The Perfect Diamond

[Consumerx1138]

If we look at automated (computer) production of just about every product made today we see the value of mass produced computer assisted "perfect" products tend to reduce their status to common, banal, mundane while reducing their value.

As we go forward and diamonds are produced in the same (CNC) manner, with absolute perfection as the goal, why will this (drop in value) not be true in this industry as well? A lot of jewelry is already created this way, as opposed to hand crafted.

Something to ponder.

 

[EllieTO]

I'm not an industry expert, but here are my thoughts. I think that mass production only lowers the price and makes a product "common, banal, mundane" when the quality also suffers. In cases where the quality of the product is better when hand-made than mass-produced, you see the hand-made product retain value. For example, well-crafted shoes, bespoke clothing, solid wood furniture, hand-forged jewelery etc. I think this is what you were referring to.

However, a diamond precision-cut with the aid of technology becomes better, not worse. So this is why I don't think your hypothesis holds true. A diamond cut poorly with less sophisticated use of technology will never be worth more just because it's "hand made," because it won't sparkle more.

Diamonds may still decrease in value in the future, but it will be because of economics, supply/demand dynamics, consumer culture, etc. It won't be because the quality of the product is lower.

 

[Consumerx1138]

Why is that true?
Examples?
The quality of numerous consumer goods are much better today (even if some are cheaply made). How much better quality is the average image created with a digital camera compared to a point and shoot with film in the 80's/90's? Cost comparisons? Value of images today compared with those created in analog days?

With regard to diamonds, lab made diamonds are almost flawless, are they priced the same as earth mined diamonds?

As far as "better", better at what? isn't that a subjective call based on culture and trends?
As far as "sparkle" antique cuts with large facets/few chevrons are VERY vogue today, they have a different aesthetic - more cool, icy, transparent.

Right now you can buy a machine made riding saddle of high quality for hundreds of dollars. The handcrafted one is thousands. MANY other examples where mass produced goods are considered common as well (lower value) while the hand crafted item is considered of higher value.

In Japan the wabi-sabi aesthetic adds significant value.
When computer assisted machines are able to quickly and easily produce near carbon copies of goods, don't expect value to hold. In our society value is created via rarity, less so the common.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Your question is slightly confusing, I fear. At first, you seem to refer to automated cutting leading to improved quality (cut-quality, I presume?). But in your next post, you refer to manmade diamonds. Was this the point of your original post?

Anyway, if not, and going back to natural diamonds, here is some points missing in your reasoning.

- First, automated cutting is regularly popping up as the next new thing. Still, to date, it is not truly operational, and the quality coming out is not reaching hand-assisted cutting. Just to be clear, I mean fully automated CNC-like cutting. Many cutting-steps are already fully automated, but not final polishing.
- Automation does not automatically lead to higher cut-quality. Mass-production does not either. Instead, both lead to maximization of dollar-value, mostly on a wholesale-level. With most of the world being content with a cut-quality-level of GIA-EX (or thereabout), not aware of various quality-levels within that range, highest dollar-value is achieved generally by keeping maximum weight within GIA-EX. Generally, this leads to diamonds cut around the minimum threshold of GIA-EX.
- Finally, if there were further progress in automated cutting, with reduced weight-loss and potentially higher margin in the cutting-process, history teaches us that this quickly drives up the pricing of rough diamonds, eliminating that extra cutting-margin.

Live long,

 

[denverappraiser]

A lot of jewelry is mass produced and is less expensive as a result. So? This seems to argue against your point. There are still people who make awesome things by hand, they still charge big money to do it, and they still get it. The same is true in most industries. A photograph is not just a computer-generated painting that’s ‘perfect’, and the pricing and markets clearly reflect this.

It’s not correct that lab diamonds are ‘almost flawless’ but I don’t see how it would matter even if they were. Again, photographs are almost flawless. So?

Value is not created by rarity, it's created by demand.

I too am confused by your point.

 

[denverappraiser]

Just an observation on this. As automated solutions to things like pave or decorative engraving have become more and more mainstream through the use of CAD, it has become harder and harder for tradespeople to to learn and develop these skills. There just aren't that many opportunities to practice. The value of the people who are truly talented at doing it by hand is going up, not down.

 

[Consumerx1138]

Your question is slightly confusing, I fear. At first, you seem to refer to automated cutting leading to improved quality (cut-quality, I presume?). But in your next post, you refer to manmade diamonds. Was this the point of your original post?

Anyway, if not, and going back to natural diamonds, here is some points missing in your reasoning.

- First, automated cutting is regularly popping up as the next new thing. Still, to date, it is not truly operational, and the quality coming out is not reaching hand-assisted cutting. Just to be clear, I mean fully automated CNC-like cutting. Many cutting-steps are already fully automated, but not final polishing.
- Automation does not automatically lead to higher cut-quality. Mass-production does not either. Instead, both lead to maximization of dollar-value, mostly on a wholesale-level. With most of the world being content with a cut-quality-level of GIA-EX (or thereabout), not aware of various quality-levels within that range, highest dollar-value is achieved generally by keeping maximum weight within GIA-EX. Generally, this leads to diamonds cut around the minimum threshold of GIA-EX.
- Finally, if there were further progress in automated cutting, with reduced weight-loss and potentially higher margin in the cutting-process, history teaches us that this quickly drives up the pricing of rough diamonds, eliminating that extra cutting-margin.

Live long,

Why are automated computer assisted cuts and lab made diamonds mutually exclusive?
(Why can't we consider both - either separately or in the same product?)

Going down the line of your points:
1) Automated cutting is a newer technology. If we are to consider the history of technology, why would we expect it to not develop with stone cutting too?

2) Again, automation in most other industries has led to a perfection of symmetry. Even if it has yet to fully develop in this (conservative) industry. Why would we not expect to see it in this industry going forward? Can you show us a comparable past industry/technology still doing things (only) the old way? btw - Obviously the starting material is an important criteria

3) No, actually history in all other industries tend to show pricing going down, as productivity rises - all things remaining equal. But (and more to my point) the (perceived) cultural value of a perfect mass produced product tends to decline too. A zillion perfectly mass produced items tend to have the personality of a ball bearing, or a soup can. Of course this is also where narrative (PR/Marketing) step in , lol this industry is rife with marketing messages ....

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears"

 

[Consumerx1138]

A lot of jewelry is mass produced and is less expensive as a result. So? This seems to argue against your point. There are still people who make awesome things by hand, they still charge big money to do it, and they still get it. The same is true in most industries. A photograph is not just a computer-generated painting that’s ‘perfect’, and the pricing and markets clearly reflect this.

It’s not correct that lab diamonds are ‘almost flawless’ but I don’t see how it would matter even if they were. Again, photographs are almost flawless. So?

Value is not created by rarity, it's created by demand.

I too am confused by your point.

Denver -

"Value is not created by rarity, it's created by demand."

Why is that true?
Right now there are huge demands for images, but as a product their value has declined significantly - even if some photographers may be better craftsmen using rare equipment and technique. There is a gut of supply, and limited attention.

In fact, rarity does increase value, if that rarity is also in demand. Moreover, most value these days (consumer economies) are created by market/product development. This is true with most consumer goods, including arts, and crafts. With straight utilitarian commodities the values are based on demand, and quality, but these are more for needs not wants.

"This seems to argue against your point."

I included that above:
Right now you can buy a machine made riding saddle of high quality for hundreds of dollars. The handcrafted one is thousands. MANY other examples where mass produced goods are considered common as well (lower value) while the hand crafted item is considered of higher value.

Again, I'll come back to digital media as it is a fair paradigm.
Film photography has made a huge comeback, but the majority of the world won't convert back. The vast majority of the market will NOT be buying film. That will be true even if a few artisans still do things the old way. (Tintypes btw have a huge revival right now too).

So, while there are still artisans crafting unique products (some making significant ROI), others NOT, the markets at large move on...

My late Father would occasionally craft (machine, cut, carve, soldier) a piece of jewelry entirely from a block of gold, even while his casting department was working 12 hour days. He learned from old master jewelers, makers of crown jewels. Much of that talent has been lost - not just in this industry but throughout history new technology displaces and fragments the old. If you travel to Bali, or Thailand today you can find jewelers still doing some of the filigree work almost never produced in the states today - even on lesser metals (silver). lol, that milgrain revival today is mostly computer assisted and not done by hand or even old school knurling.

