Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

Minerals by Properties Minerals by Chemistry Advanced Locality Search Random Mineral Random Locality Search by minID Localities Near Me Search Articles Search Glossary More Search Options

The Mindat Manual Add a New Photo Rate Photos Locality Edit Report Coordinate Completion Report Add Glossary Item

Mining Companies Statistics Users Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations Mineral Shows & Events The Mindat Directory Device Settings The Mineral Quiz

Photo Search Photo Galleries Search by Color New Photos Today New Photos Yesterday Members' Photo Galleries Past Photo of the Day Gallery Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Fakes & FraudsDiamond Nexus Labs

20th Nov 2007 18:12 UTCLee

I'm not sure if I am posting in the right section as DNL lists exactly what their stones are made of, but I'm just curious what you guys think of the stones and their properties, etc...

This is the breakdown according to DNL:

"The diamond-simulant gemstones Diamond Nexus Labs sells are a polycrystalline compound. The elements in Diamond Nexus Labs' gem material in order of atomic weights are: C (6), O (8), S (16), Fe (26), Co (27), Ni (28), Y (39), Zr (40), and Hf (72)" taken directly from the FAQ section at:

www.diamondnexuslabs.com

I saw a post about Briolite, which was almost all negative and I understand why since they release no details about what their stones actually consist of, but DNL lists the makeup of their stones and I was wondering if anyone had any experience testing these stones to see if all their claims are true. I know the stones are polycrystalline but aren't there many different grades of quality when it comes to polycrystalline? Also, does anyone have any experience with other lab created diamond simulants that they view as actually really good??? I'm a complete novice when it comes to minerals and stones, so I found this board and was hoping to get some responses from professionals.

Also, just for the record, this post is in no way shape or form an attempt at spamming.

Thanks in advance for any responses given.

20th Nov 2007 18:53 UTCLee

Also wanted to include the claims made by DNL and ask if this is truley possible? They make some very strong claims on their site.

The top line under each catagory is the Diamond Nexus Stone and the botttom Line is a mined diamond.

Property

Diamond Nexus

Mined Diamond

HARDNESS

Cuts Glass (9.1)

Cuts Glass (10)

INTERNAL FLAWS

Never

Almost Always Has Birthmarks

CLARITY

Flawless

VS2+

FIRE/DISPERSION

Superlative (0.046)

Excellent (0.044)

REFRACTION

Excellent (7.40)

Excellent (7.40)

COLOR

Perfect Colorless (D)

Tinges of Yellow or Brown (Various Grades)

HEARTS AND ARROWS EFFECT

Yes

Maybe

ONE CARAT SIZE

One Carat

One Carat

TOUGHNESS

Excellent

Very Good to Excellent

POROSITY

.097

.096

BRILLIANCE

Superlative (2.20)

Superlative (2.40)

CUT

Always Perfect

Sporadic (Excellent to Poor)

FINAL POLISH

By Diamond Powder

By Diamond Powder

LIFETIME PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE

Yes

No

LIFETIME LOSS GUARANTEE

Yes

No

PRICE PER CARAT

$79-$125

$13,500

20th Nov 2007 19:36 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

I sort of have a problem with their scientific proficiency when they don't realize the difference between atomic weight and atomic number. In general when you go with a polycrystalline material it means that you aren't good enough to grow large crystals of the material.

20th Nov 2007 19:40 UTCLee

Please elaborate. As I said, I am a novice, what is the difference between atomic weight and atomic number? and What exactly is polycristalline material?

Thanks

20th Nov 2007 20:12 UTCPaul L. Boyer

There are people who could probably do a better job of this than I can, but here it goes. The atomic weight of an atom is a weighted average of all of the naturally-occurring isotopes of a particular element. Atomic number refers to the number of protons that are in a particular element (this will not vary in isotopes of a particular element). Polycrystalline means many crystals, so probably small crystals are fused together.

20th Nov 2007 20:36 UTCLee

Thanks for that response!!

This may seem like a stupid question, but they are using small crystals of what? They make it very clear that they do not use Moissonite or CZ for their stones so what exactly is it?

5th Dec 2007 02:24 UTCSimulant review

Independent laboratory testing via XPS shows the Diamond Nexus product is ordinary cubic zirconia.

A full test was done by Anderson Materials Evalation, using XPS (xray photoelectron spectroscopy) - I guess we can't post links but search on Diamond Nexus XPS and it should find it.

5th Dec 2007 02:33 UTCSimulant Review

I am trying to attach the report for you.

"I know the stones are polycrystalline but aren't there many different grades of quality when it comes to polycrystalline? "

Actually, you don't "know" its polycrystalline...you just read their claim and believed it. Anyway, its not and the lab report points it out. Polycrystalline material rarely allows any light to shine through due to the random arrangement of the crystals, and so polycrystalline cz is used as insulating bricks, not gemstones. Polycrystalline diamond (PCD) is used for abrasives work and has little in the way of desirable optical properties.

Regarding good diamond simulant, you can go to BetterThanDiamond.com's message boards and ask there as lots of customers posting about diamond simulants they have tried out.

17th Feb 2008 14:41 UTCAllegra

Hi,

I just would like to know if Diamond Nexus Labs use HPHT or CVD.

On wikipedia it's told that CVD diamonds are flawless et much better than HPHT diamonds.

