Talk:Shelby Gem Factory

"A natural diamond is made completely of carbon and will burn"
While it is true that it's possible to burn a real diamond, doing so requires specific conditions — a high-temperature torch and pure oxygen — while the statement by Kelley implies to non-scientists that diamonds might burn under ordinary circumstances and Shelby Gem Factory's simulated diamonds are thus preferable. As such, it's reading to me as more promotional than should be included in a Wikipedia article. We could add text clarifying how diamonds could burn (and that under those conditions any setting the diamond was in would melt away too) but that might be too off-topic. —GrammarFascist (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources and their reliability
You have removed the following:

and in a note: “We REALLY are the only company in the world that actually makes uncut gems, facets them, mounts them in gold... There are many companies who say they make synthetic gems, and say they make jewelry, but we know of no one else that actually does it all. All the ones we know about buy already faceted gems and have their jewelry made in China, Korea, India or Thailand.” These corroborate the WZZM citation. This should all be put back. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look promotional to me, but perhaps the editor care to explain why? Hafspajen (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't make you discuss this. See WP:BRD.  I put it back.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Diamonds
Upon first reading, the article seems a bit unclear about whether the company makes actual synthetic diamonds or only diamond simulants. In my recent edits, I may have introduced some errors due to not knowing which is the case – please check, correct, and clarify as necessary. Incidentally, the claim that "As far as I know, we are the only company on Earth that uses the second method" (in reference to chemical vapor deposition as a method for producing gemstones) seems plainly false, at least when it comes to making diamond gemstones. See, for example, the List of synthetic diamond manufacturers, which lists several manufacturers that I believe use the CVD method to produce their diamonds. Gemesis, for example, produces diamonds of gem quality and mounts them in jewelry, and has the ability to use both the CVD and HPHT production methods. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits. However, your claim that these are "diamond simulants" needs a WP:RS.  None of the sources in the article uses that phrase.  Putting this in the most charitable light, until you have a source this looks like WP:OR or WP:Synth.  I'm not saying you are wrong, but I question the claim and the addition to the article.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I notice that a cited source refers to "simulated diamonds", which is a term that refers to simulation, not synthesis, and thus means that these are not actual diamonds. The article also extensively discusses the company's involvement in cubic zirconia, which is a form of diamond simulant. I also found another source cited in the article that uses the term "simulated diamond", and I see the use of "simulated" used in various places on the company web site. I don't see any claims that these are actual (lab-grown) diamond material – they are just something that looks like diamond. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * BarrelProof, Thanks for straightening this out. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

<b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I had the same problem, wondering about the Shelby diamonds. The factory's FAQs page says that the inventor's diamonds are related to cubic zirconia.  To take the wondering away for readers, I added the MoHs table, which shows the Shelby diamond's MoH is 8.9.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that, as of 2012, Gemesis is synthesizing diamonds and retailing them in gold settings. Unscintillating (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Gemesis doesn't seem to sell their diamonds retail anymore. The website has changed and doesn't show any jewelry for sale directly to consumers. It won't even provide retailer location information unless you fill out a form with your name and email contact information, and the website and other content I have found looks a bit stale. Former claims of being the world's largest maker and having capabilities to use two different processes for making diamonds seem to be absent from the site. Anyhow, lab-grown real diamonds are a different product than simulants, and we should be helping readers to understand the difference between the two. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Spelling
Out of curiosity I was just going through the latest edits to the article, and when I was looking at , I noticed right after "nolink=yes", this word: "curiousity". I don't know if it is important to keep it the way it is, so I didn't change it, but it is spelled wrong. If anyone wants to change it, it should be "curiosity". – Corinne (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the Template:sic means that it was accurately transcribed from the original. Unscintillating (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Other than diamonds
My understanding is that the rubies they produce are real ruby material – i.e., they have the same chemical and crystalline structure that is found in natural rubies (and in fact they are probably more pure than natural ruby). If that wasn't true, the synthesized ruby couldn't be used for lasers. And the factory's FAQ says "our rubies and sapphires are really ruby and sapphire". But the article doesn't seem very clear about which of the other "gems" they make are synthesized real material and which are simulants (i.e., something that looks similar but isn't chemically the same thing). Is a "Shelby Emerald" really emerald material, or is it just something that looks like emerald? How about the "Shelby Garnet"? (I notice that they list a different Mohs hardness scale rating for "Shelby Garnet" and "Genuine Garnet", so maybe that's a clue.) Then there's the same question for citrine, topaz, and aquamarine. (Apparently aquamarine is basically chemically the same as emerald.) Also, is it really proper to call something a "gem" if it is a "simulant"? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:Orphan
Except for user talk pages, this exists in splendid isolation. 16:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

See also WP:DCGAR. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)