 

[denverappraiser]

There are plenty of gems that are rarer than diamonds and that are a fraction of the price. What makes diamonds expensive is that a lot of people connect them to marriage and to success. That is to say, there’s a demand. Bixbite not so much. It’s a little pricey because of the severely limited supply but, fundamentally, hardly anyone has ever even heard of it. They get as much as they can, and as much as they can is barely enough to keep a single part-time mine afloat.

Lab grown gem diamonds are considerably more rare than similar mined ones, and have a much narrower range. The only reason people seem to want them is that they’re similar to mined equivalents. That is to say, there’s not a demand at all. They’re a substitute product.

 

[Serg]

Value depends from DemandxRarity. For high value you need Both of them: demand and rarity

 

[Serg]

As we go forward and diamonds are produced in the same (CNC) manner, with absolute perfection as the goal, why will this (drop in value) not be true in this industry as well? A lot of jewelry is already created this way, as opposed to hand crafted.

Something to ponder.

cost of production 1ct diamonds is below than 5% of end consumer price for most 1 ct diamonds.
So Full automatization of cutting process can not do polished diamonds cheaper and it is one of many reasons why such automatization had not been done yet.
there are 2 other more important reasons why such full automatization had not been done yet

 

[drk14]

cost of production 1ct diamonds is below than 5% of end consumer price for most such 1 ct diamonds.

Does this exclude material costs for the rough?

 

[Consumerx1138]

There are plenty of gems that are rarer than diamonds and that are a fraction of the price. What makes diamonds expensive is that a lot of people connect them to marriage and to success. That is to say, there’s a demand. Bixbite not so much. It’s a little pricey because of the severely limited supply but, fundamentally, hardly anyone has ever even heard of it. They get as much as they can, and as much as they can is barely enough to keep a single part-time mine afloat.

Lab grown gem diamonds are considerably more rare than similar mined ones, and have a much narrower range. The only reason people seem to want them is that they’re similar to mined equivalents. That is to say, there’s not a demand at all. They’re a substitute product.

What you are describing is a developed market. The diamond consumer has been groomed by the marketplace culture to create a demand. The same is true of many other things. The arts are a good example. Why is a Van Gogh so much more valuable than another unknown artist of similar talent from the same period? Ditto today's contemporary art: MARKETING!

 

[Consumerx1138]

Serg - It's not all or nothing with regard to cutting. There's also loses due to errors, less than perfect cuts, possibly security costs, and theft. Besides getting the job done, there is getting the job done to a perfect standard with minimum external costs.

 

[Consumerx1138]

Denver - If we consider the semiotics of today's culture almost everything is a simulation, or signifier for something else. Diamonds (natural diamonds) are inclusive too.

 

[Serg]

Serg - It's not all or nothing with regard to cutting. There's also loses due to errors, less than perfect cuts, possibly security costs, and theft. Besides getting the job done, there is getting the job done to a perfect standard with minimum external costs.

Do you know real % of rough cost , expenses for stock , retail premium in end consumer prices for 1ct diamonds?
Loses due errors, less than perfect cuts, theft are totally much less than any above %.
Better if you will do your home work firstly then start to do here such statements in provocative style .

 

[Serg]

Does this exclude material costs for the rough?

of course it excludes rough cost.

 

[drk14]

there are 2 other more important reasons why such full automatization had not been done yet

What are the other two reasons?

 

[Consumerx1138]

Serg-

Why have diamond cutters adopted newer cutting technology today?
Why would we not expect this to continue going forward?
Any examples of other industries which have not adopted newer technology?

 

[Consumerx1138]

Serg - BTW, you seem to have gone off on a tangent, instead of addressing the main point of my OP.

 

[denverappraiser]

Denver - If we consider the semiotics of today's culture almost everything is a simulation, or signifier for something else. Diamonds (natural diamonds) are inclusive too.

I disagree. People have been trained to desire diamonds, but that’s not the case with synthetics. Very few people outside the high echelon of techy types who like them just because they’re a cool product, which they are, desire them at all. They want natural diamonds but some are willing to accept the grown things as a substitute either because of a perceived failing of the naturals or because of a perception of better prices. That’s a very different paradigm. If natural diamonds are unnecessary, lab diamonds are equally unnecessary. The reverse is not the case.