Please could somebody help me????

Thanks.

Allegra

19th Feb 2008 13:52 UTCClark

Diamond Nexus Labs do not use either process....their product is not diamond!! It is a near colorless material similar to Cubic Zirconia. As far as all CVD diamonds being flawless.....that is a misconception. CVD diamonds are grown as a plate and then "pre-formed" (similar to cutting cookies out of a sheet of dough) to make the cutting process easier. The preforming allows for the removal of flaws.

19th Feb 2008 20:37 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Another indication that the information in the original data is bogus is the hardness of "9.1" - there's no such thing. You can have 9, 9 and a half or 10 or a range between these - but 9.1 is meaningless.

Jolyon

21st Feb 2008 00:24 UTCJohn toval

Diamond Nexus labs produces two artificial diamond products. The first is a diamond simulant which has as its core material a zirconium/yttrium/hafnium base. There are other additives to this such as gadolinium and cobalt. This results in a core material that has optical properties that are very close to natural diamond and a hardness and tensile strength significantly greater than zirconium oxide. The gemstone is then finished and infused with several different optical coatings that bring the refractive properties more in line with natural diamond and eliminate the porosity problem common to zirconium.

Diamond Nexus labs also produces a true carbon-based synthetic diamond. This is reportedly done by the HPHT method, yet they produce a clear "white" diamond which leads one to believe that they must somehow be doing this process in a vacuum. However the synthetic diamond product is only available in limited quantities and in sizes only up to one quarter carat and less.

2nd Mar 2008 04:34 UTCChris_1

Actually, John, independent lab analysis by Anderson Materials has proven that is a "ordinary cubic zirconia." It also proved that their brand of CZ contained no hafnium.

Here are excerpts from the report:

"The principal elements of the gemstone are zirconium, yttrium, and oxygen, so the gemstone is a common cubic zirconia."

"No Hf, Fe, Ni, or Co were detected, despite Diamond Nexus Labs listing them as present in the FAQ's page of their website."

Here is the full report here:

www.betterthandiamond.com/diamondnexuslabs/

It should also be noted that it has been nearly 3 months since this report has been made available to the public, yet Diamond Nexus has failed to provide any evidence to refute this rather damning lab analysis, despite the fact that such a independent analysis would cost a mere $400 - $600 in today's market. But I don't expect to see any true independent proof on DNL's claims. They have been marketing their CZ for nearly 10 years without any evidence substantiating their claims.

Therefore, in conclusion, they sell a brand of CZ. Nothing more. The lab analysis found no special coatings as it only found zirconium, yttrium, and oxygen on the surface: the main components of CZ.

It is also worth noting that Diamond Nexus Labs, in fact, has no labs, but purchase their cz from Signity, the world's largest manufacturer and distributor of CZ.

7th Mar 2008 00:01 UTCAngie Elan

Everything I've read online seems to be "Betterthandiamond.com" and "Diamond Nexus Labs" battling it out. I don't really know who to believe?? Aren't they competitors? betterthandiamond seems to go out of their way to prove that DNL's are just CZ yet what are their BetterThanDiamond's Asha Diamonds - CZ's with tons of tiny 'diamond crystals' covering the outsides.. sounds like polycrystalline to me!?? They seem to avoid the subject of what their stones really are. I can't seem to believe either sites - if anything, atleast DNL has a good return policy and they'll replace your stone whevenever you need LOL ... seems like some shady shady stuff. I don't think i'd believe their "Independant Studies" anyways... doesn't sound very legit. Personally - BetterThanDiamond bad mouthes DNL... DNL doesn't seem to say anything about them... more of a gossip issue than anything else.

7th Mar 2008 03:51 UTCChris_1

Angie, did you even read the analysis you are referring to?

Here is some information on Dr. Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D., the author of the independent analysis (www.andersonmaterials.com).

"Dr. Anderson is the founder of AME and is a co-owner of the company. Dr. Anderson has long specialized in the characterization of surfaces, interfaces, thin films, and coatings. He began applying surface analysis techniques to the solution of materials problems in 1972 with the use of Auger spectroscopy and Mössbauer emission spectroscopy to characterize the magnetic properties of surfaces. Since 1980, he has used XPS or ESCA extensively for the analysis of materials properties, often combining XPS and Auger results with those of other techniques such as microscopy, DSC, SEM, FTIR, EXAFS, Rutherford backscattering, electrochemistry, thermogravimetry, SEM, and XRD to solve complex materials problems."

"He worked for Case Western Reserve University as a post-doctoral fellow, the Dept. of the Navy as a research physicist, and Martin Marietta and Lockheed Martin as a senior scientist before founding AME, Inc. in 1995."

His specialty is in Materials Physics, Surface Chemistry, Adhesive Failure Analysis, Corrosion, XPS, Auger Microprobe, DSC, TGA, RGA MS, and Coating Properties

But yes, I am sure he would be willing to throw away his career and reputation by publishing a biased analysis for a mere $500 (note sarcasm).

The report is FACT not opinion. And the facts are Diamond Nexus Labs has not and cannot prove ANY evidence at all concerning their claims. ZERO, ZIP, NADA. They never have. Their entire FAQ section are nothing more than evidence-less, base-less claims. They are worth nothing.

There return policy may be great, because any person who is tricked into buying one of their overpriced stones pays $150 for a $3 stone. At that price, they better have a good return policy! I hope they are able to make up in service what they lack in value.

The fact is, an extremely credible, reputable, and well established lab has PROVED the DNL simulant to be "common cubic zirconia" and no amount of fictitious testimonials that will eventually pop-up on this thread will change that fact.

DNL has been notorius for creating fake testimonials all over the internet (including some from fake scientists who developed their cz). Watch them roll in over the coming weeks right here in this thread. Bring it on DNL.

20th Mar 2008 16:19 UTCApelilaRains

I'm just doing a research about DNL. After all the research comparisons a normal everyday person can do, aren't we truly buying the "set"...mounting...the gold? I can go to kmart and buy myself a cz for a few bucks, but it's sterling silver or just polished metal. CZ, DNL or those other "man made diamonds" are all the same in the end. Otherwise real diamonds will loose their value.

Just my personal oppinion...

23rd May 2008 19:33 UTCNorma Cenva

SO...I want a good quality CZ, because we've proved that's what's available for the sparkle-hungry on the cheap or the polit/eco buyer. Will SOMEONE stop arguing atomics and answer the following: Does it look like a diamond, or nearly enough if you don't take it to a jeweler? Meaning, it doesn't have 'dead spots' in it (Diamonique, Stauer). Does it only have dead spots if the stone is big? Does it only have dead spots if mounted with a 'girdle' of gold? Does it flash all rainbows like a Moissanite as opposed to some rainbows and mostly white light like a real diamond? (I've seen ALL the products I am discussing.) NOT a MOUNTED DNL yet. And now...the price of gold. Does the ring 'feel' weighty or flimsy (Diamonique). Is $550 a reasonable price for a nice weighty ring in 14K gold? If yes, maybe all the B.S. about $5/carat vs. $300/carat can cease, please! Figure in that somebody mounted the aforementioned stone AND gave whatever return policy you felt was sufficient for YOU personally. Service costs $'s too. SO who makes a believable ring/stone combo? ANYONE, anybody got one?

1st Jun 2008 07:39 UTCChris_1

Norma, unfortunately all of the "$5/carat vs. $300/carat" B.S. is important to most people because when they purchase a DNL CZ they are under the impression that they are buying something MORE than just a CZ. What they are buying is a good return policy and a promise to replace the stone when it clouds and loses its brilliance (and yes, ALL CZ will cloud with time and lose its sparkle, CZ is incredibly oxgen deficient and will eventually react with oxygen and cloud). But even this will cost them money as they have to pay for shipping both ways and setting fees.

The fact of the matter is, IF DNL was more upfront and honest about what they were selling, I would guess that very few would be willing to pay the outrageous prices. So DNL continues with the deceptive marketing practices.

As far as having "dead spots", YES, DNL stones do display windowing as all CZs do (and YES, I have seen DNL stones in person). It displays windowing when mounted and also when loose (Although the windowing is less than might be seen in poorer cut CZ stones).

Referring back to my previous comment: "DNL has been notorious for creating fake testimonials all over the internet". You seem quite upset, angry and defensive for somebody who is not affiliated with DNL. Sorry if you find this information offensive since it is negative for your company's stones. But its the truth. And sometimes the truth hurts. But maybe if you would simply be a little more upfront with what your company sells, these forums wouldn't be necessary.

1st Jun 2008 11:00 UTCChris_1

Since I made the claim that Dnl is not being honest, here are some of the statements I am referring. Since we have already established that it IS in fact a CZ as verified by an independent lab (Anderson Materials), here are some of the many mistruths:

Search on Google for "Created Diamonds" and you get this ad:

DiamondNexusLabs.com - Perfect Man-Made Diamonds: Flawless Synthetic Diamonds Set In Solid 14k Gold. Get More, Pay Less!

CZ is a simulant diamond, not a synthetic. To state synthetic is to imply they have the same composition. This is blatant misleading advertising.

On their DNL vs diamond comparison chart, here are the mistruths:

1. Hardness: 9.1, FALSE, CZ is only 8.5 (which in actual hardness states that the stone is more than 2.5 times harder than it actually is)

2. Fire/Dispersion: 0.046, FALSE, CZ is much higher at 0.058â€“0.066 (but isn't more fire better? you may ask. Why would they state its lower? To make their CZ appear more inline with a diamond's dispersion.)

3. Refractive index, 7.4, FALSE, but I have no idea what this figure relates to and have to only guess they made it up. The refractive index (brilliance) of CZ is 2.15 compared to the 2.42 for diamonds. Therefore more "rainbows" and less white light than diamonds.

4. Toughness: Excellent, diamonds: Very good to excellent, FALSE! So according to DNL their CZ is at times more tough than diamonds, and at least equal in toughness. Toughness is the stone's ability to resist chipping. Measured in million PSI, the toughness of cz is 2.4 and diamond is 14.6. But 2.4 and 14.6 are equal? Only in the DNL's world of make-believe science.

5. Porosity: 0.097, again, I have no idea what this relates to. I can only assume its another made up number since they give no unit of measurement. CZ is known to be much, much more porous than diamonds which is one of the reasons it discolors with time (hand oils and other liquids seep into the stone with time)

More mistruths are concerning the chemical composition (as stated earlier in this thread and proved false by Anderson Materials).

They attempt to smear the independent report by stating:

"Diamond Nexus Labs has learned there is some speculation about the atomic components or structure of its gem material, coming primarily from those claiming to be jewelers or gemologists, often misinforming others. Upon investigation, it did not surprise DNL to learn that not only were these so called "experts" not qualified as material engineers or scientists, but that they have not subjected a single DNL gemstone to the rigors of X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry to actually make any bona fide statements with respect to the elemental composition of DNL's gem material, and most have never even seen a DNL gemstone."

This statement is simply a load of crap. Look earlier in this thread to read Dr. Andersons credentials. His report virtually proves that DNL knows very little concerning the very CZ that they claim to create (which in reality they buy wholesale from Signity).

DNL made the following claim years ago:

"Diamond Nexus Labs has engaged three independent laboratories to confirm what chemical elements are present in our diamond simulants."

Yet despite repeated requests over the years, they refuse to release the names of these "independent labs". I wonder if they are the same "labs" that such scam infomercials claim to use to prove their weight loss drug works? lol What is the point of having an independent lab prove anything if you won't release the name of such labs?

In summary: Lies and deceptions.

2nd Jun 2008 07:43 UTCNorma Cenva

I'm giving more details about what I seek because there may be someone out there who was successful finding a product which meets MY needs. (I'd rather not deal with Asia unless it's worth it.) I regret my request was so misunderstood. Do I want something which doesn't exist yet? I want a nice 6-prong Tiffany solitaire ring and don't wish to pay diamond prices. Chris, I appreciate the info that all CZ's cloud and have see-thru spots at some angles. Do you have an estimate of how long the clouding takes? The smaller stones seem to be less see-thru, agreed? The ring is for my enjoyment, but, yes, some people will see it and I want it to look good. I won't enjoy it and my fiance would be ashamed if it looked fake. I have a channel-set diamond band which I love; it's perfect for me; I'm very active. During the engagement period (temporary) I'd like a solitaire - I won't wear it forever. I'll inherit my Mom's ring someday if I want to wear more than my band. I tried a silver ring from Stauer, the mounting showed thru the stone and made a dead 'O'. The Diamonique ring was flimsy. I ordered a too-big unmounted DNL stone, with no mount I couldn't tell enough. I'd like to avoid return postage to every possibility with recommendations from satisfied customers. Isn't this what the web is for?

2nd Jun 2008 08:27 UTCNorma Cenva

I also wanted to ask, re. Apelila's ?, what the cost of a white gold 6-prong Tiffany style setting should be? (Good quality and weight of course!)

To Chris_1: You obviously know your stuff. My brother is a Chemistry professor, and my father was a scientist, so my respect goes out to you. You are, however, completely wrong about me. I referred to the 'B.S.' about a '3$ stone vs. a $300 stone' and it was your message which had that point in it. I didn't mean to insult you. I meant (with all due respect to the scientists) some of us are happy enough if it just looks really nice. Kudos to you for helping people who think they are getting more than a CZ. If I know that, and I want a good one, what do I do then? That's all I meant. I'm not sure where I seemed upset, angry and defensive. I've been ordering, returning, reading, googling, comparing prices, and just not coming up with anything, perhaps my frustration was showing! Mea Culpa. However, accusing too often (being a DNL spy) simply for asking ?'s, doesn't reflect well on you. Have I wasted my time on a non-real site?

3rd Jun 2008 19:53 UTCStevec

I also would like to know where one can buy quality CZ (or moissanite) on the web. Is there a store/site that's well known, reputable and not overpriced?

4th Jun 2008 11:07 UTCChris_1

To Norma:

The purpose of Mindat.org is:

"Mindat.org is the largest mineral database and mineralogical reference website on the internet. This site contains worldwide data on minerals, mineral collecting, mineral localities and other mineralogical information."

This particular discussion has to do with the true nature of the Diamond Nexus CZ and a discussion concerning its true properties (claimed vs. actual). Or in other words, we are discussing the science behind the DNL CZ and not so much the quality of the jewelry it may be set in, the customer service, etc.

If you are looking for answers to these questions, I would recommend finding a jewelry forum dedicated to such discussions as you will probably find more specific answers to your questions there.

If you have specific questions concerning the physical properties or composition of the DNL stone, this is the place.

4th Jun 2008 12:32 UTCStevec

I found this page (below). seems to list the more reputable simulant sites (note that DNL is not on the list)

http://www.buffaloathome.com/dct/54/id/3271/mid/1906/Getting-the-Dish-on-Diamond-Simulants.aspx

4th Jun 2008 12:33 UTCstevec

www.buffaloathome.com/dct/54/id/3271/mid/1906/Getting-the-Dish-on-Diamond-Simulants.aspx

4th Jun 2008 22:01 UTCBrooke

Wow. This was eye opening for me as I own a pair of DNL rings. Reading all of the research and studies done on DNL by independent labs really blows their claims out of the water. My now husband and I agreed that diamonds were way over-priced and decided we would rather have a down payment on a house than spend thousands on a wedding ring. The price difference really lacked that... difference. We still paid roughly $2,000 for two bands. And yes, we were under the impression that the stones were something better than a CZ. We were told that the stones were actually "diamonds" just made synthetically. The ring is currently back with DNL after 4 months of wearing it, the "diamond" came loose from the setting and the "gold" they claim to use seems to act more like the sterling silver I owned in middle school.

