Lab Created Diamonds Come to Market

E writes "Technology is putting some new sparkle in the world of diamonds. Until recently, naturally occurring, mined diamonds were unchallenged in their quality and desirability. But now laboratory-created diamonds, which possess the same properties as naturals, are poised to give them a run for their money. A new company, Adia Diamonds, has quite the variety in their inventory. They have the same chemical and physical properties as a mined diamond and come in white, blue and yellow. Both GIA and EGL grading labs are offering certifications for lab created diamonds. Seems like a good, high-tech alternative to the DeBeers diamond cartel."

Real importance beyond jewelry?

[dada21 (163177)]

The article hints more at the new synthetic process' value for jewelry, but I'm not so certain that most jewelers will appreciate it -- especially the jewelers that cater to the most extravagent tastes. Diamonds have always been an oddity for me -- I understand the diamond's purpose in industrial applications (drill bits, saw blades, abrasives, and even in semiconductors) but the De Beers Group situation is not one I've ever understood -- even when trying to "think like a lady."

I'm guessing the De Beers Group isn't worried about these synthetic diamonds, either -- they have such a great relationship with most jewelers because the De Beers Group spends a LOT of money in how they market the diamonds: marketing that provides diamonds for the bling-bling rappers, the royal families, the Hollywood stars and whoever else needs something sparkling to wear in public. That's what the jewelers want: they don't care if it's cheap, they get a great marketing campaign and still make huge profit margins.

From Adia's website, we see only one retailer that resells their diamonds. Here's a company that has been around a few years, and they don't have a lot of support.

For industrial applications, though, is the De Beers Group really a powerhouse? I'd always heard that a lot of flawed diamonds end up in the industrial applications, and the flawed ones are significantly cheaper than the "perfect" clarity versions used in jewelry.

As a sidenote, my lady doesn't wear diamonds unless they're family heirlooms -- I've gotten her to move to 22K and 24K gold jewelry. It is shiny, sparkles like crazy if cut right, and when it wears down, I have it swapped for a new piece of jewelry in any Indian neighborhood (or in India) for a relatively competitive price. Diamonds are sort of boring for her now -- she sees how little they store value over time versus gold, and they're not very useful in a financial emergency (versus gold or platinum). Plus the fact that she can "trade-up" her softened jewelry for something else really captivates her -- the last ring she wore we "exchanged" for a set of earrings that was traded for bangles a few years later. With the diamond, she's mostly stuck.

Re:Real importance beyond jewelry?

[WindBourne (631190)]

Actually, De Beers is terrified. Over the last decade, they have pushed "genuine diamonds". Cool. A good jeweler and a bit testing could determine the difference between natural and artificial. Note, that I do not call it real vs. fake. The reason is, that they are both real. The problem is that the new artificial are not only indistinguishable, but it appears that better larger ones may be available soon for less than the cheaper "real" ones. De Beers would LOVE to kill these folks. But it is way too late for that. All in all, an investment in a diamond mine or even in a diamond ring may be a very bad investment. OTH, a nice gold ring may be a good one. In particular, if it has some disappearing scribbling inside.

Re:Real importance beyond jewelry?

[BJH (11355)]

Interestingly enough, it IS possible to distinguish the new artifical diamonds from natural ones.

The artificial ones have fewer impurities and inclusions ;)

Indistinguishable?

[Nefarious Wheel (628136)]

My late father was a jeweler and certified diamond rater (whatever that meant, but he studied hard for it). He said that all natural diamonds and sapphires, no matter how pure they look, have little inclusions and flaws in them. The way to tell them from the synthetic gems was that the synthetic gems were too perfect, and didn't have those microscopic flaws.

He also told me how to tell an artificial pearl from a real one -- the real one, he said, will dissolve in vinegar. Strange sense of humor he had.

Re:Indistinguishable?

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

That was not a joke. Back in the day it was a relatively easy and useful way to tell a genuine batch of pearls from fakes. Take random samples and see if they would begin to dissolve.

Of course you would not want to dissolve the whole pearl. That would be silly.

Re:Indistinguishable?

[WindBourne (631190)]

Bear in mind, that I am not a diamond guy, so it is interesting to hear you speak about it. 5 years ago, that was how they told the difference (as well as other tests). About 6 months ago, I read about a new class of diamonds coming from Russia and Florida (using the russian technology). Apparently the new ones can be designed to have flaws. The article said that DeBeers was trying to figure ways around this, but that they did not have one.

I was about to ask if you would ask your father about this, but I just noticed the second word. I am sorry; hopefully, it was quick.

Re:Real importance beyond jewelry?

[Dun Malg (230075)]

Actually, De Beers is terrified. Over the last decade, they have pushed "genuine diamonds". Cool. A good jeweler and a bit testing could determine the difference between natural and artificial.

No, there is no non-destructive* way to reliably tell man made diamond from mined based on any material characteristics. The only way even a "good jeweler" can tell the difference is by checking for the official De Beers registry number laser etched on one of the facet edges. All part of their "genuine diamond" propaganda campaign. "Fake" diamonds are not registered.

