Diamonds: Synthetics, Cartels and Wars, Oh My!

[livius drusus]

I just read this article (http://www.salon.com/mwt/the_big_idea/2004/12/24/diamonds/index.html) on Salon (requires subscription or one day pass) about (among other things) how synthetic diamonds have finally reached the point of being virtually indistinguishable from natural ones, even under lab analysis. Given the filthy dirty past and present of the diamond industry, I could totally see synthetics getting massively popular. A few sparkling celebrities at a few sparkling award shows and next thing you know, De Beers is on welfare.

Okay, that's just a pipe dream, I know, but those De Beers fuckers really piss me off. From the article:

Cecil Rhodes, the infamous British imperialist and business magnate who founded the De Beers Mining Co., exploited tribal relationships in order to gain control of the South Africa diamond deposits in the late 19th century; he later became a key figure in the establishment of apartheid South Africa.

Epstein contended that De Beers built a false pricing structure around a product with little inherent value. Several suits against De Beers by the Justice Department later, the company finally pleaded guilty in July 2004 to charges of price fixing, and agreed to pay a $10 million fine, ending a 60-year-long impasse during which De Beers' top brass were reluctant to step foot on American soil for fear of being arrested.

Carson Glover, a spokesman for the public relations arm of the De Beers' Diamond Trading Co., dismisses claims that the natural diamond industry has anything to worry about. "Synthetics have not eaten into natural diamonds at all. These are two very different products. Diamonds are a gift of love, used to symbolize relationships, celebrate milestones -- anniversaries, the birth of a child, etc. Synthetics are not the real thing. They have amazing capabilities from an industrial standpoint, but they don't have a retail presence yet. Nine out of ten women want the real thing."

I really, really hate this quote: as if their marketing slogans reflect some shimmering inner truth about women everywhere. Just in case it wasn't clear, I like shiny things. Diamonds shine a lot. I like diamonds. They aren't my favorite gemstone (opals win that contest hands down any day), but a nice diamond is certainly a beautiful thing. They don't symbolize diddly shit other than the person who gave them to me has good taste and knows what I like.

The rest is just stupid black and white commercials featuring dudes hollering in Venice and gracious ladies showing the depths of their love by tearing up so delicately their mascara doesn't smear.

Anyway, the Gemological institutes are no great fans of synthetics either. They refuse to grade them on the four C's and have shipped out state of the art analysis machines (made by the De Beers group, natch) to jewelers.

The two major industry associations, the Gemological Institute of America and the International Gemological Institute, have seriously undercut the synthetic diamonds' credibility by refusing to grade or evaluate such diamonds with the famous "four C's" standard (carat, color, clarity, cut). The GIA's public stance on the matter is that synthetic diamonds should not be categorized like natural diamonds. As GIA's president, William E. Boyajian, has said, "GIA's policy is, as it always has been, that there is nothing inherently wrong with synthetics, provided they can be identified and are properly disclosed." From such statements, it is clear that the GIA thinks these lab-made gems make lovely jewelry, but they are not and never will be in the class of "real" diamonds.

I don't really get the categorization thing. Does anybody have any idea why a synthetic shouldn't be graded? "Because they're not natural" doesn't make sense to me as an answer. It might as well be "because De Beers said so", from what I can see.

I am thoroughly amused by the sythetic producers referring to their gems as "cultured diamonds", mainly because I always thought the pearl producers were getting off scott free, but also because I genuinely appreciate the attempt to shift public image using a term another segment of the jewelry industry manipulated so expertly they're now indistinguishable from their natural counterparts. That's got to scare the shit out of the diamond industry.

Hellier, the president of Gemesis, doesn't like to call his company's product "synthetic." The industry, though, takes umbrage at the "cultured diamonds" term used by Gemesis and Apollo. As Jerry Ehrenwald from the IGI says, "When they culture a pearl, they put a seed in the oyster, and the oyster continues to secrete the nacre. It's quite a natural process. With synthetic diamonds, there is nothing natural about stone." (A German court has banned the use of the "cultured diamond" label.)