Overall, I am thankful that I stumbled across this forum and would like to thank all of those involved in helping bring to light the scams of DNL.

29th Jul 2008 15:57 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

Well, if they don't pass the heat test, that will protect most jewelers from mistaking them for diamonds. (The thermal test probes are probably the least expensive test instruments out there.)

19th Nov 2008 21:39 UTCTiff

I have bought CZ rings from DNL, jewelers direct and mystique gems. They were all around the same price. Comparing it to my friend's diamonds, I would have to say DNL looked better. The settings was better too.

26th Nov 2008 16:11 UTCDonald Vaughn

It seems to me that A lot of the people on this topic have an axe to grind one way or another lets just accept the fact that if they are not selling "stones" as natural then it really does not matter a lick to me as a mineral collector whether they are cubic zirconium or kidney stones impregnated with ree . I have no intention of buying them anyway and my guess is neither do most of the people on this site.

One question totaly Off topic for Norma Cenva, is that your real name cause I am pretty sure that their is a character in the Dune "prequels" named Norma Cenva who became the founder of the "Guild" just a question

13th Apr 2009 07:10 UTCOtto

There is an easily accessible article on the web from Wired magazine issue 11.09 which discusses the business of synthetic diamonds and their creation. Crystalline carbon (aka diamonds) possess engineering properties of intense interest to technologists and writers; see Neal Stephenson's entertaining book "The Diamond Age". Apollo Diamond is marketing synthetic "colorless" diamonds which possess the potential to dramatically alter the economics (i.e. lower the cost) of naturally occurring "jewelry quality" diamonds. Other companies use differing technologies to offer colored diamonds. De Beers, among others, is intensely fighting this evolution. In a widely publicized case, De Beers and General Electric settled with the US Justice Department after it was proved that De Beers made an offer to GE "that they couldn't refuse" to create a duopoly to restrict the supply of synthetic diamonds to the market to keep the price of diamonds artificially high. In essence, De Beers offered GE a monopoly for the industrial diamond-based cutting materials market (a huge business) in exchange for maintaining its control over the gem quality jewelry market. Karl Marx speculated that, one day, diamonds would become cheaper than bricks. That day looks not that far away. With regards to jewelry, even if diamonds become as cheap as charcoal briquets, the other costs of a serious piece of jewelry are unlikely to be dramatically impacted. Quality jewelry is very labor intensive, and other materials used in jewelry (gold, platinum, etc.) are unlikely to have their pricing structure impacted by these diamond growing technologies. Chris_1's comment with regards to testing labs throwing away their reputation for $500 is true. In other words, what you pay for a piece of jewelry should not be driven by the marketing hype which surrounds diamonds or their substitutes. It should be driven by your personal desire for the entire jewelry object with full knowledge that the diamonds in the piece are likely to depreciate at a significant rate over time.

9th May 2009 06:22 UTCRachael

WOW!!

I wish I would have found this thread earlier. I myself have purchased two rings from DNL. I chose them, mainly because they were so strongly claiming that their stones were nearly identical to Diamonds. By no stretch am I a chemist, and to be honest, I naively took their words and "lab" reports at face value. If it is true that they don't have a lab at all, and merely order CZ's from a main supplier- sheesh...Had I read that, I likely would not have bothered with them at all...

However, I have worn my rings for nearly 2 years, had them cleaned by professional jewelers several times (No one has ever detected them to be CZ or otherwise) and I do like them very much. If the stones are regular old CZ's, they are polished and cut to very good high quality standards. My rings have yet to color or cloud at all.

They are very weight-y, and do not feel or look like costume jewelry. I believe I have 6 grams of gold in my band and 8 in my engagement ring? (I can't remember exactly, but I believe those are the specs)...

So, after finding this post, I am disappointed in DNL's dishonesty, but I guess I feel as though I paid mostly for the gold and jewelry labor...not the stone, so I won't be too pissed. But likely won't purchase from them again.

Just food for thought....

6th Jun 2010 01:36 UTCmaflague

Norma,

If you're shopping for setting I just purchased a ring and received it yesterday from DNL. I'm happy with the setting however the stuff Chris has said has made me think twice about my purchase in regards to the CZ. It does have a lot of sparkle but since I haven't had it for long I don't know if it will lose it's brilliance. I hope that helps. I don't work for anyone so I have no hidden agenda. I just bought one and thought I would pass that along to you.

6th Jun 2010 21:35 UTCAdam Kelly

Yes the CZ will loose brilliance as the surface wears.

16th Jun 2010 05:31 UTCJamey Swisher

Also, FYI, the dead spots and such is dependent on the cut and not the material. Every material has a CA(critical angle) and certain angles for cutting the pavilion and crown of the stone. All of which dictates the ending product. A stone can be cut for brilliance(light return) or dispersion or somewhere in between the two.

