All the more reason to buy certified.

[diamondgezer]

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?

I've been watching this debate with interest, as have a lot of people, and it's sad to see it degenerate. Posts dripping with sarcasm are unhelpful, Sandy, I must say that Teobdl has summed up the discussion as it's developed very well (twice). You say a 'Diamond has a normative meaning'. The terms constitutive and normative are characteristics of an object, Consitutive characteristics in toto are necessary (and sufficient) to define the object. Normative characteristics bring us full circle back to the discussion Diamond, Natural Diamond, Man made etc.

 

[SandyinAnaheim]

I've been watching this debate with interest, as have a lot of people, and it's sad to see it degenerate. Posts dripping with sarcasm are unhelpful, Sandy.

You just got here 5 minutes ago, how do you know what "a lot of people" are doing? I didn't start the sarcasm, but I can return it just fine.

Constructive: deduced by inference or interpretation

By inference, a diamond is mined, not lab produced....so inferential or normative, both of those terms apply properly at this point in time. What exactly is your point?

 

[Dancing Fire]

If I bought my wife a "man made diamond " she'll divorce me !

 

[diamondgezer]

I've been watching this debate with interest, as have a lot of people, and it's sad to see it degenerate. Posts dripping with sarcasm are unhelpful, Sandy.

You just got here 5 minutes ago, how do you know what "a lot of people" are doing? I didn't start the sarcasm, but I can return it just fine.

What is the qualifying period before I'm allowed to express an opinion??? If you look at the topics list screen you will see a column titled 'Views'. For this topic there are in excess of 1800 views. That means the topic has been at least opened 1800+ times.

I didn't mean to imply your posts were the only sarcastic ones. There should have been a full stop, not comma, after 'unhelpful'.


Constructive: deduced by inference or interpretation

You were quick off the mark!! Constructive was a typo that I edited haha

By inference, a diamond is mined, not lab produced....so inferential or normative, both of those terms apply properly at this point in time. What exactly is your point?

 

[Dancing Fire]

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.

But my wife have a diamond tester... now what?

 

[SandyinAnaheim]

What is the qualifying period before I'm allowed to express an opinion???

I've only been here for 10 minutes so I don't know. But you weren't expressing opinion, you were passing judgment.

Good one Dancing Fire!

 

[CanuckAB]

Size is not everything to many of us. I would rather have a beautiful small natural diamond than a large MMD even if it is beautiful. I feel the same way about all my gems and therefore have lovely, though smallish, rubies, emeralds... I would feel like my husband was deceitful if he presented a synthetic gem to me without disclosing the fact. GeorgeStevens, if you are so proud of the MMD you have given to your wife, why have you not told her what it is? You could have presented it to her stating that the quality of MMDs being manufactured is wonderful and here is one you thought would look beautiful on her. You choose to say nothing. It sounds to me like you have made a lie of omission.

 

[diamondgezer]

Sandy

Who, or what, was I passing judgment on?? On the 'sarcasm' front I made an objective comment on what was before my eyes!!
The rest of my comment was most certainly opinion.



Teobdl

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.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure there are legal eagles here that will enlighten me if I'm wrong, but when you say legal 'convention' is it not in fact something far stronger - constitutive of the legal definition of a diamond? I think Wink alluded to this

Of course a scientific or logical definition could ( and we agree) does differ from this. I wonder if there are any other legal complexities caused by this apparent difference of definition??

 

[GeorgeStevens]

This conversation has turned ad hominem. Thanks to those who read this far. I'll be bowing out.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Size is not everything to many of us. I would rather have a beautiful small natural diamond than a large MMD even if it is beautiful. I feel the same way about all my gems and therefore have lovely, though smallish, rubies, emeralds... I would feel like my husband was deceitful if he presented a synthetic gem to me without disclosing the fact. GeorgeStevens, if you are so proud of the MMD you have given to your wife, why have you not told her what it is? You could have presented it to her stating that the quality of MMDs being manufactured is wonderful and here is one you thought would look beautiful on her. You choose to say nothing. It sounds to me like you have made a lie of omission.

b/c her name is Lorena Bobbitt...

 

[Laila619]

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.

LOL

Apparently there's no getting through to you, "Sugar." GeorgeStevens and teobdl certainly gave it a valiant effort. Best of luck!

 

[teobdl]

I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure there are legal eagles here that will enlighten me if I'm wrong, but when you say legal 'convention' is it not in fact something far stronger - constitutive of the legal definition of a diamond? I think Wink alluded to this

Of course a scientific or logical definition could ( and we agree) does differ from this. I wonder if there are any other legal complexities caused by this apparent difference of definition??

I am not a lawyer, either, but I will say that this seems to be an example where the law has not caught up to the realities of a changing market. Synthetic diamonds in the jewelry market simply didn’t have the same presence, so the normative definition sufficed. The article I’m posting now indicates that more precision is warranted in the marketplace because of the fact that actual diamonds (scientific definition) can be sourced naturally, and now to an increasing extend, synthetically .

I highly recommend Martin Rapaport's article on synthetic diamonds (Dec 2013). If I remember correctly, he also dedicated a significant portion of his talk at the jewelry convention last year (2013) to this topic.
http://www.diamonds.net/Docs/Synthetics/Sinthetics.pdf
He, too, treats synthetic diamonds as actual diamonds. Just of a different origin.

A few highlights:
The keys to maintaining the market for naturals = "Differentiation, Detection, Disclosure and Documentation".

"If we can’t detect synthetic diamonds, then the price of natural diamonds will fall to the price of synthetic [diamonds]."

"The need for full disclosure regarding the sale of synthetic diamonds is an obvious and legal requirement. Given recent reports about the illegal sale of mixed parcels of synthetic and natural diamonds without disclosure, the WFDB has taken the position that disclosing synthetics is not enough. There is a new requirement that all natural diamond sales now require an affirmative statement that the diamonds are natural. In other words, when buying diamonds, you can no longer assume they are natural. " [emphasis added]

"Synthetic diamonds are a good thing. They are good for the diamond industry because they will force our trade to be more honest. They will force us to control our supply chain and finally take responsibility for the products we buy and sell. They are good because they are a new product category that will increase industry profits...
Synthetic diamonds are also good for the natural diamond mining sector. Diamond miners will now be forced to aggressively differentiate natural diamonds from synthetics through innovative marketing, promotion and advertising campaigns. They are going to have to explain to consumers why they should pay more for natural diamonds. Instead of telling everyone else to and value, miners who want to obtain a premium price over synthetics will now be forced to add value to natural diamonds...
The idea that natural diamonds are special, unique and naturally scarce is fundamental to their value and the values they communicate. That flies in the face of the idea that diamonds are a manufactured product with unlimited supply. Consumers subconsciously empower diamonds with symbolic values that they then project onto themselves and each other. ‘You are special, unique and rare,’ communicates the diamond to the woman. The gift of commitment is the expensive diamond, because she is worth more than money." [emphasis added]

Toward the end of the document, as you can see, he begins to make a case that the story behind a natural diamond vs synthetic diamond is different. I agree with this. One decision I disagree with, however, is his equivocation of “real” and “natural,” which he leaves unexplained and which you can read for yourselves in the article.

 

[John P]

48 hours ago:

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.

Well demonstrated.

The main reason this topic has buzz in the trade is global supply-demand forecasts. Economically - putting beliefs/mindsets aside for a moment - the eventual shortfall in natural-diamonds raises questions about whether consumers, if/when faced with rising prices, will shift to something else. MMDs are the obvious elephant in the room.

Pages 49-62.
http://www.bain.com/Images/BAIN_REPORT_The_global_diamond_report_2013.pdf

Beliefs and mindsets are powerful, however. Natural diamonds have undeniable (irreplacable?) historic and romantic gravity.

It may definitely be interesting to re-read this discussion in 2023. By then the public will either have demonstrated a paradigm shift, resisted the shift, or explored other options altogether. Regardless, I'm sure pundits on both sides will continue to argue passionately.

 

[WinkHPD]

I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure there are legal eagles here that will enlighten me if I'm wrong, but when you say legal 'convention' is it not in fact something far stronger - constitutive of the legal definition of a diamond? I think Wink alluded to this

Of course a scientific or logical definition could ( and we agree) does differ from this. I wonder if there are any other legal complexities caused by this apparent difference of definition??

I am not a lawyer, either, but I will say that this seems to be an example where the law has not caught up to the realities of a changing market. Synthetic diamonds in the jewelry market simply didn’t have the same presence, so the normative definition sufficed. The article I’m posting now indicates that more precision is warranted in the marketplace because of the fact that actual diamonds (scientific definition) can be sourced naturally, and now to an increasing extend, synthetically .

I highly recommend Martin Rapaport's article on synthetic diamonds (Dec 2013). If I remember correctly, he also dedicated a significant portion of his talk at the jewelry convention last year (2013) to this topic.
http://www.diamonds.net/Docs/Synthetics/Sinthetics.pdf
He, too, treats synthetic diamonds as actual diamonds. Just of a different origin.

