All the more reason to buy certified.

[GeorgeStevens]

Sorry I was away, but this was a discussion that's interesting and worth continuing. Let's have a few facts:

1. Diamonds are the most common gemstones in the world.

2. Natural diamonds have little intrinsic value outside of some cutting and abrasive uses, for which 65 million of the world's 128 million carats of annual production are used, at low prices. Similar to gold (which Buffet thinks is a terrible investment) and internet stocks in the '90s, gem-quality diamonds have value only because other people are willing to buy them.

3. Synthetics supply ~80% of the above-mentioned industrial market already, although these tend to be much smaller than gem-quality diamonds, and smaller synthetics are easier to grow.

4. The diamond market was effectively controlled by DeBeers until the early 1990s (90%+ market share), when the cartel was effectively broken by new supply from Canada, Australia, Russia, etc. People feared a flood of diamonds would crush prices. That didn't happen. DeBeers' slogan "A Diamond is Forever" (circa 1947) led to greatly increased demand. Hence price support has gone from being supply-constrained to demand-driven.

5. The diamond value chain is complicated, but three players control 60% of rough-diamond production and enjoy the highest margins in the jewelry industry at 16-20% - still that's not even $50 a mined carat. But price per carat of the same quality diamond (D/IF) is 17 times as high for a 5-ct stone vs. a 0.5-ct stone. So there's a tremendous amount of value in being able to produce large stones.

Now, some predictions:

6. From Bain's Global Diamond Report 2013:

A balanced market over the next four years, with a growing gap between supply and demand longer-term. The rough-diamond market is expected to remain balanced from 2013 through 2017. From 2018 onward, as existing mines get depleted and no major new deposits come online, supply is expected to decline, falling behind expected demand growth that will be driven by China, India and the US. Over the next 10-year period, supply and demand are expected to grow at a compound annual rate of 2.0% and 5.1%, respectively.

In other words, absent new supply, price will rise.

7. Markets that are profitable (diamond mining and jewelry retail) tend to be most vulnerable to disruption.

8. The mass market will get over the stigma. They embraced heat-treated emeralds, cultured pearls, and off-the-peg suits. As long as it's close enough to the real thing, they're good with it. CZ isn't close enough, but I think synthetics are. By the way, the Chinese emerging middle class (who will be driving demand at the low-end) love fake stuff.


So, what do I make of this?

A. So much depends on the quality of the technology and the cost to produce a synthetic vs. mine it, particularly for larger stones (2-5 carats). Yes, we've heard the story for 50 years, but what is the insurmountable obstacle that should lead us to believe that it won't be possible to generate a 5-carat D IF with decent technology at a competitive price? This isn't calling upon mankind to violate the laws of physics, just produce a simple carbon crystal. The people expecting it least will be surprised the most when it happens.

B. As the price for natural stones rises, which it may well do in the 5-10 year horizon, synthetics will become relatively more attractive in terms of price even with existing technology and thus will take on a bigger portion of the market.

C. The price of high-quality mined stones will remain high so long as there are wealthy people who like them - just as the price of natural pearls and untreated sapphires from certain mines has remained high. But the mass market could become a lot cheaper, as has happened with pearls, if people decide a man-made diamond is just as good as one found in a river delta's mud.

 

[SandyinAnaheim]

If lab diamonds and natural diamonds are close to indistinguishable (which some of them are, unless you look at the crystal pattern closely), and if lab diamonds can be mass produced eventually, people may stop paying the crazy prices currently paid for natural stones. Diamonds are not a particularly rare product relative to other luxury goods, gemstones, etc--see the huge production volumes cited above. The high prices of diamonds are kept high only by consumer demand (and, formerly, a cartel). If consumer demand shifts, perhaps because mass-produced diamonds become available, the price of natural diamonds could collapse too, as they no longer would signal wealth or status.

This is a great subject and many interesting points have been made here by people in the know. However, I too have a real world analogy and observation that would seem to contradict your assertions.

In a past life I had a cigar shop. Cigars "are not a particularly rare product relative to other luxury goods, gemstones, etc"., many countries produce them. There is a brand, Fuente, that has various lines of cigars, one of which is Opus X. This line is no better than the other cigars they produce, simply a different blend of the same tobacco they use for everything else. The difference is in the marketing, the packaging and the supply. Fuente limits supply of this line in the extreme and makes distributors buy A LOT of their lower end crap in order for some of them to get the chance to get a box or two quarterly. Simulations of this line abound, using the exact same tobacco, exact same blend. People buy the simulations so they can enjoy what they want, but does this stop them from wanting the real deal? Nope. Will they pay for it? You betcha! Fuente is selling a $.50 cigar for $8, authorized vendors sell them for $16, and I sold them for $25 - and couldn't keep them in stock. Same goes for Cuban cigars. They are all over the planet, except here. Since the 1960's when they were embargoed, they've only ever become MORE popular. This is a capitalist society in which everyone wants what they cannot have....you know, the ungettable get.

The moment lab created diamonds flood the market, you believe that diamonds' value will drop. I believe the opposite will be true. Everyone will be able to afford diamond-like stones, but there will always be the snobs or purists who want the real deal. Much the same will happen if supply drops off in the next half-decade. The demand for the high end product will always be there in countries such as ours, even in times of economic depression.

Your further example of pearls corroborates my theory. Natural pearls used to be available more abundantly than they are now. The industry created cultured pearls to keep up with the demand and so more people could afford to own pearls even though they weren't as perfect as the natural. Further down the line, companies like Majorica came out, which are MMPs, man-made pearls. They are basically glass beads painted to look like pearls. One would think no one wants simulations that aren't even real, because at least cultured pearls are real, but not only do people want them - they will pay 10x what they'll pay for cultured pearls! And they're absolutely worthless glass!

And guess what? Not only do these MMPs not diminish the demand for real natural pearls, neither do the production of cultured pearls. If anything, people who like pearls may own the cultured pearls because they're affordable, and the people who can afford them will buy the rarer, more expensive natural pearls. Demand for naturals is still high even with the abundant supply of cultured and synthetic pearls because it is the real deal - the ungettable get. Neither price nor demand has decreased in this arena. Why would diamonds be any different? There will always be those that will stigmatize the synthetics and disdain the common, easy-to-get product and want what only the few can have - that's what drives luxury markets. And diamonds are a luxury, not just a perceived luxury. Some people will never have enough expendable cash to spend on one, regardless of the quality or cultural meaning.

I apologize Mr. Stevens, but the information you are citing as "facts" from a federally defunct trademark (IGS) who has questionable reviews and business practices and is still trying to gather students and members is suspect. Mr. Clark says diamonds are the most popular gemstone; any claim he is making that they are the most common gemstone on the planet, as you suggest, leads to disbelief. I would prefer to see some authority outside of his own library that maintains that premise.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

While I think there is validity to many of Mr.Stevens points, the fundamental flaws undermine the argument that MMD will eventually cause the collapse of the natural diamond market. I concede that despite the current barriers for MMD that Karl laid out, synthetic production will most likely continue to get better and more price competitive. I also concede that many more people will get over the stigma and will embrace MMD, particularly for fashion jewelry purposes. This bodes well for the emergence of a commercial market for MMD, like the cultured pearl market. But judging from several analgous historical cases already mentioned, natural diamond will continue to be in strong demand.

Natural gem quality diamonds are anything but common. If you doubt that, consider the billions of dollars spent by mining companies annually to try to find new sources (mostly unsuccessfully), and consider the billions of dollars in annual cost of large scale mining operations required to uncover gem diamonds and bring them to market.

