27 2009, 10:12 AM