GIA Dunks on Lab Diamonds

[Sunrises Sunsets]

Beauty AND price (switching your caps). Re: the aforementioned L, if you found me a larger whiter better performing Asscher at 5% of the price I paid, I would not replace mine. (Might take you 20 min. - it's an Asscher and not a branded one.) This is the mind-set of many of the posters here. We are illogical, we love our unique diamonds because the earth made them, and it's no use trying to convince us to move to labs or replace them with labs. And yet some of us own both!
Why argue with crazy people?

I haven't felt any pressure here to sell my earth diamonds and replace them with lab diamonds. I have noticed the insinuations that my diamonds are more desirable because I paid more and were mined from the earth. That annoys me, I'm not into diamonds because I need status or superiority. I, like you, enjoy diamonds for what they are, pretty. I hope everyone enjoys their diamonds, however created, for the same reason.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I wonder whether the earth (you mean natural, or just diamond, because that means diamond) diamond resale market will flourish since rarity seems to be here and many would love to recover more of their initial investment in earth diamonds than they can now. A crystal ball can't tell us and that turn of events would probably occur when I'm long gone.

Diamonds and jewelry are a consumer commodity. They retain some value.
The value goes up and down.
It went down a lot with the introduction of online sales at much lower than sustainable retail margins.
LGD's and the property crash and preference for gold in China reduced demand.
That = lower prices and mines going bust.
That leads to higher prices.
Normal Supply and Demand cycles.

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

Beauty AND price (switching your caps). Re: the aforementioned L, if you found me a larger whiter better performing Asscher at 5% of the price I paid, I would not replace mine. (Might take you 20 min. - it's an Asscher and not a branded one.) This is the mind-set of many of the posters here. We are illogical, we love our unique diamonds because the earth made them, and it's no use trying to convince us to move to labs or replace them with labs. And yet some of us own both!
Why argue with crazy people?

Hi Possums, I had capitalized BEAUTY and PRICE because those were the only two factors I considered when I purchased my lab diamond. Now, why in the world would anyone try to convince you to move to labs? That I cannot understand. Funny you mentioned Asscher because I’ve always wanted one of those too. I hope to get one someday. They certainly are lovely.

 

[Sunrises Sunsets]

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Sunrises Sunsets said:
I wonder whether the earth (you mean natural, or just diamond, because that means diamond) diamond resale market will flourish since rarity seems to be here and many would love to recover more of their initial investment in earth diamonds than they can now. A crystal ball can't tell us and that...

I agree with your highlighted addition to my post, we need to stop the qualifiers when talking about all diamonds. A diamond is a diamond is a diamond!

 

[freddyboston]

I wonder if they would have gone to such effort for a lost 1.25ct Synthiamond ??

 

[Sunrises Sunsets]

I wonder if they would have gone to such effort for a lost 1.25ct Synthiamond ??

I believe they would have searched even harder, lol. Like it makes any difference if you are missing the diamond in your ring?

I'm happy you shared the article though, it reflects the decency and humanity in most people that isn't often publicized as are the crimes and cruelties in our society. Kudos!!

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

I believe they would have searched even harder, lol. Like it makes any difference if you are missing the diamond in your ring?

I'm happy you shared the article though, it reflects the decency and humanity in most people that isn't often publicized as are the crimes and cruelties in our society. Kudos!!

Right. Assuming a synthimond is an LGD, I think that would have been irrelevant. Her husband could’ve engaged her with a rhinestone and that doesn’t mean the ring would’ve had any less sentimental value to her.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Yes. BEAUTY and PRICE.

If beauty and price were the only considerations for gem buyers there would not still be a robust market for natural sapphires after over a century since they were first synthesized in large, clean, vivid color.

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

If beauty and price were the only considerations for gem buyers there would not still be a robust market for natural sapphires after over a century since they were first synthesized in large, clean, vivid color.

Forgive the lack of clarity. I meant in my specific case those were the only two factors I considered when purchasing my lab diamond.

 

[newtojewels]

I think one aspect that we haven't touched on much here is that people do just value things they paid more for. In some cases it may just be a variation of the sunk cost fallacy, but the effect is there. Other things that may apply depending on the situation are effort justification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effort_justification), where we value things more if we put more effort (including money) into obtaining them; the endowment effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect), where someone owning an item adds to their value of it; and Veblen goods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good), where demand increases as price increases. And of course we value things more that are irreplaceable, regardless of their price. For some people, natural diamonds are all irreplaceable because of how they formed, others don't feel that way as long as it looks visually identical. Some people would find the diamond they were proposed to with irreplaceable no matter its characteristics, others are serial upgraders who are happy to trade them in. Add in choice-supportive bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias), where we end up valuing our own choice more after making it and devaluing the one we didn't select, and I think we end up with a big part of this 'fight' even among people who don't plan to buy or sell jewelry and thus have no financial implications for pricing trends.

To be clear, I don't think any of these effects/fallacies are wrong, they're just human. And also note that I am not an economist or psychologist, I'm a statistician. So I care a lot about bias but generally a different kind

 

[freddyboston]

If beauty and price were the only considerations for gem buyers there would not still be a robust market for natural sapphires after over a century since they were first synthesized in large, clean, vivid color.

indeed ! - people ding them (natural sapphires) if they are heat treated....

 

[DejaWiz]

indeed ! - people ding them (natural sapphires) if they are heat treated....

We all also need to keep in mind that we tend to heavily ding and disparage naturally formed diamonds that have been treated, heated, drilled, or filled for purposes of increasing color and/or clarity for the sole purpose of fleecing a buyer for more money.

If I recall correctly: GIA won't even grade NFDs that have had certain treatments.

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

We all also need to keep in mind that we tend to heavily ding and disparage naturally formed diamonds that have been treated, heated, drilled, or filled for purposes of increasing color and/or clarity for the sole purpose of fleecing a buyer for more money.

If I recall correctly: GIA won't even grade NFDs that have had certain treatments.

My first diamond in my engagement ring was, I think, clarity-enhanced. Is that one of the treatments you’re talking about? Because I thought the point of it was to improve the look of the diamond, which would, of course, allow the seller to charge more money. It fell out of the prongs while I was away on my one year anniversary. I often wondered if the treatment damaged its integrity. And it most definitely did not come with the GIA grading report.

 

[newtojewels]

My first diamond in my engagement ring was, I think, clarity-enhanced. Is that one of the treatments you’re talking about? Because I thought the point of it was to improve the look of the diamond, which would, of course, allow the seller to charge more money. It fell out of the prongs while I was away on my one year anniversary. I often wondered if the treatment damaged its integrity. And it most definitely did not come with the GIA grading report.

That would be one of the treatments, yes. These treatments make a basically unsalable diamond salable by, for example, removing a black inclusion so you don't immediately see a big glaring flaw. With that flaw, no one would want to buy it. By making it less obvious with the clarity enhancement, someone may be happy to buy something sparkly at a lower price. But because the diamond was lower quality to start with, it should be priced lower than a diamond that had naturally good clarity if it's an ethical seller. However some dishonest people don't disclose these treatments and don't price them fairly and it's one of the issues with shopping in the Diamond District if you aren't knowledgeable. Some treatments are more permanent than others.

Here's a video about it from Distinctive Gem:

 

[Texas Leaguer]

We all also need to keep in mind that we tend to heavily ding and disparage naturally formed diamonds that have been treated, heated, drilled, or filled for purposes of increasing color and/or clarity for the sole purpose of fleecing a buyer for more money.

If I recall correctly: GIA won't even grade NFDs that have had certain treatments.

This is a good point and further evidence that the closer a gem is to its natural state, the more the market values it.

And this is true across the gem world. A certified natural, untreated cornflower blue sapphire will trade for more than a natural sapphire of comparable size and quality that was subjected to heat treatment, even though the treatment is permanent and may require fairly sophisticated testing to detect.

This phenomenon is not unique to the diamond market, and thus is not the result of some DeBeers market manipulation.

 

[DejaWiz]

This is a good point and further evidence that the closer a gem is to its natural state, the more the market values it.

And this is true across the gem world. A certified natural, untreated cornflower blue sapphire will trade for more than a natural sapphire of comparable size and quality that was subjected to heat treatment, even though the treatment is permanent and may require fairly sophisticated testing to detect.

This phenomenon is not unique to the diamond market, and thus is not the result of some DeBeers market manipulation.

Wholeheartedly agree, Bryan!
However, did I come off as implying it was some weird DeBeers conspiracy theory about market manipulation?

 

[Dreamer_D]

Does anyone know the history of how people responded when synthetic sapphire was invented? I seem to recall there was a brief period when synthetic sapphire was more popular than natural… maybe because it was so expensive and likely marketed as “ingenuity!” Of course, that changed.

 

[newtojewels]

Does anyone know the history of how people responded when synthetic sapphire was invented? I seem to recall there was a brief period when synthetic sapphire was more popular than natural… maybe because it was so expensive and likely marketed as “ingenuity!” Of course, that changed.

Certainly Art Deco jewelry that has survived suggests that is was used quite a bit even by high-end jewelers, though I haven't really seen many pieces with large synthetic sapphire center stones, just side stones/melee. I have often wondered if they weren't made in the bigger sizes or if people preferred natural for center stones or if those pieces weren't considered to be worth keeping intact or if they are just not worth selling in the current market or....

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

Certainly Art Deco jewelry that has survived suggests that is was used quite a bit even by high-end jewelers, though I haven't really seen many pieces with large synthetic sapphire center stones, just side stones/melee. I have often wondered if they weren't made in the bigger sizes or if people preferred natural for center stones or if those pieces weren't considered to be worth keeping intact or if they are just not worth selling in the current market or....

Are synthetic sapphires made the same way as a synthetic diamond is made? Is there a “sapphire seed” that’s grown in a lab? Or is it nothing to do with a natural sapphire?

 

[newtojewels]

Are synthetic sapphires made the same way as a synthetic diamond is made? Is there a “sapphire seed” that’s grown in a lab? Or is it nothing to do with a natural sapphire?

Lab sapphires are much much easier to make than lab diamonds and there are a few different ways to make them, none of which are much like HPHT or CVD for lab diamonds from my understanding. But like lab diamonds, lab sapphires are chemically identical to natural sapphires with different inclusion types and crystal growth, so they can also be identified with the right equipment.

 

[oncrutchesrightnow]

This is fun. Please keep it going.

i think its rather magical........ it's cool to have sometime 1 billion yrs old....

Don’t forget the triple alpha process!

But how else would owners of a 3-carat extremely high-quality earth-extracted diamond differentiate their gemstone from a 3-carat extremely high-quality lab-grown diamond EXCEPT to imply the LGD owner is an imposter? Not asking rhetorically.

Internal contentment and pride of ownership!

Discussion is good and now more than ever, we need kindness in this world.

Amen!

the problem for the Natural's is they have been sitting on their hands for a couple years and allowed the Lab producers to move into and takeover the Bridal space...

The natural diamond industry’s response to LGD is widely perceived to be a failure, but is it really? How do we tell if a different strategy would have prevented natural diamonds price drops? Maybe the marketing strategy the industry used was actually the best one available, but the allure of diamonds is so great that cheap, high quality diamonds were always destined to succeed. Also, the natural-lab dichotomy may be less defined than we think… many cutters, vendors, designers, and retailers deal in both lab and natural diamonds.

It's all about the marketing and the vulnerability of the audience.

Waxing philosophical here but is there a point when marketing becomes a cultural norm, and if that’s true, can we really say people are vulnerable to it, or are they in fact culturally competent by adhering to it?

I wonder if they would have gone to such effort for a lost 1.25ct Synthiamond ??

I would, for my deceased relative’s cheap costume jewelry.

I think one aspect that we haven't touched on much here is that people do just value things they paid more for.

Yes, and the fact that it is possible to buy an expensive piece of jewelry that uses cheap diamonds is why IMHO arguments that cheap LGD will not be special enough for e-rings fail.

To be clear, I don't think any of these effects/fallacies are wrong, they're just human. And also note that I am not an economist or psychologist, I'm a statistician. So I care a lot about bias but generally a different kind

The whole human thing is why it is fun to maintain these threads.

SCertainly Art Deco jewelry that has survived suggests that is was used quite a bit even by high-end jewelers, though I haven't really seen many pieces with large synthetic sapphire center stones, just side stones/melee. I have often wondered if they weren't made in the bigger sizes or if people preferred natural for center stones or if those pieces weren't considered to be worth keeping intact or if they are just not worth selling in the current market or....

Apparently large synthetic spinels were popular in art deco rings. I’m recreating one from a relative’s collection.

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

Lab sapphires are much much easier to make than lab diamonds and there are a few different ways to make them, none of which are much like HPHT or CVD for lab diamonds from my understanding. But like lab diamonds, lab sapphires are chemically identical to natural sapphires with different inclusion types and crystal growth, so they can also be identified with the right equipment.

I never knew about this. Thank you.

 

[Matata]

Waxing philosophical here but is there a point when marketing becomes a cultural norm, and if that’s true, can we really say people are vulnerable to it, or are they in fact culturally competent by adhering to it?

Good question. Influencers are considered a cultural norm. Their impact on and power over consumer behavior and purchasing decisions is significant. They are the leaders that consumers follow which in turn creates the never ending trends of hot today out tomorrow the ensures a steady flow of money from the consumer base. I don't consider those who are under the influence to be culturally competent.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Sunrises Sunsets said:
I wonder whether the earth (you mean natural, or just diamond, because that means diamond) diamond resale market will flourish since rarity seems to be here and many would love to recover more of their initial investment in earth diamonds than they can now. A crystal ball can't tell us and that...

I agree with your highlighted addition to my post, we need to stop the qualifiers when talking about all diamonds. A diamond is a diamond is a diamond!

Legal point.
A diamond is a natural gemstone.
A man made diamond must have a qualifier along with the word diamond. By law. The laws are different in different countries as to what those legal qualifiers are.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

But like lab diamonds, lab sapphires are chemically identical to natural sapphires with different inclusion types and crystal growth, so they can also be identified with the right equipment.

They are rarely "chemically Identical" which is one of the main reasons we can ID them (along with inclusions and crystal growth patterns and other factors.

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

Legal point.
A diamond is a natural gemstone.
A man made diamond must have a qualifier along with the word diamond. By law. The laws are different in different countries as to what those legal qualifiers are.

Then it sounds like a whole different name would be required for LGDs. If a diamond is a natural gemstone, then a lab-grown diamond is a lab-grown natural gemstone?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Then it sounds like a whole different name would be required for LGDs. If a diamond is a natural gemstone, then a lab-grown diamond is a lab-grown natural gemstone?

That could get you fined in every nation with a consumer protection system CP!
The historical term used for more than a century is Synthetic in almost every nation.

 

[Chelsea Palmer]

That could get you fined in every nation with a consumer protection system CP!
The historical term used for more than a century is Synthetic in almost every nation.

No, I mean, is that what an LGD is? Because if the word diamond on its own is a natural diamond, then does that mean an LGD is a lab grown natural diamond? Clearly, I’m not understanding something here.

 

[newtojewels]

They are rarely "chemically Identical" which is one of the main reasons we can ID them (along with inclusions and crystal growth patterns and other factors.

Thank you for the correction!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

No, I mean, is that what an LGD is? Because if the word diamond on its own is a natural diamond, then does that mean an LGD is a lab grown natural diamond? Clearly, I’m not understanding something here.

Natural means natural. Not made by people.