Moissanite adherents swear that its sparkle outclasses diamonds by a mile and a half. The fact that it has no natural flaws also stands in its favor. Wearing a moissanite ring is a sure attention grabber and conversation launcher. The stones are more popular than the previous favorite, cubic zirconium, for engagement, wedding and anniversary rings.

Certain class of purists object that moissanite, no matter how admirable its properties, cant match the sentimental value of a diamond on occasions of the heart. This may have something to do with the fact that it costs less. Also, many people still see moissanite as "fake diamond" a very unjustifiable definition. Moissanite is a unique mineral and is not meant to replace any other stones.

Moreover, diamonds are considered appropriate for engagement, wedding and anniversary rings because they are "forever". The "eternal" factor stems from the virtually indestructible nature of diamonds. By that coin, moissanite holds its own with diamonds. It also matches if not surpasses the sparkle and "fire" of diamonds. In other words, such arguments fall flat in the light of unbiased logic. Platinum, for instance, does not surpass gold it is merely a precious and attractive metal in its own right.

Actually, much of the present bias against moissanite rings for sentimental/relationship occasions has more to do with successful marketing hype against them than anything else. Moissanite is a valid jewelry medium, measured in carats and worthy of being set in precious metals such as gold, silver and platinum.

If anything, choosing moissanite over diamond shows a progressive thinker who resists bending to tradition. This planet has limited resources, and diamonds will become progressively rarer in years to come. It would be a sorry statement on modern civilization if engagements and weddings reduce proportionately.