GIA Dunks on Lab Diamonds

[Dreamer_D]

What a wonderful expose or point of view Dreamer.
There are two distinctly different issues when comparing synthetic diamonds to natural diamonds.
Firstly: they are both actually diamonds. Consider that in may respects Moissanite is superior to diamond but went nowhere.
Secondly: lab marketing has cut through that they are more eco friendly than natural diamond. If that's all true is of course debatable, but is a fact in many younger buyers minds.

Since the environmental benefit is largely a marketing fantasy being pushed, I’d wager, by bots on Reddit in part, I’m not sure it will hold up. People are becoming more aware of the environmental impact of various types of tech “farms”. If on the one hand you have a marketing ploy and on the other you have the reality of wearing a synthetic diamond that mimics a status symbol, I think it will create a form of dissonance that people won’t like. Adapting to that will change how people relate to lab diamonds culturally and symbolically, I’d wager.

I’m not sure the people buying synthetic diamonds in droves right now will turn back to natural diamonds even in the face of that dissonance though.

I think it’s quite possible that the natural diamonds ship may have sailed for that huge segment of the market that used to shop at sales for frozen spit. And as a consumer I say good riddance to that market. It was always predatory.

A fake Rolex is not a Rolex. Diamonds, whether earth-extracted or created in a laboratory, are diamonds. There is no such thing as a “fake” diamond. Regardless of the source, a diamond is a diamond.

The component substances and materials are identical, just like natural and lab diamonds. The difference is branding and provenance, just like lab vs natural.

The “diamond is a diamond” line is also a nice rhetoric. Humans have long distinguished from natural and synthetic materials. The urge to conflate them with diamonds is marketing aimed at overcoming the issue of status symbolism.

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

Since the environmental benefit is largely a marketing fantasy being pushed, I’d wager, by bots on Reddit in part, I’m not sure it will hold up. People are becoming more aware of the environmental impact of various types of tech “farms”. If on the one hand you have a marketing ploy and on the other you have the reality of wearing a synthetic diamond that mimics a status symbol, I think it will create a form of dissonance that people won’t like. Adapting to that will change how people relate to lab diamonds culturally and symbolically, I’d wager.

I’m not sure the people buying synthetic diamonds in droves right now will turn back to natural diamonds even in the face of that dissonance though.

I think it’s quite possible that the natural diamonds ship may have sailed for that huge segment of the market that used to shop at sales for frozen spit. And as a consumer I say good riddance to that market. It was always predatory.


The component substances and materials are identical, just like natural and lab diamonds. The difference is branding and provenance, just like lab vs natural.

The “diamond is a diamond” line is also a nice rhetoric. Humans have long distinguished from natural and synthetic materials. The urge to conflate them with diamonds is marketing aimed at overcoming the issue of status symbolism.

Then the Rolex you proposed would, in fact, be a Rolex. Although I’m not sure a comparison between a brand name, which is what Rolex is, can be made to a diamond, which is not a brand name, but just a description of a gemstone.

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

Since the environmental benefit is largely a marketing fantasy being pushed, I’d wager, by bots on Reddit in part, I’m not sure it will hold up. People are becoming more aware of the environmental impact of various types of tech “farms”. If on the one hand you have a marketing ploy and on the other you have the reality of wearing a synthetic diamond that mimics a status symbol, I think it will create a form of dissonance that people won’t like. Adapting to that will change how people relate to lab diamonds culturally and symbolically, I’d wager.

I’m not sure the people buying synthetic diamonds in droves right now will turn back to natural diamonds even in the face of that dissonance though.

I think it’s quite possible that the natural diamonds ship may have sailed for that huge segment of the market that used to shop at sales for frozen spit. And as a consumer I say good riddance to that market. It was always predatory.


The component substances and materials are identical, just like natural and lab diamonds. The difference is branding and provenance, just like lab vs natural.

The “diamond is a diamond” line is also a nice rhetoric. Humans have long distinguished from natural and synthetic materials. The urge to conflate them with diamonds is marketing aimed at overcoming the issue of status symbolism.

But it’s my understanding that, regardless of the source, a diamond is a diamond. There are diamonds mined from the Earth, and there are diamonds grown in a lab. So I guess that means there are natural diamonds, and there are synthetic diamonds. But they’re both diamonds as far as I understand.

 

[Matata]

I can see that being the case for someone who already HAD a mined 4-carat E IF, but if someone were in the market for one today, is the thought that the “prestige and allure” of a mined diamond is so important to some folks that they would, in fact, shell out $XX,XXX,XXX for a diamond, instead of $39.95 for a diamond? I’m not asking this rhetorically. I’m genuinely interested in folks’ opinions. And then, again not asking rhetorically, this fourth woman would have a sense of satisfaction in knowing that her diamond cost an astronomical sum of money, correct? There’s satisfaction in that? Or is the satisfaction solely in the fact that the diamond was extracted from the Earth, and the astronomical cost is, no pun intended, the price she would pay to have a diamond that’s millions/billions of years old?

The answer to your questions is yes and no because people vary due to cultural, symbolic, emotional, and psychological influences attached to the meaning and purpose of jewelry.

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

The answer to your questions is yes and no because people vary due to cultural, symbolic, emotional, and psychological influences attached to the meaning and purpose of jewelry.

I wonder why people don’t feel that same way about ice. Seems to me there would be some cachet in having said one trekked to the coldest part of the Earth to procure billion-year-old ice for one’s next cocktail party, as opposed to using synthetic (less costly) ice from the fridge. But I digress. Getting off-topic so apologies to all.

 

[Matata]

I wonder why people don’t feel that same way about ice. Seems to me there would be some cachet in having said one trekked to the coldest part of the Earth to procure billion-year-old ice for one’s next cocktail party, as opposed to using synthetic ice from the fridge.

Ice melts but diamonds are forever.

From post #60:

I recently purchased a lab-grown diamond, and I was extremely concerned about the four Cs, as well as the 5th C: cost. That’s how, with the invaluable help of DejaWiz, I ended up with my stunning (and reasonably-priced) 2-carat LGD.

Why did you buy a 2-carat LGD when you could have purchased any smaller size LGD of the same quality?
Why was a reasonably priced diamond important to you and what criteria do you use to determine a reasonable price?

 

[Dreamer_D]

Then the Rolex you proposed would, in fact, be a Rolex.

And yet... it is most definitively not. Which is my point. Social construction of categories of objects based on symbolic meanings (eg branding, who made it) is a thing!

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

And yet... it is most definitively not. Which is my point. Social construction of categories of objects based on symbolic meanings (eg branding, who made it) is a thing!

Yes, of course. But a real Rolex cannot be compared to a fake Rolex if that’s being used as a comparison to earth-mined diamonds versus lab grown diamonds.

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

Ice melts but diamonds are forever.

From post #60:


Why did you buy a 2-carat LGD when you could have purchased any smaller size LGD of the same quality?
Why was a reasonably priced diamond important to you and what criteria do you use to determine a reasonable price?

Because a 2-carat diamond is always the size that I wanted. As far as how I determined a reasonable price, I just started looking around at 2-carat lab-grown diamonds (because I knew that I was never going to spend the at
least $30,000 a mined 2-carat diamond would’ve cost, based on the specs that I wanted). What I ended up spending was a bit more than what I had seen other 2-carat lab grown diamonds go for, but still a very reasonable price, considering that the diamond I purchased is really spectacular, as opposed to a 2-carat, not-terribly-spectacular LGD. As far as diamonds being forever, that is true, but not necessarily forever in the owner’s possession, as I can attest to, since my original diamond from 25 years ago fell out of its setting on my 1-year anniversary, never to be found again, not by me anyway.

 

[Matata]

If on the one hand you have a marketing ploy and on the other you have the reality of wearing a synthetic diamond that mimics a status symbol, I think it will create a form of dissonance that people won’t like. Adapting to that will change how people relate to lab diamonds culturally and symbolically, I’d wager.

It's already happened don't you think? PS is a microcosm reflecting commercial trends. When LGDs started to gain widespread attention I remember dissonance here between those who were attracted to the idea and those who would never consider an LGD; same happened when Moissanite became trendy. We even had a situation for awhile where people were posting Moissanite rings as diamonds and were outed because some members here frequented the same Moissanite forums and websites. At some point during that posters successfully lobbied for sub forums where Moissanite and other synthetics could be discussed.

