Tracking diamonds from small artisanal miners

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

DDI will work with De Beers who are showing themselves to have a corporate soul!
http://www.idexonline.com/Memo?id=43878
This is a wonderful move. I really hope it is successful.
Diamond Development Initiative is a really worthwhile cause if you are inclined to donate to org's that are changing and improving peoples lives.

 

[OoohShiny]

Interesting!

As much as 20% of the world’s gem-quality diamonds are produced by artisanal miners – people who dig for diamonds using rudimentary equipment. Often the whole family is involved, including children. There are 1.5 million artisanal miners in Africa and South America, working in 18 different countries, and in conditions that are hard, dirty and often dangerous. Nevertheless, artisanal mining contributes heavily to the livelihood of millions of people.

The internal trading chain in artisanally mined diamonds was, and still is, largely conducted informally, without paperwork or record keeping, thus making it largely untraceable.

So potentially 20% of all diamonds worldwide don't accord with the Kimberley Process?

It's a step in the right direction if this initiative allows improved traceability while also improving the flow of cash back to those doing the digging!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Thanks for posting this Garry. Very interesting indeed.
Whiteflash has been an active supporter of DDI for many years. They are the prime NGO giving a voice and advocating for the artisinal miners, the most vulnerable element of the diamond mining industry. They are subject to theft, exploitation and worse. It is in this area that the 'conflict diamond' problem can raise it's ugly head. (The other 80% of production is done in big digs and fully secured operations).
I think this is an important step towards making artisanal mining safer and more profitable for the workers and their families and communities. And I agree, kudos to DeBeers for giving it their full support.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Interesting!



So potentially 20% of all diamonds worldwide don't accord with the Kimberley Process?

It's a step in the right direction if this initiative allows improved traceability while also improving the flow of cash back to those doing the digging!

Although approximately 20% are produced by artisinal miners, much of that does feed in to KP. According to Diamondfacts.org over 99% of all diamond production is now covered. They state that conflict diamonds have now been 'virtually eliminated' by KP.

I think the biggest value of the new DeBeers/DDI program is in beneficiation. That is, making sure that the artisinal miners and their communities derive a fair share of the proceeds for their workproduct.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Yes. De Beers I think unwittingly became part of the conflict blood diamond debacle because their business model at the time was to monopolise supply and spend big on marketing. So they thought they were "mopping up" artisanal mined diamonds to run them thru their legit pipeline.
Of course what happened on the ground was atrocious in Sirrea Leone and Angola. The diamonds paid for rebels guns smuggled in from neighbouring failed states. Child labour, child soldiers etc.
De Beers were too slow to act, and were having their own survival issues at that time - they underwent huge ownership changes twice since then.
they had no excuses, but I think the Blood Diamond movie was a shallow poke at a vunerable company that did a lot of good things, especially in moving South Africa out of apartheid, helping reduce HIV and heaps of other good stuff. But the media always hated their monopolistic ways.
They have clearly made big changes again.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

RapNet has a little more info
http://www.diamonds.net/news/NewsItem.aspx?tc_dailyemail=1&ArticleID=62158
De beers will also sell the diamonds on ASM's behalf. Soem will think that is an attempt to build the monopoly again.
I think it's pretty safe

 

[Texas Leaguer]

RapNet has a little more info
http://www.diamonds.net/news/NewsItem.aspx?tc_dailyemail=1&ArticleID=62158
De beers will also sell the diamonds on ASM's behalf. Soem will think that is an attempt to build the monopoly again.
I think it's pretty safe

First let me say I'm a big supporter of this initiative.
But I will admit the conspiracy theorist in me started getting tingles. I understand the value of the GPS tag and bag for validation and provenance. But what an incredible prospecting tool that data will become for DeBeers over time. I wonder if they will share the data? Will those data points be like bread crumbs leading to discoveries of the source pipes? If so, who benefits?

 

[GolfingGreen]

Hi! This is a great thread and I wish we had more industry threads like this on PS.
I do want to clarify I am just a consumer, I am not in the trade nor even close to being an expert like you gentleman here have posted. However, I do love reading and following the industry and especially discussions like these.

I would like to share some thoughts as a consumer if I may... First, I love diamonds and hope they remain a coveted item.

I recently read an article on DeBeers sales (https://www.nationaljeweler.com/diamonds-gems/supply/6534-de-beers-sales-slide-in-third-cycle) in addition to other articles affecting the diamond industry such as the threat of lab created diamonds and millennial diamond buying behaviors.

Some would privately grin DeBeers is losing market share, but I hope not as I think they have done so much to put diamonds on a pedestal.

With that thought, I wonder if it wouldn't be so bad if DeBeers gained leadership in diamonds again. The diamond industry seems fragmented now, to me as a layman. Diamonds were once the "it" item to have, and consumers such as myself were told "A Diamond Is Forever", "Past, Present, Future Ring", "Right Hand Ring" or more recently "Real Is Rare". I know it's all marketing, but I personally think they were genius ideas as they pumped up the diamond industry (e.g. so many ladies were convinced they needed to upgrade to get a Past, Present, Future ring, now known as the 3-stone ring or how now single ladies could be bold enough to get a right hand diamond ring).

The DeBeers campaigns created demand and more importantly, they created a new market for diamonds (e.g. 3-stone rings, right-hand rings). I would only guess dealers loved it, since now, they had new products to sell and not have to compete against each other for the engagement ring or earring studs (how many engagement ring and earring stud upgrades can one possibly have in a lifetime). They were not competing for a piece of the pie; there was a whole new pie.

However, many people seem to bash DeBeers (e.g. monopoly, inflated prices). I am only a consumer, but as a business person, I worry the diamond industry is not only competing for consumers but also competing against itself and therefore the "sales pitch" has now become "we are cheaper". Once a product turns into a commodity based on price, it's a tailspin and it is rare to be able to recover. The recent theme is H&A/super ideal diamonds, HCA, ASET... all those tools are a recent nice marketing focus to create demand, but it creates competition among each other in the trade; it is not creating a new market. Once H&A products catch on and can be easily produced, it will be "we are the cheapest H&A". The Indian dealers will be able to crank out H&As faster and cheaper is my guess (perhaps some U.S. dealers are already using Indian dealers).

The movie "Blood Diamonds" did not add to the allure of diamonds, and I am surprised the industry did not respond with "it's a very small percentage of the total industry", so now we are stuck with this perception. I do understand why DDI was created, but to me, it's also a double-edged sword. Creating DDI is an indirect admission of guilt which then again says to the consumer "yes, many diamonds were blood diamonds but now we are trying to make it right" when in fact blood diamonds were only a very small percentage. And forget about blood diamonds... if a consumer truly cares about ethical sourcing... what about Made In China factories? See the point?... the diamond industry ruined itself on this one silly movie by not having a response.

My wish would be for DeBeers and the diamond industry to create the allure again and create new demand. Get in offense mode and get out of defense mode. As a consumer, I love diamonds and love to see diamond prices rise. This is part of the allure of diamonds. My contribution to the industry will be more upgrades until a new market is created... see my point? how many upgrades can a person do in a lifetime (e.g. what is the next "it" diamond piece to own)?

I wanted to share my thoughts as a consumer and hope this may have helped in some way.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I would like to share some thoughts as a consumer if I may... First, I love diamonds and hope they remain a coveted item.


However, many people seem to bash DeBeers (e.g. monopoly, inflated prices). I am only a consumer, but as a business person, I worry the diamond industry is not only competing for consumers but also competing against itself and therefore the "sales pitch" has now become "we are cheaper".

My wish would be for DeBeers and the diamond industry to create the allure again and create new demand.
I wanted to share my thoughts as a consumer and hope this may have helped in some way.

You are not ONLY a consumer. You are switched on and smart.
You covered a lot of ground.
An industry leader made a speech 10 years ago "Swarovski treat glass like diamonds while we treat diamonds like glass". Diamonds are forever is a self defeating moto miki (punny?)
cutting round diamonds out of 2/3rds of all rough is dumb and commoditizing. But until we get really effective cut grading tools and cut design tools we are locked in a race to nowhere

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

First let me say I'm a big supporter of this initiative.
But I will admit the conspiracy theorist in me started getting tingles. I understand the value of the GPS tag and bag for validation and provenance. But what an incredible prospecting tool that data will become for DeBeers over time. I wonder if they will share the data? Will those data points be like bread crumbs leading to discoveries of the source pipes? If so, who benefits?

good point and I agree Bryan

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Great stuff Miki Moto. Love your passion as a consumer. Like Garry says you are switched on!

There is a lot to unpack in your post. I agree in essence with your overall perspective. I will say that there has been a strong industry response to the issue of conflict diamonds and the movie in particular. However, that message is not unified as it would be if one company or one trade organization was leading the chorus. And this was the advantage (and the imperative) that DeBeers had when they were essentially a monopoly.

While competition is good for consumers in general, there are some downsides to fragmentation and decentralization. The promotion and messaging, as you point out, becomes diluted and less potent in terms of boosting demand and especially making new markets.

However, I don't see putting that genie back in the bottle! What could and should happen is better coordination and shared investment among all the producers to promote the industry.

I also agree with Garry that advancements in cutting technology and light performance grading are key to expanding the range of choices and creating healthy product diversity within the industry. And I do believe that is coming and should be encouraged and supported.

With regards to DDI, I don't think it was a mistake for the industry to recognize and address the serious human rights issues. If anything, the industry waited too long in doing so. As their efforts bear fruit for the lives of the most vulnerable communities, and progress becomes demonstrable, the industry as a whole will become stronger and gain more support in the consumer market. It's sort of the opposite of "trickle down" economics! Especially with the sensibilities of the emerging consumer, the social responsibility and societal impact of positive community development can become an appealing selling point of mined diamonds to a new generation.

 

[Karl_K]

My worry is that the biggest threat to small producers is their own government and this gives them a target list.
Tracking databases are evil when combined with often corrupt governments.
Its a problem right here in the US with the government using private companies to gather data that they would need a warrant to collect themselves.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

My worry is that the biggest threat to small producers is their own government and this gives them a target list.
Tracking databases are evil when combined with often corrupt governments.
Its a problem right here in the US with the government using private companies to gather data that they would need a warrant to collect themselves.

DDI have been very effective at reducing that problem. e.g. in a few African nations they managed to lower the age of government miner registration. It seems odd to us living in rich nations, but there are many thousands of young children, orphans and disconnected kids, who are engaged in illegal or unprotected activities in all sorts of industries. Registering them as with grown up miners actually helps.
It would be great if we could get Dorothee Gizenga or someone from http://www.ddiglobal.org to visit and explain what they do.
Like Bryan and WF, it is an org I regularly donate to and support.

 

[arkieb1]

First let me say I'm a big supporter of this initiative.
But I will admit the conspiracy theorist in me started getting tingles. I understand the value of the GPS tag and bag for validation and provenance. But what an incredible prospecting tool that data will become for DeBeers over time. I wonder if they will share the data? Will those data points be like bread crumbs leading to discoveries of the source pipes? If so, who benefits?

I read it and my first thought was good news for the miners but then I sat back and wondered if it actually will be or if it will just see DeBeers controlling that particular market, more tools for greater control.... My cousin (who is also an Aussie) married a native South African girl who grew up near some of the diamond mines and the stories I've heard about that have me wondering. Forgive my skepticism, whilst the whole thing might look glossy and great on paper, as far as I can see, DeBeers doesn't do anything unless there is something in it for DeBeers. Many of the locals themselves feel that DeBeers has spent years exploiting the mines in South Africa, and it is well known that they themselves have a history of exploiting many local workers, so it will be interesting to see how many of the "artesian miners" actually are wary or want to get onboard.

As far as a corporate soul Garry, I think that ship sailed a long time ago, only time will tell if they are making inroads into getting it back again.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I read it and my first thought was good news for the miners but then I sat back and wondered if it actually will be or if it will just see DeBeers controlling that particular market, more tools for greater control.... My cousin (who is also an Aussie) married a native South African girl who grew up near some of the diamond mines and the stories I've heard about that have me wondering. Forgive my skepticism, whilst the whole thing might look glossy and great on paper, as far as I can see, DeBeers doesn't do anything unless there is something in it for DeBeers. Many of the locals themselves feel that DeBeers has spent years exploiting the mines in South Africa, and it is well known that they themselves have a history of exploiting many local workers, so it will be interesting to see how many of the "artesian miners" actually are wary or want to get onboard.

As far as a corporate soul Garry, I think that ship sailed a long time ago, only time will tell if they are making inroads into getting it back again.

I don't think it is that simple. The Oppenheimer's founded DeBeers and Anglo American AA now owns De Beers along with the Govt of Botswana and Namibia after the 20 years ago selling out by the Oppenhiemer family.
I am not a fan, but I think people really don't get a good view of the companies via the media.
just did a quick search and found this positive article:
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1631&context=cmc_theses
and this vague but negative on what seems to be a huge amount of effort by Anglo American https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/item/13080/thesis_hum_2014_banda_j.pdf?sequence=1

It is really easy to run conspiracy theories on big companies. It is harder to understand the real issues. De beers got its name based on the farm the Big Hole mine was on.
The company started by Barney Benharto and Cecil Rhodes (aka Rhodesia and the Rhodes scholarships), two gay guys who bought the miners together into a co-operative.

Earnest Oppenheimer saved the company in the great depression by buying up all the grand children s share (of the original miners) when they were worth diddly squat.

The Oppenheimer's were among the few whites against actively campaigning Apartheid.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

http://www.idexonline.com/FullArticle?id=43881
We met … and resolved that we invite the former president Mr Mugabe to our committee to explain the disappearance of $15 billion worth of diamonds,” said Mliswa, an independent MP.

 

[Karl_K]

I have a hard time ever thinking anything nice about De Beers when I recall the Feb. De Beers price increases.
8-12-16 percent year after year, even as high as 24% on some goods one year just because they could.
Don't think for a second they would not be doing it today if they could.

Decade after decade of exploitation of both miners and consumers does not easily wash away.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

http://www.idexonline.com/FullArticle?id=43881
We met … and resolved that we invite the former president Mr Mugabe to our committee to explain the disappearance of $15 billion worth of diamonds,” said Mliswa, an independent MP.

Whoa!
That's mind boggling.

 

[GolfingGreen]

I know De Beers is a negative connotation to many, but through the years, they have kept diamonds prices high and consumers wanting more. As a consumer, I don't worry about trade issues such as internal competition or price wars. But as a lover of jewelry, I worry if diamond pricing will crash if the industry becomes less cohesive. Or, worse case, if the world is somehow convinced lab-grown diamonds are the same as mined diamonds.

Remember natural pearls? Natural pearls were once worth millions a strand (e.g. the Cartier flagship store in NYC was traded for a strand of natural pearls). But...Mikimoto came, convinced the world cultured pearls were the same as natural pearls, and the price of natural pearls crashed. Similar, but not quite the same as lab-grown diamonds.

This is the external disruption I worry most about happening to diamonds. I see tiny indications which could add up to the perfect storm... consumers want bigger but lower quality diamonds to save costs, the craze around halos to get a bigger look for less cost (melees outside of a setting are worthless... they used to be called diamond chips and no one used them for any serious jewelry), the perception of conflict diamonds, and comments I hear and read on forums such as "no one knows it's a K color" which could in the future translate to "no one knows it's a lab-grown". All these could steer a person to lab-grown because the value and appreciation for a quality diamond is no longer there.
Anyway, some more laymen thoughts to share.

On De Beers... here is a great book I love...
https://www.amazon.com/Last-Empire-...374524262/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

I expect some of you have already read this, but if not, it is about the history of De Beers. It's an older book (1995), but to me, it's a very comprehensive book on the history of diamonds and insights into some of the main players... names you will recognize: Johannes De Beers, Cecil Rhodes, Barney Barnato, the Oppenheimers. They remind me of the robber barons, hated during their time, but without them, America would not have become such a great industrial country compared to the world.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

@Miki Moto
Naturally as someone in the diamond business, I take seriously the kinds of threats to the industry that you mention. And I would like to see each one addressed in a thoughtful and effective manner. While there is plenty of reason to believe that is not happening to the extent it should, I am optimistic for the future of the industry. But I think it absolutely does revolve around social responsibility, sustainability, and making sure all sectors of the industry are healthy. This is what I see being addressed by DDI.

But as the link that @Garry H (Cut Nut) forwarded about Zimbabwe, there are still serious problems that have not yet been fully addressed. If the 15 billion figure is anywhere near accurate, imagine how much good that amount of money could have done in shoring up the artisinal sector if applied responsibly.

@Karl_K is right to be skeptical of DeBeers or other corporate interests and governments with questionable accountability. But the industry does need strong central leadership to come from somewhere. So, I am comfortable with DeBeers re-gaining some of their former dominance if it means they will take on some of these challenges, or at least lead the charge. I think there is far more scrutiny on their activities today. There was a time when they worked almost entirely in the backrooms and out of sight, and that's when bad practices can develop. As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

 

[OoohShiny]

...But as a lover of jewelry, I worry if diamond pricing will crash if the industry becomes less cohesive. Or, worse case, if the world is somehow convinced lab-grown diamonds are the same as mined diamonds.
...
comments I hear and read on forums such as "no one knows it's a K color" which could in the future translate to "no one knows it's a lab-grown". All these could steer a person to lab-grown because the value and appreciation for a quality diamond is no longer there.
...

Please can you explain how man-made diamonds are different from mined diamonds? and how man-made diamonds are not 'quality' products?

 

[GolfingGreen]

@OoohShiny Hi! Lab-created diamonds are chemically and physically the same, but they are created in a lab, hence the name. Some call it a synthetic diamond, and I agree. Synthetic diamonds also have different characteristics (e.g. growth patterns, flourescence) that absolutely be detected and confirmed as a synthetic. A lab-created diamond is a nice marketing term for fake diamond.

To me, there is nothing quality about a synthetic or fake anything. A synthetic diamond is trying to be a copy of the real thing. And copies are often worthless or have low value. The price of lab-created diamonds continues to fall, and resale value is poor to non-existent. A person who buys a lab-created diamond is not getting a cheaper real diamond; they are paying for an overpriced fake diamond. So, no... to me, nothing quality about buying a synthetic fake diamond.

 

[Karl_K]

MMD is a different topic but my 2c.
I heard an advertisement for MMD on the radio by one of the biggest independent jewelers in my area yesterday.
They were also the first to advertise AGS ideal cuts in a big way in my area.
As an industry professional I have a duty to keep an eye on them and not to dismiss them out of hand.
My opinion is that in a 100 years if the diamond ER ring tradition continues MMD will be the largest part of the market.
The reason?
As mines get older production slows down to a trickle compared to the middle years.
A lot of the current mines are getting to the point of being mined out and discovery of new mines is very slow.
All the known mines even the ones that are today not economical to mine if put in production will likely all be mined out by then.
Even if several new pipes are discovered they may not be recoverable for technological, political or environmental reasons.

 

[GolfingGreen]

@Karl_K You Rock! You have a lot of great insight. If you think MMDs will be the largest segment of the market, what is your view on mined diamonds? If diamonds will be mined out, will they become "rare and extremely valuable" or will they crash in price as in my example earlier of natural pearls. I would love to hear your thoughts on this as I often think about it. And what about the Russian stockpile?

Not that it will make a difference for me in my lifetime. I've been brainwashed on A Diamond Is Forever, so real diamonds for me all the way.

Maybe the diamond industry should play off this issue. As in... double-down on Real Is Rare and emphasize that while a diamond is forever, the availability of mined diamonds is not.

I would love for the industry to come up with the next "it" item to purchase. Ladies love bling, but how many diamond pieces can one have? I have upgraded my engagement ring, 3-stone ring been there, I am now working on upgrading my earrings, I have a tennis bracelet (no longer wear as it's dated to me). So... in my quest for bling as I am out ideas with diamonds, I have branched out to colored gemstones such as emeralds, rubies, and sapphires. I am sure I am not the only person.

Perhaps the diamond marketing gurus can come up with a new diamond piece every lady needs. And we should think about the millennials too, as they will be a bigger buying population than baby boomers.

@Karl_K to your comment on your local independent jeweler selling MMDs, you are spot on... I was looking for a mounting for my emerald at my local jeweler... this jeweler sells brand names such as HOF, JB Star, but I saw they now sell MMDs. I was very surprised. Disappointed really.

 

[bmfang]

Difference in nomenclature for me. A diamond is a diamond if chemically it is the same. No matter if it is naturally mined vs lab-grown/created. However, I still appreciate natural diamonds more so than lab-grown because each one is “unique” compared with another (through one could argue that uniqueness is diluted when you have that many stones in circulation).

I would suspect that getting Millenials to part with their hard earned dollars (and they are hard earned bucks given the lack of job security they have) for natural or lab-grown Diamonds is going to get harder as I think more of the competition comes from diamond simulants like moissanite and other forms of silicon carbide which have similar optical properties to diamonds but at far less cost (than even lab-grown diamonds). Or if not Diamonds, other coloured gemstones.

Edit: one final thing, a lot of the Millenials I know also have a thing for vintage rather than new, so I would see pre-loved/antique also being more of an option.

 

[Karl_K]

@Karl_K You Rock! You have a lot of great insight. If you think MMDs will be the largest segment of the market, what is your view on mined diamonds? If diamonds will be mined out, will they become "rare and extremely valuable" or will they crash in price as in my example earlier of natural pearls. I would love to hear your thoughts on this as I often think about it. And what about the Russian stockpile?

I love mined diamonds. As far as that goes I love a lot of different sparky or nicely colored rocks.
Four peaks amethyst for example is one of my very favorite gemstones. They are not hugely expensive but several orders of magnitude more rare than diamonds. I enjoy many other natural and synthetic stones.

There are a lot of factors and the diamonds and the mines are just a small part of that.
There are a lot of economic, political, and consumer preference factors that will come into play over time.
The huge amount of diamonds in consumer hands will also come into play.
I don't think anyone can predict how all the specifics will play out.
It just makes sense that if the diamond ER tradition continues that MMD will rise to the top because of the volume needed.


The Russian stockpile was really overblown, at the largest it was just a few months worth of diamond on the global market.
Most of the diamonds they stockpiled in 2008 have been sold already.
The Russian mines are starting to get depleted, they are either being closed or are going underground.
An underground mine recovers diamonds much more slowly than an open pit mine.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

CZ made great inroads half a century ago. Cost a few dollars. Now cost a few cents.
Mossonite is great stuff. Almost too good. Cost hundreds. Now cost a tenth and quality improvement out of sight.
Wholesalers and retailers not comfortable stocking a lot of goods that will be worth 20 or 30% less each year.
Synthetic diamonds will fall in value at a rate that will eventually slow their production investment.
Currently synthetics are trading at a % of natural. Usually about 60% natural.
New mining prospecting tools and seperation processes will lengthen mined life. Check out GeoCrystal and other junior miners. Pipes being found in western Africa. Undersea mining.

But back to topic. Synthetic diamonds and substitutes do nothing for poor nation beneification.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

CZ made great inroads half a century ago. Cost a few dollars. Now cost a few cents.
Mossonite is great stuff. Almost too good. Cost hundreds. Now cost a tenth and quality improvement out of sight.
Wholesalers and retailers not comfortable stocking a lot of goods that will be worth 20 or 30% less each year.
Synthetic diamonds will fall in value at a rate that will eventually slow their production investment.
Currently synthetics are trading at a % of natural. Usually about 60% natural.
New mining prospecting tools and seperation processes will lengthen mined life. Check out GeoCrystal and other junior miners. Pipes being found in western Africa. Undersea mining.

But back to topic. Synthetic diamonds and substitutes do nothing for poor nation beneification.

@Garry H (Cut Nut) Many gemstones have been synthesized and many excellent simulants have been created. All have followed the trajectory you explained. Sapphire (and ruby) were synthesized at the turn of the 20th century and eventually flooded the market - all without significantly impacting the price of mined. There is no evidence whatsoever that synthetic diamond will follow anything but the same downward trajectory, or that mined diamonds won't continue to be valued for their rarity and natural authenticity.

Your last line is spot on Garry, and mellenials care about it (as everyone should). That is why I say that the viability of the mined diamond industry is in large part dependent on the success of making the entire supply chain economically healthy and socially/environmentally responsible. Which is why we should all support the work of DDI and like organizations, and not be too quick to demonize corporations like DeBeers over past sins. Let's judge them on the value they are currently adding to the industry and the millions of people around the world deriving a living from it.

 

[OoohShiny]

@OoohShiny Hi! Lab-created diamonds are chemically and physically the same, but they are created in a lab, hence the name. Some call it a synthetic diamond, and I agree. Synthetic diamonds also have different characteristics (e.g. growth patterns, flourescence) that absolutely be detected and confirmed as a synthetic. A lab-created diamond is a nice marketing term for fake diamond.

To me, there is nothing quality about a synthetic or fake anything. A synthetic diamond is trying to be a copy of the real thing. And copies are often worthless or have low value. The price of lab-created diamonds continues to fall, and resale value is poor to non-existent. A person who buys a lab-created diamond is not getting a cheaper real diamond; they are paying for an overpriced fake diamond. So, no... to me, nothing quality about buying a synthetic fake diamond.

As you have pointed out, a man-made diamond is virtually identical to a mined a diamond. There are differences in the internal patterns created during growth, yes, but if it requires a $$$$$ machine to tell which is which, and rules to be in place to 'brand' them at birth so everyone knows what they are up-front, I think that's a good indication as to just how identical they are. Made in a machine or made in the earth - both are the same material with their own unique structural growth patterns. Why should one be 'better' or valued more highly than the other?

Is diamonds' value because of its physical properties (which is what has created its value historically) or because of its source? If diamonds' properties are what makes it so valued, this value changing because the source changes (even when the physical properties don't change) would seem completely illogical, and would seem to prove the point that one source being valued more highly than the other is down to marketing, which relies on the fact that human beings are complex emotional beings that are susceptible to persuasion and manipulation.

The very word 'fake' is loaded with unspoken negative connotations and the intent to disparage that which it is being applied to, whereas 'man-made' reflects the facts of the matter without such implications and also respects the fact that us humans are actually pretty amazing - through our ingenuity and research and knowledge, we have mastered nature and created that which was previously impossible to do.

We should be applauding that and embracing our achievements. If everyone switched to MMDs, it would remove the need to continue despoiling this small and fragile rock that we happened to evolve on in the vast emptiness of space, which we are currently doing just because us humans are attracted to pretty things that are found underground, rather than through any actual physical need to consume the end products.

We have already seen the fur industry decline when public perception of such a non-essential industry changed to reflect increased awareness of the harm being caused unnecessarily - would you apply the 'nothing quality about buying a synthetic fake' approach to fur?

Or do you support the luxury goods market's use of fur because it's 'luxurious', expensive, increasingly difficult to buy, and 'aspirational' because the plebs cannot afford it?

The tone of your other posts in the thread could suggest that you are fully bought-in to what the highly-paid marketing teams are tasked with brainwashing you with (as you said yourself ) so what will your position be if MMDs are suddenly the next 'in thing' that everyone must have?!

Anyway, this isn't an ad hominem post, rather just a response from the opposite point of view to that which you have expressed.


Getting back onto the main topic but in a related way... @Garry H (Cut Nut), do you think that the possibility exists for the aforementioned poorer nations to set up MMD facilities that would allow them to create a supply line and a source of income in lieu of (or alongside) mined diamonds?

 

[GolfingGreen]

@OoohShiny Hi! I’ll respond to your post as you asked a lot of questions, but then I will respect this thread and stay on topic.

It sounds like you are anti-mining for diamonds, pro MMD and want to preserve this “fragile rock” that we live on. Yet I assume you like and perhaps own a super ideal diamond because you are on this forum. Hence, I am not sure of your point here... it seems contradictory.

You say both are the same chemical composition which I agree but why should one be valued less. Well, anything synthetic or fake is worth less so yes, a synthetic fake diamond is going to be worth less. That is just life and human nature.

I love genuine diamonds and am against anything fake, so if the industry crashed, no, I would never purchase a MMD. I would move on to colored gemstones for bling.

Yes... I have been brainwashed to covet diamond jewelry such as tennis bracelets or diamond stud earrings. Diamond marketing is why we are all here on this forum. Without marketing, the demand for diamond ERs, stud earrings, tennis bracelets would not exist. I would buy the next “in” piece of jewelry, not fake diamond.

MMDs are a by product of marketing because the person wants to own a “diamond”. And yes, Americans want diamonds because of marketing. Like it or not, if you have a diamond ring or earrings, the marketing worked on you too. I think marketing is good. It gives us insight, opens our eyes to what is out there, but still allows us as humans to decide.

I believe if mined diamonds were no longer available, people would move on to another gemstone for adornment because most people want a genuine article. Perhaps not you, as you prefer MMDs and other synthetics that are not mined from the earth.

I would dare to say if genuine mined diamonds were no longer available, there would be no demand for MMDs. Demand for anything fake is only because the genuine article exists.

Hope this answers your questions.

Sorry folks for going off topic to respond. I promise I will stay on topic going forward.