Why colored gems are rare and diamonds are not

[fredflintstone]

So Gary, the CDC claims that a little over 2 million people get married every year in the USA. Lets assume that only half get a diamond engagement ring. No since you stated that diamonds are more rare than colored stones, do you think there would be say enough Tsavorite garnets to created 1 million rings every year? Not to mention all the side stones and stones used for other jewelry!

Your position is simply not true. You know as any jeweler does, that if they have a client interested in a 2 ct round diamond, in two days you can have in at least a half dozen stones for the client to look at that meet their specifications.
Do you think you could get in that many tsavorites in 2 days to look at that were round and 2 ct? Do you think you get in even 1 or 2 ?

I bet if you pulled all the diamonds out of the stores in Tyson Mall outside DC in one day, you couldn't find that many tsavorites in the world in one day.

Just in my city with a metro of 500,000, there are several boutique high end stores that have (obviously much on memo) a couple of million dollars’ worth of Diamonds each, including pinks and yellows.

With all stores combined you might find one Tsavorite ring with a center stone over a carat. You might find one or two Spinel rings. You might find one Mandarin Garnet ring. You might find one or two Zircon rings. You might find 10 to 30 Tourmaline, Peidot, Aqua, Rhodolite, Tanzanite, Opal, fancy Sapphire rings of quality, maybe. You will not find any Chrysoberyl (non-Alex), Purple Rhodolite, Malaia or Mali Garnets. Every great once in a while you will spy an Alexandrite, Demantiod and Paraiba ring.

Now, you could say there is not a demand for those stones, but a large state university is here with 40,000 students. That tends to bring in customers with a little more sophisticated tastes and money to spend, because universities employ those types and I have sold through those stores colored gemstones on an independent consignment basis or memo if you like for many years. They did not stay unsold long.

The demand for these colored stones always dwarfs the supply. Many is the time these jewelers have come to me and say they wish they could find more color. I tried to oblige when I could. When I could…

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

My review of this article is in bold purple in the article iteself.
BY SETH I. ROSEN8 MINUTE READ



Yellow gold and diamond rings. Photo by Mauro Cateb. Licensed under CC By 2.0.

Diamonds and the De Beers Corporation

Diamonds ascended in the public imagination primarily due to the De Beers corporation. They set up the first large-scale diamond mines in South Africa. Then, they began one of the most successful advertising campaigns in history, convincing consumers that engagement rings should always have a diamond.

During the depression the Ernest Oppenheimer bought out the shareholdings of the original shareholders and descendants who inherited shares in the De Beers co-operative established by Cecil Rhodes (who set up the Rhodes scholarships and has recently had his statues torn down for the nasty colonial stuff he did). The name De Beers originated as the name of the farm that the ‘Big Hole’ was found on.



“The Big Hole,” the Kimberley Diamond Mine Museum, South Africa. Photo by David Brossard. Licensed under CC By-SA 2.0.

Diamond Advertising Campaigns

With proper encouragement, the movie industry displayed its most glamorous actresses, draped in diamonds. As a result, diamonds soon became a top status symbol for the rich and famous. This peaked perhaps with Marilyn Monroe’s performance of the song, Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend, in the 1953 film, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.

Even after winning the admiration of consumers, De Beers continued their advertising. With the discovery of diamonds in the (now former) Soviet Union, they created a new campaign to sell anniversary bands. These made good use of the small but nice-quality diamonds this find produced.

The above is all true. Ernst Oppenheimer established one of the worlds best advertising campaigns leading to “Diamonds are Forever” etc.

Cornering the Market

De Beers did wonderful things for the diamond industry. However, not everything about De Beers is nice. As diamonds were discovered in other parts of Africa and South America, De Beers gained control of the rough diamond supply. Allegedly, the tactics used to gain control included murder and kidnapping. That is an unsubstantiated accusation. If such accusations are to be made they should be substantiated. I have no doubt that Cecil Rhodes did unspeakable things well over a century ago, but I do not believe the Oppenheimer family did such things. In fact Ernest’s son and the next chair of De Beers, Harry, was one of the few white South Africans who pushed to dismantle the apartheid government.

