> De Beers fights fakes with technology as China’s lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems
From what I understand, these gems are actually better than natural ones, since they're 100% pure. Maybe it's time to call lab-grown diamonds "real" and mined ones "fake".
In fairness, that massive marketing campaign only worked because people are very susceptible to preferring “natural” things over “artificial” things, especially with art and luxury items. Diamonds are not unusual in this regard.
DeBeers' big win was when they convinced the US FTC that synthetic diamonds had to be labeled as synthetic. They're real diamonds, and arguably not different from natural ones. The tests required to detect synthetics keep getting more complicated and expensive as the synthesis technology improves.
The old heat and pressure process was first used by General Electric to make a synthetic diamond in 1956. That's used today to make diamond abrasives by the ton. Making gemstones that way wasn't cost-effective until, in the 1990s, Gemesis, in Florida, got the process to work better. The process is touchy, but that's what computer control is for. DeBeers tried threats and intimidation. Unfortunately for them, the Gemesis CEO was a retired US Army general and didn't intimidate. The synthetic diamond gem industry, based in Florida, was soon going strong.
Then came controlled vapor deposition of carbon. The heat and pressure process forced some metal from the press anvils into the diamond, and this was detectable. The CVD process, using technology similar to that used to make near perfect crystal IC substrates, didn't do that. Synthetic diamonds could not longer be detected with standard diamond industry tests.
DeBeers developed more elaborate tests. Diamonds glow for a few milliseconds after being hit by a UV flash, and DeBeers makes testers which flash the target and then take a picture. The results differ for CVD diamonds, but not by much. There are videos of the difference, and it's now at the point where the precise symmetry of CVD diamonds is what distinguishes them. This blows away a basic sales pitch of the diamond business - the best diamond is a flawless crystal. Now they're up against a semiconductor materials technology that makes perfect crystals. DeBeers has been trying to spin this as "natural flaws" being important, after decades of promoting "flawless" as the goal.
CVD was originally really slow. Then the process got faster. Then more companies started using it. Now there's a glut of small diamonds. You can buy them in kilogram bags on Alibaba.
As for cubic zirconia, that's now so cheap that for $500 you can buy a gemstone 200mm across for about $500.
Most other gemstones have been produced in bulk for decades. You can buy ruby and sapphire rods and sheets, and it's not that expensive. The checkout scanners at Home Depot have a sapphire layer on top of the glass. You can drag tools across those all day for years before they scratch much.
>> From what I understand, these gems are actually better than natural ones...
Yes, for decades they claimed clarity and purity to be indicators of the highest quality. Now that humans can manufacture them with better specs than nature, they're shifting to claim that "natural" is better. In the end it's a pretty carbon lattice.
In that respect it's the same as any other collectible or antique that can be reliably replicated in slightly better condition and with slightly less irregularity than the highly prized "mint condition" originals made by the most skilled artisans...
(Less so for industrial uses, or for inserts into the average person's engagement rings where it's the thought and style rather than the provenance that counts)
Painting and drawing went for various forms of stylized representation, because competing against photographs doesn't interest most people.
But you also had a new field of photography, where the focus is now composition. There is a marked difference between the photographs I take and the photographs a skilled photographer takes, even if both are realistic depictions of a scene, and the difference is, sometimes, art.
All discussion aside, I see portrait photography as painting with people.
That is, it's not so much about composition, as it is about using objects around you - people, nature, etc - to paint a picture instead of using paint and brushes.
It's much easier than painting when the picture you see in your head is much like what the camera lens sees when you point it in a given direction.
However, often there's work required to paint the picture you see in your head. With people, it's figuring out what to say to them to make them look the way you see them - to bring out the inner warmth - and to figure out how to capture in a static image what the eye sees over a stretch of time.
Ultimately, with movies we've come full circle: filmmakers often resort to painting (i.e. CGI) instead of photography, because sometimes it's easier just to paint the picture one has in their minds with a graphics tablet than it is to paint it with real-world objects positioned around the camera - even if realism is the goal.
Yup, when I doing some research for an engagement ring I read "reviews" on Moisanite arguing that it wasn't as nice as a real diamond because it had "too much sparkle." So I got the Moisanite and my fiance loved and gets compliments on it all the damn time!
I'd expect a significant change in diamond pricing structure — De Beers and the jewelry industry sure can keep prices from dropping uncontrollably, but I'd guess some kinds of impurities will become markers of superior value ("true natural 10..100× more expensive") due to difficulty of artificial reproduction.
I can see the desire for obviously occluded diamonds to become chic, since their manufacturing value would be low enough that fakes likely wouldn't exist, but I don't see how impurities would be "difficult to reproduce".
Probably but I doubt they'll be successful. For decades they've talked about the flawlessness and purity of diamonds, now faced with a superior product they have to change everyone's minds.
They could go the granola from the earth natural route but unlike organic farming, which evokes images of the stoic farmer, their image is of conflict diamonds and exploited children in dangerous mines.
Couple that with the fact that many people no longer buy the diamonds or see the value that DeBeers put on them. And the fact that millennials are poor and they have a fading empire.
> Probably but I doubt they'll be successful. For decades they've talked about the flawlessness and purity of diamonds, now faced with a superior product they have to change everyone's minds.
I believe that with really good marketing (which De Beers can easily afford) this should not be a problem. For example the fact that Persian rug makers traditionally include deliberate small imperfections into their carpets
It wouldn't be the first time. The practice of giving diamond engagement rings was a result of a very clever marketing campaign by De Beers ("diamonds are forever").
I wouldn't be so quick to say that they won't succeed - their marketing has been managing the public opinion about diamonds for 7 decades. Neither blood diamonds, environmental issues nor the (false) perception of scarcity has brought them down yet.
It's only been in the last couple decades that those things have come into the public consciousness. It can take decades to change perception, especially with something like diamonds that aren't usually purchased by or for kids.
Those kids growing up in the 90s who heard about all the shit DeBeers did and continues to do are now of the age where they would be a customer and they aren't buying. The up and coming generations certainly don't value diamonds either.
I would bet that in 15-20 years the market will decline significantly further and the artificial diamonds are only going to hasten that decline.
> They could go the granola from the earth natural route but unlike organic farming, which evokes images of the stoic farmer, their image is of conflict diamonds and exploited children in dangerous mines.
I wonder whether they could go a fair trade route, focus only on communities which could be improved, and give them a small slice (which would make an enormous difference). It would require a change in approach, not just a marketing whitewash.
They're called conflict or blood diamonds for a reason. The controlling interests in the regions of Africa where most diamonds come from employ slave, child, and forced labor in mines.
If you want a fair trade diamond you need one that's certified to have come from somewhere like Canada.
It doesn't matter. If factory diamonds are cheap, the tacky hoi polloi will slap them on everything Swarovski-style, the appearance of diamond will no longer connote wealth, and the wealthy will drop them like a… rock.
This is on-point. Cultured gemstone-grade diamonds started becoming viable in the early '10s, and manufacturers were careful to provide better value than mined gemstones but not overly sell on it, instead stressing the ethical aspect of CVD/HPHT-treated stones. In addition, the process wasn't yet refined enough to undercut traditionally-mined diamonds by too much. If that changes, then the meaning of diamonds to the rich will as well.
They’re called fake because they’re artificial, not because they have more flaws. The diamond industry might have once thought it could rely on artificial diamonds being less perfect, but it’s under no such illusion now. I think it’s fair to acknowledge that, even if we don’t like it, many people prefer natural diamonds because they’re natural, not because they believe they’re somehow more “pure.”
In other words, I basically agree that diamond prices are subject to artificial scarcity, but give credit to the other side’s point. They have a reasonable and internally consistent argument, even if we find it disagreeable. If you interpret “real” to mean “natural”, their position is reasonable. This isn’t novel - we use “real” and “fake” to refer to “natural” and “artificial” for many other things.
> They’re called fake because they’re artificial, not because they have more flaws (...) give credit to the other side’s point: they have a reasonable and internally consistent argument
The only thing I credit them for is being ruthlessly manipulative. "Fakes" is not a neutral word. It was very specifically chosen for its emotional baggage, similar to "pro-lifer" or "franken-foods". It is an emotional distracting piece of doublespeak and should not be condoned at all as being "reasonable".
You’re taking away a lot of agency from people who prefer natural diamonds. Yes, of course their marketing campaign set off the industry, but the reason it worked is because many people are already predisposed to prefer natural things over artificial things. What you’re calling “emotional baggage” is a subjective preference for some things over other things.
It’s only doublespeak if you subscribe to a literalist form of communication that most people do not use. “Fake” isn’t a neutral word because it’s not intended to be - some people actually do prefer natural diamonds, just as some people really do prefer non-GMO food. It doesn’t matter if the reason they have that preference is due to artificial scarcity or a marketing campaign, the point is that they have that preference and many will keep it even if they are very informed on the matter. People are not hyperrational in the development of their preferences.
The point I’m trying to make here is that while I agree people shouldn’t spend ostentatious amounts of money on items with artificial scarcity, I think litigating the use of the word “fake” is effectively a strawman and a sideshow when we’re discussing De Beers. In my opinion, while lab-made diamonds are more fiscally responsible, they’re not less silly as a purchase than natural diamonds if you dislike the capitalist insertion of a jewelry preference. It’s just local maxima: if you buy a lab-grown diamond you’re still buying a diamond. You’re still buying into that “emotional baggage”, as you put it, you’re just being a bit more fiscally savvy about it. If we assume people are not born with a desire for diamonds, then there is a credible argument buying synethic ones is still feeding a desire you (and I!) find fundamentally disagreeable.
> You’re taking away a lot of agency from people who prefer natural diamonds.
No, I'm not. I'm stating the fact that the language used by De Beers is manipulative. Whether or not people fall for that manipulation is a separate argument.
I did not bring consumers into the equation, you did. And speaking of manipulative language, I would appreciate it if you didn't try to spin it as if I'm the one talking down to them.
It’s only manipulative to take advantage of people’s desires for “real” diamonds insofar as it is manipulative to take advantage of people’s desires for “real” luxury items of any sort that can be faked. In other words: calling it manipulative isn’t productive, because that is essentially how the entire luxury industry works. We can make hyperrealistic imitation handbags and watches, but people still prefer the real items over the “fake” ones, regardless of how close they are in literal quality.
More abstractly, to call a marketing campaign emphasizing the “realness” of a luxury item manipulative is to say that people could be manipulated by it. I disagree that people are manipulated into their desires for these items, even if their desires are not financially rational.
“Productive” here means that there is no distinguishing feature of the diamond industry in particular with respect to the luxury industry. In other words, the criticism of the diamond industry is not productively precise. Of course, you can productively criticize the entire luxury industry, sure, I don’t disagree with that.
More to the point, what exactly is the fallacy? That the “real” products are better? They are better for some definition, you just don’t share the same definition of “better” as the people buying them. That’s the problem: the claim of superiority is not falsifiable, and it’s normative. It’s valid to say that synthetic diamonds are better according to some metrics like flawlessness, but that isn’t the metric everyone values. Many people demonstrably want “as flawless as possible for the ‘real’ diamond I can afford.” That desire is not based on a fallacy, it’s based on different priors. People are approximately never perfectly price-efficient in their purchasing decisions, which means there’s some amount of irrationality everywhere. A desire to buy an inefficiently priced luxury item with artificial scarcity and status associations is price-irrational but it can make sense in general. In your view, there should be a rigorous notion of “the metric” to optimize for across various products, but that notion is fundamentally at odds with how humans operate culturally. To put it bluntly, many people know and don’t care that synthetic diamonds are better in many respects, just as many people know and don’t care that a “franken-Rolex” can be better than an actual Rolex in many respects. They still want the “real” version, and from there they’ll optimize further.
Like I said, I think there are legitimate criticisms of the diamond trade, but in my opinion they’re glossed over when we get preoccupied talking about what constitutes “real” versus “fake” and whether or not people should want the “real” thing.
> “Productive” here means that there is no distinguishing feature of the diamond industry in particular with respect to the luxury industry. In other words, the criticism of the diamond industry is not productively precise.
Oh really? And you did not think of explaining this completely non-standard usage of the word "productive" until now? Who is not being "productively precise" in their argumentation here?
I'm done with this debate. Your style of discussion is basically building up a giant Rube Goldberg machine of words for something that is extremely simple at the core, which is turning it into an endurance run of who can keep up with the walls of text the longest. That is neither convincing, nor respectful of the person you are debating with to.
> I'm done with this debate. Your style of discussion is basically building up a giant Rube Goldberg machine of words for something that is extremely simple at the core, which is turning it into an endurance run of who can keep up with the walls of text the longest. That is neither convincing, nor respectful of the person you are debating with to.
Sorry, that wasn’t my intention. But respectfully, I disagree. I don’t think this topic is at all simple, and I find nuance to be a helpful perspective.
Especially for people who are not (yet) particularly invested/interested, it signals that the "fake" ones are flawed and objectively worse in terms of quality, because of the parallel to fake (counterfeit) goods which often are.
Instead of fake, calling them synthetic or artificial would be more neutral choices. For "real" you could use "natural(ly occurring)" or similar.
> You’re taking away a lot of agency from people who prefer natural diamonds. Yes, of course their marketing campaign set off the industry, but the reason it worked is because many people are already predisposed to prefer natural things over artificial things.
Predisposed is a pretty strong word. Do you think people are born with a preference for “natural” diamonds? I happen to believe that most preferences you hold are learned throughout life, perhaps even manufactured by others.
No, many people are predisposed to like luxury items due to instilled cultural values, not because of an innate utility. But that was part of my point: to honestly criticize the diamond industry, we should criticize the entire market of veblen goods in general.
If you're going to leave the debate like you said you would, just do so. But don't reply to my comment with nothing but an irrelevant Wikipedia link - that's extremely dismissive. It's also intellectually insulting, because it presumes that the other party is so poorly informed that the mere mention of a dialectic phenomenon should be enough to enlighten them.
This is not whataboutism because I'm not excusing the diamond industry's behavior by distracting the conversation to irrelevant examples. Instead, I'm generalizing the diamond industry as part of a greater phenomenon to demonstrate that the problem isn't just the diamond industry, it's the way human beings are incentivized to operate with respect to status symbols in general.
Simply replying with that link tells me that you believe my points can be reduced - and similarly dismissed - simply by labeling them with whatever the term is for the (perceived) fault in the argument. That's about as constructive as saying something is an ad hominem without any effort to explain why, or to declare something is fake news without providing more information.
You're not debating in good faith. Moreover, what's the point? You must know you're not going to convince me with a low effort comment sending me to a Wikipedia page describing one of the many possible ways an argument can be fallacious. You didn't even both to explain why it applies (which, again, it doesn't). So why are you even bothering with this?
> Moreover, what's the point? You must know you're not going to convince me with a low effort comment sending me to a Wikipedia page describing one of the many possible ways an argument can be fallacious. You didn't even both to explain why it applies (which, again, it doesn't).
YES IT FUCKING DOES YOU HYPOCRITICAL TWAT. Obtusity is NOT nuance.
> to honestly criticize the diamond industry, we should criticize the entire market of veblen goods in general.
You're both defending the diamond industry and admitting that they're bad, but saying we are only allowed to criticise it if we criticise everything that has remotely similar workings. That is the whataboutist fallacy
It would have taken you three sentences of reading comprehension of linked WikiPedia to figure this out. I do not for one second believe that you are arguing in good faith yourself sir. Good day.
> “Fake” isn’t a neutral word because it’s not intended to be - some people actually do prefer natural diamonds, just as some people really do prefer non-GMO food.
"Fake" means something isn't what it's claimed to be.
A piece of glass cut to look like a diamond is a fake. You make like it or not, but it isn't a diamond. A diamond is a mass of carbon in a particular structure, and glass isn't.
A lab-grown diamond is not fake. It is, in fact, a diamond.
If people want to distinguish between "natural" vs "synthetic" or "mined" vs "grown" diamonds, fine. But "fake" is truly a misleading term here.
"Fake" carries a negative connotation of being an inferior facsimile/fraudulent in some way/a lesser product. It takes no agency away from people to indulge in those irrational preferences to insist that emotive language shouldn't be used to deepen those preferences and suggest an inaccurate view of what lab-grown diamonds are.
Sure but even "natural" diamonds aren't as rare as they're made out to be. There's an artificial scarcity because De Beers wants to keep the prices up:
IMO it's not much different than deciding to drink "natural water" over simple tap water (though I'm basing this off living near a spring well that supplies my tap water, experiences may vary).
That’s an interesting analogy, I’m not really sure how to answer that. I suppose I would respond by saying that water isn’t exactly analogous because it’s not a luxury good. A better example might be a “fake” Rolex or a “fake” Hermes handbag. Both such items can be convincingly faked (at least up to very close review, even if not by a qualified inspection team with knowledge of trade secrets). But people still prefer the “real” luxury items.
Preferring the “real” over the “fake” is only irrational insofar as preferring either is irrational. You either buy these items because you want the status signalling effect, or yoy buy them because you actually have an innate appreciation for them.
I think the gp's analogy of natural water is better than the luxury good you suggested because the underlying distinction is a choice between something naturally occuring vs man-made.
I disagree. Gold is clearly a luxury item despite being natural. More importantly, diamonds are luxury goods, for better or worse, which means they wouldn’t adhere to the price dynamics of water.
Not sure what the source of disagreement is, particulary when my comment was merely to agree with the gp's water analogy when s/he asked:
"What makes a diamond "natural"?"
Diamonds are perceived as luxury goods because of the elaborate fiction of artificial scarcity woven around it by De Beers, which you have acknowledged upthread.
Mentioning gold wasn't necessary because alchemy never delivered on a man-made substitute for gold. And it distracts from the core issue, we are here debating the consequences of the Chinese lab's feat for diamond after all.
EDIT: To summarize, I'm not clear on why you think applying a "luxury goods" lens will lead to better insights as to why people prefer "natural/real" over "man-made/fake" substitutes, when the underlying issue is one of perception, which can be shaped by anyone with an agenda and a marketing budget.
What exactly is that internally consistent argument?
They now basically say, "the more pure they are, the more valuable, because they are incredibly rare (because we artificially limit supply) unless they are really, really pure, because we can't limit supply of those."
Remember, lots of things are natural, but only the rare ones are valuable.
The internally consistent argument is that these items are, like many other luxury goods, designed to signal status (or, more rarely, to elicit a response of much more fundamental appreciation, the sort a fellow watchmaker might have for a Patek Philippe). Diamonds are not unique in this regard, because many people prefer natural/real over artificial/synthetic/fake when it comes to art, antiques, luxury items, etc.
If you approach this from the perspective that you’re spending more money for imperceptible characteristics encouraged by a massive conglomerate, then sure, it’s obviously irrational. But if you look at it from the perspective of signaling or status seeking, it makes sense to pursue the “real” item over the “fake” one.
If you buy a synthetic diamond, the only people you’re signaling favorably to are those in your particular ingroup with respect to opinions on De Beers. If you buy a real diamond, you are signaling to a much wider set of people. It’s not fiscally rational, but it’s not supposed to be.
Assuming they talk about how they prefer “real” diamonds, the latter. Similarly, people on the other side signal their association by talking about how they’d never buy “real” diamonds.
So, the consistency of the argument is just that, "I spend more for this, therefore it gives a better impression to people who also choose to pay more."
I thought that De Beer had changed their approach to one of promoting the imperfections of real diamonds. And the news this week regarding "deeper" diamonds having exceedingly rare minerals embedded within could further this cause.
I'm not sure they always have the same color/clarity. I was looking around for diamonds at one point recently (friend's looking to propose) and the synthetic selection didn't seem to go all the way up to the highest end of the scale.
Also I was surprised that the price difference wasn't bigger, in the 1-2 carat range it seemed the difference was maybe 10-20% or so, which is not nothing but not massive.
Could be an artifact of where I was looking however.
Y'know, I think that the whole diamond hype is nonsense, but I do understand how a stone which was formed over millennia (or more?) and discovered by a miner has more of a story to it that a stone which was grown in a lab by a technician. I've no problem with considering a natural diamond real and a lab-grown one fake, even though they are the same 'stuff.'
Sure but knowing that De Beers artificially inflates the price and that the "natural" diamond market is a major driver of bloodshed and slavery I'd hope that "natural diamonds" are eventually as frowned upon in polite society as "real fur" already is.
I feel like if we're going "good, fuck De Beers" but still going "finally I can buy a less expensive ring for my finance" we're still in a very narrow set of railroad tracks created by De Beers.
Is that story of how humans exploit others who are unfortunate enough to be born in environments with fewer resources (natural and social) such that they have to engage in activities which simply allow someone in richer areas to flaunt their wealth?
If that is the story, then it doesn’t need to be told.
Appreciating the story and quality of a product doesn't automatically imply "flaunting their wealth"... you can simply appreciate it for your own enjoyment.
From what I understand, these gems are actually better than natural ones, since they're 100% pure. Maybe it's time to call lab-grown diamonds "real" and mined ones "fake".