CZ-Synthetic

Jewelry Discussion
21 
   In my way of thinking "synthetic" comes from the word synthesis
which means - the act of putting together... in this case by man.
Currently I would call any synthesized gem whether it has a
natural counterpart or not a synthetic gem.

Liddicoat, Webster, and most other gemological authors you could
quote use the word synthetic as related to gems, only indicate man
made materials that have a natural counterpart. And the standard
dictionary definitions of the word also seem to imply also the fact
that a synthetic is a man made version of the “real”.

But the issue, when we get to general usage of the word synthetic or
synthesis, can get messy. You write…

   I'll bet that anything Man can synthesize exists in Nature
anyway whether we have found it or not. Man uses and obeys the laws
of Nature for everything he does. High tech or not everything we do
is done within this framework.

Here’s where it gets messy. There are a LOT of man made materials,
which are often called synthetics, which do NOT have natural exact
counterparts.

I challenge you to produce an example of natural nylong or
polypropelene, for example. And the vapor deposition folks can
produce amorphous diamond thing films. That’s diamond, yet without
the cubic crystal structure found in natural diamond, or so I
understand. And in pnarmaceuticals, although many are derived from
natural materials at first, many second generation drugs are
modifications of the initial natural version, and the modifications
do NOT have natural counterparts. Yet often we also use the word
synthetic in that context. So it’s easy to understand confusion over
the use of the word.

Just understand that in the gemological community, the word
synthetic has been pretty universally accepted as a well defined term
in the gemological nomenclature, where it IS limited to materials
that have natural counterparts, even if the word can be used in other
fields without that absolute requirement.

   Maybe I am overlooking something here and this is not the case.
If so please explain it to me.

The simple explanation is that within gemology, the term has been
accepted as having a precise meaning. It’s no longer a matter of how
anyone feels the term should be used, or comparing it to usage in
other fields. In gemology, the meaning is well defined, and well
understood by the field to have that meaning. Going against the flow
and redefining it serves a negative purpose. There are plenty of
other words that can be used to describe a new and novel man made
material that has no natural counter part. The marketing folks
manage to coin new words on a daily basis, it seems, for their new
and wonderful versions of the old and tired stuff. With a new brand
name and some loose descriptions, the public comes running again…

cheers
Peter

22

Ain’t the English language great?! Seems all we do is run around
splitting hairs with words, and hijacking acceptable words for the
purpose of “smoke and mirror” (split hair) descriptions to fool the
public and relabeling objectionable (deviant) lifestyles/enterprises
with our hijacked (acceptable) words. As for me, black is still
black, and white is still white. Gray, I scrutinize and make my own
conclusions. Smoky Topaz is not a topaz, and Cubic Zirconia is a
synthetic simulant. You can also toss Moissanite into the simulant
mix. I’ve seen too many offered as diamond by fooled pawn shops.
This business seems to be full of shysters out there looking for the
unsuspecting that are primed for the quick buck at someone else’s
expense - at both ends of the wholesale/retail yardstick, and
everything in between.

Ever listen to the descriptions of the salespeople on those home
shopping TV shows? Good examples of borderline misrepresentation.
Compare trash to quality, add a little smoke and mirrors, price it
somewhere in between and the public sucks it up every time.

Time to put my soapbox away for another day. Usual disclaimer -
That’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

With a new brand name and some loose descriptions, the public comes
running again…

23

Dear Daniel, Jerry, Michael & James,

Thank you all so much for continuing this lively thread.

I remain unconvinced and challenge the “definition” that a synthetic
needs to have a natural counterpart, this is simply not true. A
synthetic gem does not need to have a natural counterpart to be a
synthetic gem. Just man-made that’s all.

Liddicoat’s Handbook of Gem Identification 10th edition on page 118
includes “materials unknown in nature such as lithium niobate
(Linobate) and KTN (niobium doped potassium tantalate).” under the
heading synthetic. It is apparent that Richard Liddicoat does not
insist that a synthetic gem have a natural counterpart.

Webster’s - Gems Their Sources, Descriptions, and Identification
Third Edition states on page 328 (in reference to synthetic gems) :
“the term can well be used to cover those man-made stones which have
no counterpart in nature.” Even though I never met Mr. Webster I
think he also agrees that a “synthetic” gem does not need a natural
counterpart.

Daniel Spirer wrote: “Most, if not all, of the gemological textbooks
do define a synthetic gem as something exactly duplicating its
natural counterpart.” I respond - IF a synthetic does have a
known natural counterpart that said synthetic IS identical to the
natural counterpart. This however says nothing about synthetics that
do not have known natural counterparts. BTW Daniel, I did not
personally define “synthetic” but looked it up in my 20 lb Webster’s
3rd New International Dictionary. I also became somewhat familiar
with the term synthetic while getting my college education in
Biology and Chemistry. So I agree whole-heartedly that we should not
“ignore scientific definitions” as you stated.

Gerry on Kodiak Island wrote: "the fifth edition of Webster’s p. 389
states “as a natural counterpart must exist, a synthetic stone will
have the same chemical and physical” I am not sure in exactly what
context this quote was taken nor can I find it in my edition of
Webster’s (not to be confused with the dictionary of similar name).
I can say that my Webster’s Gems Their Sources, Descriptions, and
Identification book says very differently than the partial quote put
up by Gerry (see above). Webster died in 1968 but he was very clear
in my Third Edition reprinted in 1980 about man-made stones not
needing a natural counterpart to be called synthetic. I put the
exact quote up above. And yes again it is true as Gerry quotes from
Liddicoats book “By definition, both the chemical composition and
crystal structure of a synthetic are identical to those of the
natural stone it represents.” Again this says nothing about
synthetics that do not have natural counterparts. Even without a
natural counterpart a man-made gem is still a synthetic according to
what Liddicoat writes in his book in my library. (BTW Gerry I
almost rode my motorcycle to Kodiak… got as far as Homer… loved
it! Next time I’m sailing their!)

Michael M wrote about synthetics: “Some manmade materials have no
natural couterparts (sic). They do not duplicate the composition and
structure of any known natural gem. Technically, although man-made,
they are not synthetics.” Sorry Michael, both Liddicoat and Webster
state the contrary.

And finally Doctor James writes: Liddicoat - “A synthetic gem
material has the same chemical composition, crystal structure, and
consequently, the same physical and optical properties of the
natural gem it represents.” And again I reply TRUE TRUE TRUE when
there is a natural counterpart - but… this says nothing about when
there is no natural counterpart. When there is no natural
counterpart the synthetic gem is not trying to represent anything
other than itself. My Liddicoat book specifically includes gems with
no natural counterpart in the “synthetic” heading. As for Doc’s
quote from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary “devised, arranged, or
fabricated for special situations to imitate or replace usual
realities c : FACTITIOUS, BOGUS " This definition does not apply to
the scientific definition of “synthetic”. The use of the word
synthetic can be for people, situations, philosophy, personalities,
diets, etcetera. When it comes to crystallography, chemistry,
physics etcetera it is the scientific definition that takes
precedence. My 1986 Merriam Webster’s Dictionary’s 1a definition for
the word synthetic is - " 1a : relating to or involving synthesis”
referencing “Synthesis” the very first most prominent definition
(just above on same page) is : " action of putting together" . My
way of thinking about scientific definition of “synthesis” and
“synthetic” is the same as Webster’s Dictionary. Most synthetics
are not “initially designed to fool the public” as you stated, but
came about without the slightest interest in the gem business. They
were synthesized for scientific purposes like lasers, timekeeping,
RF technologies, semi-conductor industries, abrasives and so on. The
synthetic crystals that came as a result of these needs are
certainly inventions and copyrighted by their inventors. However if
they have intrinsic beauty, durability and meet other “gem” criteria
they are classified as synthetic gems with no need for a natural
counterpart.

A synthetic gem does not need to have a natural counterpart, it just
needs to be man-made. Just ask any YAG lover at Bell Labs.

Respectfully, Steve Green - Rough and Ready Gems
www.briolettes.com Briolettes in over 50 natural gem materials. I
have no YAGs though.

PS Guys, I mean no disrespect or hostility in these arguments. I
am merely expressing my views with supporting evidence and hopefully
shedding light on some subjects while having fun. Hope you are too.
: )

24 
    A synthetic gem does not need to have a natural counterpart,
it just needs to be man-made. Just ask any YAG lover at Bell Labs.

Excellently presented and well argued Steve Green…until

    synthetic crystals that came as a result of these needs are
certainly inventions and copyrighted by their inventors. However
if

You can patent a… er… synthetic material with no known natural
counterpart and you can patent a novel-and-non-obvious process for
making any synthetic material (Garnet and Diamond making processes,
among others, were patent by General Electric’s “Diamond Fever Gang”
starting in the mid 50’s). You cannot patent a natural material or
copyright it and you can’t really even enforce a copyright on written
instructions for producing a synthetic material because, in general,
the courts would find no “expression” there, merely a dry listing of
steps (recipe’s get virtually no protection via copyright except as
collections though you are free to slap a Copyright notice on a
recipe and hope readers will honor it though there is little legal
requirement they do). GE’s very successful Diamond and Garnet making
processes and equipment patents are now all expired so anyone is
free to follow the processes and make their own just as anyone is
free to make nylon because its patent expired.

What amazes me, of course, is that anyone would ever by CZ “jewelry”
in the first place.

James E. White

25

Steve, Webster’s New Unabridged Dictionary (1983) Synthetic
2.produced by sunthesis; specifically, produced by chemical
synthesis, rather than of natural origin.

Handbook of Gem Identification Liddicoat (1993) Synthetic A
man-made substitute possessing the same chemical composition, crystal
structure and thus the same properties as the gem it represents (see
Chapter X).

Simon & Schuster’s Guide to Gems and Precious Stones Cipriani &
Borelli Synthetic Said of precious stone produced in the
labratory, which exactly reproduces the chemical composition and
physical characteristics of the natural stone.

They all make reference to nature vs nurture …

Maybe you’re right and all the rest of the world is wrong …8*)

Bruce

26

This is a matter of semantics. As commonly employed, the term
synthetic differentiates natural stones from man-made stones of
identical crystalline structure and composition, whereas the term
simulant denotes synthetic stones which are not identical in
crystalline structure or composition to the natural stones which
they emulate.

While there may be lab-created gems which neither emulate a natural
stone nor have a natural counterpart, it would be redundant to refer
to them as synthetic. Do you often, in normal conversation, refer to
“synthetic YAG?” Probably not, as there is no need to differentiate
it from a natural counterpart. It is useful, OTOH, to refer to such
material as a diamond simulant, because that is it’s common purpose.

You could, of course, insist on personally employing language in a
different usage from everyone else in the field, but the purpose of
language is communication, and if you employ terms in a way
meaningful to you personally but contrary to the generally accepted
usage, you thwart the purpose of language. You would, in effect, be
talking just to hear your own voice. And what point is there in
that?

Lee Einer
Dos Manos Jewelry
http://www.dosmanosjewelry.com

27

I’m trying to follow the thread about what is synthetic and what is
simulated and I think I see it meandering its way to the handcrafted
versus fabricated thread. And someone (forgive me for the short
memory, it’s 1 am and I really oughta be in bed) alluded to the
not-very-good sales antics of the people who sell jewellery on the
shopping channel. Here’s my point: (briefly) But for ready-made and
mass-made jewellery, I don’t think I could afford to wear the
jewellery that I love if I had to buy from the Crafts People. Not
that I don’t want to. From my earliest starry eyed forays into my
late Auntie Lottie’s jewellery box which kept me dreaming for years
and years, jewellery has mesmerized me. Why? I don’t know. Probably
it’s an inherited defect. But I like the defect. I am proud of this
defect. I like to say that my jewellery classmates are like-minded
addicts. When we are together, it’s like Al Anon: everyone lets it
all hang out. We salivate unrepentantly over each others baubles. No
jealousy there. We murmur appreciatively over my friends’ new
trinkets that her new husband likes to shower on her. It’s
wonderful. No other way to describe it. And my favourite ring is an
aquamarine, not a bad stone, too pale for the gurus but for me it’s
my favourite colour: winter sky gray with a hint of blue. And I
bought it, where else? from the shopping channel. And I like to
wear peridot earrings made in Thailand. The stones are chipped and
the whole thing was whipped together too fast to be sold to the
greedy west too cheaply. Yet I like to think that my earrings were
made by a man or a woman who may, or may not have been having a bad
day. No food at home. The baby’s sick. And they made my earrings all
the same. I love to wear earrings made by hands in a country I may
never, despite my best efforts, ever see in this lifetime. So there you have it.

28 
    PS   Guys, I mean no disrespect or hostility in these
arguments. I am merely expressing my views with supporting evidence
and hopefully shedding light on some subjects while having fun.
Hope you are too. : )

Hi Steve… I do a lot of prowling on eBay…

Even more fun getting through twisted semantics/definitions on this
issue there……

Then there’s this little bit from the FTC Guide…

� 23.25 Misuse of the word “gem.”

(a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “gem” to describe,
identify, or refer to a ruby, sapphire, emerald, topaz, or other
industry product that does not possess the beauty, symmetry, rarity,
and value necessary for qualification as a gem. . . . . Note to � 23.25:
In general, use of the word “gem” with respect to laboratory-created
stones should be avoided since few laboratory-created stones possess
the necessary qualifications to properly be termed “gems.” Imitation
diamonds and other imitation stones should not be described as
“gems.” Not all diamonds or natural stones, including those
classified as precious stones, possess the necessary qualifications
to be properly termed “gems.”

Gary W. Bourbonais

29 
   PS   Guys, I mean no disrespect or hostility in these
arguments. I am merely expressing my views with supporting evidence
and hopefully shedding light on some subjects while having fun.
Hope you are too. : )

Hiya there Steve. Are you kidding? I’m having a blast with this. Any
time I can stretch my mind with a discussion of new ideas, I’m
happy. Now, on to it :slight_smile:

     Liddicoat's Handbook of Gem Identification 10th edition on
page 118 includes "materials unknown in nature such as lithium
niobate (Linobate) and KTN (niobium doped potassium tantalate)."
under the heading synthetic.  It is apparent that Richard Liddicoat
does not insist that a synthetic gem have a natural counterpart.

I don’t have the 10th edition of this book, but in the 12th edition,
that paragraph is under the heading of Manmade Gem Materials on page
85, not the heading of Synthetic. It actually mentions those
substances as brought forth by “Other scientific efforts”. Yes,
there are synthetic minerals which are mentioned in the same
paragraph, but he doesn’t represent Linobate and KTN as synthetics.
He does, however, go on to discuss other, more well-known
synthetics, including the Gilson opals, which are disputed by many
gemologists as synthetics as they contain no water; natural opal
does. Your inference that Liddicoat does not insist that a synthetic
gem have a natural counterpart is proven wrong by the paragraph
immediately following your quoted paragraph “(Since Strontium
Titanate is not found in nature, it is not a true synthetic gem
material)” Sure, it was synthesized in a laboratory, but not a TRUE
synthetic GEM MATERIAL (please excuse caps, I’m not yelling, just
emphasizing).

     As for Doc's quote from Merriam-Webster's  Dictionary
"devised, arranged, or fabricated for special situations to imitate
or replace usual realities c : FACTITIOUS, BOGUS " This definition
does not apply to the scientific definition of "synthetic". The use
of the word synthetic can be for people, situations, philosophy,
personalities, diets, etcetera.  When it comes to crystallography,
chemistry, physics etcetera it is the scientific definition that
takes precedence

Yes, it certainly can be used for people, situations, etc. but we’re
talking about gemstones here. And yes, crystallography, chemistry,
physics, etc. are all part of gemology and but we’re not
talking about those individual areas of study, either. We are
talking about using a term that must be common to all gemologists,
jewelers, etc. I must agree with the “smoke and mirrors” post. The
waters of gemology are muddy enough without stretching the
definitions of what is considered a synthetic gem material.
Consumers have long been confused about this issue and they deserve
layman’s terms that won’t undermine their already shaky opinion that
we in the trade won’t perform any of those horror stories we’ve all
heard about. (you know: “Oh, don’t go to them, they replaced my
diamond with a CZ”). You’re right that the Merriam-Webster
definition doesn’t apply completely to “the scientific definition of
‘synthetic’” but it certainly applies to the gemological definition.
And that’s what we’re talking about here.

     Most synthetics are not "initially designed to fool the
public" as you stated, but came about without the slightest
interest in the gem business. They were synthesized for scientific
purposes like lasers, timekeeping, RF technologies, semi-conductor
industries, abrasives and so on. The synthetic crystals that came
as a result of these needs are certainly inventions and copyrighted
by their inventors. However if they have intrinsic beauty,
durability and meet other "gem" criteria they are classified as
synthetic gems with no need for a natural counterpart.

I love the English language. “Designed to fool the public”…I meant
the word “designed” as “intended”. While you’re right about the
synthetic gems we have today, most were developed for scientific
purposes, SOME manufacturers and retailers certainly do intend to
deceive the public. That “Tsavorite-Colored, Laboratory-Created
Obsidian” sure was! And you’re wrong about the ones with no natural
counterpart being called synthetic gem materials. Unless they have a
natural counterpart, they are called Manmade. Here’s one of the
strongest arguments: Section 23.23 of the FTC guides advises against
use of terms like “ruby,” “sapphire,” “emerald,” “stone,”
“birthstone,” or other gem name alone for anything but a natural
stone. Any synthetic stone must possess essentially the same
optical, physical, and chemical properties as its natural
counterpart if the word “synthetic” is used in its description. See,
when gemstones are involved (we’re still talking about gemstones,
right?), you can’t create a new category of synthetic gemstone
unless it has a natural counterpart. Scientifically, maybe. Legally?
Well, FTC guidelines are just that; guidelines. But when they’re
used in a court of law to support a claim, they’re as good as law.

A synthetic gem does not need to have a natural counterpart, it just
needs to be man-made. Just ask any YAG lover at Bell Labs.

On page 104 of Liddicoat’s 12th edition, he discusses YAG, YIG and
GGG. They are referred to as garnet-structured substitutes, not
synthetics. I guess I’m going to need a copy of Webster’s book,
too…I can never get enough knowledge. I’m sure the YAG lovers at
Bell labs would like to call their garnet-structured substitute
whatever they like, but my bet is on their legal counsel advising
against calling it a synthetic garnet gemstone, in compliance with
FTC guidelines. Go to bell-labs.com and use their search engine for
YAG, or even synthetic. You’ll find some references to YAG lasers
under a search for “YAG”, and under “synthetic” you’ll find that
they indeed invented a method of creating Synthetic Quartz crystals
(sic). I’ll even post the URL:
http://www.bell-labs.com/org/physicalsciences/timeline/span8.html#
Note the term “Synthetic” there…they follow FTC guidelines after
all, it seems. Don’t get me wrong, I love all gem materials as well
as mineral specimens, including synthetics and manmade materials.
And yes, I even have a couple of round brilliant YAGs and am looking
for Strontium Titanate, GGG, Synthetic Spinel Triplets, and many
others to complete my (at this point) modest gemological collection.
But in this type of collection, a material must be catalogued
correctly, not by what I would arbitrarily decide to call its’
components.

And that’s the real root of what I’m trying to say here. There is a
specific definition of a gem material, natural or synthetic.
Arbitrarily inserting terms and definitions that are outside of the
gemological community for materials that are used inside the
gemological community just doesn’t work for me, or the consumer.

P.S. Steve, you mentioned my nickname (The Doctor). I would like
everyone to know that it is just that, a nickname that was given to
me by a previous mentor, now deceased. I’m not a PhD, MD, DDS, or
any such thing, just a G.G. who wants to keep fresh by seeking
knowledge.

Respectfully and cheerfully yours in gemology,
James in SoFL, where it actually didn’t rain here yesterday (we’ll see
about today).

30

Hello All,

It seems that Steve is out there on his own on this one and I would
just like to say that I must agree with him. Frankly, it seems
rather simple to me and I don’t understand what all of the
excitement is about.

A man made substance is a synthetic material period. It doesn’t
matter what category of materials we are talking about. Gemstones
are no exception. A red man made material that is used to create a
gemstone that has no natural counterpart is a synthetic gemstone.
However, if a red man made material is represented a synthetic ruby,
then it must have the same chemical and physical characteristics as
a naturally occurring ruby. If it does not, then it could be
represented as a ruby simulant (with a different name) but not a
synthetic ruby. It is still a synthetic gem since it is still man
made it is just not a synthetic ruby.

The key here is what the material is represented as. This is where
the problem enters in. Some of the people marketing these synthetic
materials do indeed like to play on the public’s lack of knowledge
and/or established biases and attach well recognized and highly
valued names to things that have no real relation to them. (Hence
terms like genuine simulated marble. I’d still like to know what
non-genuine simulated marble looks like.) This unfortunate
circumstance does not, however, change the definition of the word
"synthetic". My dictionary also agrees with Steve’s dictionary.

Just my humble opinion and thought I would also have a little fun
with this thread.

Best Regards,
Dale

31

All,

Looks to me like the FTC hardly knows which of their ends are UP!
Either that or an attorny -jeweler-lobbiest wannabe wrote the code!!
I just finished cutting a georgeous mint green synthetic
sapphire…one of the very few synthetic stones I have ever cut. It
is an absolutely beautiful stone…very durable, hard as h… (a 9
after all), pure, almost competetion cut, yadayadayada. With all
that AND with the same structural and chemistry characteristics of a
natural corundum…try to tell me it is not a gem. Maybe not worth
as much (certainly) as a natural but in all other aspects…it is a
gem. By the way, I am not one much for synthetic gems but they
ARE/CAN still be gems…just be sure to identify it for what it is at
sale time. Unfortunately, there are so many out there who take
advantage of the unknowing but, nonetheless, this is just another
example of how the central authority tries to govern our daily lives.
Just my 2c worth!

Cheers from Don at The Charles Belle Studio in SOFL where simple
elegance IS fine jewelry! @coralnut2

32

YAG or Yttrium Aluminum Garnet is a man-made gemstone which, does
not have a counterpart in nature. It has the basic garnet
crystallographic structure, but with (AlO4)3 replacing the (SiO4)3
found in natural garnets. The full composition is Y3Al2(AlO4)3 ,
with dopants added to create various colors.
(^Info from another site)

My impression is that YAG and other manufactured crystals were
developed for scientific/industrial laser construction, due to an
insufficiency of natural usable crystals and the “gem” usage was a
fortunate by-product. Betsy

33 
...whereas the term simulant denotes synthetic stones which are
not identical in crystalline structure or composition to the
natural stones which they emulate.

Nope. Sorry. The term simulant denotes synthetic OR natural stones
OR anything else used for the purpose of imitating another substance.
Natural white sapphires, when used to substitute for or imitate
diamonds are simulants. Coated plastic beads used to imitate pearls
are simulants. And (this is ridiculous but I’m trying to make a
point), if YAG were used as a substitute for CZ (which is itself both
a synthetic and a simulant), it too would be a simulant for, in this
case, CZ.

Beth

34

OK Guys and Gals, Here is what I am realizing about this argument -
whether a “synthetic” gem needs to have a natural counter-part or
not.

It seems to depend on who’s lead you follow and what your preference
is. Of my 20 or so books on gems in my library only the following
ones make reference to the synthetic issue, and this is what they
state:

Webster - GEMS Their Sources Description and Identification - Third
Edition (reprinted 1980) page 328 states: “the term synthetic can
well be used to cover those man-made stones which have no
counterpart in nature.”

Liddicoat - Handbook of Gem Identification - Tenth Edition
(copyright 1977) page 118 refers to: GGG, YAG, YIG, Linobate and KTN
all as "synthetic even though they are “unknown in
nature”.

Arem - Color Encyclopedia of Gemstones - Second Edition (copyright
1987) page 3 states: “a synthetic is a manufactured material that may
be physically and chemically equivalent to a mineral, or a compound
unknown in nature but that can be grown in transparent crystals
suitable for cutting”

Desautels - The Gem Kingdom (copyright 1971) page 77 states: “Two
other synthetic gems have been produced by the Verneuil technique.
Neither of these has a natural counterpart but both have found their
way into the gem trade. They are titanium dioxide and strontium
titanate .” also on page 72 there is a photo of a YAG crystal.
Desautel’s caption says: “methods of growing synthetic crystals. Gem
crystal of YAG, a light-colored fairly hard, recent synthetic”

O’Donoghue - A Guide to Man-Made Gemstones (copyright 1983) on page
9 states: “the adjective ‘synthetic’ should be used only for
man-made items with a natural counterpart”

In my library 4 out of 5 books that address this issue support that

  • YAG, GGG, YIG, strontium titanate, and man-made titanium oxide
    (different than the black natural version) all fall under the
    “synthetic” heading even though they have no known natural
    counterpart. Only one of my books takes the opposite stance.

Maybe my books are not the newest versions and have different
wording than yours do. Maybe they are completely out of date and I
need a new library for this rapidly changing definition. But from
what I am seeing there is controversy on this issue. So I guess in
the end you can choose to use the term either way… your choice.

I will do some more polling amongst respected gem and mineral
experts here at the Denver Show and see further what the consensus
is -stay tuned. : )

Up to this point I still feel that gems cut from man-made materials
without a natural counterpart, fall under the heading “synthetic”.

Regards to all, Steve Green - Rough and Ready Gems
www.briolettes.com Fine briolettes and precision ultrasonic drilling.

35

Some of the people marketing these synthetic materials do indeed
like to play on the public’s lack of knowledge Oh, they do…indeed
they do!..Like the fellow in a jewelry store who tried to sell me a
strand of “genuine simulated pearls” at an outrageous price and
became indignant when I asked how they could be genuine if they were
simulated. Dee

36 
  What amazes me, of course, is that anyone would ever by CZ
"jewelry" in the first place.

(putting on “devils advocate” hat…)

Why does this amaze you? If one is buying jewelry in order to own
something of significant intrinsic value, then inexpensive CZ is not
the answer. But one very real function of jewelry is just to look
good, and enhance the appearance of the wearer. There is an
enormous industry based on this concept. Fashion clothing. And
fashion jewelry is no different. For not a lot of money, it can be
decorative and fun.

CZ may not have great intrinsic value, but it IS as reasonably
durable in normal wear as many colored gems, and allows wearing little
risk financially to the owner if it should be lost or damaged, which
allows it’s wearing with less concern for it’s care, so in the strict
fashion sense, it serves it’s purpose admirably. Jewelry can be
enjoyed and worn without it’s needing to cost lots of money or fool
viewers into thinking it did cost lost. It can be worn just because
it’s fun or attractive.

And, for the technically minded, the process by which it’s made is
in itself at least rather fascinating, worthy of a bit of respect
from the techno crowd, if only for the temperatures involved, and the
controls required to grow good consistent material. It’s not like
anyone can make the stuff in their kitchen, after all… (unless your
kitchen is a whole lot better equipped than mine… (grin)…)

Peter Rowe