It happened in the past, before DeBeers came along and began controlling the market. Only they would cost less than $50.
dal-
That was covered in the Frontline piece.
[Moderator Hat ON]
The OP about artificial diamonds is a General Question, so that’s where this is going. Debates about the ethics of deBeers should not be in that forum, start a new thread in GD if you wish.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
On crystals and time: growing good quality crystals in solution at room temps is a slow process. If you try to speed up the process, instead of one uniform crystal, you get a mish-mash of little crystals in different orientations. Diamonds are even harder still given the pressure and temp required.
Also, about other artificial gems: many pick up a natural glow from irradiation in the surrounding rocks. Some folks try to give artificial gems (e.g., emeralds and rubies) this glow by placing them next to a nuclear reactor core for a few months. It gives them the glow, but since it is a faster process, there is more lingering radiation in the stones. Ooh-boy.
For what it’s worth, diamonds are also unstable. Don’t believe them when they say “A Diamond Is Forever.”
So how do the synthetics compare with the naturals on objective criteria?
A salesman once told me that diamonds are graded on the four C’s: color, cut, clarity, and karats.
- Magiver’s link shows some pretty colors.
- If the lab-grown crystal is big enough, you should be able to get any cut you want.
- Lifegem’s website seems to imply a limit of 1.3 karats.
- Magiver’s link states that clarity is “very good”. What does that mean? Is there an objective way to measure it?
If they are so exactly the same in every meaningful way, then I’m not clear on why anyone should care that they are or aren’t “real” diamonds. In fact, I’ve never understood why anyone cares about real diamonds as opposed to costume jewelry that looks exactly the same except under a lens. Why do consumers care?
Because deBeers tells them they should. Whether deBeers has a good justification for doing so (other than that deBeers makes more money that way) is the topic that Gaudere has suggested be taken to GD.
Well, here is how it was explained to me. If you had a replica of a van Gogh that was indistinguishable from the original it woul be nice and all, but you wouldn’t have quite the same pride of ownership that you would with the original.
**
I can’t see it lasting for very long there, the only justification I can see is that they make more money that way. Hardly a good justification unless someone believes there is some sort of moral imperitive to subsidize diamond producers.
mbh, the color of diamonds for jewellery is graded from D (colorless) to Z (the most ‘dirty’) and is done by comparing a particular stone with a known ‘master’ stone. A good quality store might not deal in stones graded below about H or J, and to the lay person it’s still difficult to distinguish between, say, an E and a G stone.
Size is simply in carats (a fifth of a gram) and is further divided into hundredths, known as ‘points’, so a stone of 50 points is a half-carat stone, weighing 0.1g.
Clarity refers to the number and size of any flaws in the stone, usually referred to as ‘inclusions’. The scale slides from FL (flawless) to VVS (very, very slight inclusion), down through VS, S and finally I (inclusions). Each of theses groups is further divided into rankings: 1,2 or 3, so a VS1 stone is better in quality (fewer/smaller inclusions) than a VS3 stone. Clarity is always measured under 10x magnification, so a ‘flawless’ stone might in fact have some imperfections, but just not noticeable at that magnification.
Finally, the cut is possibly the most important part, as this is what determines how much light is internally reflected and creates the ‘sparkle’. Too deep or shallow a cut and the diamond is likely to look just like a hunk of glass. There is an ‘ideal cut’, but often, for a particular stone, getting an ideal cut would waste too much of the stone. Also, there are different styles of cut, from the traditional ‘round’ to ‘Marquis’ and ‘Princess’, and so on.
An excellent tutorial is found here.
Slight hijack here-
Yesterday I heard people talking of ‘conflict diamonds’. Can anyone give me the rundown on what these are?
ArrrMatey, the term is generally used to describe diamond trade that ‘fuels conflicts in Africa, in which rebels sell diamonds, and use the profits to purchase weapons – deepening the spiral of conflict’. See here, for example.
Or the other way around : buy weapons in order to rebell and get their hands on the diamonds…
I’m surprised no one has mentioned Moissanite stones, artificial “diamonds” made by these folks.
If Van Gogh was paid $5 for it, had his paintings horded and then sold at 1000 % profit, then I would be less interested in buying it.
I think it is a win/win to buy man-made diamonds. They are cheaper and more politically correct.
And, this is just me, but I would much rather have a copy of a painting for a fraction of the price. It is the art I’m interested in, not the collectable value attached.
I agree, Magiver. I was just trying to explain the psychology behind some people’s preference for the “real thing”.
My father attended a lecture at the Royal Institution many years ago where diamonds were made in front of the audience. IIRC he said that because the power draw was so great (there were thick power cables going through the window to the mains) it had to be done at a precise time to avoid blacking out the area.
If you don’t think TIME contributes anything to the process, maybe you’d just as soon eat an egg boiled for 20 seconds as one boiled for 2 minutes?
Seems logical to me that cooking up a diamond would take time, just like cooking up your dinner does.