De Beers maintained a monopolistic hold over the diamond market for several decades, controlling 75-85% of the diamond rough supply. They carefully released only enough rough diamonds to satisfy then-current demand, while continually adjusting the degree of rough diamond availability. This was one of the most brilliant business moves to the benefit of all the other diamond miners and the retailers and wholesalers. They knew they had a bankable resource or product. Of course, this made prices escalate and reinforced the perception of diamond’s rarity. It did not cause ‘escalation’ it enabled continuity and reliability. De Beers actually mined considerably more rough diamonds than they sold. This part is total nonsense. De Beers as a miner reduced their mine out put or shifted to less productive parts of an ore body when there were market disruptions. Stock market crashes etc. All De Beers contracts with other countries and their governments included caveats on being able to slow down mining in tough times. My friend Ewen Tyler has personally told me of this contractual clause in his negotiations with Harry Oppenheimer during the 1980’s with Argyle (that Ewen discovered). They maintained a large warehouse of uncut diamonds in London. They much preferred to leave the diamonds in the ground. As a result, they weren’t allowed to do business in the United States and a few other countries. Yes – they were a monopoly. But many of us still use Microsoft products. We all use Google and Facebook etc. I bet if De Beers was an American company that would have been OK today.

New Discoveries and Developments

In the last two decades of the 20th century, things began to change.

Satellite technology, originally designed to find likely oil reserves, also showed the geology likely to hold diamonds. Nonsense. I am a geologist. As a result, new discoveries began to multiply. For example, Australia became one of the first developed nations to discover major diamond resources. De Beers made a deal with them to distribute all the rough, except for the very rare pink diamonds. If you are interested there is a new book called Argyle, the impossible diamond mine. It was launched in my store and has become a best seller. Argyle kept about 20% of mine run plus the pinks so they could keep De Beers honest. In 1996, Australia ended its arrangement with De Beers. About every 5 years Argyle negotiated a reduction in De Beers share. But without De Beers backing they would never ever in a million years have raised the half a billion for the mine production. Read the book.

De Beers also made a deal with the Soviet Union to distribute their rough diamonds. However, shortly after the Soviet breakup, the Russians let their contract expire and began to sell the diamonds themselves. Wrong again. The EU forced De Beers to stop the arrangement on monopolistic basis a decade after the wall came down (rather like the GDPR and EU privacy battles today)

In 1999, the De Beers London stockpile was valued at $5.2 billion, but they agreed to stop stockpiling diamonds in 2000.

Two things happened.

• De Beers told Argyle they would dump all their Argyle goods in the market and cripple them if they did not sign up again in 1996ish. They sold a lot of diamonds below their then value – just stupidity really. Rio Tinto, one of the largest mining companies in the world, owned 60% of Argyle. D’oH – we going to bankrupt you! Hahahaha. But it did weaken De Beers!
• In 1997 George Soros and others caused a run on several Asian currencies by sort selling them. That hurt the rich in Asia, and the rich like diamonds as a store of wealth, consequently they buy D Flawless to E VVS1 so the diamond is fungible – i.e. can be sold without inspection based on the GIA report. Lots of ‘Asian’ diamonds came back on the market as wealthy Chinese for example fled Indonesia and other now crippled nations. De Beers rode in on their white charger and held back rough that would make matters worse for high color clarity diamonds.

So I remember reading that De Beers as a listed company was a takeover target for company strippers. The diamonds in the safe were worth almost twice as much as the total of their now depressed share value.

That is a fact​

So the Oppenheimer family, with their associated Anglo American mining company hunted around for other investors to take De Beers private. A little known fact is that two of the nations where a lot of the diamonds De Beers marketed stumped up a lot of money. Botswana and Namibia. They are to this day partners of De Beers.

In 2004, De Beers agreed to plead guilty to criminal price fixing before a U.S. federal court. This allowed them to once again sell diamonds in the U.S. (In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal by De Beers against a class action settlement regarding various unfair business practices). They did this because they stupidly decided they could retail diamonds and needed access to the US market. Abject failure.



De Beers in Caesars Hotel, Las Vegas, July 2009. Photo by Michael Gray. Licensed under CC By-SA 2.0.

What Does the Future Hold?

With explorations of several new sites, more diamond deposits will likely be found in the near future. De Beers still controls approximately 35-40% of the diamond rough supply. Wrong, De Beers (and their two African government partners) mine and sell only diamonds from their own mins. So far, the other suppliers have been content to sell at the same prices as De Beers. However, if the law of supply and demand ever catches up to the diamond market, prices will likely drop considerably. What would happen next is difficult to tell. De Beers has a large inventory of uncut diamonds and holds an excellent position for a price war. More none sense as in it does not make sense. Alrosa is as big or bigger than De Beers. Other miners like Rio Tinto and BHP – they all sell their diamonds for as much as they can get as fast as they can get the money. It is only ever and has only ever been about supply and demand. But as a custodian of many developing nations diamonds, De Beers always did what every smart company does – it tried to maximize value and manage downturns in the economy.



Two round diamonds on a black background. Photo by Public Domain Photography. Licensed under CC By-SA 2.0.

Diamond Myths and Misconceptions

Now that you know some of the history behind the rise of diamond’s popularity, let’s debunk some popular diamond myths.

MYTH: Diamonds are Rare

Diamonds are the hardest material found on earth. They resist scratching better than anything else. Other than that, they hold no unique distinctions. All gem-quality materials are rare. They compose just a tiny fraction of the Earth. However, diamonds actually number among the most common gems. Ask yourself this: “How many people do you know who own at least one diamond?” Now, ask this question about other gems, like rubies, sapphires, or emeralds. Diamonds are very brittle. That is why Nicole Kidman has a weird clap when wearing loaned jewels at red carpet events. Clapping has destroyed billions of dollars of diamonds and gems.

While we have much to learn about the Earth’s interior, our current knowledge of gem formation indicates that diamonds are likely the most common gem in nature. Wrong. Quartz is. Or if you go down deeper than we can mine you might argue diopside?

Outside the confines of the Earth, diamonds are still common. A recent discovery indicates that some stars collapse on themselves, creating giant diamond crystals. In the constellation Centaurus, there lies a white dwarf that has crystallized into a diamond about 2,500 miles in diameter and weighing 10 billion, trillion, trillion carats. So what???

The hatred towards De Beers and diamonds seems to me to some extent to be like the fox and the crow. The old sour grapes parable.
I came here to this forum because (as you have shown) many of you believe the urban myths that surround diamonds and De Beers. I have studied diamonds and the businesses surrounding diamonds for over 40 years and dislike the re-use of flawed stories. This is a thing we are all now getting because of the bifurcation in news sources.

I respectfully ask you to consider my comments. Happy to provide as much evidence as I can on any part of what I have written.

And BTW - my favourite gems are blue high zircon for its RI and Sphene for it's dispersion. I believe if they had each been blessed with hardness and toughness they would be as plentiful today as diamonds are.

 

[LD]

@Garry H (Cut Nut) I'm afraid nothing you will do or say (on a coloured stone forum) is likely to convert anybody to your way of thinking.

You haven't addressed the fact that both @PrecisionGem and I have mentioned above that you simply can't easily order in a 2ct top quality Ruby or Tsavorite or, dare I say it, an Alexandrite but a 2ct Diamond will be very easy to obtain. These are simple facts and can't be argued. High end coloured gemstones are rarer than diamonds.

 

[fredflintstone]

Garry, nothing you wrote has any bearing on the truths stated here. As a matter of fact, this brought a smile to my face - "Diamonds are very brittle. That is why Nicole Kidman has a weird clap when wearing loaned jewels at red carpet events. Clapping has destroyed billions of dollars of diamonds and gems."


Yes, Diamonds have perfect cleavage. They are brittle, but the article talked about hardness. Being brittle and hard are not the same thing. Being brittle has everything to do with the toughness of a stone, not the hardness. You should know that. Seems you do not. Corundum and Spinel are a much tougher stone than Diamond. Both have no cleavage. Makes them much tougher, and Jade (interlocking crystals) is the toughest of all with a hardness of 6-7. Nothing is going to scratch a stone of 6 hardness unless you do on purpose or accidently bump it against something harder and there is not any material that you would commonly do that with without a concerted effort.

But enough about your answers. I would like to address something I wrote earlier.

“I really do not see the point of this whole thread, other than you may think you may drum some business up here.”

You seem to have an agenda here. It is called, having your cake and eat it too. As I understand it from what I read of other threads created by yourself, you have some connection with Pricescope ownership wise.

Now, if a colored gemstone dealer that let us say for the sake of argument specialized in Alexandrite or any stone species for that matter, created a thread on how rare his/her product is and stated many things similar to what you are doing with Diamonds here, it could and most likely would be construed as he/she was promoting their product here for their own financial benefit which is against the rules of this forum (trade members) and the thread would be removed and possibly the author banned or at the least, issued a warning. – long sentence

It is obvious to me this is what you are doing. Attracting attention to yourself and your product by continually pressing on here with irrelevant information (it's like a heavily included Emerald, all filler and no Emerald) with links conveniently placed underneath each post to your business. So plain and simple you are breaking the rules of your own forum for the sake of financial gain disguised (albeit not very well) as a discussion on the rarity of your product, Diamond that we all know relatively speaking is not rare at all in the world of gemstones.

So, with that said, there really is nothing else to be said from me other than I will not feed this thread anymore. I know I said that before but now I am done, and I would hope others will follow.

 

[Voodoo Child]

I had to fly to New York City to get an Alexandrite for my wife’s ring because I couldn’t find one anywhere in my state. I can drive five minutes from my home in any direction and find a jewelry store that has D-grade IF diamonds.

 

[T L]

Gary,
Since you love high RI gems, would love sphalerite, although it’s only a three on the hardness scale. If it were a six or above, the value would skyrocket. There is something to be said about diamond value not necessarily being due to rarity, but hardness. It is a brittle gem (my mom chipped the heck out of her Diamond wedding ring), but you will never ever see facet abrasion or scratches, even after decades of constant wear. Even sapphire and ruby abrade over time, but not diamond.

 

[musicloveranthony]

Gary,
Since you love high RI gems, would love sphalerite, although it’s only a three on the hardness scale. If it were a six or above, the value would skyrocket. There is something to be said about diamond value not necessarily being due to rarity, but hardness. It is a brittle gem (my mom chipped the heck out of her Diamond wedding ring), but you will never ever see facet abrasion or scratches, even after decades of constant wear. Even sapphire and ruby abrade over time, but not diamond.

I'm so nervous about any of my stones chipping or getting scratched. I cant imagine how odd I must look taking my rings off to do anything. I'm sure I also subconsciously make odd gestures without even noticing it in the goal of protecting my ring stones

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry, nothing you wrote has any bearing on the truths stated here. As a matter of fact, this brought a smile to my face - "Diamonds are very brittle. That is why Nicole Kidman has a weird clap when wearing loaned jewels at red carpet events. Clapping has destroyed billions of dollars of diamonds and gems."


Yes, Diamonds have perfect cleavage. They are brittle, but the article talked about hardness. Being brittle and hard are not the same thing. Being brittle has everything to do with the toughness of a stone, not the hardness. You should know that. Seems you do not. Corundum and Spinel are a much tougher stone than Diamond. Both have no cleavage. Makes them much tougher, and Jade (interlocking crystals) is the toughest of all with a hardness of 6-7. Nothing is going to scratch a stone of 6 hardness unless you do on purpose or accidently bump it against something harder and there is not any material that you would commonly do that with without a concerted effort.

But enough about your answers. I would like to address something I wrote earlier.

“I really do not see the point of this whole thread, other than you may think you may drum some business up here.”

You seem to have an agenda here. It is called, having your cake and eat it too. As I understand it from what I read of other threads created by yourself, you have some connection with Pricescope ownership wise.

Now, if a colored gemstone dealer that let us say for the sake of argument specialized in Alexandrite or any stone species for that matter, created a thread on how rare his/her product is and stated many things similar to what you are doing with Diamonds here, it could and most likely would be construed as he/she was promoting their product here for their own financial benefit which is against the rules of this forum (trade members) and the thread would be removed and possibly the author banned or at the least, issued a warning. – long sentence

It is obvious to me this is what you are doing. Attracting attention to yourself and your product by continually pressing on here with irrelevant information (it's like a heavily included Emerald, all filler and no Emerald) with links conveniently placed underneath each post to your business. So plain and simple you are breaking the rules of your own forum for the sake of financial gain disguised (albeit not very well) as a discussion on the rarity of your product, Diamond that we all know relatively speaking is not rare at all in the world of gemstones.

So, with that said, there really is nothing else to be said from me other than I will not feed this thread anymore. I know I said that before but now I am done, and I would hope others will follow.

Let me paste your post here and have a crack at answering your questions and replying to coments Fred

Garry, nothing you wrote has any bearing on the truths stated here. As a matter of fact, this brought a smile to my face - "Diamonds are very brittle. That is why Nicole Kidman has a weird clap when wearing loaned jewels at red carpet events. Clapping has destroyed billions of dollars of diamonds and gems."


Yes, Diamonds have perfect cleavage. They are brittle, but the article talked about hardness. Being brittle and hard are not the same thing. Being brittle has everything to do with the toughness of a stone, not the hardness. You should know that. Seems you do not. Corundum and Spinel are a much tougher stone than Diamond. Both have no cleavage. Makes them much tougher, and Jade (interlocking crystals) is the toughest of all with a hardness of 6-7. Nothing is going to scratch a stone of 6 hardness unless you do on purpose or accidently bump it against something harder and there is not any material that you would commonly do that with without a concerted effort.
No arguments there, except to say that we regularly polish clients sapp's and rubies and always recommend it when it is time for a retip of prongs.
But diamonds do also suffer from facet wear. I have seen it many times when a client has a high set ring finger ring and diamonds in a pinky ring. The scratching has in some cases dulled the large diamond and given the pinky diamonds a matt finish.

But by far the most common damage is concert damage - I made a Cut Nut youtube video about that with a real life pink sapp and diamond rings destroyed. The OP came to me to prove their jeweler was at fault.

But enough about your answers. I would like to address something I wrote earlier.

“I really do not see the point of this whole thread, other than you may think you may drum some business up here.”
For the sentences above and below. I wrote the very first educational material on PS more than 20 years ago and and a director of PS. Never had a dividend, had some accommodating expenses paid. I was the national convenor of the Aussie GAA diamond course and Melbourne lecturer. I believe that teaching is the best way to learn because clever people like you and many in this thread ask really great questions that I love thinking about and answering.
I have a really good business and do not seek out PS clients who make up a tiny % of our business. We are a pure brick and mortar play (although my new marketing team would love to change that).
You seem to have an agenda here. It is called, having your cake and eat it too. As I understand it from what I read of other threads created by yourself, you have some connection with Pricescope ownership wise.

Now, if a colored gemstone dealer that let us say for the sake of argument specialized in Alexandrite or any stone species for that matter, created a thread on how rare his/her product is and stated many things similar to what you are doing with Diamonds here, it could and most likely would be construed as he/she was promoting their product here for their own financial benefit which is against the rules of this forum (trade members) and the thread would be removed and possibly the author banned or at the least, issued a warning. – long sentence
One of the features of Aussies is we can be a little direct and confrontational. I am not on my Pat Malone, but I do like to shake the boat and challenge stuff. I have been doing that in respect of diamond cut for decades. I am appalled at GIA's lousy job of cut grading, and the fact that they went up a blind proportion based alley and can not cut grade fancy shaped diamonds.
It is obvious to me this is what you are doing. Attracting attention to yourself and your product by continually pressing on here with irrelevant information (it's like a heavily included Emerald, all filler and no Emerald) with links conveniently placed underneath each post to your business. So plain and simple you are breaking the rules of your own forum for the sake of financial gain disguised (albeit not very well) as a discussion on the rarity of your product, Diamond that we all know relatively speaking is not rare at all in the world of gemstones.
That article from GemSociety comes up top of a search for 'diamonds are not rare'.
As Gliteratta wrote on page 2:
The problem with this discussion is that there are two different definitions of "not rare" going on here. Some people are using "not rare" to mean "widely available for sale to consumers." Others are using it to mean "existing in large quantities somewhere in or on Earth." Until you're using the same definition, you'll never agree about whether diamonds are rare.
Most of the gems being raised here as being 'rarer than diamonds' would not be rare if they did'nt scratch or break easily whilst being set, and people were prepared to pay as much as they do for diamonds (and please don't quote most expensive e.g.'s. Most of the worlds rubies wholesale for less than $200 per carat.)
So, with that said, there really is nothing else to be said from me other than I will not feed this thread anymore. I know I said that before but now I am done, and I would hope others will follow.
Personally, I have enjoyed your polite debate discussion and criticism.