That "seed" is a piece of plastic, usually, and it's considerably larger than the natural irritants oysters layer with nacre to produce natural pearls. The process of nacre secretion may be natural, but since when is process the sole arbiter of what is natural? A big ol' plastic bead in the middle of genuine nacre is a real pearl but a diamond made by reproducing natural conditions in a lab isn't real? How conveeeeenient....

So what do y'all think about all this? Would you wear a synthetic with pride or are you committed to the naturals? Does the idea of conflict-free diamonds appeal to you, natural or synthetic? Does anyone else want to slap those De Beers bastards around a little?

[godfry n. glad]

Well, I'm a lapis fan, myself.

I've never seen the attraction to the cut gems, myself. They look...tawdry? Particularly diamonds.

I grew up calling synthetic diamonds "industrial grade" diamonds. The implication being that they were of inferior quality, so the were used for machine tools and abrasives.

I'm peeved that the diamond industry has attempted (and for most intents and purposes, succeeded) to corner the "exemplar" status with nothing but propaganda over many decades. The "diamond" industry was another oligopolistic price leadership market, with de Beers having a commanding market segment. I assume the situation hasn't changed much. I believe the Soviets used to the the biggest source of non-de Beers diamonds...I rather wonder what has happened to the Russian diamond mines since privatization.

Any situation that smacks of market or price control practices pisses me off, liv.


godfry

[Farren]

This reminds me of something I read, a quotation from a beer executive. Apparently they found a way of speeding up the fermentation process significantly and producing a beer with exactly the same chemical makeup as the original. When word got out that they weren't fermenting it the old-fashioned way, sales dropped alarmingly. "Its ridiculous," said the executive, "People are happy we're not still delivering the stuff using a horse and cart but for some reason they get upset when we make the stuff in a quarter of the time"

I appreciate the fact that often claims are made about the equivalence of stuff produced by a different process that are predicated on a set of tests that the manufacturer considers important, but exclude a lot of salient properties. In the case of diamonds, however, this is vanishingly unlikely, because of the uniformity and homogenaity of the molecular structure of diamond. Foods, maybe. Diamond, no.

I don't think, though, that De Beers and their ilk are trying to convince anyone there's something physically different about synthetic diamonds. They're trying to maintain the idea of a natural diamond as something special, in the same way that a particular mass-manufactured car that belonged to a particular dead celebrity is special.

Given the fact that we indulge memorabilia nuts their obssession with things like the cloth Cary Grant once wiped the sweat from his brow with on a film set, I think this is a tolerable exercise. It is sad to see just another example of something being talked up to an artificial value beyond the "inherent" value drawn from its utility or beauty, but that's a process that permeates Western capitalism from end to end. In this light, the De Beers effort seems less like an isolated stupidity and more like a particularly glaring example of the rot at the heart of modern Western Capitalism.

Geoff Price, who goes by the name Malachi (followed by some number) on IIDB has waxed lyrical about this general problem on many a thread in the politics forum at IIDB and I find myself sympathetic to his reasoning. His favourite technique is to compare what a particular sports star or CEO earns to what labourer in an industry earns then ask if one can realistically state that the difference in earning reflects difference in real worth to society (there are some measures of real worth that are less relativistic, like how many people are getting fed and housed in consequence).

One of the most common attacks he's faced goes something like this: "If people are willing to pay X for Y, then that is what it is worth to them. How else can we measure the happiness that a particular entertainer brings to society, with difficult-to-measure but nonetheless important consequences like a happy zeitgeist and less crime and strife?"

This kind of reasoning, absurd as it seems, can even be applied to the synthetic v.s. "real" diamonds debate. Someone steeped in the lore and social history of diamonds and desirous of feeling like film star might feel such a distinction is important and be happier, with a minute positive effect for society, should they be given a "true" diamond.

