Diamonds aren't Forever

For all you people looking to wed eventually, a great article on the future of man-made diamonds, which makes some interesting points worth repeating:
  1. Diamonds are not actually that rare, except that most diamond production is owned by a single cartel (De Beers) which constrains the output to prop up prices and create the appearance of scarcity:

    Natural diamonds aren't particularly rare. In 2006, more than 75,000 pounds were produced worldwide. A diamond is a precious commodity because everyone thinks it's a precious commodity, the geological equivalent of a bouquet of red roses, elegant and alluring, a symbol of romance, but ultimately pretty ordinary.

    Credit for the modern cult of the diamond goes primarily to South Africa-based De Beers, the world's largest diamond producer. Before the 1940s, diamond rings were rarely given as engagement gifts. But De Beers' marketing campaigns established the idea that the gems are the supreme token of love and affection. Their "A Diamond Is Forever" slogan, first deployed in 1948, is considered one of the most successful advertising campaigns of all time. Through a near total control of supply, De Beers held almost complete power over the diamond market for decades, carefully hoarding the gemstones to keep prices—”and profits—”high. While the company has lost some of its power to competitors in Canada and Australia over the past few years, it still controls almost two-thirds of the world's rough diamonds.

  2. Diamonds will soon be easily producible in a lab, which will be excellent for industry

    With a cheap, ready supply of diamonds, engineers hope to make everything from higher-powered lasers to more durable power grids. They foresee razor-thin computers, wristwatch-size cellphones and digital recording devices that would let you hold thousands of movies in the palm of your hand. "People associate the word diamond with something singular, a stone or a gem," says Jim Davidson, an electrical engineering professor at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. "But the real utility is going to be the fact that you can deposit diamond as a layer, making possible mass production and having implications for every technology in electronics.
  3. Unlike diamonds that come from the dirt, man-made diamonds aren't socially nor environmentally destructive

    Like most open-pit mines, diamond mines cause erosion, water pollution and habitat loss for wildlife. Even more troubling, African warlords have used diamond caches to buy arms and fund rebel movements, as dramatized in the 2006 movie Blood Diamond. Actor Terrence Howard wears a diamond lapel pin with Apollo stones. He told reporters, "Nobody was harmed in the process of making it."
The ultimate point is, when real diamonds are cheaply producible in a lab, they won't likely have the luster which comes with scarcity. So ladies, please don't expect your man to spend thousands on a ring because it has a shiny rock on it. Or at least, don't expect that rock to be quite as shiny for much longer.
5 responses
In reply to : " diamond production is owned by a single cartel (De Beers) which constrains the output to prop up prices and create the appearance of scarcity "

You are wrong. De Beers in 1980 owned 80% of world diamond production. Now in 2008 De Beers owns only 40% of diamond production. The Russians, Canadians, Australians and numerous other smaller countries have taken over. De Beers does take a pivotal role

In reply to : " Diamonds will soon be easily producible in a lab, which will be excellent for industry " Nothing new. More than 50% of world production of industrial diamond is synthetically manufactured.

The fact is natural diamond is becoming rarer for gem quality material

The largest synthetic diamond manufacturer is Element 6 owned by De Beers

In reply to : "Unlike diamonds that come from the dirt, man-made diamonds aren't socially nor environmentally destructive"

More rubbish... most major miners pay special attention to the environment. It's part of the terms and conditions when mining leases are granted.

Its not diamonds that hurt people. It's corrupt governments.
Let you in ona little secret.... nobody cares anyway. They still want to wear real diamonds

Daniel Katz
www.DiamondImports.com.au
In reply to : " diamond production is owned by a single cartel (De Beers) which constrains the output to prop up prices and create the appearance of scarcity "

You are wrong. De Beers in 1980 owned 80% of world diamond production. Now in 2008 De Beers owns only 40% of diamond production. The Russians, Canadians, Australians and numerous other smaller countries have taken over. De Beers does take a pivotal role

In reply to : " Diamonds will soon be easily producible in a lab, which will be excellent for industry " Nothing new. More than 50% of world production of industrial diamond is synthetically manufactured.

The fact is natural diamond is becoming rarer for gem quality material

The largest synthetic diamond manufacturer is Element 6 owned by De Beers

In reply to : "Unlike diamonds that come from the dirt, man-made diamonds aren't socially nor environmentally destructive"

More rubbish... most major miners pay special attention to the environment. It's part of the terms and conditions when mining leases are granted.

Its not diamonds that hurt people. It's corrupt governments.
Let you in ona little secret.... nobody cares anyway. They still want to wear real diamonds

Daniel Katz
www.DiamondImports.com.au
Learn more about diamonds at The Diamond Guru
Education & Advice
www.thediamondguru.blogspot.com
<div>You are wrong. De Beers in 1980 owned 80% of world diamond production. Now in 2008 De Beers owns only 40% of diamond production. The Russians, Canadians, Australians and numerous other smaller countries have taken over. De Beers does take a pivotal role</div>


Sorry, but without any citation, I'll take the word of Smithsonian magazine over that of a random commentator, who presumably has a vested interest in undermining such narratives.

<div>More rubbish... most major miners pay special attention to the environment. It's part of the terms and conditions when mining leases are granted.</div>


Whether or not they "pay special attention," there are unavoidable environmental impacts to mining. If the mining is unnecessary and can be avoided, why put those costs on society?

<div>Its not diamonds that hurt people. It's corrupt governments.</div>


Again, the fact of the matter is, much of diamond mining occurs in countries with corrupt governments. Whether you like it or not, the diamond mining funds regimes and supports conflict.

<div>Let you in ona little secret.... nobody cares anyway. They still want to wear real diamonds</div>


What people want to wear is primarily a product of social conditioning. For example, compare the clothing styles of one era over another, or between different cultures. Gems have been valued for their beauty and scarcity, but when that scarcity is taken away, and the beauty can be had without the aforementioned social costs, society will discourage people from wearing actual earth diamonds just as it now discourages them from driving SUVs.
You are wrong. De Beers in 1980 owned 80% of world diamond production. Now in 2008 De Beers owns only 40% of diamond production. The Russians, Canadians, Australians and numerous other smaller countries have taken over. De Beers does take a pivotal role


Sorry, but without any citation, I'll take the word of Smithsonian magazine over that of a random commentator, who presumably has a vested interest in undermining such narratives.

More rubbish... most major miners pay special attention to the environment. It's part of the terms and conditions when mining leases are granted.


Whether or not they "pay special attention," there are unavoidable environmental impacts to mining. If the mining is unnecessary and can be avoided, why put those costs on society?

Its not diamonds that hurt people. It's corrupt governments.


Again, the fact of the matter is, much of diamond mining occurs in countries with corrupt governments. Whether you like it or not, the diamond mining funds regimes and supports conflict.

Let you in ona little secret.... nobody cares anyway. They still want to wear real diamonds


What people want to wear is primarily a product of social conditioning. For example, compare the clothing styles of one era over another, or between different cultures. Gems have been valued for their beauty and scarcity, but when that scarcity is taken away, and the beauty can be had without the aforementioned social costs, society will discourage people from wearing actual earth diamonds just as it now discourages them from driving SUVs.