-
-
- Fashion gemstones are boutique items, what they cost to dig out of the ground and what they are sold for are two totally different matters. - Many diamonds come from Russia and Canada now, but jewelers don’t sell them as Russian or Canadian diamonds because people tend to pay more for “Indian” diamonds or “South African” diamonds, or other exotic traditional-gemstone producing locales.
~
- Fashion gemstones are boutique items, what they cost to dig out of the ground and what they are sold for are two totally different matters. - Many diamonds come from Russia and Canada now, but jewelers don’t sell them as Russian or Canadian diamonds because people tend to pay more for “Indian” diamonds or “South African” diamonds, or other exotic traditional-gemstone producing locales.
-
So man-made diamonds are the new Pringles?
This is a very simple issue: if you make it in a laboratory, it is not a mineral. It may be a crystalline chemical compound, but it is not a mineral. And this is true even if the “lab” happens to be your kitchen and your “lab equipment” happens to be your freezer.
(And as a matter of fact, Plutonium does form naturally during supernovae, so by your argument the Plutonium formed in reactors should also be considered “natural”. Example.)
I accept that the definition of a mineral includes its being formed naturally but I do not understand the reason for the distinction. Ice in my freezer is somehow different than ice in the Arctic? If I whip up a batch of iron in my lab is it in any way different than iron found in nature except perhaps the presence of impurities? Chemically, atomically, lab-iron and nature-iron are identical regardless of where or how they were made. Or is there a difference (chemically/atomically) that I am unaware of?
I believe that the two women who designed man made diamonds intentionally added a chemical that would react under a blacklight. I remembered seeing a show on the Discovery Channel years ago about that. Other than that, I think that manmade diamonds tend to be flawless whereas you can map the flaws of a real diamond. This doesn’t speak of any of the flawless diamonds that occured in nature naturally though.
I’ll see if I can’t find an old reference that “officially” explains the rationale for this. I tell students that the first two items in the above-listed definition of a mineral are the “legal” items–we obviously focus our study on the chemistry and crystallography of minerals. I suspect that it is because Geology is a Natural Science and thus we are interested in only those materials that form naturally!
Consider this (simplified) definition of Rock: a naturally occurring aggregate of one or more minerals. Is something a rock if I synthetically combine minerals or synthetic minerals into a solid aggregate (e.g., concrete)? This answer should be a more obvious “no”, although I have no doubt that there are many on this board who are more than willing to disagree! But, disagree or not, it has to form in nature, spontaneous, without your’s or anyone else’s help, to be called a mineral or rock and to become interesting to a geologist (as opposed to a chemist or engineer who might actually be interested in these things.)
Some insight from the Manual of Mineralogy (after James D. Dana) by Cornelis Klein and Cornelius S. Hurlbut:
I realize this is getting off topic but since we’re on to this I’ll keep going.
I can see the distinction of concrete versus rock. You never find concrete in nature.
However, I do not see the need for distinction if something does occur in nature and man merely replicates what nature created in a lab. I could go dig up some iron or I could make some in a lab. Iron is iron is iron. If trace elements were added in a purposeful way I would think I could bring two bars of iron to you (or any scientist) and that scientist would be unable to figure which came from a lab and which came out of the ground. The lab iron is iron…atomically, molecularly, structurally…take your pick.
As long as nature did indeed create something why does replicating the material synthetically distinguish it from its natural counterpart?
i believe the discussion here is why hasnt the price of diamonds not fallen. its for the simple reason that manmade diamonds are not as yet easily available right now. its simple demand and supply issue.
There’s a major presumption in here somewhere.
With the way Debeers has acted in the past and is acting currently I don’t think that anything about the diamond market can be said to be simple supply and demand.
Very true as long as DeBeers held an effective monopoly on the diamond market. With two new companies coming online to produce inexpensive, man-made diamonds that may well change (we can only hope it will). DeBeers will try marketing/advertising efforts to suggest ‘real’ diamonds are preferable. However, it is hard to imagine a woman opting for a smaller, more expensive flawed diamond to a larger, perfect diamond for the same price. These aren’t CZ stones but the real deal (forgetting for a moment that science views anythign made outside of mother nature as somehow not technically as ‘real’ as its natural counterpart). Still, you never know…one would suppose part of the attraction of a nice diamond ring to a woman is its value. Perhaps women (and some men) won’t view as perfect 2 carat diamond as worthwhile unless it costs $15,000 instead of $2,000 (or less).
Make that “iron” an alkali feldspar (e.g., sanidine), and I’d take you up on that challenge. My field in petrology (to judge by my most recent work) is trace-element geochemistry. The trace-element composition of various alkali feldspars (and other minerals, but I use those as an example 'cause those are the ones I’ve studied) is highly variable, but systematically so as a function of crystal composition and structure, melt composition and structure, temperature, pressure, presence of other minerals (e.g., plagioclase), and others. Synthetic alkali feldspar produced to study trace-element behavior is, in fact, “doped” with trace-elements as you’ve suggested but these synthetic minerals really only approximate what occurs in nature so much so that results from studies of synthetic systems only somewhat mimic studies of natural systems.
(Note: I am not an experimental petrologist; an experimental guy would certainly argue with me, but hey–my results are my results!)