that sounds like a lovely idea! i've been thinking of making eternity bands with my family's birthstones lately as well.

I have had several eternity rings not from Mossi company that I have just damaged. I think they are a bad design and stones shouldn't go all the way around. Right now I am currently working on a project with mossi co. and so far have had a good experience with the communications and my special needs (being super picky).

I was thinking the same thing Jeanie - maybe some sapphires in the blank spots since they are my hubby's birthstone...

I agree with the colored stones...that sounds like a GREAT idea.

I'm so sorry for the experience that you have had and I am pretty positive that while i went with a moissy center, it's one of the reasons I went with diamonds in the setting and for my eternity band.

We have had several emails with concerns about the durability of Moissanite eternity bands after reading this thread. Hopefully I can help clear this up.

Certain style eternity bands will protect the stones better than others. But if you think about it, this is true of engagement rings as well. For example, if you are looking for an engagement ring that is very durable, micro pave is not the way to go. Channel set and bezel will be the most durable. You can apply this same principle to eternity rings.

Because the stones go all the way around the band, even if you tend to not be very hard on your jewelry, it is very likely you will be harder on the eternity ring. Why? Because the stones go all the way around the band.

Eband001 is our most popular eternity band. Here is a link:
http://www.moissaniteco.com/moissanite-eternity-rings-shared-prong-eternity-ring-1-c-103_109.html

It is the most popular because when you wear it, you see mostly metal, very little prongs and no metal on the sides. It is very beautiful, but if you want maximum durability, this is not the way to go. Why? Because the way it is designed, the ring is as wide as the stone. If you hit the ring directly on its side or even at an angle, you will likely be hitting the stone directly. Therefore it is more likely to break a stone in this style than say, for example, with a channel set, bezel set, or a different 4-prong style where the band is wider than the stones. That being said, we probably only do repairs on 2% or less of this style.

As far as Moissanite being more brittle than CZ, this statement has been made before, and it simply isn't true and the science doesn't support this claim. The thing is nobody is surprised when a CZ breaks or scratches, but it is a big deal when Moissanite or diamonds do (and diamonds eternity bands do break and lose stones too).

You can find more info here:
http://www.moissaniteco.com/moissanite_vs_cz_durability.html

Moissanite is 3x as tough as a CZ. A diamonds toughness is 14.6 PSI (the pressure tolerance of a material in millions of pounds per square inch). Moissanite is 7.6, Sapphire is 3.7 and CZ is 2.4.

Therefore while Moissanite is a little more than 3x as durable as a CZ, Diamond is almost 2x as durable as a Moissanite.

thanks for the info, mike!

Thanks Mike, I was a bit alarmed at everyone's claim that moissanite is brittle and more likely to crack or break. I chose moissanite for one of my erings based mainly on it's durability (and of course, its beauty!)

Excellent post, Mike! Thanks for that info........

That made me feel tons better! thanks

I can't agree with this from a practical standpoint however. In our experience, moissanite rounds are much more vulnerable to chipping than CZ rounds.

While it may be true when comparing a block of material to a block of material (which is how the various tests measuring these things are done), customers aren't wearing cubes of material, but rather cut stones.

Anyway, during the time we used to sell moissanite, in our experience round moissanite is much more prone to chipping via the girdle edge than round CZ. We saw this when setting moissanite vs. setting Asha, as well as when customers were sending in moissanite rings to be replaced....there was a fair amount of chipped rounds.

I suspect that Charles and Colvard was, at least then, cutting their girdles really thin in order to minimize color tinting, but at the same time, it makes the edges much more vulnerable.

This effect is also true in diamond - i.e. once a stone is cut, if the edge is quite thin, the actual strength of the material will not likely be enough to protect it fully.

This is why, material aside, princess cuts (with their thin edges) are much more prone to chipping than a round, which has a thicker edge by comparison.

Thus, eliminating the strength of material and simply comparing cuts (diamond round vs. diamond princess) you can see the practical effect of having a thinner edge on the worn stone and its resultant increase in risk of chipping.

The takeaway is that simply showing that a cube of material is stronger than another cube of material does not have as much as a practical bearing on risk of chipping vs. how thin an exposed edge is.

I also noted for some time that Moissanite (at least previously) did not warranty against chipping and the above is likely why.

That said, Mikes point is correct regarding mounting choices - the more 'airy' and light the setting is for rings, the more it leaves the stone (any stone) vulnerable to potential damage.

Best regards
Less