A few highlights:
The keys to maintaining the market for naturals = "Differentiation, Detection, Disclosure and Documentation".

"If we can’t detect synthetic diamonds, then the price of natural diamonds will fall to the price of synthetic [diamonds]."

"The need for full disclosure regarding the sale of synthetic diamonds is an obvious and legal requirement. Given recent reports about the illegal sale of mixed parcels of synthetic and natural diamonds without disclosure, the WFDB has taken the position that disclosing synthetics is not enough. There is a new requirement that all natural diamond sales now require an affirmative statement that the diamonds are natural. In other words, when buying diamonds, you can no longer assume they are natural. " [emphasis added]

"Synthetic diamonds are a good thing. They are good for the diamond industry because they will force our trade to be more honest. They will force us to control our supply chain and finally take responsibility for the products we buy and sell. They are good because they are a new product category that will increase industry profits...
Synthetic diamonds are also good for the natural diamond mining sector. Diamond miners will now be forced to aggressively differentiate natural diamonds from synthetics through innovative marketing, promotion and advertising campaigns. They are going to have to explain to consumers why they should pay more for natural diamonds. Instead of telling everyone else to and value, miners who want to obtain a premium price over synthetics will now be forced to add value to natural diamonds...
The idea that natural diamonds are special, unique and naturally scarce is fundamental to their value and the values they communicate. That flies in the face of the idea that diamonds are a manufactured product with unlimited supply. Consumers subconsciously empower diamonds with symbolic values that they then project onto themselves and each other. ‘You are special, unique and rare,’ communicates the diamond to the woman. The gift of commitment is the expensive diamond, because she is worth more than money." [emphasis added]

Toward the end of the document, as you can see, he begins to make a case that the story behind a natural diamond vs synthetic diamond is different. I agree with this. One decision I disagree with, however, is his equivocation of “real” and “natural,” which he leaves unexplained and which you can read for yourselves in the article.

Many in the trade have a love/hate relationship with Martin. In the beginning his life was threatened, seriously, by those whose control of pricing to their clients in the hinterlands (me for example) was threatened by the disclosure of what we could pay in New York should we desire to travel there. Living in Idaho I could easily cover the costs of my transportation and lodging to travel to NY to buy my diamonds as I could buy them for significantly less than if I called them in to Idaho.

As I was to find out later, I could rather have gone to Antwerpen and still have covered those costs, plus have a built in marketing story that would bring me more business in addition to saving me money. In fact I did so several times, long after Rap was a fixture in the market. Every time I far more than covered the costs involved in the trips, and the marketing component made them even more profitable with the increase in business and pre paid orders each time I left the States.

Now, Fedex and more transparent pricing has largely negated that advantage to easily garner extra profits from traveling, but not entirely. There is still, and I pray always will be, the personal and relationship side of this wonderful business at both the wholesale and retail levels. There are also bargains to be had in the cutting centers, sometimes from a mistaken purchase that did not come out as intended, and sometimes as in wanting something that is in a less desirable part of the market that someone is "stuck" with an over abundance of.

While Martin often speaks in a manner that irritates many, I have found that it ALWAYS makes me think, even when I am not in full agreement, and even more when I am in full fledged, ARE YOU KIDDING? mode. Like you, I read this article and both liked parts and disliked parts, but thought about what I had read. Thank you for bringing it back around to my attention again. I am greatly looking forward to what he will have to say at the JCK show in Vegas in another few weeks. I am REALLY counting on it to get my brain cells humming!

Wink

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Just catching up on this after being away for a long weekend. It seems to me some of the positions having a difficult time reconciling are the result of treating the issue as zero sum game - MMD will cause the natural diamond market to collapse vs. MMD will have no effect on the natural diamond market.

I believe that MMD will most certainly have effects-is already doing so- and those effects will transition from the theoretical/ancectodal to the practical/mainstream as the cost of MMD comes down.

The market will evolve based on a combination of factors, some of which we already understand and some that will emerge in the future. Mass marketers will undoubtably find ways to create popular products with MMD. But rather than causing the collapse of the natural market, it will serve to fill the void caused by the increasing rarity of natural diamond.

In this way MMD will actually help support the market for natural diamond by keeping beautiful diamonds in wide circulation, effectively reinforcing demand. MMD is a new product and there will continue to be a distinction between it and natural, both scientifically and psychologically. There is room for both in the market, and the existence of MMD may be quite healthy for the industry.