A well cut and top notch CZ product would be ANY custom cut CZ from a US faceter as you will have a precision cut and polished gemstone. If you prefer a cheaper stone, then look for Signity brand CZ stones, they are cut much nicer and polished much better as well, not as good as a precision US cut one, but for $1-$20, depending on carat weight, it is hard to beat the Signity CZs. That is unless you want a truly remarkable stone and don;t mind paying some extra $$$, then go with the US precision faceted ones. Here is a nice article on faceting CZ and a few pics of really nice cuts:

http://www.rockhounds.com/rockshop/gem_designs/faceting_cz/index.shtml

There are also completely natural alternatives to diamonds as well:

• Danburite

• Goeshenite

• white spinel

• white sapphire

• white zircon

• white topaz

Just to name a few. You actually get a natural true gemstone and something to cherish forever. ;)

17th Jun 2010 15:17 UTCAnna

I've been trawling through various sources of information on the internet to try to work out what to buy...

I don't want a mined diamond because I don't want to support a trade that perpetuates such an environmentally damaging practice, but I DO want something that is special and sparkly, that looks amazing set in a pair of fair-trade artisan-mined gold earrings, and has excellent longevity. A big wish-list, I know!

What I can't understand, is why DNL haven't been taken to court over their claims that their stones are so different from CZ, if those claims are untrue. They state very clearly the composition of their stones, and according to DNL they have many more elements than CZ's, and quite different properties. If those claims have been rubbished by independent lab analysis, why has no-one shut them down, or tried to sue them?

Any insights would be gratefully received - it might help me decide where to go from here in my quest for sparkly stuff!

Anna

17th Jun 2010 15:47 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

Lawsuits take money. If the owners don't have deep pockets, the risk/reward isn't large enough to induce a class action lawsuit.

17th Jun 2010 21:30 UTCDonald Slater

Norma, If you are just looking for a stone you will eventually be replacing I would suggest buying a CZ. If you are mostly worried about clouding, I have been making jewelry for over 20 years and have some CZ I bought almost that long that I never got around to setting and I have not noticed any clouding. They are just as brilliant as a diamond. I have heard that some of the ones that were made early on when a lot of companies rushed to make them were of lower quality but I believe that as they got more experienced the quality improved. I have seen very few that haven't gotten cloudy. The cloudy effect may also vary depending on what you do, IE if you do work that exposes it to harsh chemicals or abuse. Also Cz has a tendency to get dirty faster and look cloudy because body oils and dirt stick to it more than diamonds so regular cleaning will keep it looking better. If they are properly cut there should be no "see-thru" or fish-eyes. Don't go to the companies that buy them and rebrand them with fancy names like Diamonique or the many others. There are companies like Stullers in Louisiana or Rio Grande in New Mexico that buy from the manufacturers and resale them as CZ not some fancy name. Stullers is a wholesale only company but I think anyone can order for RioGrande. I think Tripps also carries CZ. A good CZ is not that expensive. I haven't price them lately though. From what I understand the "Signity" brand is from a company that cuts CZ very specifically for the material and the ones I have seen are beautiful. If you want something that is more expensive but personally I don't see enough difference to justify the much higher cost, buy Moissonite. As far as you question is $550 a reasonable price for a solitaire. Gold is really high right now and it all depends on how much the ring weighs and how much the stone cost. You should be able to find a jeweler in your area that can show you different rings. It is best to go and feel them yourself. The old saying is true, "You get what you pay for" to and extent. Some dealers do have higher markups that others but if is sound very cheap, it is probably because there is less gold in it. If you have to order from the internet or catalog ask what the weight of the ring is and compare the weights. You should be able to get a good quality sinple solitaire ring for around $550-600. If you more help you can always send me a PM. Hope this helps.

19th Jun 2010 04:23 UTCJamey Swisher

Anna,

I would suggest either a Signity CZ, a custom precision cut CZ, or nice white sapphire or spinel, both will give good sparkle and dispersion(not quite as much as a diamond of course, but most will never know the difference). If you don;t mind a slightly more fragile stone, no more fragile then a diamond though, then go with a white Zircon, if cut right they will show as much fire and brilliance as a diamond IMHO, of course a trained eye will see the difference, but no one else prolly will. The only issue with CZ is it is too flashy and too firey and is fairly easy to see the difference between it and a diamond. Signity helps this with the method of their cutting, so theirs do gimmick a diamond much more closely. I just got done a design in GemCad for a CZ to take the place of a diamond for wedding/engagement pieces myself, Wife requested it for a few clients who want to go "green" instead, ecofriendly.. :).

27th Jul 2010 04:14 UTCSharon

you can actually have 9.1 hardness. All of the following materials fall between 9.0 and 9.5 on the hardness scale. Corundum, Carborundum (SiC), Tungsten carbide, Titanium carbide, Stishovite.

27th Jul 2010 10:49 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

> you can actually have 9.1 hardness.

Not really. Mohs hardness is a relative scale, so you shouldn't really use decimal points with it, it's meaningless.

27th Jul 2010 11:16 UTCRock Currier Expert

9.1 Mohs hardness? Not likely, Abut the best you might be able to determine is 9.5, and I often wonder about these .5 increments. Some times a mineral has differential hardness and the approximate hardness you get depends on the direction you are scratching. Have you ever run scratch tests on Kyanite?

27th Jul 2010 11:54 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager

So why all the pseudonymes on this post

Thought we had to use real names here !!

Cheers

27th Jul 2010 13:19 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Keith, the two posters immediately before you, Rock Currier and Jolyon Ralph, are using their real names, so you must be referring to old posts. Anyway, Mindat encourages people to use their real names, but it is not obligatory and we don't enforce this strictly. However, the border between acceptable messages and offensive or off-topic messages is a wide grey area and posters should be aware that anonymous messages are far more likely to be deleted in such cases, and we have more tolerance for those using real names. And of course anonymous persons cannot add mineralogical info or photographs to the database.