Is marketing involved in stoking demand. Of course it is. It is hard to think of a product for which that is not true. Will marketing for diamonds go away? I don't think so.

Is the value of owning a diamond purely a function of clever marketing? No. There is intrinsic value in diamond. Beauty, durability, portability, and yes, rarity. Natural diamond also has a long history of being a highly effective vehicle of stored value.

The example of the designer cigar business is an interesting case, and sheds some light on buyer psychology. And considering that the cigar market is largely artificial, one can extrapolate a much greater phychological impact on a product like diamond in terms of demand staying strong.

Although chemically and physically MMD is virtually the same product as natural diamond, they might as well be two separate products from a market perspective. The buyer psychology in favor of natural is made even stronger by the enormous emotional factor involved in bridal, which is at the heart of the natural market.

 

[GeorgeStevens]

I think there's a wrinkle here that we're not fully exploring. There are several different diamond market segments. The market for a 35-point J SI2 ($500 retail) is quite distinct from the market for a D VVS 5 carat ($500K). If (big if) the latter can be produced economically and at scale, such that any middle class American can sport one or many, what will this do to the market for smaller/inferior natural stones - the sub-$10K stuff today? I think it will seriously hurt that market. The mass market don't tend to care about real as long as the substitute is close enough. And why would you spend $10K to buy a natural 2-carat with inclusions when you can get something much better and bigger for a fraction of the price?

Another analogy: if you could walk into a nice store and buy a Chanel handbag that has exactly the same leather/stitching/metals to what Madame Chanel stitched in her atelier, or you could walk into an equally-nice store and buy a real Chanel handbag but be charged 20 times the price of the synthetic, I think most people would buy the synthetic. A few would buy the "real" thing, but this is a small portion of the top end of any market, be it cigars, first-growth Bordeaux, or diamonds. Back in the day, no respectable man would buy an off-the-peg suit, but now just about everyone does, and bespoke is limited to a few expensive shops. I am not convinced that the mass market for diamonds will continue to buy a product when (if) an exact equivalent that's better and cheaper will be widely available.

At the same time, for the very high end of the market, I don't think MMDs will have much impact at all, because there will always be people rich enough who want the natural pearls, the real Picasso, etc. Indeed, if the mass market goes synthetic, it's possible that the best-quality natural stones (i.e. the million-dollar things) will carry a bigger premium. If a big portion of the mass market goes synthetic, there will be much less reason to spend billions to build mines, and if there are fewer mines, the highest quality stuff just got rarer.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I think there's a wrinkle here that we're not fully exploring. There are several different diamond market segments. The market for a 35-point J SI2 ($500 retail) is quite distinct from the market for a D VVS 5 carat ($500K). If (big if) the latter can be produced economically and at scale, such that any middle class American can sport one or many, what will this do to the market for smaller/inferior natural stones - the sub-$10K stuff today? I think it will seriously hurt that market. The mass market don't tend to care about real as long as the substitute is close enough. And why would you spend $10K to buy a natural 2-carat with inclusions when you can get something much better and bigger for a fraction of the price?

Another analogy: if you could walk into a nice store and buy a Chanel handbag that has exactly the same leather/stitching/metals to what Madame Chanel stitched in her atelier, or you could walk into an equally-nice store and buy a real Chanel handbag but be charged 20 times the price of the synthetic, I think most people would buy the synthetic. A few would buy the "real" thing, but this is a small portion of the top end of any market, be it cigars, first-growth Bordeaux, or diamonds. Back in the day, no respectable man would buy an off-the-peg suit, but now just about everyone does, and bespoke is limited to a few expensive shops. I am not convinced that the mass market for diamonds will continue to buy a product when (if) an exact equivalent that's better and cheaper will be widely available.

At the same time, for the very high end of the market, I don't think MMDs will have much impact at all, because there will always be people rich enough who want the natural pearls, the real Picasso, etc. Indeed, if the mass market goes synthetic, it's possible that the best-quality natural stones (i.e. the million-dollar things) will carry a bigger premium. If a big portion of the mass market goes synthetic, there will be much less reason to spend billions to build mines, and if there are fewer mines, the highest quality stuff just got rarer.

Again, I think the logic of your case is persuasive, but it contains a basic flaw.

The mass market don't tend to care about real as long as the substitute is close enough

That is simply not true. Ask any dealer of sapphires and rubies. I'm not talking about Sotheby's quality Kashmir, I'm talking about nice commercial. Their middle class constituency could save hundreds or thousands of dollars buying a synthetic, but they simply do not. They want mined gemstones.

Does that mean there is no market for synthetic sapphire. No. There is plenty of it in the realm of fashion and costume jewelry. But it has not caused the decline of the natural market.

Pretty much anyone can purchase "Barbara Bush" pearls for very little money, yet there remains a large market for South Sea pearls that cost thousands of dollars. And the same is true of fake handbags and rolex watches. They are widely available at a fraction of the cost and are so close that it takes someone with specialized knowledge to tell the difference.

Although your premise makes logical sense, there is plenty of real world evidence to the contrary.

 

[John P]

George, Bryan, Sandy and others: I just wanted to say I'm really enjoying this discussion. All sides are contributing well-ordered points; nice gravity in this thread.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

George, Bryan, Sandy and others: I just wanted to say I'm really enjoying this discussion. All sides are contributing well-ordered points; nice gravity in this thread.

Thanks John. Well, if you like gravity, we could get really "heavy" and delve into the existential reasons for this buyer phsycology. Does it derive from our human need for connectivity with mother earth?

 

[SandyinAnaheim]

Another analogy: if you could walk into a nice store and buy a Chanel handbag that has exactly the same leather/stitching/metals to what Madame Chanel stitched in her atelier, or you could walk into an equally-nice store and buy a real Chanel handbag but be charged 20 times the price of the synthetic, I think most people would buy the synthetic. A few would buy the "real" thing, but this is a small portion of the top end of any market, be it cigars, first-growth Bordeaux, or diamonds. Back in the day, no respectable man would buy an off-the-peg suit, but now just about everyone does, and bespoke is limited to a few expensive shops. I am not convinced that the mass market for diamonds will continue to buy a product when (if) an exact equivalent that's better and cheaper will be widely available.

You know? I was going to use the handbag analogy myself, but figured the majority of you gentlemen wouldn't have a point of reference with that subject.

I agree John, I enjoy discussion as well. Bryan, buyer psychology is actually a really interesting subject and one I spent a lot of time pondering and considering when I had my own business/website. Understanding it and harnessing its power can make all the difference between success and failure, imho.

But alas, off to work I go. I will present my handbag analogy this evening.

 

[GeorgeStevens]

Thanks for the compliments. Glad we could get the thread beyond the simple NYT analysis.

I would submit that the ruby/emerald market isn't a perfect comparison to diamonds for the simple reason that the mass market diamond purchaser tends to be a less sophisticated consumer of gemstones than those markets. (Although heat-treated emeralds are quite common - this is synthetic color to a degree.) Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I see sub-$10K diamonds as an entry-level gemstone, particularly for men. Again I'm trying to distinguish the sub-$10K market from the higher end. We all can agree that the mass market segment is the domain of Signet and the like, who cater to people who aren't terribly knowledgeable about what they're buying. Kay already caters to the fake crowd with some absolutely appalling "blue" "artistry" diamonds. I think it would be much easier to convert this customer base to synthetics if there's a clear value proposition. So the mass market goes synthetic and the high-end stays high-end.

Interestingly, the high-end ruby market has gone completely synthetic in one area: rubies used inside watches.

I'm looking forward to the handbag analogy. BTW, I'm not talking about fake handbags sold from wheely-dollies and bedsheets on Fifth Ave, I'm talking about something that's perfectly equivalent to the "real" thing sold in a reputable store - that's the parallel to the synthetic diamond.

 

[SandyinAnaheim]

If you could walk into a nice store and buy a Chanel handbag that has exactly the same leather/stitching/metals to what Madame Chanel stitched in her atelier, or you could walk into an equally-nice store and buy a real Chanel handbag but be charged 20 times the price of the synthetic, I think most people would buy the synthetic. A few would buy the "real" thing, but this is a small portion of the top end of any market, be it cigars, first-growth Bordeaux, or diamonds.

BTW, I'm not talking about fake handbags sold from wheely-dollies and bedsheets on Fifth Ave, I'm talking about something that's perfectly equivalent to the "real" thing sold in a reputable store - that's the parallel to the synthetic diamond.

For purposes of clarity, the term synthetic applies here to MMDs and other objects that are artificially made by man to duplicate objects not made by man. Handbags are man-made, so the correct term for their duplication would be replica or reproduction.

There are some fundamental flaws in the premises upon which you formulate your argument(s). The reason "fakes" are sold from wheely-dollies or car trunks rather than nice stores is because fakes are illegal due to copyright and perhaps patent infringements. There will be never be nice stores to buy nice Chanel knock-offs. There will never be a nice store to buy Chapel, Chatel, etc., which are Chanel knock-offs because they also capitalize on the original manufacturers hard work and reputation. Items such as Chanel or Hermes handbags come at a premium for multiple reasons. They are hand-made with the highest quality materials and hardware, by highly skilled artisans who focus on quality and perfection rather than quantity. These factors necessarily mean there are fewer of these items than say B. Makowsky, very nice handbags mass-produced in China. Hermes bag = $5k+, B. Makowsky = $65 - $350. This leads back to the elementary laws of supply and demand.

Let's suspend reality for a bit and imagine that there was a nice store where someone could buy good quality Chanel replicas. Good quality anything normally means time, effort and care went towards its creation, which in turn means its going to cost money. As mentioned above, the labor and materials used to create a good quality item have to be recovered somehow, so if it is a good replica - it's still going to cost. I don't know about what happens in NY, but I was born and raised in Miami, the capital of fraud and shady dealings. People selling hot or counterfeit products are a dime a dozen.

I was once introduced to the type of counterfeit product we're talking about here. I worked with a girl who had beautiful Coach handbags - a different one every week. One day I asked her about her beautiful handbags and she told me she had a cousin who worked in a Coach store that would steal them. This cousin had a few at her house and I was welcome to see and purchase them. The girl sold them at 50% of MSRP on the tag. Good deal right? Well, I purchased a handbag and commenced using it. Mind you, I was happy with my purchase. Leather was outstanding, stitching was perfect, lining was pretty and silky, hardware was polished and heavy. One day at the mall I walked into the Coach store and saw "my bag". As I started looking at it, small finish details started popping out at me and I started seeing the difference between what I had and what was really being sold at the Coach store. The handbag was on sale for a little less that what I paid for my fake. Now I was no longer happy with my purchase. I felt defrauded and foolish because this wasn't a hot Coach bag, this was a fake Coach bag. Big difference. This happened because a) I didn't own a Coach bag and didn't know the difference between real and fake; b) I wanted a great deal; c) I didn't care that what I was participating in was illegal; d) I couldn't afford the real deal.

There are millions more like me that are (or were) easy to capitalize on and a scammer born every minute. But I now know the difference between real and fake Coach. My replica was a good one, but I no longer felt good about it because I felt like I was pretending. To a degree, I think you're right that there are segments of the population that will react in different ways to synthetic diamonds and gems, and I think responses will be based mostly on socio-economic status. I am speaking in highly general terms here because stereotyping based purely on economic status will never yield accurate results. The lower economic stratum that will never afford to buy a real diamond will likely enjoy the access to high quality affordable simulations. For the greatest segment of the population, the varying levels of middle class who can afford "sub $10k" stones as you mentioned (which in my opinion should include those who would spend up to $25k or thereabouts), might enjoy MMDs for certain purposes such as casual and fun jewelry, but I think for bridal and other sorts of milestone events, real diamonds would still hold sway. For the higher economic section, the appeal of natural diamonds will never be replaced by synthetics.

But the point I think you're missing in these discussions, is the importance of what a real diamond in particular means to most women. It is a status symbol on multiple levels. As are handbags, watches, cigars, cars, boats, jewelry, clothing, shoes, jobs, education, wine, furniture, houses, the list is endless. Certainly you've heard of **** measuring contests? Well, the reality is that happens in almost every arena, all day, every day, everywhere, all the time. Do all people buy into it or are affected by it? No, of course not. But are people being measured everyday by these yardsticks? Absolutely. First impressions are important and hard to change. All of these items, their quality and more influence others' assessments and snap judgments. There's a book out there called Blink, that details how accurate, pervasive and inevitable it is to be instantly judged by appearances and how it is built into our psychology as a self-defense mechanism.

There will always be people out there who try to pass off fake/synthetics as the real thing, but there will always be people out there who know the difference and don't want to be part of the schools of fish that follows every arbitrary fad and trend. These people don't want what everyone else has, they want what no one else has. MMDs will never diminish the demand for the real thing.

I apologize for being long-winded. I just can't always make my points in 100 words.

 

[GeorgeStevens]

There are some assumptions in your post that I'd like to unpack:

1. Man-made : fake :: mined : real. I'm not sure this analogy holds. The chemical structure of a lab-grown diamond is essentially the same as a mined diamond. They're all real diamonds. They are not replicas, not reproductions, not CZ, not simulants, etc. Chemically speaking, they are absolutely real diamonds. So any comparisons of fake handbags are irrelevant. The relevant comparison is a real handbag that comes from a different place - think of a bag with wild crocodile vs. farmed crocodile skin. It's all crocodile at the end of the day.

2. Brides won't want them. Let's be honest here: a lot of brides just want "a really f---ing huge diamond ring." (See 1:16 in this video, one of my all-time favorite satires.) I don't spend much time at US mall-based diamond retailers, but I know Kay is already selling some hideous irradiated colored stones called "artistry diamonds." These are obviously fake but Kay is peddling them, probably because they're cheap and can be sold at a good margin. Let's be honest - that's all the retailers care about. So once a big enough supply of synthetics is available at a reasonable price, the retailers will start pushing them as "organic" or "conflict free" or whatever dumb slogans Madison Ave comes up with. These stores already sell some abominable diamonds - I2, J/K/L, bad cuts, 0.96 carat sold as 1.0 carats, etc. - why wouldn't they push synthetics if they could secure a big long-term supply and if the synthetics were a lot better than the crummy natural stuff they peddle? The reason they don't right now is because there's not a credible long-term supply and the cost is only a bit lower than naturals. But cost always comes down in every new technology industry (except healthcare). It's just a matter of time.

3. People who are knowledgeable won't buy them. Mrs. Stevens already has a white synthetic diamond that she doesn't know is synthetic, and she's never asked either. I like to think I know a bit about diamonds and probably more than 99% of the general public. I studied the differences between mined and synthetic, compared the prices, and decided the synthetic was a good value.

 

[denverappraiser]

Let me suggest another possible analogy. Fine art.
Some paintings are extremely valuable. We're talking 8 figures. Extremely good imitations are in the hundreds of dollars. Crappy imitations are more like $10. The good ones require an art expert to distinguish, and even then there are troubles. It doesn't matter. People pay big bucks for the 'real' thing. Does it matter? To THEM it does. I own a moderate collection of Japanese woodblock prints, including both reproductions and original antiques. The guy who sold me the fake Hiroshigi made no claim that it was an original and my fake in no way causes trouble for the people to buy the originals. It's a nice high quality block print and I think I paid about $100 for it, and to my amateur eye it's pretty convincing. An antique would have been 100x the price. They exist as completely parallel and separate markets. It would only be a problem if the store where I bought it were misrepresenting it. To be sure, that would have been an issue, but it would be a problem with the merchant, not the goods. There's no copyright problem here. Even if Mr. Hiroshigi had dealt with copyrights, it would have long expired just like Mr. Rembrant's have. The issue is that some people value 'genuine' more than others and are willing to pay a premium to get it. If it's hard to tell they demand proof of authenticity but it doesn't change the demand a bit. It just requires more paperwork. At the same time, I could have bought a poster of the same image for 1/10 of the price I paid. I like mine better. I'd do it again.

 

[WinkHPD]

If lab diamonds and natural diamonds are close to indistinguishable (which some of them are, unless you look at the crystal pattern closely), and if lab diamonds can be mass produced eventually, people may stop paying the crazy prices currently paid for natural stones. Diamonds are not a particularly rare product relative to other luxury goods, gemstones, etc--see the huge production volumes cited above. The high prices of diamonds are kept high only by consumer demand (and, formerly, a cartel). If consumer demand shifts, perhaps because mass-produced diamonds become available, the price of natural diamonds could collapse too, as they no longer would signal wealth or status.

This is a great subject and many interesting points have been made here by people in the know. However, I too have a real world analogy and observation that would seem to contradict your assertions.

In a past life I had a cigar shop. Cigars "are not a particularly rare product relative to other luxury goods, gemstones, etc"., many countries produce them. There is a brand, Fuente, that has various lines of cigars, one of which is Opus X. This line is no better than the other cigars they produce, simply a different blend of the same tobacco they use for everything else. The difference is in the marketing, the packaging and the supply. Fuente limits supply of this line in the extreme and makes distributors buy A LOT of their lower end crap in order for some of them to get the chance to get a box or two quarterly. Simulations of this line abound, using the exact same tobacco, exact same blend. People buy the simulations so they can enjoy what they want, but does this stop them from wanting the real deal? Nope. Will they pay for it? You betcha! Fuente is selling a $.50 cigar for $8, authorized vendors sell them for $16, and I sold them for $25 - and couldn't keep them in stock. Same goes for Cuban cigars. They are all over the planet, except here. Since the 1960's when they were embargoed, they've only ever become MORE popular. This is a capitalist society in which everyone wants what they cannot have....you know, the ungettable get.

The moment lab created diamonds flood the market, you believe that diamonds' value will drop. I believe the opposite will be true. Everyone will be able to afford diamond-like stones, but there will always be the snobs or purists who want the real deal. Much the same will happen if supply drops off in the next half-decade. The demand for the high end product will always be there in countries such as ours, even in times of economic depression.

Your further example of pearls corroborates my theory. Natural pearls used to be available more abundantly than they are now. The industry created cultured pearls to keep up with the demand and so more people could afford to own pearls even though they weren't as perfect as the natural. Further down the line, companies like Majorica came out, which are MMPs, man-made pearls. They are basically glass beads painted to look like pearls. One would think no one wants simulations that aren't even real, because at least cultured pearls are real, but not only do people want them - they will pay 10x what they'll pay for cultured pearls! And they're absolutely worthless glass!

And guess what? Not only do these MMPs not diminish the demand for real natural pearls, neither do the production of cultured pearls. If anything, people who like pearls may own the cultured pearls because they're affordable, and the people who can afford them will buy the rarer, more expensive natural pearls. Demand for naturals is still high even with the abundant supply of cultured and synthetic pearls because it is the real deal - the ungettable get. Neither price nor demand has decreased in this arena. Why would diamonds be any different? There will always be those that will stigmatize the synthetics and disdain the common, easy-to-get product and want what only the few can have - that's what drives luxury markets. And diamonds are a luxury, not just a perceived luxury. Some people will never have enough expendable cash to spend on one, regardless of the quality or cultural meaning.

I apologize Mr. Stevens, but the information you are citing as "facts" from a federally defunct trademark (IGS) who has questionable reviews and business practices and is still trying to gather students and members is suspect. Mr. Clark says diamonds are the most popular gemstone; any claim he is making that they are the most common gemstone on the planet, as you suggest, leads to disbelief. I would prefer to see some authority outside of his own library that maintains that premise.

I just spent a few days traveling to a business conference and was fortunate enough to briefly meet one of my Heroes, Simon Sinek who I first became aware of from his Ted Talk in which he encouraged business owners to discover their "Why". It was a pleasure to have a brief opportunity to speak with him and thank him for the influence that he has had on me over the years as I watch his talk three to four times per year.

In his latest book, "Leaders Eat Last", he talks about the biology involved in our feelings, one of them being Seretonin. I think this quote from page 64 is particularly appropro to this conversation.

"This is the whole idea behind status symbols (which, because of serotonin, actually do boost our sense of status). There is a reason the logos are on the outside of most expensive items. We want people to see the red stripe down the side of our Prada sunglasses, the double Cs on our Chanel bags or the shiny Mercedes emblem stuck on the front of our cars. In our capitalist society, conspicuous displays of wealth may indicate to others that we are doing well. As symbols of our strength and capacity, they can earn us respect and boost our position in the hierarchy. It's no wonder some of us try to fake our status. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. Though a good fake may trick others into thinking we are most more successful than we are, this is biology and we can't fool ourselves.

A 2010 study by these three psychology scientists Francesca Gino of Chapel Hill, Michael Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke - showed that people who wear phony couture clothing actually don't feel the same burst of pride or status as those who wear the real thing faking it, it turns out, makes us feel phony, as if we were cheating. Status is biological we have to earn it to feel it. The same study also concluded that those who attempted to cheat their biology were actually more inclined to cheat in other aspects of their lives as well."

I too have found this to be an interesting conversation, and think that this is totally appropriate to think about when discussing why fakes may or may not become a huge part of the market.

Wink

 

[MarionC]

[quote="Wink

"This is the whole idea behind status symbols (which, because of serotonin, actually do boost our sense of status). There is a reason the logos are on the outside of most expensive items. We want people to see the red stripe down the side of our Prada sunglasses, the double Cs on our Chanel bags or the shiny Mercedes emblem stuck on the front of our cars. In our capitalist society, conspicuous displays of wealth may indicate to others that we are doing well. As symbols of our strength and capacity, they can earn us respect and boost our position in the hierarchy. It's no wonder some of us try to fake our status. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. Though a good fake may trick others into thinking we are most more successful than we are, this is biology and we can't fool ourselves.

A 2010 study by these three psychology scientists Francesca Gino of Chapel Hill, Michael Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke - showed that people who wear phony couture clothing actually don't feel the same burst of pride or status as those who wear the real thing faking it, it turns out, makes us feel phony, as if we were cheating. Status is biological we have to earn it to feel it. The same study also concluded that those who attempted to cheat their biology were actually more inclined to cheat in other aspects of their lives as well."

I too have found this to be an interesting conversation, and think that this is totally appropriate to think about when discussing why fakes may or may not become a huge part of the market.

Wink[/quote]

WowYesWink. What comes to mind is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance which is basically a philosophical exploration of quality.

I have a couple of big beautiful fakes that leave me cold-and never leave the jewelry box. I also have a half-carat 3xEx diamond that gives me a little rush of pleasure whenever I wear it.
Love the explanation!

 

[teobdl]

There are some assumptions in your post that I'd like to unpack:

1. Man-made : fake :: mined : real. I'm not sure this analogy holds. The chemical structure of a lab-grown diamond is essentially the same as a mined diamond. They're all real diamonds. They are not replicas, not reproductions, not CZ, not simulants, etc. Chemically speaking, they are absolutely real diamonds. So any comparisons of fake handbags are irrelevant. The relevant comparison is a real handbag that comes from a different place - think of a bag with wild crocodile vs. farmed crocodile skin. It's all crocodile at the end of the day.

Completely agree with this point.

I think the question now becomes--how much more is someone willing to pay for the same object but one with a story behind it? Real stories and a little marketing can have powerful effects.

For me, I'd probably pay the premium. A few years ago, I was shopping for nice chef's knife--one that would be my trusted companion in the kitchen for years to come. I was deciding between a few of the higher end brands, until I found a sabatier with a story that I had to have. The knives in this collection, in truth, are no better than many of the other knives I was looking at, but these had a story: the metal from which they were honed had actually been ground by the most famous french knife maker before WWII, but hidden away in their pre-war forged state from the Nazi's when they were collecting all metals for war time operations. This collection of forgings was discovered when that French company was sold to a larger company more recently, and all of its holdings were being transferred. My knife carries a story that few others do, and I love that I hold that story in my hand every night.

Millions upon millions of people have mined diamonds, and millions more will buy diamonds with a choice--real mined diamonds or real lab-created diamonds (or NO diamonds--the horror!). Once real diamonds created in a lab come to market in prices and quantities enough to take away significant market share, it will be up to mined-diamond marketers to sell the story. Luckily, they have brilliant marketers on their team, in Tiffany, et al. Certainly people like me will be willing to pay for a story... but many probably couldn't care less. Heck, I'm sure some people will buy a lab-diamond because they love that humans made freaking diamonds out of charcoal. That is some sweet alchemy, if you ask me. From the consumer perspective, the single fundamental difference between a mined diamond and a real diamond from a lab is the story behind it.

 

[John P]

Salespeople I train ask "Are MMDs fake?"

Merriam-Webster agrees with George's technical facts.
* "Fake" | Adj: Not true or real : meant to look real or genuine but not real or genuine.
...Per this definition, MMDs are not fakes, since they are technically real.

Dictionary.com sides with Sandy's contextual outlook.
* "Fake" | Adj: Designed to deceive or cheat; not real; counterfeit.
...Per the highlighted, MMDs are fakes if sold/worn to deceive others as being natural.

I say perception is reality.

This is an awesome thread, but don't expect consensus: Technically, MMDs are real, period. But they are not natural. Like creationism versus evolution, contextual beliefs run to diametric opposition with many shades of grey between. Yes, we know MMDs are technically diamonds - just like we know dinosaur remains exist - but cultural mindsets are extremely resilient. The big-bang theory flourishes, yet people don't stop believing what they believe, teaching it to their children and tithing. It's surprising to me that the youngest diamond market (Ch and India) resist MMDs more that the west. Why? Because the cultural mindset of a diamond's connection to nature is extremely powerful.

In my experience nearly all diamond shoppers dismiss MMDs with a shrug or a frown. But diamonds are objects. Will economics cause future shruggers to soften toward consideration? With so much grey it's hard to say. It will for some. I know jewelers who sell MMDs with disclosure. They aren't paying their rent that way, but sales are occurring. Not due to "green" or "conflict-free" so much as being able to get X size with a budget that won't do it otherwise... Economics (cue YouTube song again).

This is priceless:

Mrs. Stevens already has a white synthetic diamond that she doesn't know is synthetic, and she's never asked either.

LOL! Don't-ask don't-tell! (is that a good MMD marketing slogan?). I'd inquire as to whether she'd side with Merriam-Webster or Dictionary.com - but my instinct is that she knows and loves Mr. Stevens enough to value it, whatever the origin.

That's another question: Does love trump culture and beliefs?

Ladies who would not normally choose a MMD: In the style of "Bleck, he got me a setting I hate...but I'll keep it because he chose it with love." How many of you would keep a MMD from your proposer (he discloses it) out of love for the symbol rather than the origins?

 

[SandyinAnaheim]

1. Man-made : fake :: mined : real. I'm not sure this analogy holds. The chemical structure of a lab-grown diamond is essentially the same as a mined diamond. They're all real diamonds. They are not replicas, not reproductions, not CZ, not simulants, etc. Chemically speaking, they are absolutely real diamonds. So any comparisons of fake handbags are irrelevant. The relevant comparison is a real handbag that comes from a different place - think of a bag with wild crocodile vs. farmed crocodile skin. It's all crocodile at the end of the day.

re·al 1 (rē′əl, rēl) adj.
1. a. existing or occurring in the physical world; not imaginary, fictitious, or theoretical; actual
b. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal:
2. Genuine and authentic; not artificial or spurious:
3. Being no less than what is stated;
4. Free of pretense, falsehood, or affectation:

real′ness n.
Synonyms: real, actual, true, existent
These adjectives mean not being imaginary but having verifiable existence. Real implies authenticity, genuineness, or factuality:
Actual means existing and not merely potential or possible:

gen·u·ine (jĕn′yo̅o̅-ĭn) adj.
1. Actually possessing the alleged or apparent attribute or character: genuine leather.
2. Not spurious or counterfeit; authentic. See Synonyms at authentic.
3. a. Honestly felt or experienced: genuine devotion. b. Actual; real: a genuine dilemma.
4. Free from hypocrisy or dishonesty; sincere.
5. Being of pure or original stock

counterfeit (ˈkaʊntəfɪt) adj
1. made in imitation of something genuine with the intent to deceive or defraud; forged
2. simulated; sham: counterfeit affection.
n
3. an imitation designed to deceive or defraud
4. an impostor; cheat

man-made or man·made (măn′mād′) adj.
Made by humans rather than occurring in nature; synthetic: artificial; produced, formed, or made by humans; not resulting from natural processes.

Language exists for a reason - to be able to communicate thoughts and ideas to others and for them to understand exactly what you are saying precisely. Diamonds come from nature, they are a form of pure carbon that occurs naturally as a clear, cubic crystal and is the hardest of all known minerals. It often occurs as octahedrons with rounded edges and curved surfaces. Diamond forms under conditions of extreme temperature and pressure and is most commonly found in volcanic breccias and in alluvial deposits. By virtue of the fact that MMDs attempt to imitate a natural genuine diamond - they are counterfeit. By virtue of the fact that MMDs are being created in a lab by humans makes them man-made, artificial. MMDs are not genuine, period. They are created to simulate a diamond, to deceive the untrained eye with their beauty and similarity to a diamond, but that doesn't make them a diamond.

Distillers across the country (and around the world) use the exact same blend of grains, the same new and charred barrels, the same aging procedures to make bourbon. But if that alcohol is not made in Kentucky, technically, it is not bourbon. Scotch is only made in Scotland, you make the same spirit elsewhere it's called something else - not Scotch. Roquefort is only made in one area of France. A similar cheese made in a certain village in Italy is Gorgonzola. Another similar cheese made in a town in England is called Stilton. Though similar cheeses are produced elsewhere, European law dictates that only those cheeses aged in the natural Combalou caves of Roquefort-sur-Soulzon may bear the name Roquefort, as it is a recognized geographical indication, and has a protected designation of origin. These three cheeses are all "blue cheeses", but not all blue cheeses are Roquefort, Gorgonzola or Stilton. According to your argument, the fact that it is made of the same "ingredients", under the same "simulated" conditions, makes it the same thing. And that is just not so. You and I can have the same recipe for something, you follow the instructions perfectly and get a loaf of bread, I follow the directions less closely and get a mass of hardened dough. Can you call both items bread even though they were made under the same conditions with the same ingredients?

While these MMDs are starting to become available, they haven't hit the market in any big way just yet. It is inevitable that people will start to pass these created diamonds off as real genuine diamonds, we'll see what the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection has to say about that. I would highly doubt that these created diamonds will be allowed to be called diamonds, they will be forced to have some other sort of identifying name to communicate the origin of the stone.

Mrs. Stevens already has a white synthetic diamond that she doesn't know is synthetic, and she's never asked either.

People don't ask because they trust. Maybe she trusted that you wouldn't think to give her a simulated diamond. The real question here is would she have the same value for it if she knew it wasn't a real diamond? And would she be disappointed that she believed you had given her a beautiful diamond when in fact you gave her a beautiful facsimile of a diamond?

How many of you would keep a MMD from your proposer (he discloses it) out of love for the symbol rather than the origins?

I would! But that doesn't mean I'd wear it! My fiancé, being the intelligent and pragmatic man that he is, knew that he would never be able to pick out a stone/ring for me that I would adore. So he proposed with a very pretty CZ in silver as a placeholder, to make clear his intent and not propose empty-handed. Will I keep it? Of course. Will I wear it now that I have my real, genuine, hand-chosen, earth-mined, perfectly cut, otherworldly glowing, natural, Crafted by Infinity marvel of a rock? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

 

[GeorgeStevens]

On one hand this conversation feels really semantic, but on the other hand I guess that's the point. Then again, how much does the average consumer care? Or does the average consumer just want a big friggin' huge diamond ring for the lowest price? I still disagree with the idea that a man-made diamond is in any way fake, but I don't think we'll settle that here.

I'm not sure that it's really consumer demand that will drive the MMD market if the technology goes mass-market and cheap. Have a look at Figure 48 (page 57 of the PDF) of this report. (Good bedside/airplane reading here.) This is a market map of jewelry retail in the US - with the area of the box proportional to the particular retailer's sales. So not diamonds only, but probably not too far off. The first observation is that it's a highly fragmented market, as we know. The second is that the largest jewelry retailers are discounters. Wal-Mart, Sears, Penny, Macy's, QVC, Kay, and Zales are 7 of the top 8. The other large retailer is Tiffany. Several years ago, who would have thought they'd be hawking cheap silver trinkets to slack-jawed sneaker-wearing tourists? Why wouldn't they then peddle cheap man-made diamonds too? There's a lot of value to be created in taking a formerly-tony brand downscale. Lastly, you'll observe that other than BN, the retailers we talk about most on this site aren't even on the list of big jewelers.

Anyway, discounters are first and foremost about price. If they can get something cheaper than their competitor, they'll push it to consumers with a big marketing budget, clever wording, and promotions. I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the bigger jewelry retailers like Signet buying their own synthetic manufacturers so as to control the technology and secure a cheaper source of synthetic diamonds - just as Harry Winston has vertically integrated by buying a mine. This would be a big competitive advantage for a big discount retailer, particularly against mom-and-pop stores who already have a cost disadvantage. And regardless of what people who are more knowledgeable about diamonds think (i.e. us here), discount retailers' distribution muscle may be the ace in the hole for synthetics.

 

[LLJsmom]

1. Man-made : fake :: mined : real. I'm not sure this analogy holds. The chemical structure of a lab-grown diamond is essentially the same as a mined diamond. They're all real diamonds. They are not replicas, not reproductions, not CZ, not simulants, etc. Chemically speaking, they are absolutely real diamonds. So any comparisons of fake handbags are irrelevant. The relevant comparison is a real handbag that comes from a different place - think of a bag with wild crocodile vs. farmed crocodile skin. It's all crocodile at the end of the day.

re·al 1 (rē′əl, rēl) adj.
1. a. existing or occurring in the physical world; not imaginary, fictitious, or theoretical; actual
b. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal:
2. Genuine and authentic; not artificial or spurious:
3. Being no less than what is stated;
4. Free of pretense, falsehood, or affectation:

real′ness n.
Synonyms: real, actual, true, existent
These adjectives mean not being imaginary but having verifiable existence. Real implies authenticity, genuineness, or factuality:
Actual means existing and not merely potential or possible:

gen·u·ine (jĕn′yo̅o̅-ĭn) adj.
1. Actually possessing the alleged or apparent attribute or character: genuine leather.
2. Not spurious or counterfeit; authentic. See Synonyms at authentic.
3. a. Honestly felt or experienced: genuine devotion. b. Actual; real: a genuine dilemma.
4. Free from hypocrisy or dishonesty; sincere.
5. Being of pure or original stock

counterfeit (ˈkaʊntəfɪt) adj
1. made in imitation of something genuine with the intent to deceive or defraud; forged
2. simulated; sham: counterfeit affection.
n
3. an imitation designed to deceive or defraud
4. an impostor; cheat

man-made or man·made (măn′mād′) adj.
Made by humans rather than occurring in nature; synthetic: artificial; produced, formed, or made by humans; not resulting from natural processes.

Language exists for a reason - to be able to communicate thoughts and ideas to others and for them to understand exactly what you are saying precisely. Diamonds come from nature, they are a form of pure carbon that occurs naturally as a clear, cubic crystal and is the hardest of all known minerals. It often occurs as octahedrons with rounded edges and curved surfaces. Diamond forms under conditions of extreme temperature and pressure and is most commonly found in volcanic breccias and in alluvial deposits. By virtue of the fact that MMDs attempt to imitate a natural genuine diamond - they are counterfeit. By virtue of the fact that MMDs are being created in a lab by humans makes them man-made, artificial. MMDs are not genuine, period. They are created to simulate a diamond, to deceive the untrained eye with their beauty and similarity to a diamond, but that doesn't make them a diamond.

Distillers across the country (and around the world) use the exact same blend of grains, the same new and charred barrels, the same aging procedures to make bourbon. But if that alcohol is not made in Kentucky, technically, it is not bourbon. Scotch is only made in Scotland, you make the same spirit elsewhere it's called something else - not Scotch. Roquefort is only made in one area of France. A similar cheese made in a certain village in Italy is Gorgonzola. Another similar cheese made in a town in England is called Stilton. Though similar cheeses are produced elsewhere, European law dictates that only those cheeses aged in the natural Combalou caves of Roquefort-sur-Soulzon may bear the name Roquefort, as it is a recognized geographical indication, and has a protected designation of origin. These three cheeses are all "blue cheeses", but not all blue cheeses are Roquefort, Gorgonzola or Stilton. According to your argument, the fact that it is made of the same "ingredients", under the same "simulated" conditions, makes it the same thing. And that is just not so. You and I can have the same recipe for something, you follow the instructions perfectly and get a loaf of bread, I follow the directions less closely and get a mass of hardened dough. Can you call both items bread even though they were made under the same conditions with the same ingredients?

While these MMDs are starting to become available, they haven't hit the market in any big way just yet. It is inevitable that people will start to pass these created diamonds off as real genuine diamonds, we'll see what the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection has to say about that. I would highly doubt that these created diamonds will be allowed to be called diamonds, they will be forced to have some other sort of identifying name to communicate the origin of the stone.