 

[SandyinAnaheim]

I am in the legal field and have been on and off for many years. My training compels me to understand what words mean. The legal implications of words carry great weight. The addition or ommission of simple words like "and", "or" or a simple comma, can change the entire meaning of phrases.

To further illustrate that the word diamond means natural diamond, not synthetic diamond, I invite you to take a peek at the 2013 Diamond Commission report from The World Jewellery Confederation, in pertinent part Section 3 on page 7. I hope they're legit enough to help those who cannot understand the distinction between a diamond and a synthetic diamond, which is what I have been trying to convey by analogies and similes, and apparently poorly.

 

[WinkHPD]

Thank you for sharing this document with us. It is quite thorough in its descriptions and proscriptions.

Wink

 

[diamondseeker2006]

All I can say is that any man who gives his wife a synthetic diamond and leads her to believe it is a natural diamond (because he didn't tell her the truth) would be in a LOT of trouble if she happens to find out on her own. I consider that very deceitful just as it is illegal for a jeweler to sell synthetic diamonds as real. That would be an incredible betrayal of trust.

(I can certainly see using synthetics for some jewelry. I have no problem with it because most of us don't have unlimited money. But I will always prefer natural diamonds as much as I possibly can afford. I would never feel right wearing synthetics as it they were real. I would only wear them as fashion jewelry, not staple pieces such as an engagement ring.)

 

[chrono]

DS,
I think what you are saying is that all we want is disclosure. As long as one knows the entire truth (not lie by omission), that is all that matters. Then it is up to the owner/wearer to make the decision whether that is acceptable or not. There is a place and time for every type of diamond, be it natural, synthetic, treated, etc. And I agree with your post.

 

[WinkHPD]

All I can say is that any man who gives his wife a synthetic diamond and leads her to believe it is a natural diamond (because he didn't tell her the truth) would be in a LOT of trouble if she happens to find out on her own. I consider that very deceitful just as it is illegal for a jeweler to sell synthetic diamonds as real. That would be an incredible betrayal of trust.

(I can certainly see using synthetics for some jewelry. I have no problem with it because most of us don't have unlimited money. But I will always prefer natural diamonds as much as I possibly can afford. I would never feel right wearing synthetics as it they were real. I would only wear them as fashion jewelry, not staple pieces such as an engagement ring.)

I agree that both synthetics and simulants have their proper place in the jewelry industry. One popular use of simulants is to make travel jewelry so that one need not be afraid of losing a family heirloom while traveling yet still being able to enjoy wearing a ring that looks like the original.

One of my more enjoyable memories is the frustrated husband who brought his wife in so that I could reassure her that it was okay for her to wear her four carat diamond here in town. I had given him a 14kt gold ring in the same style as his 18kt gold ring with a 4 ct sized simulant in it since they were leaving for Europe a few days after I delivered the ring.

She was so uncomfortable initially with the size that she would not take the real deal out of the bank vault even after she was wearing her travel ring on a daily basis. Once I assured her that her insurance would cover the replacement if it was ever lost she wore her real diamond and her husband got over his anxiety of having bought her a real wonderful ring that she was afraid to wear.

Wink

 

[teobdl]

To further illustrate that the word diamond means natural diamond, not synthetic diamond, I invite you to take a peek at the 2013 Diamond Commission report from The World Jewellery Confederation, in pertinent part Section 3 on page 7.

Thank you for this. In the first definition of Section 3 ("Normative clauses") they define the normative meaning of diamond to be a natural diamond. In other words, "When we say diamond, we mean natural diamond, and not a synthetic diamond." They are simply defining terms so that it's clear what they're talking about. Why do they do this? Because in many other contexts, "diamond" does not necessarily mean "natural diamond". It doesn't mean that outside of this context, a synthetic diamond isn't a diamond.

This is getting to be an exercise in logic and semantics, and I don't intend to post about it again on this thread.

So just to summarize the differences between us and to leave it at that:
We all agree: natural diamonds are not synthetic diamonds because one comes from the earth and the other comes from a lab.
Me, GeorgeStevens, etc: Natural diamonds and synthetic diamonds are subsets of a broader category called "diamonds," which is defined by chemical and physical properties that both synthetic and natural diamonds meet.
Natural diamonds = diamonds; synthetic diamonds = diamonds; natural diamonds + synthetic diamonds = diamonds; natural diamonds =/= synthetic diamonds, chiefly because their origin is different
SandyinAnaheim: The category "diamonds" includes only natural diamonds. "Synthetic diamonds" is not a subset of the category "diamonds".
Diamonds === natural diamonds. Synthetic diamonds =/= diamond because diamonds===natural diamonds