When I was a kid in the 80s my mother worked at a jewelry store and CZ diamonds were already considered cheap fakes at the time. The price was not comparable to the real deal because nobody was buying them at diamond prices.

They were simply dismissed as more trash belonging in the gold-plated case. It's hard to appreciate how much less informed people were back then - we're talking pre-internet. The adults around me couldn't explain scientifically what the actual difference was between a CZ and natural diamond. Just one was a fake, held little value, and was a sure way to lose your fiance.

▲

thfuran 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Cubic zirconia isn't synthetic diamond at all.

▲

heavyset_go 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

They were marketed as synthetic diamond alternatives in the layman sense, even if they are not composed of actual diamonds.

▲

pengaru 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think convincing the public of that after CZ poisoned the well has been an uphill battle.

▲

asdfasvea 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You sound just like the adults he was talking about.

▲

thfuran 5 days ago | parent [-]

They literally aren't diamond. They contain no carbon. Because they're zirconia, not diamond. They're marketed as an alternative to diamond.

▲

musicale 5 days ago | parent [-]

How do CZ gemstones compare to diamond gemstones visually/in person? It looks like CZ has a lower refraction index but higher color dispersion vs. diamond, so that seems like it would still result in an attractive gemstone. The main disadvantages seem to be slightly lower refractive index (so less internal reflection and brilliance?), lower hardness (disadvantage for the gem getting scratches - possible advantage for not scratching your sapphire glass watch or smartphone camera lens?!) and higher weight.

edit: seems that moissanite (silicon carbide, perhaps unsurprisingly) is another diamond-like (though hexagonal crystals vs. cubic for diamond or CZ) gemstone that is actually harder than sapphire and less prone to fracture than diamond.

	▲	garciasn 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		To everyone except those with a trained eye, they're virtually indistinguishable; however, because CZ isn't as hard, they tend to scratch and dull over time and thus lose their luster. If we're talking about 'quality', CZ just doesn't compare for longevity. That said, unless you're talking about a daily-wearing-for-many-years piece of jewelry (i.e., an engagement ring), CZ is just fine for most folks, especially considering the cost difference.

▲

mortos 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You got good responses to the rest but

> The adults around me couldn't explain scientifically what the actual difference was between a CZ and natural diamond.

I was told growing up you can just check with window glass. If the gem scratches it's CZ and if the glass scratches it's diamond.

CZ is very cheap costume jewelry and won't last as it scratches and dulls so easily

▲

m463 5 days ago | parent [-]

I remember watching a documentary about a man who would marry (multiple) women, then steal their money and leave.

one of the victims said she had doubted the ring he gave her was real, but he just scratched a mirror with it to prove it was real. Then she said "it was only later after he left that I found cz can also scratch glass"

	▲	mortos 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I just looked it up and CZ is harder than glass, so disregard what I said above!