27th Sep 2010 21:44 UTCAngelaM

" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill>

Norma,

I recently received a flyer for DNL. I looked them up on line and read all the fighting going on between the various companies. I also took the trip to their store. I'm getting married next year and need to save some money because my fiance and I are paying for the wedding ourselves. I can sit here and spout off about wether or not they sell CZ or man made diamonds but I'll just tell you this...... I went to their store and I was amazed. I'm a very skeptical person and at the end of the day the rings were just beautiful and for less money with more back up than anyone else. So for what I've seen, I'm going to buy my ring from DNL because its pretty, cheap, and I had a great experience with their customer service. The fact of the matter is they have a warranty and they have a high BBB rating, and I've seen it with my own two eyes. Currently I'm wearing a "high-quality CZ" from a private jewelry designer. I bought it in December 2009 and cleaned it before I went to the store. My ring has got nothing on what DNL has.

The best advice I can give you is to go with someone who can give you piece of mind and a warranty. Also, if you can see a DNL stone for yourself I recommend it. If you are too far and have to order it you can always send it back. Some people don't like to look stupid and some people just like to be negative.

Good Luck

27th Sep 2010 22:02 UTCRock Currier Expert

You must have very discriminating tastes, certainly more acute than me. I have found that one CZ ring looks very much like the next regardless of the company that turns it out. One might almost think that you were paid to place you comments here for advertising purposes.

31st Oct 2010 07:22 UTCChristine M.

Norma,

In the past, I have purchased CZ's from The Shopping Channel here in Canada, and also Diamonique from the US version of the Shopping Channel. They all were a waste of my money!! They were cloudy, had no radiance at all and looked more like plastic than anything remotely resembling a diamond! About 4 yrs ago, my then-fiance and I, after doing a LOT of research, discovered Diamond Nexus Labs. For my engagement ring, we ordered The Diamond Diva seen here http://www.diamondnexuslabs.com/ladies-rings-diamond-diva-p-295.html . We ordered the 1.03ct center stone, and they happened to be having a sale, so for the 14kt white gold ring, we paid $443.00 US dollars (about $457 Canadian at the time). I have worn this ring into jewelry stores, pretending to look for a matching band, and the sales people as well as the jeweler there could not believe what a clear, absolutely beautiful ring! It's DEFINITELY what you call "Bling Bling"! LOL They had NOTHING in the various high retail jewelry stores that I went into that came even CLOSE to matching the beauty of my Diamond Diva! This ring has NO see-thru spots or "windowing", as it's called (although, even certain cuts of real diamonds can display windowing). It has never even come close to looking cloudy. I clean it with a sonic vibrating toothbrush every couple of days, but I don't wear it in the shower or while I do the dishes or with anything that would get my hands grimy. I have been SO happy with my Diamond Diva that my husband and I (even though we exchanged matching simple gold bands at our wedding) also bought from DNL a ring called One Love to go with my engagement, seen here, http://www.diamondnexuslabs.com/ladies-rings-love-p-958.html .

This ring is a little bit more difficult to clean, as the stones are closer together, but that is my only problem. Otherwise, it looks just as beautiful and radiant and sparkly as my Diva.

I don't know, nor do I CARE if these stones are indeed CZ's. If indeed they are, then they are of such high quality, that my local jewelers couldn't tell, even with a loupe. The rings are heavy, not the flimsy crap you get with Diamonique or other CZ's, and I believe that my husband and I got our money's worth. I am even considering using their Trade-Up policy to get a more expensive ring. Try doing THAT with a real diamond, and all you'll get (if you're lucky..I know this, because I have owned real diamonds in the past, and had certificates for them, but have passed those off to my older daughters as they were from former marriages..ANYWAY! LOL) is a 50% trade-in value on whatever ring you have. With DNL, you get 100% value on your ring, and buy something that's 50% more than what your original purchase was. So for instance, I paid $443 for my DD. I only need to choose a ring that is $221.50 more, and voila, I get a brand new ring. I like the way DNL operates, I love their jewelry, and they look fabulous! My "only" other concern is that I have noticed that white gold seems to change color, but you get that no matter WHO you buy from when it comes to white gold. It's because the rhodium plating they put on it tends to wear off over time. But, by the way, if I should choose to send my Diva back, DNL will re-plate it at no charge.

I'm aware that there are other sites, such as BetterThanDiamonds, and BodyJewels and Asha Diamonds, but on those sites, you have to buy the mount, and then you have to choose your center stone, thereby adding extra costs. DNL has hundreds of already made rings, OR, you can design your own ring at a fractional cost, if you choose.

All I'm saying is that personally, I think that DNL is the right way to go. Their "diamonds" don't look fake, or cloud or have any of the problems that "traditional" CZ's have. I would recommend DNL to anyone. They stand by their product with a lifetime guarantee (that isn't limited) and that's more than I can say for any of the other "manufactured" diamond companies that I have seen!

Just my two (or three) cents!! ;)

17th Jan 2011 20:10 UTCDave Middleton

This is all very confusing.

I was looking to buy from diamond nexus as my girlfriend is very much against mined diamonds.

She has bought stuff from DNL before and had always been very happy with what she bought.

However, my purchase for her will be an important one, so I want it to be right.

So much has been said though.

It seems that if you are very happy with the products from this company, then you must be working for them or getting paid by them (a comment that I'm starting to find very tiresome and pathetic).

And there are lots of people who are very happy with they purchases from this company.

However, given the negative comments, I've looked at other sites that have been recommended by the anti-diamond nexus people.

On investigating these, the arguments against them and criticism seem to be just as numerous and damning as those against DNL.

Given the fact that the diamond industry is so corrupt, I'm really not sure what to do for the best now.

I almost feel like buying a real diamond and have done with it.

But I know that would get me into trouble on ethical grounds.

Back to doing more research!!!! lol

17th Jan 2011 20:37 UTCDon Saathoff Expert

Dave, I doubt you'll be back to this site to read this (although I hope you do), but this thread could be compared to a discussion of pizza, or sausage, or automobiles......everyone has an opinion about which is best and is ready to defend their particular belief. Personally, when it comes to CZ, CZ"X" = CZ"Y" = CZ"Z". If your significant other doesn't want to buy into the diamond cartel then so be it.....go with ANY CZ.....if that person is happy with DNL why be concerned.....so be it!!

My few cent's worth.....period.

17th Jan 2011 20:51 UTCDave Middleton

Don, I think you're absolutely right.

I'm clearly no expert, but I can only assume that really can't be a huge amount of difference in non-mined diamonds.

I think it's a case of finding the best quality in cut, setting etc.

Thanks for putting it into perspective!! :-)

D

9th Feb 2011 05:16 UTCJamey Swisher

The point is, why pay $500 for a CZ that you can buy elsewhere for $5? ;). The key is, a CZ is really just a CZ, no matter how you look at it or break it down. Coating or not, it is still a CZ and coatings wear off anyways, lol. I would pay more attention to cut and polish then the rest.

You truly want a top notch piece in CZ? Your best bet would be to go to any number of excellent USA faceters and pay them to facet a CZ in your choice of color, size, and cut style! You will probably pay about the same as one from these other places over charging and gouging folks on their products, but the difference will be a gemstone that is truly worth what you paid for it with a flawless cut and polish that you will NEVER see nor get buying a commercially cut/pre-cut CZ from any source! There are many cutters out there like Jim A., Pete Brush, Lisa Elser, Roger Dery, John Bailey, Dana Reynolds, John Dyer, etc. that could easily cut you an amazing gemstone! Jim A. does phenomenal jobs and is very reasonably priced too! They all do amazing work, but some are far more money then others. Those are just some bigger names, but there are others. I can recommend some to you if you want to drop me a PM. But that would be the way I would go if I wanted a truly one of a kind top end piece! They could also cut you something natural to replace a diamond as a simulant just like the CZ but only a natural gemstone like white spinel, white sapphire, goeshenite, danburite, white zircon, very good clean topaz with the right cut even, and a number of others. All more then likely as much or maybe even cheaper then one of these over priced CZ stones from any of these places like DNL, Agape, etc. Why settle for lower quality and or fake stones when you could have a real natural gemstone that simulates a diamond?

22nd Feb 2011 04:06 UTCNoah86

I looked up Dr. Anderson as well, and it is very clear that DNL is misleading people. He has a stellar reputation, and I am more inclined to believe a report by him than a company that wont even respond to his accusations. DNL is selling an artificial "real" diamond, when it is obviously nothing more than a Cubic Zirconia. It's sad for all the people who upgraded their metals, and bought 2 carat "stones" for their rings. It is surprising that a company based in Wisconsin can get away with this, I would expect it more from a 3rd world country. This is probably why people are trusting them. What they are doing is outright fraudulent. If you can't look this up yourself, I guess you can take DNL's word for it and get ripped off. If these were real "synthetic" diamonds, like DNL claims, why can't you set it like a diamond? You have to set it like a ruby, because it can't stand the heat.

Chris1 put all this information up to help people not get ripped off, and some people are so stupid they question a P.H.,D. and take a company who won't put a response out, or try to defend their reputation. That alone proves they are frauds to me. You should be thanking Chris1, for hopefully saving a lot of people from getting ripped off.

22nd Feb 2011 04:10 UTCNoah86

Donald Vaughn Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It seems to me that A lot of the people on this

> topic have an axe to grind one way or another lets

> just accept the fact that if they are not selling

> "stones" as natural then it really does not matter

> a lick to me as a mineral collector whether they

> are cubic zirconium or kidney stones impregnated

> with ree . I have no intention of buying them

> anyway and my guess is neither do most of the

> people on this site.

> One question totaly Off topic for Norma Cenva, is

> that your real name cause I am pretty sure that

> their is a character in the Dune "prequels" named

> Norma Cenva who became the founder of the "Guild"

> just a question

Donald, look what they are claiming to be. DNL is claiming to be real man-made diamonds. When it comes out they completely lied, its kind of upsetting in the least. People should have an Axe to grind, so more people don't get ripped off.

22nd Feb 2011 19:13 UTCRock Currier Expert

I think this thread should be closed. I think it has provided more than enough free advertising for a company selling synthetic stones.

23rd Feb 2011 07:37 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Fully agree - done.

Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: May 9, 2024 07:31:17

Go to top of page