 

[westofhere]

What an odd thing to take time out of your day to start an argument about. And then devote hours to. If you like colored gemstones, buy those. If you like diamonds, buy those. If you like both, buy both. On a forum of jewelry lovers, who on earth cares what’s rarer, more costly, more culturally significant, etc? We buy what we love.

 

[arkieb1]

Condsider this. Flawless diamond rough is incredibly rare.
The technology used to plan what to cut from diamond is expensive and ultra high tech.
Consider the grading of diamonds. I have yet to see a symmetry grade on a coloured gem.
Etc etc
Color is locked in ancient Roman times.

Flawless rough in some types of gemstones is also incredibly rare, gemstones like Paraiba tourmaline, alexandrite, cobalt spinel, jedi spinels and even very fine clean sapphires that are a mid blue cornflower colour are all becoming much more difficult to find and are commanding a higher price per carat than diamonds these days.

I'm sure you have been to some of the large International diamond and gemshows before COVID changed the world. There is a reason a specific few rarer sort after gems at these shows command higher prices than diamonds do.

Yes, some gemstones are incredibly common, much more common than diamonds that is true. But that is not the case for every single gemstone.

 

[123ducklings]

It’s obvious that in terms of commercial availability, colored stones of most types are more rare than diamonds.

Garry’s initial argument, as I understand it, is that this is because of the resources put forth to mine diamonds vs colored stones, and therefore if humans put more resources/energy into mining colored stones they would be more commercially available. That in terms of how much each of these gems exist on the earth (not how much we access) colored stones are more plentiful and diamonds are more rare. That diamonds are actually more rare in occurrence, they are just more available because of the effort we spend on mining them.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood Garry’s point, but regardless I would be interested to hear information to support/discount this claim. Carbon is plentiful on earth; colored stones are more chemically complex. It makes sense to me that diamonds would occur more frequently in nature than other colored gemstones regardless of how available they are based on mining/supply chain/human economics.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I beg to differ with you on the statement...”Diamonds are thousands times rarer than colored gems.” I can name hundreds of colored gems that are rarer than diamonds. These are just the jewelry grade gems! Pezzotaite for starters I’d one of the super rare gems that has come to the market that makes a stunning gem in jewelry and is still cheaper CT for CT than a diamond and it is a type III stone. It is not considered a beryl. Come to think about it, beryl, that includes morganite, aquamarine emerald, bixbite and a few others is still rarer than diamonds and these are used extensively in jewelry. Hayune from Afghanistan is a stunning deep blue stone rarely found in over 2 CTs, faceable specimen, makes a stunning show in a piece of jewelry. Demantoid and Tsavorite garnet Andre 2 of the garnet species that are extremely rare. Now let’s talk about your rubies....corundum, sapphire and ruby, are abundant now with the recent find in Greenland seem to have made this gemstone so much more abundant. let’s talk about Alexandrite, this stone is highly coveted and extremely rare. Then we have Grandiderite. I can go on and on. Welllll...the truth is, gem quality ruby and sapphire is still a rare find. Ruby is a type II gemstone. That means some inclusions are acceptable. True lovers and collectors of this stone do not accept any inclusions. Whereas a diamond can get by with an SI or SI1 inclusion rating and still look great.
DeBeers are the ones that control the diamond markets and allow the flow of diamonds to come on to the market. They want the world to believe that diamonds are the rarest and dearest stone in the gem trade. The vaults they own are HUGE and full of diamonds. They can close down the diamond mines and not run out of diamonds for 25 years. This is gem quality. I have not even discussed industrial diamond yet.

I could counter that orange diamonds are rare. I have seen one in 45 years.
Blue, Green, Red (before Argyle there were 5).
Excpetions miss the point.
If Aqua was $10,000 per carat then I would not have invested a lot of money in a diamond prospect in the Gibson Desert.
I would easily double or triple the worlds supply of Aqua in a decade!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood Garry’s point, but regardless I would be interested to hear information to support/discount this claim. Carbon is plentiful on earth; colored stones are more chemically complex. It makes sense to me that diamonds would occur more frequently in nature than other colored gemstones regardless of how available they are based on mining/supply chain/human economics.