* mass spectrometry might do it by detecting certain trace elements, but in the end all diamonds are nothing more than tetrahedrally bonded carbon.

Re:Real importance beyond jewelry?

[eln (21727)]

A diamond ring has always been a bad investment, because the same marketing push that has been so successful at convincing everyone that diamonds are somehow rare and valuable have also convinced people that second-hand diamonds are nearly worthless. You will never get anywhere near what you paid for a diamond ring on the secondary market unless you happen to have a diamond with some historic significance.

The DeBeers story, and the history of the diamond as jewelry, is simply the story of the most successful marketing campaign in history. It is simply astonishing how the DeBeers cartel has managed to turn a fairly ordinary (but shiny) stone into one of the most expensive, sought after stones around. A stone that is so valuable that not only is it worth 2 MONTHS salary, but is so personal that it should never be purchased second hand.

Artificial scarcity

[Gregoyle (122532)]

Supporting what the parent poster is saying, diamonds are the only gemstones I know of that are artificially scarce. Thus, in my mind, they are a poor investment.

They are made scarce by the fact that the overwhelming majority of productive diamond mines are controlled by one company, which jealously guards that scarcity (literally, the "extra" diamonds are guarded in huge warehouses). In my mind diamonds are only a few productive non-DeBeers mines away from being made much less valuable.

If you really need to get gemstones to invest in, I would recommend rubies or sapphires (I know, they're the same stone). Star sapphires are especially prized. Otherwise stick to precious metals.

Re:Real importance beyond jewelry?

[_KiTA_ (241027)]

I'm guessing the De Beers Group isn't worried about these synthetic diamonds, either -- they have such a great relationship with most jewelers because the De Beers Group spends a LOT of money in how they market the diamonds: marketing that provides diamonds for the bling-bling rappers, the royal families, the Hollywood stars and whoever else needs something sparkling to wear in public. That's what the jewelers want: they don't care if it's cheap, they get a great marketing campaign and still make huge profit margins.

Actually, there was an article on /. about this a long time ago (3+ years?) when this tech first started really taking off. It mentioned two technologies, 1 which was basically putting carbon in a box and crushing the holy living out of it, another which was taking a slice of diamond and "growing" new diamond on top of it with essentially carbon "rain." -- then taking a slice of the new, artificial diamond and growing more diamond on that.

One of the guys reported getting repeated death threats by people he traced back to De Beers, attacked at Trade Shows, attempts at blackmailing them into selling or destroying the tech, etc. DeBeers was offering free devices for dealers to detect these diamonds (they're TOO perfect, chemically, some deformations that should be there are not), etc. At the end of it all there was a diamond dealer who examined the synth diamonds and basically said "eh, my customers wouldn't care that it's synthetic, they just want a diamond."

Basically DeBeers was freaking RIGHT out about the whole thing. Small wonder since they keep such a stranglehold on the diamond trade using whatever legal (and illegal) pracitices they can get away with.

Great!

[Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373)]

My Real Doll will never know the difference

Re:Great!

[fyngyrz (762201)]

You don't even want to know what can be done with a RealDoll(tm) and an onion ring... you can't handle the truth!

anything is a good alternative to DeBeers

[yagu (721525)]

Lab manufactured diamonds is an interesting concept, but if DeBeers gets its metaphorical finger in machine, it will ensure these diamonds either never get manufactured, or if they are manufactured never hit the marketplace with the name "diamond". The DeBeers monopoly is too dear and too powerful for disruption like this.

You can argue the "blood diamond" political aspects of the diamond mining industry, but even tossing that aside DeBeers' behavior and domination and control of the diamond industry transcends any other monopoly. There's a reason DeBeers isn't a U.S. company (among many others...), DeBeers' monopolistic practices and domination and heavy handed control of the diamond market would not likely pass legal muster in the U.S.

If you ever get a chance (/. "girlfriend" jokes aside), buy the lab diamonds, or buy your to-be a genuinely rare gem such as a Ruby (diamonds are not rare).

The sooner the myth that is diamonds is de-mythed, the better. Read more about diamond myths here [diamondcuttersintl.com].

Re:anything is a good alternative to DeBeers

[Roger W Moore (538166)]

The sooner the myth that is diamonds is de-mythed, the better. Read more about diamond myths here.

Actually they got the first point of the FAQ wrong - a diamond is not forever even if you do take care of it. It is a metastable allotrope of carbon [wikipedia.org] and will slowly convert to the thermodynamically favoured allotrope, graphite. It might take several billion years for a diamond to decay into graphite but that is still a lot less than forever.

A great article on the subject

[g_adams27 (581237)]

Wired had a great article [wired.com] on the subject of synthetic diamonds a few years ago. An excerpt:

Back at the Diamond High Council, I open the film canister and shake the Apollo stones onto the table. Van Royen tentatively picks one up with a pair of elongated tweezers and takes it to a microscope. "Unbelievable," he says slowly as he peers through the lens. "May I study it?" I agree to let him keep the gems overnight. When we meet the next morning in the lobby of the High Council, Van Royen looks tired. He admits to staying up almost all night scrutinizing the stones. "I think I can identify it," he says hopefully. "It's too perfect to be natural. Things in nature, they have flaws. The growth structure of this diamond is flawless."

