Another review of the Wired CVD synthetic article

[mike04456]

http://www.jckgroup.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA317139&webzine=jck&publication=jck&section=Gemstones+and+Pearls

 

[Mara]

Thanks for posting that LG...it's interesting to see the industry's response to the article. Not being involved at all, interesting to wonder if a mag such as WIRED is 'playign up' the synthetics through various ranges of excitement (consumer, semi-conductor etc), while the industry articles on the WIRED article may be 'down-playing' the threat. Who to believe?

Since we all know you are involved with one of the big players in the industry (though you never tell us who...eeny meeny...), what are your thoughts? Shh we won't tell.

Also...I'd be interested to hear if anyone has seen the Apollo and Gemesis stones in person, how do they differ from a natural diamond in visiblebeauty. Obviously how the diamond is cut will make a difference, but if I had a well cut natural diamond, and a well cut Apollo and Gemesis stone, all in 1c sizing, what differences (if any) would be visible to me? Is it only under microscopes and detection technology that you can tell these replicas are NOT a natural diamond? Or is there a difference in sparkle, difference in the look of the stone as there obviously is with a CZ and similar.

If there is no real detectable difference to the naked eye in sparkle, the look of the facets, fire, scint etc...then it seems the threat to the industry IS larger than this link you posted notes. I think alot of people shy away from buying something like a CZ to wear seriously, because it is obviously not a diamond to those who know what the real thing looks like (as well as they get dirtier easier and then start to really look like crap!)...But if you have something that looks 99.9999% like a real diamond even in the way it sparkles, it's brilliance, fire, scint etc..all the things people look for in a natural diamond, to me that would be harder to dispute..people WILL start to buy the new stones if they can pass them off as the real thing.

My two cents...it will be very interesting to see how this plays out in years to come. There will always be a new threat...one day maybe there will be a shift in the dynamics of the industry that will cause a small earthquake.

 

[aljdewey]

Mara, Richard Sherwood had said in the last thread on this that he knew one of the principals of Gemesis and had seen these first-hand. I don't recall any comments specific to beauty, per se....more of a note that they are discernable from real diamonds because they show unusual pinpoint/strain patterns not seen in real diamonds.


Richard, further comment as to beauty?

 

[mike04456]

WIRED is certainly milking this story for its sensational aspects. As far as the trade press goes, I don't think they would downplay a serious threat--they exist to sell magazines too, and a serious threat would sell. I think you're getting this underwhelmed reaction from the trade because, as Paul of Antwerp said last week, this is hardly the first time something like this has come along, even if Gemesis and Apollo represent a definite advance.

You need professional training, magnification, and the right equipment to positively identify a gem-quality synthetic diamond. But that's the same with any synthetic stone. Synthetic diamond is still diamond, which means it has the same hardness and optical qualities as a natural.

There IS a market for synthetic diamonds, otherwise these companies wouldn't be in business. But I think it will always be a niche market, just as synthetic rubies and sapphires--which have existed for over a century--have never posed a real threat to the natural gems. I have seen some very, very nice looking synthetic rubies, but they just aren't real competition for a fine Mogok ruby even though they may look similar. People simply want the natural stones because they appreciate the value of rarity. (And let's not get into whether diamonds are "artificially" rare because of supposed malfeasance on the part of De Beers--that's a different issue. .

) I just don't see that changing any time soon.

 

[Mara]

----------------
On 8/18/2003 1:45:50 PM aljdewey wrote:

more of a note that they are discernable from real diamonds because they show unusual pinpoint/strain patterns not seen in real diamonds.
---------------


This is what I am interested in. Strain is not something that the average viewer sees. In the next post, LG notes that certain equipment will be necessary to identify these synthetics....so what does the AVERAGE CONSUMER see? Do they see something so similar to a real diamond in ways of light sprays, fire, scint etc that consumers could not tell the difference? That is what interests me.

While yes I agree that there will be a niche market, I tend to think that if the synthetics are indistinguishable in beauty from a natural diamond, there will be a much larger market. In all of the CZ's and other types of replicas, people always say ..well but it didn't quite look like my real diamond ring, or similar. LG says that the synethic rubies just don't compete with the real thing. What if that distinguishing characteristic was gone? What if no one could tell without the sophisticated equipment?

Would things change then?

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 8/18/2003 1:55:49 PM Mara wrote:

While yes I agree that there will be a niche market, I tend to think that if the synthetics are indistinguishable in beauty from a natural diamond, there will be a much larger market. In all of the CZ's and other types of replicas, people always say ..well but it didn't quite look like my real diamond ring, or similar. LG says that the synethic rubies just don't compete with the real thing. What if that distinguishing characteristic was gone? What if no one could tell without the sophisticated equipment?

Would things change then?

----------------

In my opinion, no. As long as they are sold properly, whether you call them synthetic, lab-created, lab-grown, cultured, whatever, people will shy away from the synthetics simply because they aren't natural. Call it cultural conditioning if you want, but there it is. At some gut level, consumers appreciate that a natural gemstone is something rare and valuable, while a synthetic, though it may be attractive, just isn't the same.

FYI, what I meant with that remark about synthetic rubies is market competition, not competition in terms of appearance. I've seen plenty of beautiful synthetic rubies that only an expert could identify.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Mara, you can view the Gemesis lab created fancy color diamonds on the thread:

https://www.pricescope.com/forum/steam-room/photos-lab-created-fancy-intense-t8320.html

As far as how they look to the eye, the Gemesis stones are gorgeous. They remind me of how gorgeous the Ramaura lab created rubies are, and how you can't tell the difference of them from a natural with the naked eye either.

I'm reprinting this excerpt from the other thread:

-----------
So far, the rough they've grown usually yields 1.50 ct. and less cut stones.

The stones are grown using the HPHT process, with a nickel or iron catalyst.

They've produced mostly yellows and oranges, with very rarely another color popping up here and
there. No luck on producing whites.

Interestingly enough, they're fairly easy (relatively speaking) to identify once you know what
you're looking for. They exhibit unusual color zoning, unusual pinpoint clouds different from that
seen in naturals, unusual fluorescence and fluorescent patterns, metallic inclusions, with some
showing slight magnetic attraction to a rare earth magnet (caused by the iron).

And of course, easily picked up by Marty Haske's SAS-2000...

Although they are not making a point to cut ideal cut stones, the cutters they're using are
excellent, producing mostly fine 2A makes and in some cases Class 1 makes. An IdealScope photo
illustrating excellent symmetry of one stone follows. That's something you don't see too often if
a fancy color diamond (fine make).
-----------

The pricing that they're aiming for is "1/4th of natural pricing", although I've noticed that their fancy vivid stones sell for less than that.

A lot of their yellow stones have a characteristic slight green tint to them. You sometimes see that hue in the natural, but you see it much more often in the Gemesis stones.

I don't consider them a threat to the natural market. In fact, I think they are going to probably stimulate the natural fancy market, while creating a niche of their own. This is what has happened time and time again when a new synthetic has been introduced.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

As an interesting addendum to this thread, I was just interviewed by a business reporter with the St. Petersburg Times who is doing an article on the Gemesis lab created diamonds.

She spotted this and related threads on PriceScope while doing a search on HPHT created diamonds.

She was interested in my perceptions of how the lab created diamonds will impact the natural diamond market, and how difficult I thought it was for these stones to be differentiated.

I'll let you know the tenor of the article when it comes out this Sunday.

 

[Mara]

Very cool Rich!! Please keep us posted.

I had forgotten about your post about the fancy colored yellows...didn't realize those were Gemesis. So no colorless stones yet eh. Interesting.

 

[aljdewey]

Mara, LawGem.....interesting discussion.

Mara.....I personally don't think the bias against synthetics is whether or not they are discernable from natural stones, so I correspondingly don't think the market for synthetics would grow even if synthetics could be produced as indistinguishable from natural stones.

And LawGem....I'm not sure that it's even about the (false) rarity issue.

For me, it's a willingness to pay a premium for something that took years and years to form in the earth, and to appreciate the beauty of that result. That type of commodity isn't replenishable on an on-demand basis they way synthetics are.

There could feasibly be a market for synthetic stones, but frankly I wouldn't think it huge considering what is charged. I cannot understand what the incentive is for me to pay $500 for a lab-created emerald when I could pay $900 and get the real thing. There's just no appeal to me on that.

----------------
On 8/18/2003 2

6:54 PM LawGem wrote:

----------------
On 8/18/2003 1:55:49 PM Mara wrote:

While yes I agree that there will be a niche market, I tend to think that if the synthetics are indistinguishable in beauty from a natural diamond, there will be a much larger market. In all of the CZ's and other types of replicas, people always say ..well but it didn't quite look like my real diamond ring, or similar. LG says that the synethic rubies just don't compete with the real thing. What if that distinguishing characteristic was gone? What if no one could tell without the sophisticated equipment?

Would things change then?

----------------

In my opinion, no. As long as they are sold properly, whether you call them synthetic, lab-created, lab-grown, cultured, whatever, people will shy away from the synthetics simply because they aren't natural. Call it cultural conditioning if you want, but there it is. At some gut level, consumers appreciate that a natural gemstone is something rare and valuable, while a synthetic, though it may be attractive, just isn't the same.

FYI, what I meant with that remark about synthetic rubies is market competition, not competition in terms of appearance. I've seen plenty of beautiful synthetic rubies that only an expert could identify.
----------------

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 8/20/2003 4:33

4 PM aljdewey wrote:
And LawGem....I'm not sure that it's even about the (false) rarity issue.

For me, it's a willingness to pay a premium for something that took years and years to form in the earth, and to appreciate the beauty of that result. That type of commodity isn't replenishable on an on-demand basis they way synthetics are.

----------------

I think that's just another way of saying "rare," but I'll agree with you.

 

[Mara]

AL-- I highly agree on the 'paying $600 for false instead of $900 for real' idea...I would definitely also go the real route. That is why I was wondering what sort of price levels these stones would come in at. I went back and read Rich's thread and found that the yellow fancies are selling for amounts that could somewhat rival a real natural stone (depending on details).

If we are talking $500 for a 2c round brilliant stone, that is something that I bet masses of people would be interested in IF they could not afford the real thing and IF the difference between that stone and a real one is indistinguishable. I know alot of people who would wear fakes if they could get away with it and pass it off for the real thing...and never tell anyone that it's a fake! Set it into platinum in a beautiful setting and people think you are rich. It's all about 'perception'.

But if that same 2c stone from an Apollo or Gemesis is $10k and the natural thing is $15k...I would spend the $15k to get the real thing. If you are going to invest any decent amount of money into something, I would go the route that I would be happiest with in the long run.

It's along the same lines of the potentially-fake LV bags that are all over eBay. You can take your chances with it being a fake and that someone on the street will know it's a fake and pay the $350 for the potentially-fake-but-such-a-great-deal bag....or you can save your pennies a little longer and get the real thing for $650 from the boutique and know you didn't sell out. But if that fake but looks-so-real bag was $20 and it was indistinguishable from the real thing? I would really be tempted.

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 8/20/2003 4:46:49 PM Mara wrote:

But if that fake but looks-so-real bag was $20 and it was indistinguishable from the real thing? I would really be tempted.

----------------

But would you be tempted to buy that bag to give to a loved one as a real LV bag and tell no one about the subterfuge? Because most of the diamond business--especially the core bridal market--depends on gift buying. I don't think too many potential fiances would be tempted to give their sweeties $5/ct Apollo diamonds while telling them the stones are real.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

-----------
so I correspondingly don't think the market for
synthetics would grow even if synthetics could be
produced as indistinguishable from natural stones.
-----------

If synthetics could be produced as indistinguishable from natural stones, you can bet they would come in the market through the back door and be marketed as natural stones.

 

[Mara]

----------------
On 8/20/2003 4:55

5 PM LawGem wrote:

I don't think too many potential fiances would be tempted to give their sweeties $5/ct Apollo diamonds while telling them the stones are real.

----------------

Of course not!!

But would I mind being gifted with a synethic? Not at all....I am not one of those foolish De Beers clients who equate diamonds with love. Diamonds are diamonds and love is love. The twain shall never meet.

If my fiance couldn't afford anything but a .40c stone and I wanted a 2c stone, then I would be more than happy to get the $500 2c stone synthetic and pass it off as the real thing. Of course I would not want him to lie to me about it...but if I couldn't have the real thing...an indistinguishable fake would be very cool.

This is why I think that these diamonds would be very popular should they eventually become colorless or very close to it. Even then...if the price was right I would definitely pick up a yellow diamond like the ones that Rich posted. But not for $6k for a 1c stone. I'd get a natural round brilliant, well cut..for that same $$.

The fake LV bag market and fakes in general are very hot...look at all the stuff on eBay. I see LV bags all the time and wonder how many of them are even real. Is it so odd to think that one day the diamonds we all have will be in question as well?

Natural does hold a spell over us...of course...it's the 'real' perceived rare thing. But for the masses who cannot afford anything but a small stone and/or a larger maul cut stone for $1999....then I think the synethics that LOOK real down to the details will find a pretty large market.

 

[mike04456]

Mara, what you're saying makes a lot of sense, but I'm still inclined to compare these synthetic diamonds to synthetic rubies and sapphires, which were first developed in the 1880s yet have never been more than a niche market. This is true even though cheap flame fusion synthetics cost pennies per carat to produce, and even fine flux-grown synthetics are far cheaper than comparable natural stones.

I do, as I said, believe there is a market for Apollo and Gemesis. But I think it's a market they will carve out on their own rather than threatening the natural diamond market. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Mara]

----------------
On 8/20/2003 5:25:17 PM LawGem wrote:

Mara, what you're saying makes a lot of sense, but I'm still inclined to compare these synthetic diamonds to synthetic rubies and sapphires, which were first developed in the 1880s yet have never been more than a niche market.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

----------------

Quite possibly true LG...you definitely know more than I do...

However....you talk about rubies and sapphires which to me represent a niche market in their natural OR synthetic form. I think that a colorless synthetic that is visually indistinguishable from a natural diamond would carry a different weight and reach out more towards the market masses.

To me that is a horse of a different color. Only time will tell!!