Diamonds only exist happily more than 100 miles to maybe 500 miles down. The only way they get to the surface is a deeper volcanic pipe brings them up by chance.
The earth is now too cool to have those kimberlites and lamproites any more.
Carbon needs to be way way down to be stable.
The volcanoe has to travel 50-100 miles an hour to snap freeze the diamonds.

 

[pammbw]

The money spent mining the diamonds is all part of the scam of the diamond industry. How many companies get a cut of that billion dollars? How much skimming, scamming and bribing goes on? Carnegie always said, it's not running the railroads that made his fortune, it was BUILDING the railroads that made his fortune. Big difference.

 

[123ducklings]

Diamonds only exist happily more than 100 miles to maybe 500 miles down. The only way they get to the surface is a deeper volcanic pipe brings them up by chance.
The earth is now too cool to have those kimberlites and lamproites any more.
Carbon needs to be way way down to be stable.
The volcanoe has to travel 50-100 miles an hour to snap freeze the diamonds.

So do you believe that colored stones are more plentiful on/in planet earth?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

So do you believe that colored stones are more plentiful on/in planet earth?

All coloured gem materials combined - maybe 10-100 times more.
Some like various colors of quartz - at least 10 times, maybe even 100 times. Certainly a lot more if the same amount of financial resources (i.e. prices paid for the gems) were mad available.
Pariaba, gem quality spinel, Alexandrite - rarer than diamond, but not rarer than the rarest fancy colors of diamond.

 

[T L]

Pariaba, gem quality spinel, Alexandrite - rarer than diamond, but not rarer than the rarest fancy colors of diamond.

Well yes, rare FCD’s will always be super rare and valuable. There’s no arguing that, but your run of the mill colorless, near colorless to cape diamonds, not so rare, especially up to three carats.

Now that Argyle is shut down, demand for rare FCD’s will go up.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

All coloured gem materials combined - maybe 10-100 times more.
Some like various colors of quartz - at least 10 times, maybe even 100 times. Certainly a lot more if the same amount of financial resources (i.e. prices paid for the gems) were mad available.
Pariaba, gem quality spinel, Alexandrite - rarer than diamond, but not rarer than the rarest fancy colors of diamond.

This sounds like the moving of goalposts.
Yes, red and orange diamonds are super rare. And? The exception of boutique color doesn't prove the rule. Most people will never even see a naturally colored diamond. It's irrelevant.
High quality white diamonds are relatively common; so much so that they were/are stockpiled in warehouses in large quantity at various points. It's why everybody and their mother has at least a few. Spending more money to mine the cash cow doesn't impart intrinsic value on the material in it's own right. It doesn't prove rarity. All it proves is that it's lucrative.
Their price has been and is still artificially manipulated. And if it isn't- then tell all the big mining conglomerates to release their stored stones in their entirety tomorrow and we'll see what happens to the price. That's never happened with other colored precious high quality gems because there isn't the quantity to do so.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I can understand feeling threatened by lab created diamonds, it really throws a wrench in the price structure. It's a no win for natural diamonds. That's a tough thing. What I don't understand is trying to belabor the illusion that diamond is more valuable/rarer than it is. It hurts the cause and turns consumers to lab made. At least their man made artifice is right out front.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Well yes, rare FCD’s will always be super rare and valuable. There’s no arguing that, but your run of the mill colorless, near colorless to cape diamonds, not so rare, especially up to three carats.

Now that Argyle is shut down, demand for rare FCD’s will go up.

And run of the mill sapphire and ruby. You could use instead of sand in motar

 

[LD]

So we've come full circle! Yes FCDs and certain high quality gemstones such as Alexandrite, Hauyne, Pezzotaite etc are rarer than diamonds! I think we all knew that anyway! So this thread is utterly pointless - sorry!

 

[T L]

And run of the mill sapphire and ruby. You could use instead of sand in motar

I agree, fish gravel quality corundum is not rare.

 

[PrecisionGem]

And run of the mill sapphire and ruby. You could use instead of sand in motar

And I grind and polish my colored stones with crushed diamonds.

 

[fredflintstone]

And I grind and polish my colored stones with crushed diamonds.

Yep, they are good for that!

DARN!!! I was not going to write anymore on this thread. Someone hacked my account! Prank comment! Prank comment!

 

[LemonMoonLex]

And I grind and polish my colored stones with crushed diamonds.

Lol, you just shut this thread downnnnn

Also, I just can't take this thread seriously y'all. I thought it was literally satire at first or that someone was on Ambien, I'm not gonna lie I'm a little worried now...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Yep, they are good for that!

DARN!!! I was not going to write anymore on this thread. Someone hacked my account! Prank comment! Prank comment!

hehehehe!
Actually I believe what you all use for polishing is grown in a lab - a huge lab - bigger than many factories

But they use man mande diamonds for abrasives because they can control the shape and make them with sharp corners and lots of hard direction crystal faces.

 

[123ducklings]

All coloured gem materials combined - maybe 10-100 times more.

So to clarify, you’re saying that gem quality diamonds are more rare than all colored gem material on earth combined. Ok. Evidence to support your claim?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

So to clarify, you’re saying that gem quality diamonds are more rare than all colored gem material on earth combined. Ok. Evidence to support your claim?

That is not what I am saying Ducklings.
I am saying an myth exists that diamonds are not rare. Gliteratta pointed out the definition of rare is an issue.
Diamonds are worth hunting for.

Diamonds are, and have always been, a status symbol. Seems that creates envy and hatred among many media sources.

The top web search article by the Gem Society has many faults that I addressed as requested.

Why would that sort of article be top of mind to the colored gem society? The same reason I am attempting to address the myth and call it for what it is. A myth.

Here is some evidence that lots of gems are not rare. Just as lots of low quality diamonds were not rare. But now Argyle has closed, most of the worlds low quality diamonds are caput. And most of the alluvial diamonds are running out. There are lots of rare gems and some exceptionally rare diamonds. So what? Diamonds are rare.

 

[123ducklings]

That is not what I am saying Ducklings.
I am saying an myth exists that diamonds are not rare. Gliteratta pointed out the definition of rare is an issue.
Diamonds are worth hunting for.

Diamonds are, and have always been, a status symbol. Seems that creates envy and hatred among many media sources.

The top web search article by the Gem Society has many faults that I addressed as requested.

Why would that sort of article be top of mind to the colored gem society? The same reason I am attempting to address the myth and call it for what it is. A myth.

Here is some evidence that lots of gems are not rare. Just as lots of low quality diamonds were not rare. But now Argyle has closed, most of the worlds low quality diamonds are caput. And most of the alluvial diamonds are running out. There are lots of rare gems and some exceptionally rare diamonds. So what? Diamonds are rare.

Wait, what? Almost all of your posts from the three pages of this thread (which you started) are that diamonds are more rare than colored stones, but now that’s not what you’re saying?

I was earnestly and open-mindedly trying to understand what you’re saying, but at this point I’m not sure you know what you’re saying.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Wait, what? Almost all of your posts from the three pages of this thread (which you started) are that diamonds are more rare than colored stones, but now that’s not what you’re saying?

I was earnestly and open-mindedly trying to understand what you’re saying, but at this point I’m not sure you know what you’re saying.

Diamonds are not rare because people pay more to hunt for them.
Some, not all, other rare gems would be more plentiful if more people bought them. There are more diamonds on fingers and ears than zircons. Zircons are more plentiful than diamonds and more could be mined, but people don't value them (I do) so they get ground up for industrial processes. Thousands of tons

 

[Pysix]

That is not what I am saying Ducklings.
I am saying an myth exists that diamonds are not rare. Gliteratta pointed out the definition of rare is an issue.
Diamonds are worth hunting for.

Diamonds are, and have always been, a status symbol. Seems that creates envy and hatred among many media sources.

The top web search article by the Gem Society has many faults that I addressed as requested.

Why would that sort of article be top of mind to the colored gem society? The same reason I am attempting to address the myth and call it for what it is. A myth.

Here is some evidence that lots of gems are not rare. Just as lots of low quality diamonds were not rare. But now Argyle has closed, most of the worlds low quality diamonds are caput. And most of the alluvial diamonds are running out. There are lots of rare gems and some exceptionally rare diamonds. So what? Diamonds are rare.

No one here is arguing that every variety of colored gemstone is rarer than diamond. Only that some are. Obviously diamond is more scarce than quartz, garnet, amethyst, etc... However it is far more abundant than other colored gemstones.

As for diamonds being a symbol of status, that depends very much on whom you ask.