 

[Consumerx1138]

Effectively what does a natural diamond deliver over a lab diamond?
And why do people buy diamonds? Why do people "desire" diamonds?
Why are these stones "natural"? They don't look anything close to a ("natural") stone in nature, they are a simulation, a design interpretation.

With regard to your last statement, that is a cognitive distortion. The two are not currently interchangeable in the market today.

 

[drk14]

@Consumerx1138 -- any discussion of lab grown diamonds should be posted in the Lab Grown Diamonds forum, as this forum (RockyTalky) is only for discussion of natural diamonds.

 

[Consumerx1138]

@Consumerx1138 -- any discussion of lab grown diamonds should be posted in the Lab Grown Diamonds forum, as this forum (RockyTalky) is only for discussion of natural diamonds.

How would one discuss CONTEXT between the two?
Is there a multi-dimension where both can be discussed?

 

[drk14]

How would one discuss CONTEXT between the two?

The RockyTalky forum scope excludes discussion of lab-grown diamonds. The Lab Grown Diamonds forum scope does not exclude discussion of natural diamonds.

 

[Consumerx1138]

The RockyTalky forum scope excludes discussion of lab-grown diamonds. The Lab Grown Diamonds forum scope does not exclude discussion of natural diamonds.

I see. So if the logical progression of a dialog of ideas and world views suddenly crosses an abstract line we need to censor ourselves, or .... ?

 

[denverappraiser]

People are welcome to value whatever they like for whatever reason they like. You are presuming that mined stones and lab stones are identical in every important way because that’s what the growers are telling you. ‘Important’ is the key word there. Consumers seem to think it’s important that they came out of the dirt. Fine. They can value that. There would be nothing wrong with valuing what date they were mined. Or who found them. Or where they were found. Or what tools were used. Or what was the phase of the moon at the time. Or exactly what inclusions are in them. YOU may not value these sorts of things but other people obviously do. Diamonds are hardly the first gem to encounter this. Fantastic synthetic rubies are available for a fraction of the cost of mined ones. They’re lovely and very difficult to distinguish. It’s the same with emeralds. In these gems a few extra inclusions actually makes a gem worth MORE precisely because it makes it easier to distinguish the naturals from the synthetics using common and inexpensive tools.

The two are interchangeable, although they are not fungible. People buy synthetics because they wanted a natural but had a problem with the deal. Claims of environmental or social benefits are often quoted. I disagree with most of these claims but, as with the phase of the moon, these are not gemological properties.

 

[Consumerx1138]

" You are presuming that mined stones and lab stones are identical in every important way because that’s what the growers are telling you."

Quote me, where did I make that presumption?
What are the important differences?

"YOU may not value these sorts of things but other people obviously do."
Do they? How many diamonds sold today include important ethnographic data on who mined them where, at what exact date? Haven't seen that included anywhere online, nor in shops. How do you certify such data?

What are these benefits you speak of?

As long as you bring these points up, what about all the marketing narratives currently created to sell more stuff?

Both natural emeralds and natural rubies tend to have far more natural inclusions and artifacts. I do own a beautiful large synthetic ruby rod. Some of the people I know in the industry prefer diamonds with a bit of fluorescence for the same reason.

My OP is very much of an extension of my world view on arts and crafts in the era of robots, AI, computer assisted technology.

 

[Serg]

Serg - BTW, you seem to have gone off on a tangent, instead of addressing the main point of my OP.

You have so many question in different( perpendicular ) directions, so any my answer will a tangent.
What is your Main Point? Please describe One main your statement in details instead many short chaotic questions and I will try to give you direct and full answer.

May be you find some answers to your questions in our 9 and 10 years old letters to to editor ( Rapaport magazine )
http://octonus.com/oct/projects/letter_to_editor2.phtml
http://octonus.com/oct/projects/letter_to_editor.phtml

 

[Serg]

What are the other two reasons?

1) Standard rough allocation solutions are almost symmetrical with "fixed "girdle shape types 3D models that reduce yield recovery on 0.5%-1% for round cut and 3-7% for fancy cuts in compare with current manual cutting process by interactive method. for example there are many options to increase yield by changing Oval girdle shape curvature ( I am not speaking about simple girdle ratio and even 3d diameter )
2) High temperature gradient during polishing process that create huge problem to achieve absolute accuracy even 0.1 degree and 5 microns , that is not enough for perfect edge junctions