Mrs. Stevens already has a white synthetic diamond that she doesn't know is synthetic, and she's never asked either.

People don't ask because they trust. Maybe she trusted that you wouldn't think to give her a simulated diamond. The real question here is would she have the same value for it if she knew it wasn't a real diamond? And would she be disappointed that she believed you had given her a beautiful diamond when in fact you gave her a beautiful facsimile of a diamond?

How many of you would keep a MMD from your proposer (he discloses it) out of love for the symbol rather than the origins?

I would! But that doesn't mean I'd wear it! My fiancé, being the intelligent and pragmatic man that he is, knew that he would never be able to pick out a stone/ring for me that I would adore. So he proposed with a very pretty CZ in silver as a placeholder, to make clear his intent and not propose empty-handed. Will I keep it? Of course. Will I wear it now that I have my real, genuine, hand-chosen, earth-mined, perfectly cut, otherworldly glowing, natural, Crafted by Infinity marvel of a rock? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

SANDY, THANK YOU. I was reading this thread, and getting kinda lost, to be honest. But when you explain in terms of cheese, I GET IT!! Yay Sandy! But if someone has already stated above, what is the definition of a diamond? Do diamonds have to come from nature? I'm just asking...

Per Wikipedia:
"In mineralogy, diamond (from the ancient Greek αδάμας – adámas "unbreakable") is a metastable allotrope of carbon, where the carbon atoms are arranged in a variation of the face-centered cubic crystal structure called a diamond lattice. Diamond is less stable than graphite, but the conversion rate from diamond to graphite is negligible at standard conditions. Diamond is renowned as a material with superlative physical qualities, most of which originate from the strong covalent bonding between its atoms. In particular, diamond has the highest hardness and thermal conductivity of any bulk material.

Most natural diamonds are formed at high temperature and pressure at depths of 140 to 190 kilometers (87 to 118 mi) in the Earth's mantle. Carbon-containing minerals provide the carbon source, and the growth occurs over periods from 1 billion to 3.3 billion years (25% to 75% of the age of the Earth). Diamonds are brought close to the Earth′s surface through deep volcanic eruptions by a magma, which cools into igneous rocks known as kimberlites and lamproites. Diamonds can also be produced synthetically in a high-pressure high-temperature process which approximately simulates the conditions in the Earth's mantle."

So I'm confused. It appears that the technical definition of a diamond is in the first paragraph. Is where it is formed part of the definition? Who decides that? Sorry, just trying to understand.

 

[GeorgeStevens]

Is where it is formed part of the definition? Who decides that? Sorry, just trying to understand.

The origin of a material is not part of the definition of the material. A substance is a substance no matter where it comes from.

A natural diamond is formed in the earth. A synthetic or man-made diamond is formed in a reactor like this.

 

[teobdl]

Diamond = describes the chemical composition and structure of the object (face-centered cubic crystal structure composed of carbon atoms connected by sp3 covalent bonds, if that means anything to you)

Natural diamond = mined from the earth

Synthetic/man-made diamond = made in a lab


In short, diamonds are diamonds. Natural or synthetic describes where they come from.

 

[msop04]

Diamond = describes the chemical composition and structure of the object (face-centered cubic crystal structure composed of carbon atoms connected by sp3 covalent bonds, if that means anything to you)

Natural diamond = mined from the earth

Synthetic/man-made diamond = made in a lab


In short, diamonds are diamonds. Natural or synthetic describes where they come from.

I have enjoyed reading this thread -- very interesting, indeed. I think teobdl's last comment sums it up pretty well.

 

[SandyinAnaheim]

The origin of a material is not part of the definition of the material.

Let's test your premise to see if it is true, because that is exactly at the heart of the matter here. The origin of a thing is an intrinsic component of a thing:

The origin of meteorite (a material) is not part of the definition of meteorite. FALSE. The origin of meteorite (fragments of comets and asteroids) is outer space, the fact that it comes from outside our atmosphere is what distinguishes it from other rock or metallic like objects found on earth.

The origin of beef (a material) is not part of the definition of beef. FALSE. The origin of beef is the meat of cow, steer, bull or ox, which material (beef) is defined as the flesh of slaughtered cow, steer, bull or ox.

I agree that natural diamonds and man-made diamonds share the same chemical composition and crystsal properties, but that doesn't mean they are identical in all ways, otherwise the tests that exist to differentiate them wouldn't work:

1. Fluorescence: Laboratory-grown diamonds fluoresce orange-pink under ultra short-wave UV emissions. This property is the basis for the Diamond Trading Company DiamondView, which is laboratory equipment capable of discerning between natural and synthetic diamonds.
2. Spectroscopy: Manufactured diamonds exhibit different low-temperature photoluminescence spectroscopy signatures under specific conditions than naturally occurring diamonds. This is another laboratory test used to distinguish between synthetic and natural diamonds.

Much the same way cultured pearls are distinguished from natural pearls, rubies are distinguished from synthetic rubies, emeralds from synthetic emeralds, diamonds must be distinguished from man-made or cultured diamonds. The word diamond has a specific meaning, and inherent in that meaning is mined from the earth - natural. Same goes for emerald, ruby, spinel, opal, sapphire, etc. That's why simulants must be labeled as such - because they are NOT the same thing, they are man-made replications of what occurs in nature.

Veering into another field to further highlight my point, Dolly the cloned sheep was born in 1996 and survived nearly 6.5 years, half the life span of a normal ewe of her breed. In 2008 the FDA approved cloned animals and milk from cloned cows as safe for human consumpion. Do you feed cloned animal meat or cloned cow milk to your family? Do you even see it at the grocery store? No, because people haven't accepted it yet and the campaigns to make people less afraid have not worked. In an effort to mainstream it, the FDA doesn't require food makers to label if their products that come from cloned animals, although companies could do so voluntarily if they knew the source. Is the origin of this material not an intrinsic part of the definition of this material? I think so.

Further, if the origin of a material was actually so unimportant, then Monsanto wouldn't have the controversies surrounding it that it has for genetically modifying foods. But that is not the case.

Going back to the original discussion, cultured diamonds becoming widely available will not affect those who want the real thing. A real natural diamond will always be a real natural diamond, and a diamond created in a lab will always be just a copy, even if a perfect and expensive one. I'd love to see one in person for comparison's sake, and perhaps own some one day if they appeal to me. But I would bet you that you won't find one single person on this forum that would trade their real natural diamond for a man-made diamond of higher color, clarity and size. Betcha!

 

[GeorgeStevens]

We're not talking about beef, cigars, meteorites, or space aliens - all irrelevant. The term diamond describes nothing but a "a metastable allotrope of carbon, where the carbon atoms are arranged in a variation of the face-centered cubic crystal structure called a diamond lattice." Nothing about origin. Your analogies are torturing both the English language and patience for really long posts that don't talk about diamonds. At the molecular level, all diamonds are the same, regardless of origin. Certain production techniques cause differences in flour etc., but chemically they are all that same allotrope of carbon arranged in a certain lattice pattern. All diamonds are diamonds regardless of origin. It's a common mistake you make, to assume that diamonds are all natural, and this is why reputable vendors disclose the origin should it be synthetic, but the term "diamond" says absolutely nothing zero nada zilch about origin.

As for people choosing a larger synthetic over a mined diamond, you will certainly find people who have done so. I have.

 

[WinkHPD]

We're not talking about beef, cigars, meteorites, or space aliens - all irrelevant. The term diamond describes nothing but a "a metastable allotrope of carbon, where the carbon atoms are arranged in a variation of the face-centered cubic crystal structure called a diamond lattice." Nothing about origin. Your analogies are torturing both the English language and patience for really long posts that don't talk about diamonds. At the molecular level, all diamonds are the same, regardless of origin. Certain production techniques cause differences in flour etc., but chemically they are all that same allotrope of carbon arranged in a certain lattice pattern. All diamonds are diamonds regardless of origin. It's a common mistake you make, to assume that diamonds are all natural, and this is why reputable vendors disclose the origin should it be synthetic, but the term "diamond" says absolutely nothing zero nada zilch about origin.

As for people choosing a larger synthetic over a mined diamond, you will certainly find people who have done so. I have.

George,

If you try selling diamonds that are man made without disclosure by calling them just diamonds as you are proposing above, then you will find out indeed that a fake rose by the name of rose will get you into a lot of legal trouble. A man made diamond without a modifier used at the same time as the word diamond is now and always will be illegal amd thus your reasoning above is incorrect, A natural diamond may be called a diamond. A synthetic diamond must be called a synthetic diamond or somebody's behind will be in a sling.

Scientifically you are correct, the materials are nearly identical with only minor minor differences, legally, they are worlds apart.

Wink

 

[teobdl]

Sandy et al, I respectfully disagree with you on many fronts.

Sometimes origin is constitutive of an object (necessary for it to be so). For example, the definition of meteorite: a meteorite is a rock that comes from outerspace. Beef comes from cattle, by definition. Pork comes from a pig, by definition. Champagne comes from the region of France, by definition.

Function can also be constitutive of an object: a thermometer measures temperature. Doesn't matter where it came from.

Physical and chemical composition can be constitutive of an object: Steel is an iron alloy and must contain iron, otherwise it's not steel. Doesn't matter where it came from.

Other times, a trait can be normative of an object (sometimes called "accidental"): considered standard or usual. In other words, it happens to be some way, but it's not necessary for it to be that way.
For example, a table has four legs. Maple syrup comes from Vermont. A dog pees on fire hydrants. Those are silly examples...there are more important ones, like what is constitutive or normative of being human.

For scientists, the constitutive aspect of a diamond is the broader set of chemical and physical properties discussed previously. Yes, there are some properties that are slightly different now that distinguishes origin of creation (the spectroscopy you mentioned, as well as graining differences that are, at this time, characteristic of the some lab-grown diamond), but "diamond" is more broadly defined than these. For diamonds, origin is normative, not constitutive. Even GIA calls them diamonds: synthetic diamonds. Not simulants. Diamonds. You can further distinguish between origin or mode of creation if you want, but it doesn't make them not diamonds.

I should also add that just because there are tests now that can distinguish between a diamond made by the earth vs a diamond made in a lab does not mean there will never be a time when literally the only difference between the two is place of creation and time it took to make them. Doesn't mean that synthetic diamonds would be natural diamonds (by definition, origin distinguishes these two), but without knowing the origin, they will default to the broader category: diamond.


ETA: Sorry I stepped away without posting. I now see Wink's response and agree that the law has defined "diamond" in the marketplace as being natural. But this is a legal convention to aid the normative understanding of diamonds in the marketplace, and not a necessary part of its definition.

 

[GeorgeStevens]

If you try selling diamonds that are man made without disclosure by calling them just diamonds as you are proposing above, then you will find out indeed that a fake rose by the name of rose will get you into a lot of legal trouble.

I proposed nothing of the sort. I stated that an ethical dealer will disclose the origin of his diamonds, be it natural or synthetic, to which I'd also add enhancements such as CE or irradiation. But the broader point is that synthetic diamonds are not fake diamonds. They are just as real as any other diamond. The term "diamond" in no sense denotes the origin of the product.

As for the law, this is jurisdiction-specific. I assume you're speaking of the USA, but not all of us live in America.

 

[SandyinAnaheim]

We're not talking about beef, cigars, meteorites, or space aliens - all irrelevant.

Not irrelevant. I'm trying to make a point, unlike you.

The term diamond describes nothing but a "a metastable allotrope of carbon, where the carbon atoms are arranged in a variation of the face-centered cubic crystal structure called a diamond lattice." Nothing about origin.

diamond (dī′ə-mənd)
A form of pure carbon that occurs naturally as a clear, cubic crystal and is the hardest of all known minerals. It often occurs as octahedrons with rounded edges and curved surfaces. Diamond forms under conditions of extreme temperature and pressure and is most commonly found in volcanic breccias and in alluvial deposits. Poorly formed diamonds are used in abrasives and in industrial cutting tools.

Wrong again Georgie.

Your analogies are torturing both the English language and patience for really long posts that don't talk about diamonds.

First, my grasp of the English language is far superior to any that you might ever hope to reach, hence the endless analogies to try to get you to comprehend that a "diamond" is not always a diamond if it is made in a lab. It is precisely that nuance that I take exception to. Words have meanings and connotations as teobdl described above. The word diamond has a normative meaning, to use his phrase, and it will never mean lab-created diamond, no matter how hard you stomp on your little soap box.

Second, if you don't like my posts, you are welcome to disengage at any time. And considering how often you sidestep direct questions and comments, which to me looks like you either can't respond intelligently or fail to grasp the concepts altogether, your departure would be welcome.

It's a common mistake you make, to assume that diamonds are all natural, and this is why reputable vendors disclose the origin should it be synthetic, but the term "diamond" says absolutely nothing zero nada zilch about origin.

For all of time, the term diamonds has meant a "form of pure carbon that occurs naturally as a clear, cubic crystal and is the hardest of all known minerals". Only in the past 100 years has anyone tried to duplicate a diamond in a laboratory, and it wasn't until the '70s that the Russians created CZ - a diamond simulant. All diamonds have been natural up until the last 50 years or so, so it is not a mistake of any sort. If all diamonds were diamonds, then they would be allowed to be sold as such - and they never will be. Lab created diamonds will always be distinguished by a moniker somehow denoting that it does not come from nature.

As for people choosing a larger synthetic over a mined diamond, you will certainly find people who have done so. I have.

Again, you fail to understand the question I asked. Perhaps you need ESL or reading comprehension lessons? You're sure going to be surprised the day man-made diamonds flood the market and the value you placed on the synthetic hits the floor. Currently, prices for synthetics are nearly as high as for mined, so you must have paid a pretty penny for the false diamond you gave the unsuspecting Mrs. Stevens. What value will your synthetic have when people will be able to obtain synthetic diamonds as a prize out of a Cracker Jack box?

 

[Laila619]

Diamond = describes the chemical composition and structure of the object (face-centered cubic crystal structure composed of carbon atoms connected by sp3 covalent bonds, if that means anything to you)

Natural diamond = mined from the earth

Synthetic/man-made diamond = made in a lab


In short, diamonds are diamonds. Natural or synthetic describes where they come from.

Absolutely.

Sandy, I don't think you can compare man-made diamonds and earth-mined diamonds to handbags and cheeses. The chemical composition of a diamond is exactly the same, whether it's man-made or mined from the ground.

 

[SandyinAnaheim]

Sandy, I don't think you can compare man-made diamonds and earth-mined diamonds to handbags and cheeses. The chemical composition of a diamond is exactly the same, whether it's man-made or mined from the ground.

Those are not comparisons sweetness. Those are called "analogies" to make a point. Perhaps you should read the entire thread? And they are not exactly the same. If they were, no one would be able to differentiate your "real natural" diamond from their man-made diamond. Aren't you glad the diamonds you paid good money for aren't lumped in with lab created simulations? If not, you will be some day.