I used to deal with Diamonds a lot, and I came across an imitation/lab grown stone called "Amora Gem". I bought one for my ex-girlfriend and it had insane fire. I used a Moissanite/diamond tester on it because I heard rumors it could fool them and low and behold that thing fooled both! I'd also heard rumors that it fooled local gem dealers. But I took mine in and my guy saw the double refraction giveaway immediately. I'm fascinated because if that stuff isn't Moissanite their growing then what is it? I'm also curious because these people claim the stones have "twice the fire" of a diamond. I agree that it had more fire, but nowhere near as much sparkle under spots. Anyway I'd love to know what the diamond crowd thinks.
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:20 am Posts: 2756 Location: Southern California, U.S.A.
Barbra Voltaire wrote:
The site supplied the chemical formula. SiC. That was my clue.
I was curious and did some searching. I located a site that seems reputable that says it's single-crystal silicon carbide but in a different form than Moissanite. It seems like a pretty thorough review of the material. Check it out folks and enlighten me on the difference between the two SiC forms.
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:22 pm Posts: 21602 Location: San Francisco
Thanks ROM. Excellent sleuthing.
I could spot the diamond before anything was said. Increased dispersion doesn't impress me.
As Dr. Hanneman mentioned, synthetic rutile has super dispersion, strontium titanate is also highly dispersive, as is colorless heat treated zircon, as is a foil backed rhinestone. When I see dispersion like this, to me, it just looks fake.
If I remember right SiC is a bit tricky because it has a bizarre range of semi-polymorphs or something like that. That said, it is hard to trust anything that a diamond simulant company says when they won't give a clear, direct answer as to what it actually is. There are so many companies out there lying about selling CZ that it gets frustrating to bother with any of them.
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:01 pm Posts: 1902 Location: Pine City, NY and Dothan, AL
ROM wrote:
AlBalmer wrote:
This does not strike me as an expert, scientific study.
I didn't claim it was. But it does provide more information about the material than has been posted previously on this thread.
I'm sorry you took this personally. After all, you didn't write it. The value of the information depends on the reliability of the person giving it. There were just too many oddities, like depending on windowing to tell CZ from diamond.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum