Talk:Cubic zirconia

Gemology and Jewelry: Gemstones Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Gemstones subpage.

Notes

Might have the title wrong. Cubic zirconium or cubic zirconium oxide might be the correct title. user:Fredbauder

No, all 3 are correct. Fred Bauder

molten zirconia contained within itself - what? I don't quite grasp this, and am reluctant to reword it until I'm certain what it means. DS 14:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Being that the molten zirconia is too hot for any known container, the molten zirconia is contained as a pool of liquid in the middle of a slightly cooler mass of unmelted zirconia. Visualize a large diameter wax candle in a container made of ice. If the candle is lit, a pool of molten wax can be maintained in the middle of the candle without melting the ice (as long as the ice is kept chilled from the outside). This is because the surrounding unmelted wax insulates the molten wax from the ice. The same principle is used for the zirconia. The article mentions that the "skin" of unmelted zirconia is only 1mm thick. This provides enough insulation because zirconia is a very good thermal insulator. I hope this helps. Dwane Anderson

Gaudy?

The word "gaudy" used to describe the CZ compared to the diamond in the CZ vs. diamond section seems subjective, and is not helpful or descriptive. Might someone who has adequate knowlege on this subject be more accurately descriptive? Thomas French

Hope that fixes it. 'Rainbow-coloured' might be more evocative though. Since CZs are gaudy.

Well, they are no more gaudy than are diamonds. Of course, many people select large CZs because they are cheap. A 5-carat diamond is no less gaudy than a 5-carat diamond, but you don't see many 5-carat CZ. Many people look down on CZs because they let people give the appearance that they are more affluent and/or more profligate with their spending.--RLent 22:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

other?

In 2001 a cubic zirconia was made by extracting carbon from source like peanet butter or stubbiness high in carbon

Cubic Zirconia does not use or contain carbon. I think you are referring to synthetic diamond, which has been created using various carbon sources as you are referencing.--CarbonElemental 05:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CZ versus Diamond

On March 13, 2006, User:206.195.19.43 deleted a number of comparisons between cubic zirconium and diamond. Some of the "corrections" resulted in incorrect or misleading statements. Should I just revert the changes? -- Jasper 21:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes just revert it, i want to know 203.153.253.102 (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move for deletion?

My wife found out that her ring was cubic zirconia. I told her that that meant it was extra rare and valuable. I propose we delete this article, or I am in some serious shit. She is a big wikipedia user and she might see this page, but I don't want to vandalize... Please :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreo man (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I'm afraid you're doomed. Tuck your head down and kiss the boys goodbye, is all the advice I can offer! --Grey Knight ⊖ 04:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a special right to request an article's deletion just because you screwed up. But you have to say, cubic zirconia is shiny, and we all know people can't resist shiny objects. :D The First Doll 07:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're screwed. But I do agree that cubic zirconium is shiny. --science4sail ^talkcon 02:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha your dead when your wife finds this page--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 08:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or 'Talk page highlights'... 203.11.71.124 (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, diamonds were praised for their high fire (high optical dispersion, which makes for rainbow highlights), clarity, colourlessness, and durability. Then cubic zirconia came out, with way more fire than diamonds, more than enough hardness not to get scratched by dust (mostly quartz, Moh's hardness of 7), less colour, more clarity, good resistance to chemicals and thermal shock, less brittleness than diamonds (diamonds chip easily; cubic zirconia can, like corundum/sapphire, actually be used for knife blades)... oh, and much cheaper. Then suddenly too much fire was gaudy, and diamonds were the best because they had exactly the right amount of fire. Obviously cubic zirconia needs a multi-billion-dollar ad campaign: "Likely to remain undamaged for longer than diamonds under actual wear conditions, and is shiny"? — maybe Wikipedia editors are not any better at PR than PR professionals are at being Wikipedia editors. A preference for cubic zirconia over diamond might be considered modern independent-minded good taste, traits we may hope are correlated with being a big Wikipedia user.

If gemstones were valued for their physical properties, we would not see people buying stones which need an expert with specialized equipment to distinguish them from other stones that cost less than a tenth as much. Nor would we see people paying huge premiums for mined stones which can only be distinguished from synthetic ones by their flaws (and carbon footprint, both ways, and working conditions). However, in many cultures, jewelry is how women store capital, as it is the form of property they can most reliably retain. Giving expensive jewelry is thus a way of giving financial independence, although I would point out that education has a better ROI and is harder to lose.

In cultures where women have more financial equality, women generally own less value in jewelry, and men get given jewelry more (there are places in which a married man sans wedding ring is a figure of fun). The original poster seems to come from Georgia, USA; there, counting only full-time workers, men earn $1.35 for every $1 a women earns,^[1] and women do more unpaid work, regardless of employment and pay. My point is that moving to Iceland might help.

HLHJ (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that it's good taste? Allison Kaas (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://datausa.io/profile/geo/georgia/

Innovations

Contains "See Russian Star." which seems a reference to a comercial product [Russian Star^TM]. A WikiPedia search for "Russian Star" yields nothing interesting. Should "See Russian Star." remain in this article? —ConradPino (talk • contribs) 00:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry I missed this - It is a definite NO, as it is a definite spamlink (albeit without the link). It was removed.SauliH 05:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other CZ makers

It is interesting, I saw an add for "DiamondAura" and suspected that it was CZ by the description, and sure enough, a search on wiki for "diamondaura" directs here, but I see no mention of it anywhere on the page. Similarly, the above title refers to the "russian star", another CZ that fails to mention it on the site. Since many CZ manufacturers try to cover the fact that they are CZ by not mentioning what the stone is, and by making comparison (e.g., "the fire is actually superior to that of a diamond") people are no doubt searching for answers about these stones. Is there a rule about referencing them in the CZ article? I don't have a particularly anti-CZ bias (they're fine for what they are), but I do object to purposeful obfuscation. --198.103.172.9 (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. CZs are often marketed without direct reference to their composition, or disguised using a trade name ("DiamondAura" being a common one). This is useful information, and ought to be included in the article. 24.215.188.55 (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-contradictory

"Cubic zirconia is so optically close to diamond that only a trained eye can easily differentiate the two."
vs.
"With a dispersive power greater than diamond (0.060 vs. 0.044) the more prismatic fire of cubic zirconia can be seen by even an untrained eye."

Which is true? --Mwongozi (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also: "Thermal conductivity: cubic zirconia is a thermal insulator while diamond is one of the most efficient thermal conductors, with the thermal conductivity exceeding that of most metals. This allows diamond to be distinguished from cubic zirconia with the right instruments." - Surely if the difference in thermal conductivity is so pronounced, one could tell the difference by holding it tightly in hand and judge the rate at which it warms up from room temperature? No instruments required.

77.98.151.52 (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had read that the "girdle" or circumference of the round edge of a round-cut CZ has a noticeable double-edged band instead of a single sharp edge, enabling even a small amount of magnification to show the difference between CZ and diamond. Is that verifiable?

Also: I would like someone to disclose the details of the cutting process of CZ stones -- I am wondering who does the cutting, how much they are paid, is it a fair trade issue like diamonds? different? Automated? If anyone can contribute I would appreciate it, since I have favored CZ over diamonds for that reason alone, and I may be mistaken in assuming that there's much difference between the two in terms of who cuts them and how much they are paid for it. --Xibee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xibee (talk • contribs) 14:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article overstates the visual similarity of CZ to diamond. When I began engagement ring shopping, the first jewelry store I went to, before being told which bank of rings were the CZs, I noticed a difference (though I didn't know what it was until I asked the clerk). The difference between the CZs vs. diamonds was apparent to me w/ the rings behind the glass counter and certainly without use of a loupe. I didn't frequent jewelry stores prior to this, so at least to me the difference was w/o really any prior experience looking at the stuff. IMO it's like saying the difference between lossless audio compression and 128kbps MP3s are not audible - it might be true to the novice, but with a little practice and/or perceptual skills it's pretty trivial to tell the difference. I know my anecdote is OR so don't bother saying it - that's why I put it on talk. Ripe (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does 'Prismic fire' have anything to do with vision? 203.11.71.124 (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a visual phenomenon, so yes. Obviously. Allison Kaas (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is a DOCZ?

I have a ring that I thought had cubic zirconia but the stones have turned milky. Inside the ring it says "14KDOCZ". What does that mean? Poagers (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cut glass

I've always heard that a diamond will "cut glass". Is it true & if so will a CZ "cut glass" also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.212.41 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and yes. See Mohs scale. --Synaptophysin (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home shopping channels?

Do you think it's a good idea to add a sentence about the fact that home shopping channels (Home Shopping Club/Network, QVC) made Cubic zirconia mainstream popular in the 1980's? Just a thought. Macshill (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea if you could find a WP:RS, so it's not perceived as WP:OR. Plastikspork (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean ?

"at least 1.6 times more dense than diamond". If understood according to the usual meanings of words this means that if the density of diamond is taken to be 1, that of CZ is greater than 2.6 (i.e. 1.6 more than 1, or 1 + 1.6). Is this what is intended ? Perhaps "more than 1.6 times as dense as diamond" is what the author has in mind.

Andrew Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.50.77 (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"more than 1.6 times as dense as diamond" means diamond density x1.6 (which is correct for CZ). Strange, I never thought about another definition .. Materialscientist (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About DiamondAura

After checking the Trademark for the product, it's for the line of jewelry, not a creation process. Even though DiamondAura is a popular brand, I don't think it should be in the article, if the other CZ brands aren't listed also. --Funandtrvl

(talk) 19:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that is an inherent problem with WikiPedia itself. If you type in DiamondAura, which is a trademarked name, in the search box, the CZ page is where it forwards you. As long as that happens, then DiamondAura needs to be placed on this page. As well, one of the other CZ brands is listed, Diamonique.Str1Rck (talk)

Removed as unsourced and a self-link. Commercial promotion doesn't belong in lead section. Vsmith (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture

Many songs contain Cubic zirconia in their lyrics: http://www.lyrics.net/lyrics/cubic%20zirconia . Maybe make a note of it. Jidanni (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cubic zirconia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

This section was modified to add some more information of the producers of when CZ was industrially produced. Some missing citations were also fixed. However, we tried to find more information on the current state of the CZ market but we found most data was copyright owned by market analytics companies. It would be interesting to see how CZ currently dwells in the market of jewellery. Also, we tried looking into data of imports and exports of CZ but the only data we crossed was from Indian trading and shipping companies companies. It would be interesting to find out why India only, is it currently a main importer of CZ? Or is it one of the only countries that openly publishes the entry/exit of their product. More information on this would be needed to make a meaningful contribution to the article. Arochat (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CZ in Diamond Market Section

Wikipedians,

We wrote this section trying to identify some of the affairs surrounding CZ. We thought it would be interesting to see how CZ as an jewellery competitor does against diamond. We ultimately fell into topic surrounding the rarity of diamond and conflict diamonds and how CZ and other artificial stones are alternatives to buying diamonds. However, most of the sources we found were opinion pieces or articles mainly focusing on the situation of Blood Diamonds. This section is lacking more concise evidence that CZ and other substituents have had an effect upon these issues. From the sources we have found it has only been suggested that CZ is an alternative and that some demographic of the population has adopted this as a solution. Therefore, it would be interesting to add information from studies that address this choice and see if there has been any meaningful consequence. Arochat (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uses outside jewellery

Wikipedians

Our objective with this section was to outline and display the different uses of CZ outside of its primary use (jewellery). Unfortunately documentation on the topic was lacking with our sources briefly mentioning other uses but never going in depth on the subject. Sources providing this information would be useful and interesting to add to the page, furthermore information relating to how these other uses have changed throughout the years would be interesting to see. OGHelander (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use in dentistry

The word "dentistry" doesn't even appear in this article. The major use of zirconia is in dentistry 132.234.206.215 (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantine vs vitreous lustre

This article states that cz has a vitreous lustre, which I don't think is right. Most sources agree that cz is considered adamantine. Even the wikipedia page on lustre lists cz as an example of a stone with adamantine lustre. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lustre_(mineralogy)#Adamantine_lustre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.217.9 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Aspects

Paragraph 3 : Why is "beige" in quotation marks when the other colors listed aren't? Does it fluoresce beige or not? Allison Kaas (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://datausa.io/profile/geo/georgia/

[1]