Re:A great article on the subject

[onx (956508)]

From the wired article: "In an ambiguous April 2001 ruling, the Federal Trade Commission said that it was "unfair or deceptive" to call a man-made diamond a "diamond,""

I agree completely with the FTC, it is very misleading to call a diamond a diamond! Man-made diamonds are identical to so called natural diamonds, differing only in the fact that natural diamonds are pulled out of the ground and man-made ones are not.

I love our government.

this is good on so many levels

[circletimessquare (444983)]

-challenges one of the most egregious monopolies in the world: debeers

-undermines the economic incentive for blood diamonds

-removes the financial drive behind a classist symbol, the diamond ring

-unlocks thousands of new technological and scientific advances, due to diamond's unique properties of hardness and optics, that were previously economically unfeasible

a diamond is just carbon. a very common element. it's just arranged in particularly difficult to achieve crystal. not anymore

on so many levels, in so many ways, when something that was previously scarce is now plentiful, the world has become a better place, progress has been achieved

they're missing an element

[macadamia_harold (947445)]

Seems like a good, high-tech alternative to the DeBeers diamond cartel.

Not really. They're missing an element; a human element. I expect bloodshed and slavery with my diamonds. They make the diamonds more special.

Consulted with my wife about this

[Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358)]

She did not need persuasion or even a second to think about it. She's adamant (pardon the pun) that any future diamond we own will be a symbol of the highest human skill and ingenuity and will not be something a slave dug up in an armed camp. For the symbolism, for the historical connections, for the emotional resonance, we both prefer diamonds that humans created.

Much more detailed article

[Gregoyle (122532)]

Wired [wired.com] did a much more in depth article on this subject a couple years ago.

One thing to keep in mind is that saying the lab-created diamonds possess the same qualities as natural diamonds is a little misleading. They are certainly diamonds, in that they are the same type of crystal form of carbon, but they *are* distinguishable from natural diamonds.

What I find very interesting is just how expensive and advanced equipment needs to be to tell the difference, and how much Debeers is shelling out to ensure that the biggest diamond testing labs have that equipment. Check out the linked article for more on that.

If you want to do something about challenging the DeBeers cartel and their questionable business practices, check out Canadian Diamonds [canadadiamonds.com], also here [aurias.com] and here [polarbeardiamond.com].

It's not love . . .

[93,000 (150453)]

It's not really love unless a 12 year old lost a finger cutting it out of the wall of a mine.

(Kudos to whomever I'm paraphrasing/ripping off in saying that -- I know it's not my own.)

The purpose of the diamond ritual...

[inviolet (797804)]

The purpose of the diamond ritual is to require the male (or whoever) to put his money where his mouth is, to prove that he is sincere about the relationship. And what's the old saying? "Money has a truthfulness. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay in cash."

The diamond is idea for this purpose because it has almost no resale value. It's a way for the male to make a demonstratively extravagant purchase, one which the female (or whoever) is not able to whip back around for a cash refund.

Of course, it didn't have to be diamonds. Were it not for the DeBeers' marketing savvy, any arbitrary rare object could've sufficed. If technology had evolved differently, women might now be wearing tiny LCD displays on their fingers which play a video loop of their husbands throwing a bundle of cash into the ocean.

If she insists on a "real" diamond...

[humberthumbert (104950)]

...run, not walk, away from your woman.

Especially if you have explained to her what a scam DeBeers has perpetuated
upon the world, and it has not changed her mind.

Sure, you can offer her a non-blood diamond. But you have to ask yourself
if a person like that is someone you want to spent time with.

Of course, I carry a cellphone with tantalum capacitors in them. The world's a fucked up place.

Re:Natural Complexity

[Dun Malg (230075)]

There's a reason why imitations (exempli gratia: CGI) lack that je ne sais quoi: we are unable to reproduce the complexity of naturally occuring systems.

There is no difference whatsoever between a mined diamond and a man-made one (other than that the man made ones have fewer flaws). The is no "je ne sais quoi" that distinguishes one from the other. The reason man-made diamonds can't get traction is that the mined diamond suppliers have a very tight grip on the supply channel and synthetic diamonds are not available in large enough quantities for any large gem buyer to risk losing his place as a De Beers sightholder. The threat to the diamond mining industry is very real, though. De Beers is actively promoting the propaganda that man-made diamonds aren't "real"-- despite the fact that they're generally of higher quality in terms of clarity and uniformity.

Re:Natural Complexity

[Frogbert (589961)]

Bullshit! "Imitations" as you call them are more pure then the naturally occurring ones. They are chemically perfect and there is absolutely no way you would be able to tell with the naked eye.

It's FUD like yours that keeps DeBeers in business. The complexity you speak of is the diamonds imperfections.