Are Diamonds Anybody’s Best Friend?

[Ike Witt]

Thanks to some bizarre tradition and the power of a monopoly (former monopoly?) DeBeers, our culture places a high value on diamonds. One one hand we have diamonds from South Africa which are known as Blood Diamonds (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sierra/article/0,2763,413785,00.html). On the other hand we have diamonds from the Canadian Arctic which seem to cause environmental havoc (http://canadafarnorth.about.com/library/weekly/aa101599.htm).

Why do many people say that diamond prices are artificially inflated? Which is the lesser of two evils? Would we be better off if diamonds lost their status?

[Kimstu]

Well, maybe if we get to the point where we're all making industrial-grade diamonds in our cars' exhaust pipes (http://www.contextmag.com/setFrameRedirect.asp?src=/archives/200104/virtualhorizons.asp) as a byproduct of new emissions reduction systems, they will seem less glamorous. "My dear, did you see the engagement ring George gave Martha?" "Yeah, he must not have changed his tailpipe filter for three years to get one that size! Haw haw haw!" :)

[Spiritus Mundi]

Why do many people say that diamond prices are artificially inflated?
Which is the lesser of two evils?
Would we be better off if diamonds lost their status?

Because the supply is artificially restricted by a powerful monopoly.
Cubic zirconium.
Yes.

[even sven]

The situation with diamonds is truely alarming. I cannot believe that our culture continues to exhault an item which has caused so much strife and evil in this world.

Beyond that, we swallow up slogans like "Diamonds are forever" that guilt us away from selling our diamonds or buying used ones, thus ensureing a constant demand. Beyond that, diamonds arn't really forever- in a few million years outside of high heat and pressure they will turn right back into coal. How is that for truth in advertising?

[GIGObuster]

The prices look inflated because of recent progress in producing artificial diamonds:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990817092046.htm

And I heard reports that a kid in Australia had developed a process using gas tanks that created diamonds, and also reports of diamonds being grown in special Bunsen burners. Put Nanotech in the picture and it looks bad for DeBeers.

One property many artificial diamonds have is that they glow under an ultraviolet lamp, because they have a virtually perfect crystal structure. IMO such a glow will be a plus in my book. I did not like that in a recent NOVA documentary DeBeers tried to pass that bit of the glowing as a “flaw”. :rolleyes:

When I consider all the suffering and damage real diamonds ask as a price to be produced, IMO a small change in attitude is needed, and we should embrace those “artificial” diamonds as real as the pure carbon that they are.

Lets bust DeBeers!

[Skott]

Originally posted by adam yax
Why do many people say that diamond prices are artificially inflated? Which is the lesser of two evils? Would we be better off if diamonds lost their status?

1. DeBeers keeps a stockpile of diamonds and only releases so many of them a year. This allows the diamond to keep its "rare" status and thus keep prices up. The stockpiles are said to be huge; so much, in fact, that if they were all released, the price of a diamond would go down so much the industry would collapse. Not that that would be a bad thing, in my opinion.

2. After asking similar questions, the basic conclusion I came to was there are three options: a) Buy an antique diamond; b) go to the diamond field and "mine" one yourself (although apparently, DeBeers owns it... http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=29498#post563965 ); or c) buy a different gemstone. I ended up doing (c) for my wife's engagement ring.

3. Yes. :)

Here are some links that I got from previous diamond threads I posted to:

http://www.wam.umd.edu/~sek/wedding/mlynek.html#mines

http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,4877,00.html

[Manda JO]

In case anyone is thinking this is just a matter of whether or not to support corporate greed, the rebel groups of Seirra Leone (who "rebelled" in order to gain control of that country's diamond mines) cut the hands off of entire villages full of people in order to keep the population passive. I'm talking about babies and old people here. And even though Sierra Leone is technically under embargo because of this, many, many diamonds are smuggled out.

Buying diamonds is truly an immoral act, unfortunantly.

[Jack Batty]

Not to mention the fact that diamonds are simply SHINY FRICKIN' ROCKS!!

What are we, magpies? Oooh, look how sparkly! Get me one.

:rolleyes:

Sorry, but the whole concept of diamonds baffles me.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by Jack Batty
Not to mention the fact that diamonds are simply SHINY FRICKIN' ROCKS!!

What are we, magpies? Oooh, look how sparkly! Get me one.

:rolleyes:

Sorry, but the whole concept of diamonds baffles me.

Gold is just a heavy element.
Flowers are just colorful plants.
A sunset is just the diffusion of the sun's light.
A beautiful woman is just a primate with a particular set of physical characteristics.
Michaelangelo's "David" is just a big peice of stone.
A Ferrari 250 GT California is just a vehicle.

The "but it's just a rock" argument can be applied to anything, including anything YOU think is attractive. I can extend the argument past the visual, too; music is just a succession of timed sounds, what's the biggie about that? The fact is that diamonds, well cut and set, are really beautiful, at least to my eye. I don't understand what's so stupid about liking beautiful things, or why it would baffle you; do you really not find anything in the entire world aesthetically pleasing?

(That said, not wanting to support human rights abuses in Sierra Leone is a good reason to pass on buying thse beautiful things for now.)

[Smeghead]

Weird. I just finished reading "Reaper Man" by Terry Pratchett, which contains a scene where Death is trying to buy some gifts for a lady. He ends up rejecting several diamonds in a shop because they weren't friendly enough.

Sorry. Carry on.

Can you tell I don't pop up in GD too often?

[Jack Batty]

Originally posted by RickJay
I don't understand what's so stupid about liking beautiful things, or why it would baffle you; do you really not find anything in the entire world aesthetically pleasing?

There are plenty of aesthetically pleasing things on this planet that I find, um, aesthetically pleasing. Some you mentioned, such as art and music (when it is well done) and nature in it's glory and also at it's worse.

I find it hard to compare a small shiny stone to a masterpiece work of art, in which you can feel the artist's passion, or to the wonder of something as hard to understand as where our planet and all its working fits into the universe.
But with a diamond, except for its cut, what is there to it. It's rare (and that has been debated) and it's sparkely. BFD.

And then there's the whole evil marketing machine behind them. I don't know what it's like in other countries, but 'round these parts, every comercial is design to make two things perfectly clear -- if you are a woman, you deserve a diamond, otherwise there is no proof that anyone loves you, and if you are a man, you must buy a diamond for a woman or you don't truly love her. That's what irks me more than anything, probably.

I'd rather listen to music than wear a diamond any day.

[samclem]

I'd rather listen to music than wear a diamond any day. And that's what makes the world go round.

I sell diamonds and coins for a living.

If you came into our store, and asked for a nice 1 carat diamond, we could show you a flamer. If you then said that you didn't want something that had just come from Africa and might be a "blood diamond" or some sort, I could tell you truthfully that we had bought that diamond about a month ago. The diamond had been of an older style of cutting and had been in the family from which it was purchased since 1910. When we purchased it, it had chips on the girdle from 75+ years of wear. Unsaleable in its damaged condition, wee bought it, sent it to be recut in a modern round brilliant style, and voilla! A diamond that could have been dug up last month, and just newly arrived. But it wasn't.

Many diamonds for sale at your local jewellers are diamonds which have been recycled from decades gone by. Of course, the poor buggers who mined our diamond in the 1910 period were probably just as/if not more exploited than workers in the last 20 years.

[GIGObuster]

samclem: Please tell this to other diamond traders and makers:

Do not do to artificial diamonds like the music industry did to Napster.

Please think: People will love to see a diamond that inside has an artificial "flaw", which in a special angle shows the silhouette of the owners kissing. (Not possible yet but soon.)
That and many other possibilities are there for the industry. IMO that would command top dollar, and on top of that, be friendly to human rights and the earth.

If marketing has created the saying that “a diamond is forever” why not “born at the same time our love did and also forever.”

[Ike Witt]

Thanks for the replies, however, in reading them it became obvious that I didn't word the question very well.
Diamonds from the Canadian Arctic have been promoted as being less guilty since they are not "blood diamonds" and they are outside the DeBeers shpere of influence.
The cost of Canadian diamonds seems to be green (environment) rather than red (blood). Why is there no bad publicity, or at least a diminshed outcry?


The prices look inflated because of recent progress in producing artificial diamonds

Ahh, GIGObuster when a comodity floods a market prices tend to drop not go up.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by adam yax
Thanks for the replies, however, in reading them it became obvious that I didn't word the question very well.
Diamonds from the Canadian Arctic have been promoted as being less guilty since they are not "blood diamonds" and they are outside the DeBeers shpere of influence.
The cost of Canadian diamonds seems to be green (environment) rather than red (blood). Why is there no bad publicity, or at least a diminshed outcry?

Because for the most part, the environmental mpact of the diamond industry in the Arctic simply hasn't been that great. Even the links you provided mostly refer to the horrors of what might happen in the future if certain projects take place. When you get down to the point that your environmental concern is a a two-lane highway that doesn't even exist yet, you're getting a little silly.

[GIGObuster]

Well, I guess I this time I did not worded my reply well adam yax. I actually was implying that indeed artificial diamonds would drop prices in the market in the near future. Because even right now, there are good size stones coming from machines that are reaching mass production levels. Hence my impression that diamond pricing today is the artificial thing here.

In a perfect world lowering of prices will occur. However, It looks like the PR machine is doing the job to condemn the “artificial” diamond.

[Lemur866]

RickJay: Sure, diamonds are pretty, and yes, it is cool that they are huge carbon crystals. Very nice, very cool, very pretty.

But most people can't tell the difference between a diamond and a cubic zirconium. Both look equally pretty to me. Sure, the diamond is cooler because of its rarity and chemistry, but not its looks. So why would you pay 20 times more for a diamond than you would for a shiny cubic zirconium? Makes no sense.

And it especially makes no sense given that industrial production of gem-grade diamonds is coming soon, and you'll be able to get a real diamond for as cheap as a zirconium.

[Moirai]

Substituting other stones for diamonds is fine, but watch what you pick. A natural, mined emerald, for example, might have been part of more human suffering and environmental damage than the diamond.

Personally, I think the idea of an engineered flaw showing a couple kissing or similar nonsense is cheesy and lame. Why not just frame a Hallmark card? Gee, can you "insert" a picture of the hubby and I? Gah.

Yes, I suppose that I am part of the problem, as I have several diamonds on my fingers and in my ears right now. But I stopped buying emeralds, and now try to buy estate jewelry rather than supporting some of the current regimes involved in new diamond production. Not that I ever shopped retail for jewelry.

And yes, I can tell the difference between CZ and a diamond, especially after a year or two of wear.

[GIGObuster]

EjsGirl I agree 100% with you.

Yes, the idea is cheesy, but then again diamonds are cheesy, and I am only throwing the diamond fans and the industry a bone. It will be much better if they willingly choose new technology rather that having them defending bad practices.

[Ressl]

I'm surprised no one mentioned the thread from GNN's website, it's a very good video related to the subject:
http://www.guerrillanews.com/diamondlife/index.htm

[GingerOfTheNorth]

adamyax, I lived in the Canadian Arctic for 8 years. I know what is going on at BHP and Diavik and the other new places that will be opening up soon.
Many former clients of mine work for BHP. I personally know the Canadian VP of Ops at the site. My Aunt, who I shared a house with while I lived there most recently, worked at Ekati mine.

The impact on the environment is being very carefully monitored. There are dozens of people (if not more) dedicated simply to studying impact. Misery pit at BHP Ekati (the first diamond mine at Lac De Gras) was not begun until the impact was very carefully studied at the main pit. For five years.

If you are concerned about the environmental impact that Diamond Mining is having on the Arctic, contact the Government of the Northwest Territories or the Government of Nunavut. There are people who are more than happy to discuss your concerns with you. I can provide names and addresses if you so desire.

As for me, I prefer emeralds.

[simulpost]

I've never held diamonds in esteem, because they aren't very interesting. A topaz is nice. Maybe it's not as hard, but have you EVER seen anyone use a diamond ring to scracth anything with?

Even more valuable to me are the intriguing, albeit cheap stones like tiger's eye and hematite.

If I inherit any diamonds, I would immediately liquidate.

[Dave Stewart]

A large amount of antedilevial diamonds were discovered in the remote north or Western Australia. They're called Argyle diamonds, after the lake I think (it also is the mining company's name), and have an amber or pink hue to them. Argyle the company was doing pretty well out of these, marketing them as "champagne coloured diamonds". De Beers often got irritated with this, and would from time to time flood the market with diamonds to rein in Argyle, and would publicly denounce Argyle diamonds as flawed because of the colours. Recently, De Beers took a majority stake in Argyle (or perhaps it was Ashton mining, its sister company). De Beers' control spreads.

[Moirai]

It was noted earlier that "some bizarre tradition" has us thinking diamonds are cool. Other people may feel that it is a late-20th century consumerism phenomenon, but it's not.

For thousands of years, people has sought to adorn themselves with shells, ornaments, pigments, textiles, precious metals and gems. That practice seems to pervade most, if not all, cultures, including hunter-gatherers.

So I guess that my buying gems today could be vain and self-serving and morally wrong, but hey- I'm following in a great tradion of self-glorification! :D

[Ike Witt]

Originally posted by EJsGirl

For thousands of years, people has sought to adorn themselves with shells, ornaments, pigments, textiles, precious metals and gems. That practice seems to pervade most, if not all, cultures, including hunter-gatherers.

So I guess that my buying gems today could be vain and self-serving and morally wrong, but hey- I'm following in a great tradion of self-glorification! :D

True enough. But how many ornaments, gems and metals are linked to one specific life event the way diamonds are linked to marriage. I know it is actually engagement, but marriage is a cross culture event, where engagement may not be.

[Moirai]

Ok adam, maybe diamonds are not a cross-cultural wedding item. But don't most cultures have something specific attached to the marriage ritual, be it an ornament, ritual marking, animal, or other symbolic item?

Our item is just the result of a brilliant marketing campaign instead of a religious or tribal tradition, that's all.

[tracer]

Spiritus Mundi wrote:

Cubic zirconium.
Yes.
Cubic zirconium? Pah. If you want a stone that really looks like a diamond, you should look into MOISSANITE. Synthetic moissanite was introduced only a couple years ago, and is apparently much harder to distinguish from genuine diamonds than zirconium is.

[kniz]

Very interesting. My only comment would be that all this has to do with the diamond as a gem, it also has many very important industrial applications. Of course it is the diamonds that are inferior in grade that are used for this purpose.

[Spiritus Mundi]

The question was: which is the lesser of two evils? Moissanite, apparently, would be the lesser of three evils. ;)

[tracer]

Of course, moissanite is more expensive than zirconium -- but a moissanite stone is still only about one-tenth the price of a diamond with equal color, clarity, cut, and carat-weight.