Slashdot Mirror
De Beers To Sell Diamonds Made In a Lab (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: De Beers, which almost single-handedly created the allure of diamonds as rare, expensive and the symbol of eternal love, now wants to sell you some party jewelry that is anything but. The company announced today that it will start selling man-made diamond jewelry at a fraction of the price of mined gems, marking a historic shift for the world's biggest diamond miner, which vowed for years that it wouldn't sell stones created in laboratories. The strategy is designed to undercut rival lab-diamond makers, who having been trying to make inroads into the $80 billion gem industry. De Beers will target younger spenders with its new diamond brand and try to capture customers that have been resistant to splurging on expensive jewelry. The company is betting that it can split the market -- with mined gems in luxury settings and engagement rings at the top, and lab-made fashion jewelry aimed at millennials at the bottom. "Lab grown are not special, they're not real, they're not unique. You can make exactly the same one again and again," Bruce Cleaver, chief executive officer of De Beers, said in an interview Tuesday. De Beers says the man-made diamonds will not compete with mined stones. It's so adamant about this that it will not grade them in the traditional way. "We're not grading our lab-grown diamonds because we don't think they deserve to be graded," Cleaver said. "They're all the same."
As for pricing, "The lab diamonds from De Beers will sell for about $800 a carat," reports Bloomberg. "A 1-carat man-made diamond sells for about $4,000 and a similar natural diamond fetches roughly $8,000."
As for pricing, "The lab diamonds from De Beers will sell for about $800 a carat," reports Bloomberg. "A 1-carat man-made diamond sells for about $4,000 and a similar natural diamond fetches roughly $8,000."
The diamond industry for wedding rings is bullshit -- it was created in by US advertisers in the 1930s to prop up South Africa's failing economy. Don't buy into the hype. Real or synthetic, it's still BS.
Give a nice wedding ring, but not expensive. Maybe something that's been in the family for a few generations. Doesn't have to be diamond either -- non-diamond engagement rings are quite common outside the US.
Open your minds.
"This product sucks. It's garbage. You don't want it. It's for losers. Embarrassingly bad. Don't be caught dead with one. Come get 'em, half off everybody! We got lots!"
Lab grown are not special, they're not real, they're not unique. You can make exactly the same one again and again
He means that the ones they dig out of the ground are flawed in different ways, but the manufactured diamonds are perfect.
I love watching nonsense industries die because my generation couldn't care less.
This clown won't grade them because they are superior - but the reality is there is no shortage of mined ones either.
He's desperately trying to gaslight everyone and it's...not....workiiiiing.......
It would be ironic if the non-carbon impurities in monkeyshit actually made diamonds of a brilliant and exotic color, otherwise unattainable. Think of Kopi Luwak -- maybe they'd be equally valuable.
and at least have children working at these new labs.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
No kidding. De Beers is like the worst caricatures of evil capitalists.
They are not "like" a caricature of evil. They are evil. The very essence of violent, monopolistic corruption. They do not tolerate competition. They invented the modern perception of diamonds as rare, valuable objects synonymous with "love" and they mean to guard that perception like a saber-tooth mother hen. It's a crystallized piece of carbon. DeBeers has huge warehouses filled with raw diamonds. They restrict the supply to keep prices high.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
DeBeers already holds back the majority of the supply of diamonds to artificially inflate the cost. They do plenty of other things to do that as well.
The other lab grown diamond manufacturers have gotten in the business and sold so high because the costs of mined diamonds is so high it's like honey to a bear.
Yes, they are all just as real and special, and often the lab diamonds have less inclusions than the mined diamonds, which is considered a better diamond. Of course DeBeers is fighting that because they control the bulk of mined diamonds and don't want to lose their ultra premium profits.
Unless you have an imperfect mined diamond, or recognize the serial number markings, even a jeweler can't tell mined from lab diamonds because the only thing different from them is age and origin.
You know, having the consistency of lab diamonds is considered a big boon for anyone making jewelry needing matched stones.
DeBeers is just freaking out because they are slowly (maybe not so slowly now) losing control over a market they've had a near monopoly on for over a century.
[Insert laugh track and applause here]
Half right. The optical dispersion is equally important, a.k.a. the variation of the refractive index as a function of the wavelength, a.k.a. the material's ability to "pull the colors apart" when used as a prism. A hypothetical gemstone with a high refractive index but little optical dispersion would show the "black and white faces" of diamond when lit with a white spotlight, but none of the "rainbows" (which the gemstone lovers call "fire").
One of the measures for optical dispersion is the difference in refractive index between 686.7 nm and 430.8 nm. Values: diamond 0.044; cubic zirconia ~0.06; silicon carbide ~0.1; fused silica glass ~0.01; corundrum 0.018 (and the latter has a refractive index of 1.77).
To visually pass for a diamond in the eyes of an expert, a stone needs to have a refractive index not too far from diamond AND an optical dispersion not too far from diamond AND not too much birefringence. Slilicon carbide fails quite badly at the latter 2 criteria and visually is a worse substitute for diamond than cubic zirconia. Some people claim that the latter still has "too much flame", but I'm quite sceptical that many people would be able to visually tell the difference, even with good lightning and magnification. I believe I once read jewelers pick out cubic zirconia based on its material properties (density and/or thermal conductivity, which are both very different from diamond - more so than silicon carbide).
Of course, if you don't care that a gem passes for a diamond, only that it looks good, then one could argue "the more dispersion, the better". Though some would object that too much color would make it look tacky. There's no accounting for taste (and neither for BS people perpetuate to sound "refined").
Better yet, what about diamonds literally made of part of the husband's penis? "Look honey, I gave up the remainder of my foreskin to make this ring for you!"
It would bring new meaning to "the family jewels".
Just another day in Paradise