My reaction to the grading change is that it cements the ubiquity of LGDs and removes the rarity aspect that contributes to the attractiveness of MDs. Some LGD owners may be a tad upset if they couldn't get a piece of paper affirming their LGD was special enough to meet the same stringent criteria as mainstream diamond grading.

Rarity and specialness are more important to some than others. We've had wars and goodbye-cruel-PS over settings that are similar with accusations that posters stole the idea of someone who spent a lot of time designing a setting, the irony being that the disputed setting wasn't unique or at least whatever the original designer thought of as unique was not obvious to the naked eye. Dissonance here, dissonance there, everywhere a dissonance...e i e i ohhhhhhhh.

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

It's already happened don't you think? PS is a microcosm reflecting commercial trends. When LGDs started to gain widespread attention I remember dissonance here between those who were attracted to the idea and those who would never consider an LGD; same happened when Moissanite became trendy. We even had a situation for awhile where people were posting Moissanite rings as diamonds and were outed because some members here frequented the same Moissanite forums and websites. At some point during that posters successfully lobbied for sub forums where Moissanite and other synthetics could be discussed.

My reaction to the grading change is that it cements the ubiquity of LGDs and removes the rarity aspect that contributes to the attractiveness of MDs. Some LGD owners may be a tad upset if they couldn't get a piece of paper affirming their LGD was special enough to meet the same stringent criteria as mainstream diamond grading.

Rarity and specialness are more important to some than others. We've had wars and goodbye-cruel-PS over settings that are similar with accusations that posters stole the idea of someone who spent a lot of time designing a setting, the irony being that the disputed setting wasn't unique or at least whatever the original designer thought of as unique was not obvious to the naked eye. Dissonance here, dissonance there, everywhere a dissonance...e i e i ohhhhhhhh.

If I may, I would suspect the people who have spent many thousands of dollars on a stunning mined diamond could not be pleased that, for all intents and purposes, anybody could procure the same diamond now. That must be very upsetting. Although as I stated earlier, I would never spend $30,000+ on a diamond, there were times that I thought, why not just go for it and spend the money? I can afford it, so why not? Had I pulled the trigger on that, I would be kicking myself black and blue today.

 

[lulu_ma]

IIRC, you are more a diamond person, yes? So you are used to seeing the center stone price much higher than the setting. Over in the CS forum, that's frequently not the case - though it's been a debate over the years of how much people are willing to spend on a setting for an inexpensive stone. For many people, the answer is "a lot" to get the overall look they want. So that doesn't bother me at all as someone who has definitely done that before! I mean, heck, my engagement ring setting was about 3x the cost of my center sapphire, so I started out my fine jewelry adventure that way.

Thanks for your perspective. I didn't realize that there was such a disparity between some colored gem prices and setting costs.

And, yes, I am more of a diamond person. But I won't say no to colored gems either!

 

[MamaBear]

If I may, I would suspect the people who have spent many thousands of dollars on a stunning mined diamond could not be pleased that, for all intents and purposes, anybody could procure the same diamond now. That must be very upsetting. Although as I stated earlier, I would never spend $30,000+ on a diamond, there were times that I thought, why not just go for it and spend the money? I can afford it, so why not? Had I pulled the trigger on that, I would be kicking myself black and blue today.

No, I’m not bothered that I spent what I did on my mined diamond. It’s not upsetting to me. I prefer mined diamonds.

 

[Matata]

If I may, I would suspect the people who have spent many thousands of dollars on a stunning mined diamond could not be pleased that, for all intents and purposes, anybody could procure the same diamond now.

From post #1. It's unlikely that anyone could get the exact same MD and more likely that any two people could get the exact same LGD.

With most of the current production being in the elite color and clarity ranges, and with prices in freefall, there are far fewer dollars riding on the specific grade today.

More to the point, in natural diamonds the upper grades, especially clarity, are essentially rarity grades (FL, IF, VVS1, VVS2 are microscopically clean). The more rare the stone, the more valuable it can be. The same calculus does not hold true for a manufactured product that can be dialed up and cranked out in virtually unlimited quantities.

You seem to be defending purchases of LGDs rather than discussing perhaps less interesting to you aspects initially introduced by Dreamer_D ("my interest in this whole phenomenon is social psychological, not economic, so for me I am very interested in how the symbolic and cultural meaning of diamonds shifts over time.") I share those interests and that's why I'm discussing them. If you have any thoughts to share about that, please do.

 

[Matata]

Because a 2-carat diamond is always the size that I wanted.

Why did you always want that size? The lack of specificity in your response is getting to the meat of the points Dreamer_D and I are addressing although she is much more intelligent than I and far better at expressing the points.

Something influenced you, consciously or subconsciously, to prefer that particular size -- perhaps it's a common size among friends, family, coworkers; perhaps that size gave you your preferred finger coverage and why is coverage important to you; perhaps the size is uncommon in your area and that's why you preferr it, etc. These are the non-economic aspects that I find interesting.

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

No, I’m not bothered that I spent what I did on my mined diamond. It’s not upsetting to me. I prefer mined diamonds.

Did you purchase your mined diamond fairly recently, when lab-grown diamonds became popular? Or did you purchase your mined diamond long before LGDs presented as an alternative? My original 1-carat diamond was gifted to me as an engagement ring by my now-husband 25 years ago. I lost it on my 1-year anniversary, and replaced it with a lovely 1.5-carat diamond. Although I wanted a 2 carat diamond, I was just not going to spend that kind of money. I could’ve gotten a 2 carat diamond for what I paid for my 1.5 carat diamond, but that 2 carat diamond would not have been as lovely as my 1.5 carat diamond was.

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

Why did you always want that size? The lack of specificity in your response is getting to the meat of the points Dreamer_D and I are addressing although she is much more intelligent than I and far better at expressing the points.

Something influenced you, consciously or subconsciously, to prefer that particular size -- perhaps it's a common size among friends, family, coworkers; perhaps that size gave you your preferred finger coverage and why is coverage important to you; perhaps the size is uncommon in your area and that's why you preferr it, etc. These are the non-economic aspects that I find interesting.

I just thought that a 2-carat was a nice-sized diamond, without being too large of a stone. I don’t know if it’s a common size or not in my area. But what I can tell you is that if, in my area, women routinely wear 3+ carat-sized diamonds, I still would want a 2-carat diamond. For an engagement ring, anyway. However, I will tell you that I would love to have a collection of diamond rings. I hope some day to own a big fat emerald cut diamond. And maybe a pink one, and a yellow one too. But those would not be my everyday rings. In my opinion, a 1- to 2-carat diamond engagement ring looks classic and elegant. And for me personally, I like the look of 2 carats.

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

Since the environmental benefit is largely a marketing fantasy being pushed, I’d wager, by bots on Reddit in part, I’m not sure it will hold up. People are becoming more aware of the environmental impact of various types of tech “farms”. If on the one hand you have a marketing ploy and on the other you have the reality of wearing a synthetic diamond that mimics a status symbol, I think it will create a form of dissonance that people won’t like. Adapting to that will change how people relate to lab diamonds culturally and symbolically, I’d wager.

I’m not sure the people buying synthetic diamonds in droves right now will turn back to natural diamonds even in the face of that dissonance though.

I think it’s quite possible that the natural diamonds ship may have sailed for that huge segment of the market that used to shop at sales for frozen spit. And as a consumer I say good riddance to that market. It was always predatory.


The component substances and materials are identical, just like natural and lab diamonds. The difference is branding and provenance, just like lab vs natural.

The “diamond is a diamond” line is also a nice rhetoric. Humans have long distinguished from natural and synthetic materials. The urge to conflate them with diamonds is marketing aimed at overcoming the issue of status symbolism.

I am probably the least-educated person in this discussion when it comes to diamonds, but what do you mean by “ natural and synthetic materials”? Aren’t diamonds crystallized carbon? Is the carbon in a mined diamond “natural”, and the carbon in a lab-grown diamond “synthetic”?

 

[MamaBear]

Did you purchase your mined diamond fairly recently, when lab-grown diamonds became popular? Or did you purchase your mined diamond long before LGDs presented as an alternative? My original 1-carat diamond was gifted to me as an engagement ring by my now-husband 25 years ago. I lost it on my 1-year anniversary, and replaced it with a lovely 1.5-carat diamond. Although I wanted a 2 carat diamond, I was just not going to spend that kind of money. I could’ve gotten a 2 carat diamond for what I paid for my 1.5 carat diamond, but that 2 carat diamond would not have been as lovely as my 1.5 carat diamond was.

I purchased my diamond in 2022. You can check my threads for the details. It was a deliberate decision to purchase a mined diamond. Im very happy with the choice I made. Im sorry you lost your original diamond, I imagine that would have been heartbreaking.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Regardless of the source, a diamond is a diamond.

Almost tre. By definition in history all gems formed in nature go by their gem name. Any treated natural must have treated added ( there are a few exceptions).
Any man made stone must have synthetic added. The only exception is political and that is laboratory grown diamond.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

BTW my first shipment of 100 lab Diamond test kits for under $50 just arrived.
Awaiting the second part of the Kit. Hope to have them on sale in about a month.

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

I purchased my diamond in 2022. You can check my threads for the details. It was a deliberate decision to purchase a mined diamond. Im very happy with the choice I made. Im sorry you lost your original diamond, I imagine that would have been heartbreaking.

Well, it really did happen at the worst possible time. I was out of town celebrating my one-year anniversary, and my husband looked down at my finger and noticed that my stone was missing. Of all the times for it to happen. But I replaced it with a lovely 1.5 carat diamond that I wore for 20+ years, and then recently got my 2 carat beauty that I absolutely adore.

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

Almost tre. By definition in history all gems formed in nature go by their gem name. Any treated natural must have treated added ( there are a few exceptions).
Any man made stone must have synthetic added. The only exception is political and that is laboratory grown diamond.

But they’re all still diamonds, correct?

 

[JPie]

If I may, I would suspect the people who have spent many thousands of dollars on a stunning mined diamond could not be pleased that, for all intents and purposes, anybody could procure the same diamond now. That must be very upsetting. Although as I stated earlier, I would never spend $30,000+ on a diamond, there were times that I thought, why not just go for it and spend the money? I can afford it, so why not? Had I pulled the trigger on that, I would be kicking myself black and blue today.

I don’t know that people are as petty as you assume they are. As an antique diamond lover, I’m excited to see the cuts become more accessible to a wider audience and I don’t mind that someone could replicate my antique toi et moi thanks to labs.

I want prices to go down to CZ levels so I can get a 5-carat antique emerald cut that I can’t afford in a genuine antique version.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

But they’re all still diamonds, correct?

Yes, and easily identified when there are at least a few in a piece of jewelry.
CZ glass and moissanite are called imitations, not synthetic.
Synthetic must have the same chemical and crystalline structure.Synthetic ruby and sapphire are about 150 years old, emeralds about 70 years old now.

 

[Heathcat24]

BTW my first shipment of 100 lab Diamond test kits for under $50 just arrived.
Awaiting the second part of the Kit. Hope to have them on sale in about a month.

This is such exciting news! Can you elaborate on these?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This is such exciting news! Can you elaborate on these?

Not yet, just tickling your fancy - but I have been working on something for sometime with my materials scientist friend who has long had a gem interest.
We will have a store device once we get all the components tested, but this idea is accurate enough to carry in a handbag.

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

Yes, and easily identified when there are at least a few in a piece of jewelry.
CZ glass and moissanite are called imitations, not synthetic.
Synthetic must have the same chemical and crystalline structure.Synthetic ruby and sapphire are about 150 years old, emeralds about 70 years old now.

Do you know I never thought of cubic zirconia and moissanite as imitation diamonds? I just thought of them as cubic zirconia and moissanite. It just never occurred to me to consider them as imitation diamonds. So then the water in my glass is being chilled by synthetic ice. Perhaps that’s how I should start referring to it now. The ice from Antarctica is natural and the ice from my freezer is synthetic. I’m not being facetious.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Do you know I never thought of cubic zirconia and moissanite as imitation diamonds? I just thought of them as cubic zirconia and moissanite. It just never occurred to me to consider them as imitation diamonds. So then the water in my glass is being chilled by synthetic ice. Perhaps that’s how I should start referring to it now. The ice from Antarctica is natural and the ice from my freezer is synthetic. I’m not being facetious.

Stay away from the natural Antarctic variety please Chelsea. It is likely to have some penguin pee in it!

 

[Heathcat24]

Not yet, just tickling your fancy - but I have been working on something for sometime with my materials scientist friend who has long had a gem interest.
We will have a store device once we get all the components tested, but this idea is accurate enough to carry in a handbag.

Well, consider me tickled! Please put me down as a tester tester!