24 ms·

De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

733 points by bkohlmann 8y ago

merinowool 8y ago
Excuse me my ignorance, but could you bury lab grown diamonds deep in the earth (company back garden) and then mine them few weeks later, so that you can tell these were pulled from the earth?
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  The difference between the two is the flaws within the diamond itself (natural diamonds have more). Burying a diamond doesn't do anything to it; the difference dates back to its formation. Now if you're burying the synthetic diamond hundreds of miles deep, where the pressure is high enough to create diamonds from scratch, then you might be into something.
  - merinowool 8y ago
    If it was not possible to make diamond in the lab, ideally clean ones would be presumably most expensive?
    - CydeWeys 8y ago
      Higher quality natural diamonds still are the most expensive.
- gowld 8y ago
  Now you're thinking like a marketer!
kregasaurusrex 8y ago
This is great news for scientific research- diamonds for experimental purposes are a huge market that's impeded by their artificially high cost. From a material standpoint there's a multitude of uses for them- ranging from use in CERN's particle detectors for their high optical clarity, to creating nanodiamond transport mechanisms for drugs because of their resilience to microcellular activity. By creating a mass market and demand for these artifically produced diamonds, the cost of production will significantly drop where it could be more affordable for researchers and companies to invest their time and ideas into.
- gruez 8y ago
  >This is great news for scientific research- diamonds for experimental purposes are a huge market that's impeded by their artificially high cost is this really the case? AFAIK industrial diamonds are quite cheap. if anything, debeers's meddling made industrial diamonds cheaper, because it suppressed the demand from the jewelry market.
  - mrob 8y ago
    Industrial diamonds are cheap if all you want is an abrasive, but diamonds also have very high thermal conductivity, very high index of refraction (without the birefringence of silicon carbide), and could potentially be useful as semiconductors. We need big and cheap single crystal diamonds to make full use of them. A strong market for synthetic gemstone diamonds could make that happen.
    - ridgeguy 8y ago
      And with the NV- (nitrogen vacancy) center, they're quantum computing devices. The NV- center is a qubit.
    - madengr 8y ago
      There was a an engineer several years ago developing a process to create large sheets of diamond. He claims to have received numerous death threats.
      - userbinator 8y ago
        Was he related to this? http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life-sciences/a-155-carat-diamond-with-92-mm-diameter.html http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life-sciences... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Single-crystal_CVD_diamond_disc.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Single-crystal_CVD_diamon...
        madengr 8y ago
xur17 8y ago
Are there any perceptible differences between these and 'natural' diamonds?
- mml 8y ago
  they are perfect, without inclusions, bubbles etc. really the only way to differentiate them. ironically.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    You can introduce artificial defects during the manufacturing process to subvert detection of authenticity. Source: After reading this Wired article [1] ~15 years ago, myself and two friends tried to (unsuccessfully) put VC money together to commit to large amounts of manufactured diamonds for the consumer industry. [1] https://www.wired.com/2003/09/diamond/ https://www.wired.com/2003/09/diamond/
    - fratlas 8y ago
      What went wrong?
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        No one thought it was viable considering the resources of the Da Beers cartel. In hindsight, they were right. I still have a small block of manufactured diamond I had made with impurities (as a proof of concept) in a box in my closet. With age comes wisdom.
        dreamfactored 8y ago
        Could be the timing was wrong? I'd think that an online direct to consumer model could work now with focus on social media marketing. Worst case you get bought out by De Beers if you make headway, especially now they are getting in the consumer synthetic market themselves.
akhatri_aus 8y ago
It seems De Beers strategy is to clearly differentiate a man made stone vs a natural stone. This way a man made stone can't easily cannibalize the value of a natural stone's market price premium. The goal it seems is in-fact to maintain a premium with natural stones which is De Beers speciality. If they can't have all the revenues, De Beers want all the profits of the industry.
SilasX 8y ago
tldr: De Beers is going to sell synthetic diamonds, after having vowed they wouldn't. (The already did but limited the synthetic ones to industrial applications.) Price will be ~1/10th that of naturals. My reaction: "Oh, come on, this is the most insidious monopolist on the planet. What's the catch?" I think this is it: >The new synthetic diamonds will come in pink, blue and white, and the stones will contain a tiny Lightbox logo. De Beers said the logo won't be visible to the naked eye, but it will make the stones easily identifiable as lab-grown. Sounds like a plan to ensure that synthetic diamonds are quickly distinguishable from natural ones and the latter still command a premium. (They had long been seeking a way to ensure distinguishability after lab-growers kept frustrating such efforts.)
- Aunche 8y ago
  Unless if Lightbox can make their diamonds significantly cheaper than their competitors, I don't see why anyone would choose to buy a diamond with a logo on it.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    De Beers has a way of monopolizing markets, so it may be difficult to find a provider of an unstamped synthetic.
    - bdavisx 8y ago
      No, it won't: https://www.alibaba.com/countrysearch/CN/cvd-diamond.html https://www.alibaba.com/countrysearch/CN/cvd-diamond.html
      - SilasX 8y ago
        “Monopoly” doesn’t mean there are literally no alternatives.
    - brandonjm 8y ago
      However De Beers aren't the only ones who know how to make them, and given their apparent distaste for them they probably don't hold the patent. Unless they intend to buy every company that starts making them or pay the patent holders a fortune, I don't see how they can effectively monopolise this like they can real diamonds.
fgonzag 8y ago
"Lightbox will transform the lab-grown diamond sector by offering consumers a lab-grown product they have told us they want but aren't getting: affordable fashion jewelry that may not be forever, but is perfect for right now" This is clearly a play to devalue the image of man made diamonds. "May not be forever" my ass, it's the exact same thing. Their goal is probably to try to quickly drive the price of man made diamonds down to the price of Moissanite, and create a artificial distinction between natural and man made dimaonds. All of this so the price of man made diamonds doesn't bring down the price of the natural stones with it.
- godzillabrennus 8y ago
  Smart move. Throw enough marketing dollars at misinformation and you can convince hordes of people to doubt facts. Case in point. Despite overwhelming evidence there are people today who still debate climate change.
  - BookmarkSaver 8y ago
    Or the staggering number of anti-GMO laws and business ad campaigns.
    - seibelj 8y ago
      Educated people who hate GMO are instant signal that they don’t understand science. A good filter
      - mathgladiator 8y ago
        Or that they understand science and don't want to be in the experimental group. They would rather be in the control.
        bumblebritches5 8y ago
        Amen. It's hilarious to me how most of those "hur dur ur anti science11111!!" people literally don't even understand anything about what they're talking about, the talking box just told them that they're ok so they parrot it back to feel smart.
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
Interestingly enough, this starts to bring up questions that have previously only been super active in science fiction circles, particularly, Star Trek: If you can perfectly recreate something down to the molecular level, what actually has value? (Assuming, someday, that synthetic versions are excessively cheap, in Star Trek's case.) If you can replicate cooked food perfectly, will people still claim that "real" food, grown, slaughtered, and cooked, is "better" or tastes "more authentic", despite no technical difference? Synthetic diamonds could, in fact, be in every way "better" (though hilariously, De Beers suggests a synthetic diamond "may not be forever"), but I won't be surprised if authentic diamonds remain the "real ones" long term. (After all, as we know, diamonds actually have no real value, it's all marketing.)
- digi_owl 8y ago
  I seem to recall that Deep Space 9 touched in this in various ways during its run. Keep in mind that it was the first series that was fully made without Roddenberry input.
  - vidarh 8y ago
    TNG, Voyager and Deep Space 9 all at various points made an issue of how the replicated food was not quite the same, without really trying to explain why (a lot of the issues with our mass produced food is exactly that: it's been modified to suit mass production, transport and storage, and often to be cost reduced as well; you'd expect most of those issues to disappear once you're using a replicator). But you're probably right that DS9 made a bigger deal of it, especially with Sisko's dad and his restaurant featuring more than once, as well as various luxury products fetching high prices, when you might otherwise assume such high prices would quickly ensure they'd get replicated.
    - Karunamon 8y ago
      TNG touched on it I think - Deanna once tried to have the computer replicate her a chocolate sundae or some such, and it was implied if not outright said that the normal sundae was modified to be more nutritious. I’d imagine tweaking the “junk” out of desserts would make them taste different even if you have molecular control over the results. Yup, found the clip here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBWpVjzJXIs&feature=youtu.be&t=30s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBWpVjzJXIs&feature=youtu.be...
49bc 8y ago
> De Beers said the logo won't be visible to the naked eye, but it will make the stones easily identifiable as lab-grown. They really still don’t get it still. Consumers aren’t making the same distinction for something that’s organically the same. They’re really pushing a “lab-grown is different and mined is more valuable” branding maneuver that people just aren’t buying.
- alonmower 8y ago
  I’m not buying, you’re not buying... but I think their goal is to spread enough doubt so that someone who’s not thinking as critically about this stuff gets upset when their diamond isn’t natural, or is afraid to buy anything but a natural diamond for fear of upsetting their loved one. By offering these but making them downmarket and making them seem cheaper they’re trying to suppress prices in the lab grown market to hurt competitors while attempting to protect their cash cow.
kibwen 8y ago
> "Lightbox will transform the lab-grown diamond sector by offering consumers a lab-grown product they have told us they want but aren't getting: affordable fashion jewelry that may not be forever, but is perfect for right now," said De Beers CEO Bruce Cleaver. I'm simply speechless at the stupidity of this statement. A contender for one of the outright dumbest CEO-speak lies of the decade.
- Johnny555 8y ago
  It may be a lie, it may be marketing speak, but it's not dumb - they are sitting on a huge stockpile of natural stones, admitting that lab grown diamonds are the same (or even better due to the lack of flaws) than natural diamonds would lose a lot of money. So he has to say something that preserves the value in natural diamonds.
  - kibwen 8y ago
    Yes, I understand the strategic value of his words. My speechless stems from my inability to find a profound way to express my dismay that we live in a world where such farcically untrue statements are standard operating procedure. The statement is nonsensical; he knows it, we know it, he knows that we know it, and we know that he knows that we know it. And yet despite the utter transparency of the lie, no CEO would ever dream of not telling it. I suppose I'm just sad that we live in a world that has so completely disincentivized corporate honesty.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- FPGAhacker 8y ago
  Natural diamonds have already been in existence forever (from a consumer point of view). The synthetic you just bought may be a day old. In some sense of the word, one is forever, the other is the potential of forever. That said, yeah it’s obviously meant to cast doubt on the longevity of synthetics. But I don’t think stupid is the right word for it. Malicious comes to mind.
acchow 8y ago
De Beers hasn't admitted defeat. They've pivoted strategies. "De Beers launched a new jewelry brand on Tuesday [...] The brand, called Lightbox [...] will transform the lab-grown diamond sector by offering consumers a lab-grown product they have told us they want but aren't getting: affordable fashion jewelry that may not be forever, but is perfect for right now," Genius attack from marketing.
- degenerate 8y ago
  So the position is, it's not a shiny rock with natural scarcity and artificial inflated value because we hoard all the diamonds... but instead, a shiny rock with artificial scarcity and value because we hoard all the laboratories and control price. I fear the publishing and journal industries will stick around for another 100 years, just like De Beers has done to the diamond industry. We'll still be in the same crappy predicament in 2118 asking how we got to this point where a few publishers control all the world's flow of knowledge, and the answer will be something to the tune of "because people still like paying high prices for shiny rocks"
  - acchow 8y ago
    How can they hoard all the laboratories? This isn't a repeat of the early 20th century. It is way easier to make a lab than to find a new diamond mine.
    - dbasedweeb 8y ago
      It’s even easier for DeBeers to crush that lab, or buy it up and shut it down.
      - gonvaled 8y ago
        Every time they buy one lab and crush it down, they are losing money. The amount they lose depends on two things: 1 - how much profit the lab owners are making (otherwise, why sell it to DeBeers) 2 - how many labs per year they need to buy The possible scenarios here are complex. Let's explore one: "It is cheap to create a new Laboratory, production of artificial diamonds (identical to natural ones) is cheap, and they produce handsome profits because the competing (indistinguishable) product (natural ones) is very expensive" DeBeers will have a hard time buying all the laboratories popping-up all over the world, while at the same time the price of diamonds starts to drop because of the arrival of these cheap, indistinguishable alternatives. DeBeers will bleed to death pretty quickly in this scenario. Please note that we assume here several points: - artificial diamonds are really indistinguishable - there is no barrier to creating and producing artificial diamonds, other than the usual business barriers that other industries have (investment, IP, ...)
iamgopal 8y ago
Title should read, de beers found a way to defeat man made diamonds
senectus1 8y ago
foxcon or Samsung need to work on the artificial diamond tech for phone screens. That'll put the industry solidly in the here to stay state, permanently. Probably shut debeers up permanently as well.
- userbinator 8y ago
  It sounds like a good idea until you realise that besides the extreme hardness, diamond is also extremely brittle and thus likely to shatter from impact --- and the thought of having xray-transparent shards of diamond forcefully embedded into one's skin is quite unpleasant.
Hermel 8y ago
What you are all not getting is that a diamond is not about its chemical properties, but about economic signalling. Just like artificial fur could not replace natural fur, man-made diamonds will never be the luxury item mined diamonds are today. Diamonds, just like gold, are not valuable because of their physical properties, but because they are rare. If someone invented a way to produce arbitrary amounts of gold at a low price, it would not make everyone rich, it would just lead to a collapse of the gold price (unless of course you can somehow distinguish it from the traditional gold, which is what De Beers is trying to ensure for diamonds).
- paulie_a 8y ago
  But they are not actually that rare. It's simply a controlled supply by a cartel losing its grip.
  - hrabago 8y ago
    Artificial scarcity successfully implemented is still scarcity. For example, trading cards printed in low numbers can drive the prices for those cards high.
    - paulie_a 8y ago
      But they are not even artificially scarce. The price plummets after purchase immediately. Go buy a used engagement ring for instance. It is tainted for some reason but heavily discounted. Diamonds are not rare and not even that pretty compared to other gems.
- babblingdweeb 8y ago
  Your statement is true, but leaves out some facts. The issue is that diamonds are not naturally rare, they are artificially rare. De Beers buys diamond mines to shut them down and only lets so much of the product on the market to inflate the price. Used gold vs. used diamonds also reflect the artificial pricing. De Beers is a cartel, trying to protect their cartel. The marketing scam of the last 50 years is showing cracks.
- 8y ago
ajmurmann 8y ago
I hope that people will buy their manufactured diamonds elsewhere and evil DeBeers can go out of business.
purplejacket 8y ago
Today I shed tears for beloved De Beers :-(
19235982958329 8y ago
Can someone summarize the progress in synthetic diamond research for the past two decades? From mid-90s to early 00s I remember the diamond hype, from Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age, to the practical refinement of making cost-effective synthetic gem quality diamonds, high-frequency heat-dissipating semiconductor wafers, and speculation of biocompatible nanotechnology such as respirocytes. What problems were encountered with scaling, energy efficiency, cost, and competitor materials? Are they still applicable technologies working their way through the R&D pipeline?
- ridgeguy 8y ago
  In general: Two pathways have led to economically viable synthetic gem diamonds. One is chemical vapor deposition (CVD), the other is high pressure, high temperature (HPHT) growth. The successful CVD makers use hydrogen+methane and high power microwaves (typically 915MHz, 30-60kW) to form plasmas that cause diamond to deposit and grow on small diamond seeds. IIa Technologies, Diamond Foundry are two of these. HPHT is an old technology, the first to unambiguously demonstrate diamond synthesis in the 1950s. It grows diamonds in metal solvents at high temperature and pressure (typically 1000°C at a million psi). It has come to be successful in gem diamond production due to better press design and use of modern process controls. The business challenge in gem diamond production isn't any aspect of the technology. It's the sales. De Beers has a hundred years of channels for whatever type of diamond they want to sell. Newcomers have to build their own channels, largely because the older ones are highly loyal to De Beers and won't handle goods from any other source. As the CEO of one of the most successful synthetic diamond producers recently told me, if their cost of production were zero, it would still be a major challenge to sell their gems.
ridgeguy 8y ago
This is interesting in light of pretty much everybody's agreement that economically recoverable gem diamond reserves have mostly been found and production of naturals will plateau around 2020, followed by an irrevocable decline. [1] I think De Beers is looking at a revenue/margin maximization endgame. I wouldn't be surprised to see Anglo American sell De Beers off within a couple of years. And the price of synthetics compared to equivalent quality/weight naturals will continue to fall. Synthetic/natural prices are now ~70%, whereas a little over a year ago, they were ~90%. Hydrogen, methane and microwaves are much cheaper than titanic mines. [1] https://www.economist.com/international/2017/02/25/a-report-from-de-beerss-new-diamond-mine https://www.economist.com/international/2017/02/25/a-report-...
1024core 8y ago
THIS IS NOT ABOUT MAN-MADE DIAMONDS! Read this article: https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/05/29/de-beers-to-sell-man-made-diamonds.html https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/05/29/de-beers-to-sell... Read the last paragraph: The move also comes at a sensitive time for De Beers and its relationship with Botswana, the source of three-quarters of its diamonds. The two have a sales agreement that gives De Beers the right to market and sell the diamonds from Botswana. The deal, which gives De Beers its power over global prices, will soon be up for negotiation and Botswana is likely to push for more concessions. So this is not about man-made diamonds; it's a negotiating tactic! They'll use this move to pressure Botswana to accept weaker conditions and less money.
- jarito 8y ago
  Good? If the acceptable price paid for diamonds in both the wholesale and retail markets is lowered, then the pressure to mine diamonds (and the attendant violence & natural damage) should be lowered as well. That seems like a good outcome? Additionally, DeBeers is unlikely to be able to dominate the lab-grown market so this step should legitimize lab-grown stones with little risk of creating another monopoly.
  - IncRnd 8y ago
    This doesn't mean that retail prices would drop.
  - dalbasal 8y ago
    I wouldn't jump to any such conclusions. De Beers has spent the last 100+ years controlling the diamond industry's economics in it's entirety, from mining (via such contracts) to retail. They even invented the diamond engagement ring tradition, as we know it today. De Beers are most active on the wholesale side, where they control supply (and when they can, demand) to maintain stable, high "prices." ...That's why they are/control a cartel. I have no doubt that de beers does not intend to enter this market so that they can compete in an "efficient" level playing field. That's not what they do. They want to exert control over one or both of these markets, in some way. That is always the de beers business plan. Anyway... I always get a little worried when people apply the basics of supply-demand logic everywhere. Classical economics describes markets of a certain type: many buyers and sellers, reasonable transparency & information flow, not too much collusion, reasonably low transaction costs, mild psychology/cultural effects..... This is some fraction of the economy but not all. Supply-demand is not the main thing determining outcomes (prices & volume) in a lot of big markets: labour, financial services, banking, oil, ISPs... diamonds. Supply and demand effect those markets, but not in a way that can be described by 2 intersecting curves.
lowbloodsugar 8y ago
"The new synthetic diamonds will come in pink, blue and white, and the stones will contain a tiny Lightbox logo. De Beers said the logo won't be visible to the naked eye, but it will make the stones easily identifiable as lab-grown." So de beers will intentionally damage their synthetic diamonds. Sure I wanna buy synthetic diamonds from you guys.
- donarb 8y ago
  There is no damage. Certain diamonds are laser-engraved with microscopic serial numbers, which can be linked back to certification. Nowadays people are even having their names and wedding dates put onto the diamond.
- gowld 8y ago
  An authentic natural diamond also has an identification mark. http://www.e-worlddiamondbourse.com/Services/LaserEngraving http://www.e-worlddiamondbourse.com/Services/LaserEngraving
  - lowbloodsugar 8y ago
    But again, this is them damaging the diamond just so they can distinguish between real and synthetic. There's no difference, but they want there to be a difference, so they made one. So, lets be clear, a natural diamond does not have an identification mark.
shmerl 8y ago
Diamonds are overpriced through social engineering. There is no real need for these carbon crystals to cost that much. But diamond producers inflated demand for them, turning them into status symbols.
- sizzzzlerz 8y ago
  Prices were based upon supply which for the longest time, DeBeers controlled. They controlled the quantity and quality of the stones they offered at their price. When diamonds were found in Russia and Canada, their control of the market went away. Diamonds are not nor ever were rare.
  - shmerl 8y ago
    Demand for them is still inflated. They were not commonly used as gems in the past.
zurp 8y ago
"Yeah we sell that cheap-ass lab shit too. But you should really buy the really expensive natural stuff that we've manipulated the price of for decades."
ChuckMcM 8y ago
This is a pretty amazing development. I expect that in 20 years "natural" diamonds will less commonly sold than lab made ones. Certainly for jewelry there are good reasons to go with a lab diamond (better clarity and color for a lot less money) and no downside.
sytelus 8y ago
The surprising thing for me is that synthetic diamond industry has so thoroughly failed to create marketing campaign, sales channels and branding. Even a noob like me can think of few good enough marketing slogans: "Diamonds Purer than Nature", "Perfection is never old", "Just like Kohinoor" and so on. They can create a brand of personalized diamonds with different shapes that symbolizes couple's story. They can completely overtake 3rd world countries where people would jump at 20% cheaper diamonds and most don't even know that synthetics exists. Many technological advancements had obsoleted traditional companies. I'm surprised De Beers is still around.
forkLding 8y ago
Not surprised, DeBeers isnt exactly a "diamond zealot" as they were the company that hoarded diamond supply to drive up scarcity and prices, they're more interested in monopolies and profits.
richk449 8y ago
De beers has been selling synthetic diamonds for decades. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_Six https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_Six
ersh 8y ago
All that jewelry industry looks fake to me. There is absolutely no value in man-made or nonmanmade jewels at all. I am wondering why people pay even a penny for that.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  What's so hard to understand? Jewelry exists because it (1) makes people look more attractive, and (2) enables conspicuous consumption. Humans aren't Vulcans who make decisions rationally. We're apes with a facility for reason tacked on as an afterthought.
  - cf498 8y ago
    Diamonds are historically an extremely new phenomenon with the demand outside of industry created by De Beers massive advertisement campaign over almost a century. Diamond Jewelry exists because advertisement works. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-yo...
    - umanwizard 8y ago
      I'm referring to jewelry in general, which has existed for tens of thousands of years. Fashions come and go, but whether shell beads or diamonds, the point is the same.
sunstone 8y ago
Aluminium also went through a transition from precious to a commodity early in the last century. It's cautionary tale for those who expect that "natural" diamonds will continue to have pricing power in the market as time goes by.
- carapace 8y ago
  One of the things I liked about "Diamond Age" was thinking about cheap diamond as a building material...
MarkMc 8y ago
One day man-made diamonds will be indistinguishable from natural diamonds. When that happens I wonder what will become of the 'rule' that says a man should spend 3 months salary on a wedding ring. Perhaps a Rolex watch will substitute for a diamond ring in signalling to your friends that you have a rich husband?
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  It's an antiquated rule that no longer makes sense given that women work now too. It only really ever made sense as an equivalent of a male dowry, which just isn't needed in modern gender egalitarian society.
Hasz 8y ago
Why can't we treat diamonds like the commodity they are? Don't give me a story, give me a MOQ, spec sheet and a quote.
blockchain-help 8y ago
Blockchain has shown its usefulness when recording events like transactions. This usefulness could be extended to medical records, which often suffer from inaccuracy and discrepancies. Healthcare professionals are responsible for ensuring that sensitive medical records are accurate, complete, and only available to authorized individuals. All of this can prove to be difficult when healthcare providers all have different systems for storing information. TO KNOW MORE PLEASE CHECK OUR SITE:- http://www.blockchainhelp.pro http://www.blockchainhelp.pro
artellectual 8y ago
My wife and I got married without buying a diamond ring. I simply refused to spend money in things that are overvalued by the market because some marketing scheme was so strong that it made facts look silly. I told her that I refuse to spend money on things that cause other people pain. Especially when there is no guarantee that the diamond we buy are not blood diamond. Instead we invested our money in buying things that are truly beneficial in our lives, like buy an SUV, preparing for a baby, preparing to buy a home. I have to say this is a huge step forward. I just talked to her about buying her a 3 carat lab-grown diamond ring now because of this news. She's still in doubt. I told her "It's the exact same thing, and no one died in the process the rest is up to your perception now".
- jypepin 8y ago
  I just got engaged a few months ago and did not buy a ring. My fiancée didn't want one (she prefers more discreet rings) and I was happy not to pay for such a marketing schemes. I was very surprised at how everyone were pretty shocked, be it our parents or some of our friends (despite being open minded, modern millenials). Gotta give credits to the marketing firm that did this whole thing, it might be the biggest marketing success ever.
  - gowld 8y ago
    You got a good mate, mate.
- jiri 8y ago
  The historical purpose of an engagement ring/gift was to demonstrate your serious interest and your intentions. Via spending money for her that cannot be taken back. Unfortunatelly, diamonds fit this quite nicely. Actually, the best way to demonstrate it is via these rules: (1) you have to get something that is very hard to get (more money than you normally have), (2) something that has no use for you (you want to convince her, it wouldn't be convincing if you benefitted from spending) (3) and preferrably it is not monetizable for recipient (in general, woman is much less motivated to tricking you only because of gift) So, if she's already convinced to merry you, spending fortune for diamond ring is futile. And if you are in hurry, you can really just burn some money to ash in front of her, it would do the same :) Nonetheless, not as fancy as diamond ring for her :D
patall 8y ago
> The world's largest diamond miner is doing the unthinkable: Selling stones produced in a laboratory. Sorry, but that is some plain wrong headlining. Maybe its a first that they sell them as jewelry but De Beers is producing (and selling) synthetic diamonds now for 60 years and is already one of if not the biggest producer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_Six https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_Six)
- dchest 8y ago
  This is mentioned in the article.
jypepin 8y ago
I'm surprised article like this don't mention how NOT valuable real diamonds actually are and how it's all a marketing stunt from the 50s[1]. It's pretty funny to see De Beers and co trying to defend how precious their "real" stones are while the face value of man-made ones might actually be higher than those real ones they acquire slaving away poor african countries. [1] https://priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bullshit https://priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bulls...
wyc 8y ago
Synthetic diamonds might be a disruptive innovation. They are often cheaper, lower quality, and lacking in complex features such as authenticity. There is a different and advantageous cost structure compared to that of mining for natural diamonds, and this product fulfills the new job of culling environmental and humanitarian concern. In this scenario, we may be witnessing an incumbent firm unable to adopt new disruptive technologies because its revenue structures are incompatible, as the current margins and volumes for synthetics are likely far lower than those of mined diamonds.
- artellectual 8y ago
  Lower Quality? Lacking in complex feature? authenticity? what is considered authentic? If i tell you water is authentic if it's made from 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom, in the same way that diamond is made from compressed carbon and whether synthetic or dug from the ground. when the chemical construct is the same what determines it as not being authentic and lower quality? In fact synthetic diamonds offer higher clarity than natural ones depending on which one you choose, they have visually perfect ones in the same way natural diamonds do. So where is this "lower quality" coming from?
  - wyc 8y ago
    Quality can be pretty subjective. If you're making a saw-blade that needs diamond tips, synthetic could be even better, as you rightly mention. If, for whatever reason, you value that the rock has been dug from the ground, then on this dimension the synthetic has worse quality.
peter_retief 8y ago
I worked for De Beers about 30 years ago, already they used to produce some industrial diamonds artificially, it wasn't a big deal then but when you see what large volume industrial stones get mined from kimberlite pipes in existing mines it probably didn't make economic sense. Gem quality stones are far less common
ttflee 8y ago
Is it feasible to stabilize carbon in the form of synthesized diamond using renewable energy to fight global warming?
ivanhoe 8y ago
And we don't even need synthetic diamonds to bring the prices down, it would be enough just to liberalize the diamond mining. De Beers is artificially pumping up the prices by limiting the mining that they almost entirely control, it's a typical case of monopoly on the resources.
himom 8y ago
Poor De Beers: a vertically-integrated monopoly, keeping diamonds more profitable, low resale value and artificially (pun intendes) desired by brides since 1938.
jlebrech 8y ago
I have an application for (fake) diamonds and that's cycle wear, imagine drivers giving you a wide berth when they see shiny diamonds at strategic locations on you bike and clothing because they don't want a by scratch on their bodywork.
tomtimtall 8y ago
Translation: De Beers is losing the battle, so they are now going to pretend to be both sides of the battle and stage a victory for themselves.
amelius 8y ago
Question: can man-made diamonds be distinguished from natural diamonds in a blind test? If so, could they be engineered to be indistinguishable?
mikkom 8y ago
> The new synthetic diamonds will come in pink, blue and white, and the stones will contain a tiny Lightbox logo. De Beers said the logo won't be visible to the naked eye, but it will make the stones easily identifiable as lab-grown. This would suggest that it's not easy to identify lab-grown diamonds from other diamonds.
- exabrial 8y ago
  There's a fluorescence test and a conductivity test they do. Iirc, the natural diamonds do worse and that's how they identity them.
exabrial 8y ago
What drives the female desire to have an expensive engagement ring in the USA? I'm not criticising anyone for desiring one, but I've never asked easier. I like the idea of wearing rings, but I'd do something more exotic and rare, like iridium or something.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- gowld 8y ago
  de Beers' marketing campaign, sustained for over a century: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-yo...
syntaxing 8y ago
Diamonds are seriously overrated. I've been trying to convince all my friends to buy lab grown Moissanite instead of diamonds. People do not understand how good Moissanite looks up close in person. It looks and shines like (if not better than) diamond. I mean a hardness between 9.5 and 10 really isn't that big of a difference.I highly recommend anyone looking for an engagement ring to at least look at Moissanite in person once.
folli 8y ago
[De Beers] even developed a machine that spots lab-grown stones. How does that work? They should be indistinguishable.
- gowld 8y ago
  Lab-grown stones are more symmetrical and pure than natural stones.
kelvin0 8y ago
Anyone interested in the details and PR behind DeBeers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDfs54uwG9w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDfs54uwG9w It's an eye opening Frontline (PBS) doc from 1994. This suggests DeBeers created an artificial diamond 'rarity' and other cultural and economic 'shenanigans' so to speak.
CodeSheikh 8y ago
I guess it is time to release all those diamonds from the vaults that they have been hoarding for decades. It is funny/ironical how man-made diamonds satisfy all "C's" criteria whereas mostly naturally occurring diamonds have some flaws.
redm 8y ago
"..it's the exact same thing." This seems like flawed logic. It's not the exact same thing. If a painter reproduces a Picasso, otherwise knows as art fraud, does it have the same value as the original? Why not? I'll leave it at that.
- gowld 8y ago
  If you reproduce a Picasso, it's not a Picasso. But if you reproduce a Guernica, it's a Guernica. If you reproduce a diamond, it's not a de Beers, but it's still a diamond.
  - redm 8y ago
    In the sense that they are both 'diamonds' they are the same thing. In the sense that one was created by the earth, and one was created by man, they are not the same. Just like with the painting, where it came from, its provenance, matters.
triviatise 8y ago
People will keep buying natural diamonds, because they are more expensive. Just like $30K handbags will continue to sell because they are $30k. Some people will buy copies, but many people would rather have nothing than a fake. For status conscious people (which is most people) they would rather have a smaller natural diamond than a larger man made diamond. This has already been proven with pearls. Most sheeple would recognize when someone else is wearing a diamond that is too big for their status and decide it is a fake. Many people wouldn't wear a too-big manmade diamond for that reason.
- gowld 8y ago
  People would wear a just-big-enough artificial diamond, though, and enjoy pocketing the difference in price. Pressure to compete then drives everyone to buy only artificial.
motohagiography 8y ago
Diamonds were the original bitcoin. Knew a bit about the diamond business from growing up. - Required huge proof of work. - Few practical use cases. - Store of value. - Highly portable. - Price a function of liquidity. - Clustered around use cases like capital flight, high denomination cash, opacity, and black market transactions, asset protection/hiding. I would argue blockchain has done more harm to the diamond market than synthetic diamonds have. Between the two, it's been a perfect storm.
- gowld 8y ago
  Diamonds are a very poor store of value, as they depreciate 50% or more after initial purchase. Portability / Launderability, perhaps, but that's a bit different from "store"
joecool1029 8y ago
What a shit headline. The former president of the US branch of the world's largest synthetic diamond producer once told me personally, that she expected their market to get destroyed once De Beers started to shift focus over to synthetics. They had the head start but didn't dare undercut the cartel that much. This is just De Beers moving forward on that roadmap which has involved the shutdown of mines and price fixing to keep the price of synthetics and natural diamonds propped up. They've done a very good job of keeping synthetics within 80% or so the price of a natural diamond.
rsync 8y ago
How large of a man-made diamond can I buy and how much would it cost ? It would be fun to have a ~600 carat diamond as a paperweight...
themagicteeth 8y ago
I work for a jewelry company that sells lab grown diamonds and we recently started a push towards marketing lower priced engagement rings with lab grown center stones. This marketing of theirs makes the owners of my company feel uncomfortable marketing these rings now.

733 points by bkohlmann 8y ago

Excuse me my ignorance, but could you bury lab grown diamonds deep in the earth (company back garden) and then mine them few weeks later, so that you can tell these were pulled from the earth?

CydeWeys 8y ago
The difference between the two is the flaws within the diamond itself (natural diamonds have more). Burying a diamond doesn't do anything to it; the difference dates back to its formation. Now if you're burying the synthetic diamond hundreds of miles deep, where the pressure is high enough to create diamonds from scratch, then you might be into something.
- merinowool 8y ago
  If it was not possible to make diamond in the lab, ideally clean ones would be presumably most expensive?
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    Higher quality natural diamonds still are the most expensive.
gowld 8y ago
Now you're thinking like a marketer!

kregasaurusrex 8y ago

This is great news for scientific research- diamonds for experimental purposes are a huge market that's impeded by their artificially high cost. From a material standpoint there's a multitude of uses for them- ranging from use in CERN's particle detectors for their high optical clarity, to creating nanodiamond transport mechanisms for drugs because of their resilience to microcellular activity. By creating a mass market and demand for these artifically produced diamonds, the cost of production will significantly drop where it could be more affordable for researchers and companies to invest their time and ideas into.

gruez 8y ago
>This is great news for scientific research- diamonds for experimental purposes are a huge market that's impeded by their artificially high cost is this really the case? AFAIK industrial diamonds are quite cheap. if anything, debeers's meddling made industrial diamonds cheaper, because it suppressed the demand from the jewelry market.
- mrob 8y ago
  Industrial diamonds are cheap if all you want is an abrasive, but diamonds also have very high thermal conductivity, very high index of refraction (without the birefringence of silicon carbide), and could potentially be useful as semiconductors. We need big and cheap single crystal diamonds to make full use of them. A strong market for synthetic gemstone diamonds could make that happen.
  - ridgeguy 8y ago
    And with the NV- (nitrogen vacancy) center, they're quantum computing devices. The NV- center is a qubit.
  - madengr 8y ago
    There was a an engineer several years ago developing a process to create large sheets of diamond. He claims to have received numerous death threats.
    - userbinator 8y ago
      Was he related to this? http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life-sciences/a-155-carat-diamond-with-92-mm-diameter.html http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life-sciences... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Single-crystal_CVD_diamond_disc.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Single-crystal_CVD_diamon...
      - madengr 8y ago

xur17 8y ago

Are there any perceptible differences between these and 'natural' diamonds?

mml 8y ago
they are perfect, without inclusions, bubbles etc. really the only way to differentiate them. ironically.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  You can introduce artificial defects during the manufacturing process to subvert detection of authenticity. Source: After reading this Wired article [1] ~15 years ago, myself and two friends tried to (unsuccessfully) put VC money together to commit to large amounts of manufactured diamonds for the consumer industry. [1] https://www.wired.com/2003/09/diamond/ https://www.wired.com/2003/09/diamond/
  - fratlas 8y ago
    What went wrong?
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      No one thought it was viable considering the resources of the Da Beers cartel. In hindsight, they were right. I still have a small block of manufactured diamond I had made with impurities (as a proof of concept) in a box in my closet. With age comes wisdom.
      - dreamfactored 8y ago
        Could be the timing was wrong? I'd think that an online direct to consumer model could work now with focus on social media marketing. Worst case you get bought out by De Beers if you make headway, especially now they are getting in the consumer synthetic market themselves.

akhatri_aus 8y ago

It seems De Beers strategy is to clearly differentiate a man made stone vs a natural stone. This way a man made stone can't easily cannibalize the value of a natural stone's market price premium. The goal it seems is in-fact to maintain a premium with natural stones which is De Beers speciality. If they can't have all the revenues, De Beers want all the profits of the industry.

SilasX 8y ago

tldr: De Beers is going to sell synthetic diamonds, after having vowed they wouldn't. (The already did but limited the synthetic ones to industrial applications.) Price will be ~1/10th that of naturals. My reaction: "Oh, come on, this is the most insidious monopolist on the planet. What's the catch?" I think this is it: >The new synthetic diamonds will come in pink, blue and white, and the stones will contain a tiny Lightbox logo. De Beers said the logo won't be visible to the naked eye, but it will make the stones easily identifiable as lab-grown. Sounds like a plan to ensure that synthetic diamonds are quickly distinguishable from natural ones and the latter still command a premium. (They had long been seeking a way to ensure distinguishability after lab-growers kept frustrating such efforts.)

Aunche 8y ago
Unless if Lightbox can make their diamonds significantly cheaper than their competitors, I don't see why anyone would choose to buy a diamond with a logo on it.
- SilasX 8y ago
  De Beers has a way of monopolizing markets, so it may be difficult to find a provider of an unstamped synthetic.
  - bdavisx 8y ago
    No, it won't: https://www.alibaba.com/countrysearch/CN/cvd-diamond.html https://www.alibaba.com/countrysearch/CN/cvd-diamond.html
    - SilasX 8y ago
      “Monopoly” doesn’t mean there are literally no alternatives.
  - brandonjm 8y ago
    However De Beers aren't the only ones who know how to make them, and given their apparent distaste for them they probably don't hold the patent. Unless they intend to buy every company that starts making them or pay the patent holders a fortune, I don't see how they can effectively monopolise this like they can real diamonds.

fgonzag 8y ago

"Lightbox will transform the lab-grown diamond sector by offering consumers a lab-grown product they have told us they want but aren't getting: affordable fashion jewelry that may not be forever, but is perfect for right now" This is clearly a play to devalue the image of man made diamonds. "May not be forever" my ass, it's the exact same thing. Their goal is probably to try to quickly drive the price of man made diamonds down to the price of Moissanite, and create a artificial distinction between natural and man made dimaonds. All of this so the price of man made diamonds doesn't bring down the price of the natural stones with it.

godzillabrennus 8y ago
Smart move. Throw enough marketing dollars at misinformation and you can convince hordes of people to doubt facts. Case in point. Despite overwhelming evidence there are people today who still debate climate change.
- BookmarkSaver 8y ago
  Or the staggering number of anti-GMO laws and business ad campaigns.
  - seibelj 8y ago
    Educated people who hate GMO are instant signal that they don’t understand science. A good filter
    - mathgladiator 8y ago
      Or that they understand science and don't want to be in the experimental group. They would rather be in the control.
      - bumblebritches5 8y ago
        Amen. It's hilarious to me how most of those "hur dur ur anti science11111!!" people literally don't even understand anything about what they're talking about, the talking box just told them that they're ok so they parrot it back to feel smart.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

Interestingly enough, this starts to bring up questions that have previously only been super active in science fiction circles, particularly, Star Trek: If you can perfectly recreate something down to the molecular level, what actually has value? (Assuming, someday, that synthetic versions are excessively cheap, in Star Trek's case.) If you can replicate cooked food perfectly, will people still claim that "real" food, grown, slaughtered, and cooked, is "better" or tastes "more authentic", despite no technical difference? Synthetic diamonds could, in fact, be in every way "better" (though hilariously, De Beers suggests a synthetic diamond "may not be forever"), but I won't be surprised if authentic diamonds remain the "real ones" long term. (After all, as we know, diamonds actually have no real value, it's all marketing.)

digi_owl 8y ago
I seem to recall that Deep Space 9 touched in this in various ways during its run. Keep in mind that it was the first series that was fully made without Roddenberry input.
- vidarh 8y ago
  TNG, Voyager and Deep Space 9 all at various points made an issue of how the replicated food was not quite the same, without really trying to explain why (a lot of the issues with our mass produced food is exactly that: it's been modified to suit mass production, transport and storage, and often to be cost reduced as well; you'd expect most of those issues to disappear once you're using a replicator). But you're probably right that DS9 made a bigger deal of it, especially with Sisko's dad and his restaurant featuring more than once, as well as various luxury products fetching high prices, when you might otherwise assume such high prices would quickly ensure they'd get replicated.
  - Karunamon 8y ago
    TNG touched on it I think - Deanna once tried to have the computer replicate her a chocolate sundae or some such, and it was implied if not outright said that the normal sundae was modified to be more nutritious. I’d imagine tweaking the “junk” out of desserts would make them taste different even if you have molecular control over the results. Yup, found the clip here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBWpVjzJXIs&feature=youtu.be&t=30s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBWpVjzJXIs&feature=youtu.be...

49bc 8y ago

> De Beers said the logo won't be visible to the naked eye, but it will make the stones easily identifiable as lab-grown. They really still don’t get it still. Consumers aren’t making the same distinction for something that’s organically the same. They’re really pushing a “lab-grown is different and mined is more valuable” branding maneuver that people just aren’t buying.

alonmower 8y ago
I’m not buying, you’re not buying... but I think their goal is to spread enough doubt so that someone who’s not thinking as critically about this stuff gets upset when their diamond isn’t natural, or is afraid to buy anything but a natural diamond for fear of upsetting their loved one. By offering these but making them downmarket and making them seem cheaper they’re trying to suppress prices in the lab grown market to hurt competitors while attempting to protect their cash cow.

kibwen 8y ago

> "Lightbox will transform the lab-grown diamond sector by offering consumers a lab-grown product they have told us they want but aren't getting: affordable fashion jewelry that may not be forever, but is perfect for right now," said De Beers CEO Bruce Cleaver. I'm simply speechless at the stupidity of this statement. A contender for one of the outright dumbest CEO-speak lies of the decade.

Johnny555 8y ago
It may be a lie, it may be marketing speak, but it's not dumb - they are sitting on a huge stockpile of natural stones, admitting that lab grown diamonds are the same (or even better due to the lack of flaws) than natural diamonds would lose a lot of money. So he has to say something that preserves the value in natural diamonds.
- kibwen 8y ago
  Yes, I understand the strategic value of his words. My speechless stems from my inability to find a profound way to express my dismay that we live in a world where such farcically untrue statements are standard operating procedure. The statement is nonsensical; he knows it, we know it, he knows that we know it, and we know that he knows that we know it. And yet despite the utter transparency of the lie, no CEO would ever dream of not telling it. I suppose I'm just sad that we live in a world that has so completely disincentivized corporate honesty.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
FPGAhacker 8y ago
Natural diamonds have already been in existence forever (from a consumer point of view). The synthetic you just bought may be a day old. In some sense of the word, one is forever, the other is the potential of forever. That said, yeah it’s obviously meant to cast doubt on the longevity of synthetics. But I don’t think stupid is the right word for it. Malicious comes to mind.

acchow 8y ago

De Beers hasn't admitted defeat. They've pivoted strategies. "De Beers launched a new jewelry brand on Tuesday [...] The brand, called Lightbox [...] will transform the lab-grown diamond sector by offering consumers a lab-grown product they have told us they want but aren't getting: affordable fashion jewelry that may not be forever, but is perfect for right now," Genius attack from marketing.

degenerate 8y ago
So the position is, it's not a shiny rock with natural scarcity and artificial inflated value because we hoard all the diamonds... but instead, a shiny rock with artificial scarcity and value because we hoard all the laboratories and control price. I fear the publishing and journal industries will stick around for another 100 years, just like De Beers has done to the diamond industry. We'll still be in the same crappy predicament in 2118 asking how we got to this point where a few publishers control all the world's flow of knowledge, and the answer will be something to the tune of "because people still like paying high prices for shiny rocks"
- acchow 8y ago
  How can they hoard all the laboratories? This isn't a repeat of the early 20th century. It is way easier to make a lab than to find a new diamond mine.
  - dbasedweeb 8y ago
    It’s even easier for DeBeers to crush that lab, or buy it up and shut it down.
    - gonvaled 8y ago
      Every time they buy one lab and crush it down, they are losing money. The amount they lose depends on two things: 1 - how much profit the lab owners are making (otherwise, why sell it to DeBeers) 2 - how many labs per year they need to buy The possible scenarios here are complex. Let's explore one: "It is cheap to create a new Laboratory, production of artificial diamonds (identical to natural ones) is cheap, and they produce handsome profits because the competing (indistinguishable) product (natural ones) is very expensive" DeBeers will have a hard time buying all the laboratories popping-up all over the world, while at the same time the price of diamonds starts to drop because of the arrival of these cheap, indistinguishable alternatives. DeBeers will bleed to death pretty quickly in this scenario. Please note that we assume here several points: - artificial diamonds are really indistinguishable - there is no barrier to creating and producing artificial diamonds, other than the usual business barriers that other industries have (investment, IP, ...)

iamgopal 8y ago

Title should read, de beers found a way to defeat man made diamonds

senectus1 8y ago

foxcon or Samsung need to work on the artificial diamond tech for phone screens. That'll put the industry solidly in the here to stay state, permanently. Probably shut debeers up permanently as well.

userbinator 8y ago
It sounds like a good idea until you realise that besides the extreme hardness, diamond is also extremely brittle and thus likely to shatter from impact --- and the thought of having xray-transparent shards of diamond forcefully embedded into one's skin is quite unpleasant.

Hermel 8y ago

What you are all not getting is that a diamond is not about its chemical properties, but about economic signalling. Just like artificial fur could not replace natural fur, man-made diamonds will never be the luxury item mined diamonds are today. Diamonds, just like gold, are not valuable because of their physical properties, but because they are rare. If someone invented a way to produce arbitrary amounts of gold at a low price, it would not make everyone rich, it would just lead to a collapse of the gold price (unless of course you can somehow distinguish it from the traditional gold, which is what De Beers is trying to ensure for diamonds).

paulie_a 8y ago
But they are not actually that rare. It's simply a controlled supply by a cartel losing its grip.
- hrabago 8y ago
  Artificial scarcity successfully implemented is still scarcity. For example, trading cards printed in low numbers can drive the prices for those cards high.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    But they are not even artificially scarce. The price plummets after purchase immediately. Go buy a used engagement ring for instance. It is tainted for some reason but heavily discounted. Diamonds are not rare and not even that pretty compared to other gems.
babblingdweeb 8y ago
Your statement is true, but leaves out some facts. The issue is that diamonds are not naturally rare, they are artificially rare. De Beers buys diamond mines to shut them down and only lets so much of the product on the market to inflate the price. Used gold vs. used diamonds also reflect the artificial pricing. De Beers is a cartel, trying to protect their cartel. The marketing scam of the last 50 years is showing cracks.
8y ago

ajmurmann 8y ago

I hope that people will buy their manufactured diamonds elsewhere and evil DeBeers can go out of business.

purplejacket 8y ago

Today I shed tears for beloved De Beers :-(

19235982958329 8y ago

Can someone summarize the progress in synthetic diamond research for the past two decades? From mid-90s to early 00s I remember the diamond hype, from Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age, to the practical refinement of making cost-effective synthetic gem quality diamonds, high-frequency heat-dissipating semiconductor wafers, and speculation of biocompatible nanotechnology such as respirocytes. What problems were encountered with scaling, energy efficiency, cost, and competitor materials? Are they still applicable technologies working their way through the R&D pipeline?

ridgeguy 8y ago
In general: Two pathways have led to economically viable synthetic gem diamonds. One is chemical vapor deposition (CVD), the other is high pressure, high temperature (HPHT) growth. The successful CVD makers use hydrogen+methane and high power microwaves (typically 915MHz, 30-60kW) to form plasmas that cause diamond to deposit and grow on small diamond seeds. IIa Technologies, Diamond Foundry are two of these. HPHT is an old technology, the first to unambiguously demonstrate diamond synthesis in the 1950s. It grows diamonds in metal solvents at high temperature and pressure (typically 1000°C at a million psi). It has come to be successful in gem diamond production due to better press design and use of modern process controls. The business challenge in gem diamond production isn't any aspect of the technology. It's the sales. De Beers has a hundred years of channels for whatever type of diamond they want to sell. Newcomers have to build their own channels, largely because the older ones are highly loyal to De Beers and won't handle goods from any other source. As the CEO of one of the most successful synthetic diamond producers recently told me, if their cost of production were zero, it would still be a major challenge to sell their gems.

ridgeguy 8y ago

This is interesting in light of pretty much everybody's agreement that economically recoverable gem diamond reserves have mostly been found and production of naturals will plateau around 2020, followed by an irrevocable decline. [1] I think De Beers is looking at a revenue/margin maximization endgame. I wouldn't be surprised to see Anglo American sell De Beers off within a couple of years. And the price of synthetics compared to equivalent quality/weight naturals will continue to fall. Synthetic/natural prices are now ~70%, whereas a little over a year ago, they were ~90%. Hydrogen, methane and microwaves are much cheaper than titanic mines. [1] https://www.economist.com/international/2017/02/25/a-report-from-de-beerss-new-diamond-mine https://www.economist.com/international/2017/02/25/a-report-...

1024core 8y ago

THIS IS NOT ABOUT MAN-MADE DIAMONDS! Read this article: https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/05/29/de-beers-to-sell-man-made-diamonds.html https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/05/29/de-beers-to-sell... Read the last paragraph: The move also comes at a sensitive time for De Beers and its relationship with Botswana, the source of three-quarters of its diamonds. The two have a sales agreement that gives De Beers the right to market and sell the diamonds from Botswana. The deal, which gives De Beers its power over global prices, will soon be up for negotiation and Botswana is likely to push for more concessions. So this is not about man-made diamonds; it's a negotiating tactic! They'll use this move to pressure Botswana to accept weaker conditions and less money.

jarito 8y ago
Good? If the acceptable price paid for diamonds in both the wholesale and retail markets is lowered, then the pressure to mine diamonds (and the attendant violence & natural damage) should be lowered as well. That seems like a good outcome? Additionally, DeBeers is unlikely to be able to dominate the lab-grown market so this step should legitimize lab-grown stones with little risk of creating another monopoly.
- IncRnd 8y ago
  This doesn't mean that retail prices would drop.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  I wouldn't jump to any such conclusions. De Beers has spent the last 100+ years controlling the diamond industry's economics in it's entirety, from mining (via such contracts) to retail. They even invented the diamond engagement ring tradition, as we know it today. De Beers are most active on the wholesale side, where they control supply (and when they can, demand) to maintain stable, high "prices." ...That's why they are/control a cartel. I have no doubt that de beers does not intend to enter this market so that they can compete in an "efficient" level playing field. That's not what they do. They want to exert control over one or both of these markets, in some way. That is always the de beers business plan. Anyway... I always get a little worried when people apply the basics of supply-demand logic everywhere. Classical economics describes markets of a certain type: many buyers and sellers, reasonable transparency & information flow, not too much collusion, reasonably low transaction costs, mild psychology/cultural effects..... This is some fraction of the economy but not all. Supply-demand is not the main thing determining outcomes (prices & volume) in a lot of big markets: labour, financial services, banking, oil, ISPs... diamonds. Supply and demand effect those markets, but not in a way that can be described by 2 intersecting curves.

lowbloodsugar 8y ago

"The new synthetic diamonds will come in pink, blue and white, and the stones will contain a tiny Lightbox logo. De Beers said the logo won't be visible to the naked eye, but it will make the stones easily identifiable as lab-grown." So de beers will intentionally damage their synthetic diamonds. Sure I wanna buy synthetic diamonds from you guys.

donarb 8y ago
There is no damage. Certain diamonds are laser-engraved with microscopic serial numbers, which can be linked back to certification. Nowadays people are even having their names and wedding dates put onto the diamond.
gowld 8y ago
An authentic natural diamond also has an identification mark. http://www.e-worlddiamondbourse.com/Services/LaserEngraving http://www.e-worlddiamondbourse.com/Services/LaserEngraving
- lowbloodsugar 8y ago
  But again, this is them damaging the diamond just so they can distinguish between real and synthetic. There's no difference, but they want there to be a difference, so they made one. So, lets be clear, a natural diamond does not have an identification mark.

shmerl 8y ago

Diamonds are overpriced through social engineering. There is no real need for these carbon crystals to cost that much. But diamond producers inflated demand for them, turning them into status symbols.

sizzzzlerz 8y ago
Prices were based upon supply which for the longest time, DeBeers controlled. They controlled the quantity and quality of the stones they offered at their price. When diamonds were found in Russia and Canada, their control of the market went away. Diamonds are not nor ever were rare.
- shmerl 8y ago
  Demand for them is still inflated. They were not commonly used as gems in the past.

zurp 8y ago

"Yeah we sell that cheap-ass lab shit too. But you should really buy the really expensive natural stuff that we've manipulated the price of for decades."

ChuckMcM 8y ago

This is a pretty amazing development. I expect that in 20 years "natural" diamonds will less commonly sold than lab made ones. Certainly for jewelry there are good reasons to go with a lab diamond (better clarity and color for a lot less money) and no downside.

sytelus 8y ago

The surprising thing for me is that synthetic diamond industry has so thoroughly failed to create marketing campaign, sales channels and branding. Even a noob like me can think of few good enough marketing slogans: "Diamonds Purer than Nature", "Perfection is never old", "Just like Kohinoor" and so on. They can create a brand of personalized diamonds with different shapes that symbolizes couple's story. They can completely overtake 3rd world countries where people would jump at 20% cheaper diamonds and most don't even know that synthetics exists. Many technological advancements had obsoleted traditional companies. I'm surprised De Beers is still around.

forkLding 8y ago

Not surprised, DeBeers isnt exactly a "diamond zealot" as they were the company that hoarded diamond supply to drive up scarcity and prices, they're more interested in monopolies and profits.

richk449 8y ago

De beers has been selling synthetic diamonds for decades. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_Six https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_Six

ersh 8y ago

All that jewelry industry looks fake to me. There is absolutely no value in man-made or nonmanmade jewels at all. I am wondering why people pay even a penny for that.

umanwizard 8y ago
What's so hard to understand? Jewelry exists because it (1) makes people look more attractive, and (2) enables conspicuous consumption. Humans aren't Vulcans who make decisions rationally. We're apes with a facility for reason tacked on as an afterthought.
- cf498 8y ago
  Diamonds are historically an extremely new phenomenon with the demand outside of industry created by De Beers massive advertisement campaign over almost a century. Diamond Jewelry exists because advertisement works. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-yo...
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    I'm referring to jewelry in general, which has existed for tens of thousands of years. Fashions come and go, but whether shell beads or diamonds, the point is the same.

sunstone 8y ago

Aluminium also went through a transition from precious to a commodity early in the last century. It's cautionary tale for those who expect that "natural" diamonds will continue to have pricing power in the market as time goes by.

carapace 8y ago
One of the things I liked about "Diamond Age" was thinking about cheap diamond as a building material...

MarkMc 8y ago

One day man-made diamonds will be indistinguishable from natural diamonds. When that happens I wonder what will become of the 'rule' that says a man should spend 3 months salary on a wedding ring. Perhaps a Rolex watch will substitute for a diamond ring in signalling to your friends that you have a rich husband?

CydeWeys 8y ago
It's an antiquated rule that no longer makes sense given that women work now too. It only really ever made sense as an equivalent of a male dowry, which just isn't needed in modern gender egalitarian society.

Hasz 8y ago

Why can't we treat diamonds like the commodity they are? Don't give me a story, give me a MOQ, spec sheet and a quote.

blockchain-help 8y ago

Blockchain has shown its usefulness when recording events like transactions. This usefulness could be extended to medical records, which often suffer from inaccuracy and discrepancies. Healthcare professionals are responsible for ensuring that sensitive medical records are accurate, complete, and only available to authorized individuals. All of this can prove to be difficult when healthcare providers all have different systems for storing information. TO KNOW MORE PLEASE CHECK OUR SITE:- http://www.blockchainhelp.pro http://www.blockchainhelp.pro

artellectual 8y ago

My wife and I got married without buying a diamond ring. I simply refused to spend money in things that are overvalued by the market because some marketing scheme was so strong that it made facts look silly. I told her that I refuse to spend money on things that cause other people pain. Especially when there is no guarantee that the diamond we buy are not blood diamond. Instead we invested our money in buying things that are truly beneficial in our lives, like buy an SUV, preparing for a baby, preparing to buy a home. I have to say this is a huge step forward. I just talked to her about buying her a 3 carat lab-grown diamond ring now because of this news. She's still in doubt. I told her "It's the exact same thing, and no one died in the process the rest is up to your perception now".

jypepin 8y ago
I just got engaged a few months ago and did not buy a ring. My fiancée didn't want one (she prefers more discreet rings) and I was happy not to pay for such a marketing schemes. I was very surprised at how everyone were pretty shocked, be it our parents or some of our friends (despite being open minded, modern millenials). Gotta give credits to the marketing firm that did this whole thing, it might be the biggest marketing success ever.
- gowld 8y ago
  You got a good mate, mate.
jiri 8y ago
The historical purpose of an engagement ring/gift was to demonstrate your serious interest and your intentions. Via spending money for her that cannot be taken back. Unfortunatelly, diamonds fit this quite nicely. Actually, the best way to demonstrate it is via these rules: (1) you have to get something that is very hard to get (more money than you normally have), (2) something that has no use for you (you want to convince her, it wouldn't be convincing if you benefitted from spending) (3) and preferrably it is not monetizable for recipient (in general, woman is much less motivated to tricking you only because of gift) So, if she's already convinced to merry you, spending fortune for diamond ring is futile. And if you are in hurry, you can really just burn some money to ash in front of her, it would do the same :) Nonetheless, not as fancy as diamond ring for her :D

patall 8y ago

> The world's largest diamond miner is doing the unthinkable: Selling stones produced in a laboratory. Sorry, but that is some plain wrong headlining. Maybe its a first that they sell them as jewelry but De Beers is producing (and selling) synthetic diamonds now for 60 years and is already one of if not the biggest producer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_Six https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_Six)

dchest 8y ago
This is mentioned in the article.

jypepin 8y ago

I'm surprised article like this don't mention how NOT valuable real diamonds actually are and how it's all a marketing stunt from the 50s[1]. It's pretty funny to see De Beers and co trying to defend how precious their "real" stones are while the face value of man-made ones might actually be higher than those real ones they acquire slaving away poor african countries. [1] https://priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bullshit https://priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bulls...

wyc 8y ago

Synthetic diamonds might be a disruptive innovation. They are often cheaper, lower quality, and lacking in complex features such as authenticity. There is a different and advantageous cost structure compared to that of mining for natural diamonds, and this product fulfills the new job of culling environmental and humanitarian concern. In this scenario, we may be witnessing an incumbent firm unable to adopt new disruptive technologies because its revenue structures are incompatible, as the current margins and volumes for synthetics are likely far lower than those of mined diamonds.

artellectual 8y ago
Lower Quality? Lacking in complex feature? authenticity? what is considered authentic? If i tell you water is authentic if it's made from 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom, in the same way that diamond is made from compressed carbon and whether synthetic or dug from the ground. when the chemical construct is the same what determines it as not being authentic and lower quality? In fact synthetic diamonds offer higher clarity than natural ones depending on which one you choose, they have visually perfect ones in the same way natural diamonds do. So where is this "lower quality" coming from?
- wyc 8y ago
  Quality can be pretty subjective. If you're making a saw-blade that needs diamond tips, synthetic could be even better, as you rightly mention. If, for whatever reason, you value that the rock has been dug from the ground, then on this dimension the synthetic has worse quality.

peter_retief 8y ago

I worked for De Beers about 30 years ago, already they used to produce some industrial diamonds artificially, it wasn't a big deal then but when you see what large volume industrial stones get mined from kimberlite pipes in existing mines it probably didn't make economic sense. Gem quality stones are far less common

ttflee 8y ago

Is it feasible to stabilize carbon in the form of synthesized diamond using renewable energy to fight global warming?

ivanhoe 8y ago

And we don't even need synthetic diamonds to bring the prices down, it would be enough just to liberalize the diamond mining. De Beers is artificially pumping up the prices by limiting the mining that they almost entirely control, it's a typical case of monopoly on the resources.

himom 8y ago

Poor De Beers: a vertically-integrated monopoly, keeping diamonds more profitable, low resale value and artificially (pun intendes) desired by brides since 1938.

jlebrech 8y ago

I have an application for (fake) diamonds and that's cycle wear, imagine drivers giving you a wide berth when they see shiny diamonds at strategic locations on you bike and clothing because they don't want a by scratch on their bodywork.

tomtimtall 8y ago

Translation: De Beers is losing the battle, so they are now going to pretend to be both sides of the battle and stage a victory for themselves.

amelius 8y ago

Question: can man-made diamonds be distinguished from natural diamonds in a blind test? If so, could they be engineered to be indistinguishable?

mikkom 8y ago

> The new synthetic diamonds will come in pink, blue and white, and the stones will contain a tiny Lightbox logo. De Beers said the logo won't be visible to the naked eye, but it will make the stones easily identifiable as lab-grown. This would suggest that it's not easy to identify lab-grown diamonds from other diamonds.

exabrial 8y ago
There's a fluorescence test and a conductivity test they do. Iirc, the natural diamonds do worse and that's how they identity them.

exabrial 8y ago

What drives the female desire to have an expensive engagement ring in the USA? I'm not criticising anyone for desiring one, but I've never asked easier. I like the idea of wearing rings, but I'd do something more exotic and rare, like iridium or something.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gowld 8y ago
de Beers' marketing campaign, sustained for over a century: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-yo...

syntaxing 8y ago

Diamonds are seriously overrated. I've been trying to convince all my friends to buy lab grown Moissanite instead of diamonds. People do not understand how good Moissanite looks up close in person. It looks and shines like (if not better than) diamond. I mean a hardness between 9.5 and 10 really isn't that big of a difference.I highly recommend anyone looking for an engagement ring to at least look at Moissanite in person once.

folli 8y ago

[De Beers] even developed a machine that spots lab-grown stones. How does that work? They should be indistinguishable.

gowld 8y ago
Lab-grown stones are more symmetrical and pure than natural stones.

kelvin0 8y ago

Anyone interested in the details and PR behind DeBeers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDfs54uwG9w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDfs54uwG9w It's an eye opening Frontline (PBS) doc from 1994. This suggests DeBeers created an artificial diamond 'rarity' and other cultural and economic 'shenanigans' so to speak.

CodeSheikh 8y ago

I guess it is time to release all those diamonds from the vaults that they have been hoarding for decades. It is funny/ironical how man-made diamonds satisfy all "C's" criteria whereas mostly naturally occurring diamonds have some flaws.

redm 8y ago

"..it's the exact same thing." This seems like flawed logic. It's not the exact same thing. If a painter reproduces a Picasso, otherwise knows as art fraud, does it have the same value as the original? Why not? I'll leave it at that.

gowld 8y ago
If you reproduce a Picasso, it's not a Picasso. But if you reproduce a Guernica, it's a Guernica. If you reproduce a diamond, it's not a de Beers, but it's still a diamond.
- redm 8y ago
  In the sense that they are both 'diamonds' they are the same thing. In the sense that one was created by the earth, and one was created by man, they are not the same. Just like with the painting, where it came from, its provenance, matters.

triviatise 8y ago

People will keep buying natural diamonds, because they are more expensive. Just like $30K handbags will continue to sell because they are $30k. Some people will buy copies, but many people would rather have nothing than a fake. For status conscious people (which is most people) they would rather have a smaller natural diamond than a larger man made diamond. This has already been proven with pearls. Most sheeple would recognize when someone else is wearing a diamond that is too big for their status and decide it is a fake. Many people wouldn't wear a too-big manmade diamond for that reason.

gowld 8y ago
People would wear a just-big-enough artificial diamond, though, and enjoy pocketing the difference in price. Pressure to compete then drives everyone to buy only artificial.

motohagiography 8y ago

Diamonds were the original bitcoin. Knew a bit about the diamond business from growing up. - Required huge proof of work. - Few practical use cases. - Store of value. - Highly portable. - Price a function of liquidity. - Clustered around use cases like capital flight, high denomination cash, opacity, and black market transactions, asset protection/hiding. I would argue blockchain has done more harm to the diamond market than synthetic diamonds have. Between the two, it's been a perfect storm.

gowld 8y ago
Diamonds are a very poor store of value, as they depreciate 50% or more after initial purchase. Portability / Launderability, perhaps, but that's a bit different from "store"

joecool1029 8y ago

What a shit headline. The former president of the US branch of the world's largest synthetic diamond producer once told me personally, that she expected their market to get destroyed once De Beers started to shift focus over to synthetics. They had the head start but didn't dare undercut the cartel that much. This is just De Beers moving forward on that roadmap which has involved the shutdown of mines and price fixing to keep the price of synthetics and natural diamonds propped up. They've done a very good job of keeping synthetics within 80% or so the price of a natural diamond.

rsync 8y ago

How large of a man-made diamond can I buy and how much would it cost ? It would be fun to have a ~600 carat diamond as a paperweight...

themagicteeth 8y ago

I work for a jewelry company that sells lab grown diamonds and we recently started a push towards marketing lower priced engagement rings with lab grown center stones. This marketing of theirs makes the owners of my company feel uncomfortable marketing these rings now.