While granting that meanings change with time, in origin, something that’s artificial would be the result of artifice, and something that’s synthetic would be something that was synthesized. So in their original senses, at least, either could be used for man-made.
Apollo’s gems certainly aren’t “fake”, though, whatever else they are.
Yes, but would you call it a fake lake? A fake lake would imply that it isn’t actually made of water–it’s some kind of mirage or painting or something. A man-made lake is still a real lake.
In an ideal situation with no barriers to entry or unbalanced power structures, sure. But it’s still an incredibly capital-intensive business, and it’s still dominated by a few large interests (DeBeers formerly, now Russia). That means a very high barrier to entry, and the oligopoly power to crush the newcomer. I’ve heard that DeBeers will refuse to sell diamonds to stores that show manufactured stones for lower prices, which is another way they continue to control the market. Not a very promising investment for many firms. Note that the ones that are in the business mostly got there as an offshoot of being in the industrial gem manufacturing business.
I have no doubt that if the diamond manufacturers could feasibly cover a substantial portion of the market, they would start a price war. But until then, they’ll just play DeBeers’ game like everyone else has.
Under what grounds could DeBeers sue someone for manufacturing colorless diamonds? That doesn’t make any sense. DeBeers has no ability to sue any diamond manufacturers for producing any sort of diamonds.
They do have some leverage over the distributors. If someone caters to the manufacturers, they risk retaliation from DeBeers. This situation can only last for a little while longer. The price of manufacture is just going to drop and drop, and the incentives for individual producers to hold back production to keep high prices becomes less and less. High prices are great, but with competition the marginal value of selling one more stone outweighs the value of holding back that stone.
Within 20 years expect to see diamond coffee tables.
Oh crap!
Note to self. Contact stock broker and sell particle board stock ASAP.
No.
Dewey has the correct answer here.
I don’t believe so. Here’s a bit of an explanation:
De Beers doesn’t need to have a valid legal basis for a lawsuit to start a suit - or multiple suits. Just responding to these suits can and has driven companies to bankruptcy. ReplayTV had a perfectly legitimate product and the Sony vs. Universal & Disney Supreme Court decision on their side, but they were driven into bankruptcy. I’m sure that every manufacturer of diamonds independently decided that they would avoid making clear diamonds because there is no demand for clear diamonds. Sure.
That still doesn’t make any sense. If DeBeers could put the diamond manufacturers out of business with lawsuits, they’d do so in a heartbeat. Why would they only go after producers of colorless diamonds? Why not everyone?
It’s not like colorless diamonds sell for lots more money than colored ones.
If lawsuits were their weapon, why not start now? Why not grind every manufacturer into the dust?
The answer is that frivolous lawsuits aren’t free. And with absolutely no legal leg to stand on, a judge can slap the frivolous plaintiff with damages.
You don’t regularly see large companies driving smaller companies into the dirt with frivolous lawsuits, do you? They have to have some legal basis to harass their competitors. And a diamond miner has no legal basis to sue a diamond manufacturer. Your idea is silly.
Find a manufacturer of clear manufactured diamonds. I wish I could find the link, but the gist of the article I read about this subject after the initial one I read in Wired made it clear that leaving clear diamonds as the exclusive province of mined diamonds was a deal worked out with de Beers.
The entire market for diamonds was artificially created by putting them on the necks, ears and hands of Hollywood stars. Before the campaign, clear diamonds were considered dull, accent stones to more interesting colored gemstones.
I offered the example of RePlayTV. It and TiVo were two devices that allowed you to record TV programs, and both were sued up one side and down the other with no credible basis, as the Supreme Court had ruled that time-shifting programs was a legal activity. Didn’t stop the lawsuits. RePlayTV was a target because of the “30 second skip” feature that allowed one to skip commercials. TiVo is still around because they agreed to remove the feature (though it is still available as an “Easter egg” feature). It’s noticeable that no DVR supplied by the cable companies has commercial skip or the ability to location shift programs like the RePlayTV.
Large companies drive smaller ones into the dirt on a daily basis, at least in the real world.
I started a 100 post GD thread when this first came to light in 2003: Fake diamond = better than real diamond?
Hard to believe its been that long! I used Google to find the thread 
Gaffa. Man-made diamonds, currently, are NOT available(at least, in sizes approaching 1-carat) in what the layperson might think of as colorless. They have a naturally occurring slight yellow tint. I estimate that would be in the color range of I-K on the GIA color scale. Naturally occurring diamonds can easily be in colors of D-H, which are basically very white(colorless).
Also, I really don’t think the makers of diamonds introduce any impurities so as to keep their stones from being “clear.” They naturally come out almost inclusion free.
gaffa, the nitrogen is a contaminant from the air, it’s not introduced intentionally. The machines have to be in a nitrogen-free atmosphere to produce clear diamonds, which is not an easy / inexpensive thing to do.
C’mon, all kinds of different industries manage to create controlled atmospheres. Surely a nitrogen-free atmosphere is a job that costs nothing to someone making something as valuable as diamonds.
I’m sure that it’s possible (at least theoretically) to create the diamonds in a nitrogen-free environment. But that’s different than saying that the manufacturers deliberately add contaminants to avoid pissing off De Beers. (And by the way, I think people overstate the importance of De Beers. It’s hardly the only producer at this point.)
Just to throw one more into the mix, don’t people use the word “faux” to refer to fake diamonds?
Really, the HPHT process is similar in theory to natural diamond creation, so to call it “artificial” would be like calling water produced in a lab from burning hydrogen “artificial water”–even if you could credibly argue it on linguistic grounds it is a silly argument!
Diamond from a mine = “diamond”, “natural diamond”
Diamond from a lab = “sythesized diamond”, “lab-grown diamond”
Cubic zirconia, et. al = “faux diamond”, “fake diamond”
Take a look at the production floor at Gemesis. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done, but it wouldn’t be easy or cheap.
The CZs look great. I have a yellow gold and CZ tennis bracelet–nice setting, sparkly stones. Retail cost $560 (I did not pay retail), on account of the setting. The stones in my cheap earrings are every bit as sparkly as the stones in my expensive bracelet. The CZ stones are about equivalent to 1/4 carat diamonds, but the real expense in that bracelet is the setting. A comparable bracelet with actual mined diamonds would be in the thousands, though. But very few people can tell.
And they are way sparklier than my actual diamonds, which are real–mined–but not very good diamonds.
Maybe doping it with a little bit of N2 helps nucleation or something.
I haven’t seen any indication that N2 is the source of nitrogen. It may be, but I haven’t seen it.