My problem with this is drawn from an idea nicely articulated by George Soros. There is a paper economy and there is an energy economy. The energy economy is what really counts and the populist valuing mechanisms of capitalism distorts the paper economy (which we pay attention to) so that it only approximates the energy economy. In an extreme case, the world can be on the verge of complete depletion of all usable energy and consequent collapse of civilisation - and it could all look fine on paper.

That scenario is unlikely but possible and emphasises the negative role such distortion plays. Conceits like the "natural" v.s. synthetic diamond distinction represent a widespread mechanism of distortion being deliberately fostered by the rich and powerful and add to all the falsified value and misdirected energy in our limited economic and ecological space.

I think its also important to recognise the bigger problem, of which the diamond debate is only part. One may, for instance, indulge one's fetish by buying only "genuine" X because of national origin, former ownership or label, while spurning natural diamonds as an overpriced conceit. Not only is this hypocrisy, but one is simultaneously criticising a glaring example of absurdity in the system while contributing to that absurdity enthusiastically in other ways.

[pescifish]

It seems to me that jewelry and gemstones are a purchase of emotion or fantasy in the first place, so I'm not surprised the considerations of emotion are part of the pricing strategies. Sure, diamond marketing effects all of us growing up thinking of the Cinderella life, but I might agree that many people prefer the "idea" of a natural stone. There are plenty of lab created, gorgeous rubies and sapphires out in mall shops for great prices. Without the influence of heavy marketing dictates, I would bet most people would still prefer to get as nice a natural stone as they can afford.

I like 'em both: natural and lab created. Because most of my jewelry pieces have more to do with how I came about the gemstone, the little store I might have found it or the work with the goldsmith in putting it together.

I have a 1 carat mined diamond that was heat treated to a brilliant blue. Custom set with a couple of white diamonds from my mom's earrings, it is certainly one of my favorite rings. Diamonds kick other gemstones' asses when it comes to sparkly. I have some natural untreated colored diamonds that are no more treasured.

One of the reasons I might prefer a lab created diamond would be that I could be sure it isn't "dirty" relative to drug or terrorism issues.

[JoeP]

Liv: yup, De Beers are a deceptive marketing organisation (insert "evil" wherever appropriate).

See attachment ...

Godfry: I think Russian diamond output is still quite strong. But I don't know where I read this. It may be that there's no one centrally in Moscow for De Beers to "negotiate" with any more.

Farren: on the contrary, I think De Beers are very much trying to persuade people that "real" diamonds are objectively better, but they're trying to do it subjectively because that's all that's possible. Nothing will stop them using any exaggeration or distortion to protect their market. Just like any monopolist.

Do you know anything about the importance of diamonds to Botswana's economy today? Botswana is a shining example of an African country that's used its natural resources to build a stable and strong economy (by local standards at least). Its currency has historically outperformed the rand. But I think a lot of the income has been windfall diamond income - it's just that unlike oil in West Africa, it hasn't been squandered on presidential palaces and general corruption. (Botswana does have a staggering rate of HIV infection so its future economy is not all that bright.)

[Socratoad]

Joe, wine works just as well, and its a helluva lot cheaper. But I really like the pictures ..... :D

Oh yes, before I forget. having been a keen follower of De beers for many years the kindest thing I can say is that I detest them. As I type this they are now in Canada doing their best to screw our first nations peoples. Sometimes I kinda wish there was a hell ..... twould be rather crowded methinks.

[seebs]

I always wanted to see the world's first honest diamond ad.

DIAMONDS: No longer mined by slaves!

[Dingfod]

Who uses slaves to mine diamonds today?

[Corwin]

Who uses slaves to mine diamonds today?

People in Zaire... funded by Pat Robertson.

I grew up calling synthetic diamonds "industrial grade" diamonds. The implication being that they were of inferior quality, so the were used for machine tools and abrasives.

Most of them are of inferior quality.... as are most mined natrual diamonds. Less than 10% of diamonds mined meet 'gem quality' standards. The rest are crushed into abrasives.

Incidentally.... diamond is amazing stuff. One of the benefits of nanotechnology would be the ability to arrange carbon atoms however we wanted.... and with that would come the ability to synthesize diamond in any shape we wanted. Like buildings. ;)

[Zatarra]

Ever since I learned of synthetic diamonds as a child, I have always wondered why they didn't replace naturally occurring diamonds. If they look the same, who cares?

It reminds of the stevia vs. sugar issue.

[Dingfod]

Who uses slaves to mine diamonds today?

People in Zaire... funded by Pat Robertson.Slaves mine the diamonds? I found a few articles on that slimeball Robertson and Zaire diamonds, but nothing in the same articles about slavery. Can you elaborate and/or provide a link to a site with more info? I mean, it's one thing to pay so-called slave wages for back-breaking labor, but quite another to force people to work.

[Dingfod]

Ever since I learned of synthetic diamonds as a child, I have always wondered why they didn't replace naturally occurring diamonds. If they look the same, who cares?I agree with you. I'm not telling if any diamonds I might be wearing are synthetic or not and I'm sure nothing would be known about it except for in my bank account.

[livius drusus]

Well, I'm a lapis fan, myself.

I love lapis! My dad got me a beautiful pair of lapis earrings in Turkey back when the world was new and my mom has a lapis ring that looks like something Lucrezia Borgia would wear.

I've never seen the attraction to the cut gems, myself. They look...tawdry? Particularly diamonds.

He he... Well, I wouldn't go quite that far, but I've certainly seen rocks that I thought were obnoxiously vulgar in size, design or color.

I grew up calling synthetic diamonds "industrial grade" diamonds. The implication being that they were of inferior quality, so the were used for machine tools and abrasives.

As Corwin points out, most synthetics are not gem quality. The two companies mentioned in the Salon article have finally devised a process which creates gem quality synthetics, but it's taken hundreds of years to get to this point.

Synthetic diamonds, of course, are not new: Those pursuing DIY millionaire dreams have been trying to make their own diamonds for centuries -- often getting burned or maimed in the process. As the diamond industry itself points out, synthetic diamonds have been available since the 1950s, when General Electric developed a way to transform graphite into diamond. The De Beers company even has had a hand in this business, as the largest producer of synthetic diamonds for industrial use. Until now, prohibitive manufacturing costs have kept companies from making jewelry-quality gems that can compete with the real thing. But these new diamonds are not only inexpensive to produce, but they're also virtually indistinguishable from natural diamonds -- even in the lab.

[...]

The Gemesis process uses high pressure combined with high temperature to mimic the way that diamonds are formed naturally underground. With hydraulics and electricity, the machines focus increasing amounts of pressure and heat onto a "core" of carbon. David Hellier, the president of Gemesis, prefers an analogy to cultured pearls, saying that the machine is "simply a vessel to control or manage the growth process."

The technology, though, cannot produce white diamonds, the most popular and available type of the diamond on the market. Hellier claims that Gemesis has no plans to try to create one, citing pricing as one rationale: "There is more value in the fancy colored diamonds because they simply don't exist at price points similar to white diamonds." Instead, Gemesis is focusing on the colored-diamond market; it's excitedly promoting its introduction next year of a blue diamond, among the most rare.

Boston-based Apollo Diamonds uses a completely different process to create diamonds -- white diamonds, among others -- that could ultimately prove more significant. Apollo diamonds are grown using what the company calls "modified Chemical Vapor Deposition technology." In this complicated, patented process, Apollo fine-tunes temperature, gas composition and pressure to create the perfect combination to produce synthetic diamonds. The result is an extremely pure crystal, which makes it almost impossible for even the most sophisticated equipment to discern the difference between these and natural diamonds.

I believe the Soviets used to the the biggest source of non-de Beers diamonds...I rather wonder what has happened to the Russian diamond mines since privatization.

Good question. I wonder that myself. I haven't found anything exactly on point, but there's no question Russia is still a huge diamond producer. See this article (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/12/24/041.html) for some stats.

Any situation that smacks of market or price control practices pisses me off, liv.

I'm with you. The unique smarminess in which De Beers coats their cutthroat practices just adds insult to injury.

[freemonkey]

I have a couple small diamonds that were gifted to me over the years. I never wear them, I rarely wear jewelry at all. I guess I keep them to sell them if I ever need the cash. Many years ago I might have been on the "natural is better" bandwagon, but that was before I knew anything about the despicable De Beers or how diamonds are got. So natural is really not worth it.

I really like all kinds of gems, finished or not. I don't think I have a favorite. Pretty is pretty.

[livius drusus]

I appreciate the fact that often claims are made about the equivalence of stuff produced by a different process that are predicated on a set of tests that the manufacturer considers important, but exclude a lot of salient properties. In the case of diamonds, however, this is vanishingly unlikely, because of the uniformity and homogenaity of the molecular structure of diamond. Foods, maybe. Diamond, no.

A few days ago I might have agreed with you. The new processes I quoted above, however, seem to cross that imaginary food/diamond line.

I don't think, though, that De Beers and their ilk are trying to convince anyone there's something physically different about synthetic diamonds. They're trying to maintain the idea of a natural diamond as something special, in the same way that a particular mass-manufactured car that belonged to a particular dead celebrity is special.

That's certainly a big part of what they flog, but I think De Beers and the GIA and certainly the Israel Diamond Exchange - which had this to say about synthetics: "There is no doubt that we must take a firm stand against synthetic diamonds. These are imitations, and must not be handled by members of the legitimate trade." - are making some incohate appeal to instrinsic, physical difference.

I think its also important to recognise the bigger problem, of which the diamond debate is only part. One may, for instance, indulge one's fetish by buying only "genuine" X because of national origin, former ownership or label, while spurning natural diamonds as an overpriced conceit. Not only is this hypocrisy, but one is simultaneously criticising a glaring example of absurdity in the system while contributing to that absurdity enthusiastically in other ways.

Excellent point. I know I'm certainly a part of that same hypocrisy (pace Michael Corleone), but it's separating all these interwoven strands is a hard thing to do. It reminds me of vm's Do you worry about conserving natural resources? (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=166) thread.

[Bella]

The "value" of a jewel is, in my mind, in the eye of the beholder.

Example: When I was engaged to my voice instructor, my ring was a five-carat diamond from Tiffanys. When we broke up, I stowed the rock in a safety deposit box; I will most likely give it to my daughter (should I have one) and it, along with other gifts he gave me, will become the start of my "family jewels" <titter>. My engagement ring from Jek is a .25 carat lab-created dot. It, along with my plain gold wedding band and an anniversary band, is my most precious and prized possession.

Along the lines of bad-taste advertisements: there are several billboards in the Twin Cities area that say "think of the resolutions she'll make this year" with a picture of a gem below. Hmmm, I wonder what that means?

[LadyShea]

Natural gem diamonds are sold on idea that they are rare and ancient...a work of art by mother nature. That is the language we were taught to use. The 4C's add further value with regard to relative rarity. Synthetics aren't graded in colored gems either, because there is no reason each one shouldn't be close to flawless since the conditions of their manufacture are standard and controlled.

We value relative rarity in other areas too. Why is an original Degas bronze worth more than an exact copy? Are the copies not just as beautiful and moving and made with the same material?

The way to clean up the diamond industry is through competition. It would cut deBeers out if the sight holders would start buying raw gems from Russia or some other non-deBeers controlled area (only "sight holders" are allowed to buy raw diamonds from deBeers. Sights are sold via lottery and there are only a handful.)

[Dingfod]

Who is this "we" you talk about? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? I value those trinkets so little as to not being willing to give a plug nickel for a diamond.

[LadyShea]

Once upon a time I sold fine jewelry and was GIA certified in Diamonds. "We" in the first paragraph referred to jewelry/gemstone professionals. "We" in the second paragraph referred to society at large valuing items based on rarity. Sorry I wasn't clear.

[Dingfod]

Once upon a time I sold fine jewelry and was GIA certified in Diamonds. "We" in the first paragraph referred to jewelry/gemstone professionals. "We" in the second paragraph referred to society at large valuing items based on rarity. Sorry I wasn't clear.S'alright, I was being surly for no real reason. It just bugs me that people put value on fairly useless things just because they're rare. To me, opals are more beautiful... and more rare as well.

[LadyShea]

S'alright, I was being surly for no real reason. It just bugs me that people put value on fairly useless things just because they're rare. To me, opals are more beautiful... and more rare as well.

I also love opals, in fact I love many unusual colored gemstones. Unfortunately, opals and everything but corundum (sapphire and ruby) are simply not durable enough for everyday wear. I have a beautiful black opal my grandfather gave to my grandmother over 60 years ago, but she didn't care for it properly and now I have to find a good lapidary to repolish it without breaking it. I am terrified of doing so though as it can't be replaced.

Anyway, diamonds require little special care and can stand up to daily wear for decades. When selling, we were taught to use words like "forever", "rare", and discuss how they're millions of years old, etc. Add to the mystique ya know.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Anyway, diamonds require little special care and can stand up to daily wear for decades. When selling, we were taught to use words like "forever", "rare", and discuss how they're millions of years old, etc. Add to the mystique ya know.

Tell them billions, with a "b" because they are.

If I wore gems I'd be fine with a synthetic because it would be more perfect and much cheaper than a natural diamond. If you want a gem even more sparkly than a diamond check out titania(titanium oxide). It's cheeper to.
Really the only reason I'd buy a natural diamond is because of where and how it formed deep in the Earth 3,000,000,000+ years ago.

[LadyShea]

If I wore gems I'd be fine with a synthetic because it would be more perfect and much cheaper than a natural diamond. If you want a gem even more sparkly than a diamond check out titania(titanium oxide). It's cheeper to.
Really the only reason I'd buy a natural diamond is because of where and how it formed deep in the Earth 3,000,000,000+ years ago.

Surprisingly, when I looked at a particular brand name of synthetic, Moissonite, there were not significantly less expensive. I thought they would be half the price or less, but that didn't seem to be the case.

[Godless Wonder]

I Just in case it wasn't clear, I like shiny things. Diamonds shine a lot. I like diamonds. Among my family members, I'm (in)famous for this quote: "What are you? A raccoon?"

(See, raccoons (and crows) really like shiny things. I know this because I read Sterling North's "Rascal" as a kid... way back when I was a baby goat.. Now I'm all grown up goat (http://www.cafepress.com/gruffstuff)... not a sheep.)

I know for all the "mother-of-pearl" (what pearls are made of) and "abalone" inlays on guitar necks nowadays, they use something called abalam (http://www.leonardmusicalinstruments.com/abalam_one_quarter_sheets.htm). Coincidentally, Abalam is the King of all Hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abalim). (Damn, I can relate anything back to religion/lack of religion..)

[livius drusus]

I Just in case it wasn't clear, I like shiny things. Diamonds shine a lot. I like diamonds. Among my family members, I'm (in)famous for this quote: "What are you? A raccoon?"

(See, raccoons (and crows) really like shiny things.

I always think of magpies. There's even an opera about their penchant for snatching shiny things and a magpie played a major role in The Castafiore Emerald, my favorite Tin Tin book.

I know this because I read Sterling North's "Rascal" as a kid... way back when I was a baby goat.. Now I'm all grown up goat (http://www.cafepress.com/gruffstuff)... not a sheep.)

That's cool. I'm all about the free lifestyle choices, but damn, have you no moral qualms at all about what they're doing to that dog?

I know for all the "mother-of-pearl" (what pearls are made of) and "abalone" inlays on guitar necks nowadays, they use something called abalam (http://www.leonardmusicalinstruments.com/abalam_one_quarter_sheets.htm).

I'm guessing that doesn't make your gorgeous Ibanez any less precious to you. :wink: