Slashdot Mirror


Scientists at De Beers Fight the Growing Threat of Man-Made Diamonds (wsj.com)

"In the past few years, lab-grown diamonds have become indistinguishable from natural diamonds to the naked eye..." reports the Wall Street Journal. This creates a problem for diamond-mining company De Beers. HughPickens.com writes: While synthetics make up just a fraction of the market, they have growing appeal to younger buyers -- a headache for mine owners, who are under pressure to cut supply and lower prices, because traders, cutters and polishers are struggling to profit amid a credit squeeze and languishing jewelry sales... "Martin Roscheisen, chief executive of Diamond Foundry Inc., a San Francisco synthetic-diamond producer with a capacity of 24,000 carats, says he believes nearly all diamonds consumers purchase will be man-made in a few decades," reports the Journal. "To counter the threat, last year De Beers helped launch a trade association with other producers to market the attraction of natural diamonds. It also started marketing a new, cheap detector called PhosView, that uses ultraviolet light to detect lab-grown stones that quickly screens tiny synthetic diamonds.
It always seemed like a waste of money to me. After all, it's literally raining diamonds on Saturn.

19 of 365 comments (clear)

  1. Re:mountains of diamonds by transami · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And have what are essentially slaves to dig up new ones.

    --
    :T:R:A:N:S:
  2. OR! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hopefully before then, the main threat will become the consumer realizing they're a massive waste of money.

  3. Good. by jonr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is all I have to say about this.

    1. Re:Good. by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't matter because a synthetic diamond is going to be of better quality than anything you can dig out of the ground. About the only thing De Beers could do at this point is play up the whole blood diamond thing. I think some consumers would totally pay more if they knew their their diamond somehow financed a warlord that massacred an entire village. The only thing they're lacking is some way to quantify how much human suffering was caused, but given their history they should have a pretty good idea of how to construct an accurate measure.

      Why anyone would spend thousands of dollars on a ring is beyond me anyways. Take all of the money you would have spent and put it towards a house or if that's not an issue, spend it traveling. Experiences together are worth more than a piece of carbon.

  4. Not the real thing? by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "A concern is the risk that you buy the necklace that your wife wanted and discover it's not the real thing," De Beers strategy chief Gareth Mostyn said.

    It's so much more romantic to give diamonds that were mined by people on subsistence level wages in terrible conditions and then used to make massive profits by a parasitic organization that is dedicated to preserving a monopoly through artificial scarcity. What's "real" when the end result is the same, or perhaps even purer when man-made?

    Diamonds are not as rare as some other gemstones. It's only the massive market manipulation that gives them their value.

    The end of DeBeers cannot come soon enough.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  5. Very good by Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Informative

    Diamonds aren't particularly rare, the only thing that makes them valuable is that DeBeers has been holding a very tight near-monopoly, so there's no free market.

          Their operation is a reality version of the cartoon view of capitalism promoted by leftists for years. Every bad thing you can think of, they do, from the monopoly, exploitation of workers, callous disregard for humanity, and on and on. Capitalism and western society left this sort of bullcrap behind 100 years ago, but not these bastards. Anything that breaks their hold will be welcome from all sides of the spectrum,

  6. What does that even mean? by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Diamond Foundry Inc., a San Francisco synthetic-diamond producer with a capacity of 24,000 carats

    A day? An hour? Per year? Their office safe can't hold more than that? How does this provide any sort of perspective?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  7. Re:mountains of diamonds by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nice shilling, but very much not true.
    They have some competition, yes.
    You if you read, just above, ' a headache for mine owners, who are under pressure to cut supply and lower prices'
    cutting supply is almost exactly how the prices have been kept at the stupid level they are these days.
    Diamonds are among the MOST common of the gemstones, and about the only reason for their pricing was cunning marketing and supply control..

  8. Re:mountains of diamonds by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And have what are essentially slaves to dig up new ones.

    Perhaps synthetic diamonds should be marketed as "cruelty-free diamonds". As far as synthetic vs. natural -- if it's made up of carbon atoms arranged in a face-centered cubic crystal structure called a diamond lattice (to paraphrase Wikipedia), it's a fucking diamond. All the work of digging up "natural" stones, etc ... doesn't make them better, just more expensive. Of course, I'm sure The Diamond Industry will disagree (and have me killed). :-)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  9. Re:mountains of diamonds by anarcobra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pretty much.
    If they hire some good marketers they can market them as 100% guaranteed cruelty free diamonds with little to no environmental impact (or at least less than digging them out of the ground), and on top of that 100% pure with no imperfections.

  10. Re:mountains of diamonds by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The difference between synthetic vs natural diamonds is exactly the same as between ice you get from putting water into your freezer vs that hauled from far-away mountains. The latter is expensive and dirty. If you want, you can put dirt into your synthetic diamonds too!

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  11. Re:mountains of diamonds by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    ' a headache for diamond mine owners, who are under pressure

    If they were under enough pressure, they could turn coal into diamonds.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  12. Re:mountains of diamonds by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not even the digging up of natural stones that makes them expensive. De Beers grabs just about every source of natural diamonds that they can and stores them away. By limiting the supply, they can drive prices up. If all of the diamonds in De Beers storehouses were to go on the market, the price of diamonds would drop.

    De Beers can't buy up the supply of synthetic diamonds, though. Any lab anywhere can get the equipment and start churning out synthetic diamonds. And whereas natural stones might be of varying quality, synthetics can be perfect every time.

    De Beers is a monopolistic company that is suddenly finding itself facing competition. As such, they are reacting as monopolistic companies usually do - not by competing with a better product but by trying to shut down or shout down their new competition.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  13. Re:mountains of diamonds by haruchai · · Score: 5, Informative

    And have what are essentially slaves to dig up new ones.

    Perhaps synthetic diamonds should be marketed as "cruelty-free diamonds". As far as synthetic vs. natural -- if it's made up of carbon atoms arranged in a face-centered cubic crystal structure called a diamond lattice (to paraphrase Wikipedia), it's a fucking diamond. All the work of digging up "natural" stones, etc ... doesn't make them better, just more expensive. Of course, I'm sure The Diamond Industry will disagree (and have me killed). :-)

    The De Beers cartel has certainly put a lot of effort into controlling the diamond market so you may want to keep a low profile.
    The Atlantic magazine's excellent article from 1982 enlightened my younger self as to the utter scam that is the diamond industry
    http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  14. Re:mountains of diamonds by mark-t · · Score: 5, Informative

    Diamonds are certainly not the "most common of the gemstones". They average something like a fraction of a carat per tonne of rock even in a diamond mine, which are themselves pretty rare geological occurrences around the world

    All gem grade materials are rare, composing just a tiny fraction of the earth. Diamonds are no exception to this, but among gems, diamonds are actually the most common.

  15. Re:mountains of diamonds by glenebob · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It should be possible to introduce impurities into a lab grown diamond to create patterns based on DNA, or a fingerprint, or hell, an RSA public key. Then they'd be unique in a more meaningful way than natural imperfections.

  16. Re:mountains of diamonds by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The demand is there. I looked at diamond prices last month, and "cultured" diamonds cost more than natural diamonds, for similar C4 (clarity, cut, carat, color). I was planning to buy a cultured diamond, specifically because of the environmental and human rights aspects, but I was put off by the prices. So I bought my wife a new Macbook Pro instead. Working conditions in Chinese factories are certainly better than in African mines.

  17. Re:mountains of diamonds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is only "undeclared" by default. I have a prenup with a specific QoS guarantee. For each day that she breaches her contractual responsibility, I can legally keep 3% of my monthly income for my personal use.

    That you pulled this off is unusual. The difficulty most men face is that women act like a collective guild staffed by shrewd bargainers who understand collective bargaining. Most women would leave you before accepting those terms. Even if they loved you.

    A marriage without a prenup is inherently unfair. Your wife can compel you to financially support her, while you get nothing in return. So instead of letting your state legislators decide how your marriage will work, you and your spouse should decide that for yourselves.

    And if children are involved, you will quickly find out that family courts hate men by default. The woman wins automatically in any sort of custody dispute, unless there is some exceptional circumstance (you have video proof + multiple witnesses that she is a crack dealer, or something like that). And the concept of alimony is something the feminists themselves would have eliminated on the grounds that it is insulting, if they had integrity. It once served a useful purpose, back when women did not work outside the home and had no real way to earn an honest independent living.

    Alimony = the concept that a woman has a "right" to "get used to" the financial lifestyle you provided, a right that continues after she leaves you. Treating women as equals would mean eliminating the concept altogether, or having courts force a divorced woman to render sexual favors to her ex-husband as long as he keeps up his payments because that is the lifestyle that *he* got used to.

    Oddly enough the feminists aren't eager to address the blatant sexual discrimination that is Selective Service (military draft) either. It's as though they want all the privileges of men but none of the burdens. That's hardly striving for equality.

  18. Re:mountains of diamonds by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm just curious, would diamond wafers offer any serious advantages over current silicon? Heat conduction, maybe?

    Long version: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369702107703498

    Short version:
    Diamond promises to be superior in most properties that are important for electronic components.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages