Diamond Market Shows Serious Cracks From Man-Made Stones 112
An anonymous reader shares a report: Diamonds may be forever but they are also seriously on sale. Natural rough diamond prices have collapsed 26 per cent in the past couple of years. Tepid US and Chinese demand for diamond jewellery hasn't helped. But most ring fingers point at the increasing popularity of cheaper laboratory grown diamonds (LGD). This fracturing of the diamond market is set to last. After a brief pandemic-era boom in diamond jewellery, miners are battling to whittle down oversupply of gems. Anglo-American's De Beers, along with Russia's Alrosa, control two-thirds of the rough diamond supply. DeBeers this week said its rough sales dropped 23 per cent in the first quarter.
It is not enough. While rough stone inventory has stabilised of late, polished diamond stocks remain high. At more than $20bn at the end of 2023, these were near five-year highs, up a third since the end of 2022, according to Bank of America. Worse, as LGDs have taken market share, their prices have declined too, to about 15 per cent or less of their natural counterparts. Diamond miners spent years maintaining that romantic buyers would prefer the allure of rare, natural stones. It increasingly appears they were wrong.
Synthetic diamonds are nothing new, having appeared about 70 years ago mostly for industrial purposes. But in the past decade LGDs have taken off. In 2015, LGD supply barely featured as a rival to natural stones. By last year it was more than 10 per cent of the global diamond jewellery market, according to specialist Paul Zimnisky. This has created a competitive frenzy among producers. LGDs' lower costs have enabled them to slash prices. In October, WD Lab Grown Diamonds, America's second-largest maker of synthetics, filed for bankruptcy. It has since had to shift its business away from retail towards industrial customers.
It is not enough. While rough stone inventory has stabilised of late, polished diamond stocks remain high. At more than $20bn at the end of 2023, these were near five-year highs, up a third since the end of 2022, according to Bank of America. Worse, as LGDs have taken market share, their prices have declined too, to about 15 per cent or less of their natural counterparts. Diamond miners spent years maintaining that romantic buyers would prefer the allure of rare, natural stones. It increasingly appears they were wrong.
Synthetic diamonds are nothing new, having appeared about 70 years ago mostly for industrial purposes. But in the past decade LGDs have taken off. In 2015, LGD supply barely featured as a rival to natural stones. By last year it was more than 10 per cent of the global diamond jewellery market, according to specialist Paul Zimnisky. This has created a competitive frenzy among producers. LGDs' lower costs have enabled them to slash prices. In October, WD Lab Grown Diamonds, America's second-largest maker of synthetics, filed for bankruptcy. It has since had to shift its business away from retail towards industrial customers.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no problem with people making money, I have done it every day for 50+ years. But the diamond business stands is a toxic combination of all the most extreme negative cartoonish stereotypes and abuses of a capitalist system. DeBeers, etc, deserve every bad thing they have coming to them. If synthetic diamonds put them out of business tomorrow, it will be a great step forward for western society.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
What the passport bros don't tend to realize is that part of what marriage affords from a legal perspective is that same protection for the "traditional" woman.
If a woman puts aside career to take care of home and a family she has effectively sacrificed her financial independence, if the man decides to leave (no fault divorce cuts both ways) then she is in in fact entitled to a share of the money, she put in work and put aside money of her own.
Back in the mid century that the trad-cons pine for divorce rates were lower in large part because women could not afford to be divorced; you could easily be trapped in an abusive or unloving relationship simply because now you have these kids, no degree, no job experience. You are fucked if left on your own.
So if you are a man who want a long term relationship and a family learn to operate in the 21st century. Marriage is risk on both end, we men are not special.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Pointing out that the risk is shared by both parties does not, in fact, lower the risk nor the stakes. People will shun a high-risk-high-stakes investment, regardless of whether those risks are fair.
The "traditional marriage," where one member (typically the woman) gives up her career in order to be a stay-at-home spouse, is largely a thing of the past. Most families simply can't afford that arrangement anymore. In this economic landscape, it is almost selfish to want to be a stay-at-home-spouse. The financial burden that such a person imposes is significant, and is multiplied by the even greater financial burden imposed when the divorce happens.
If wealthy men want to seek out traditional women to offer livelong providence (even after divorce), more power to them. It's their money, after all. In a world with a 50% divorce rate, it seems a significant waste to me, but really that's just an issue of values.
The bottom line, though, is that marriage rates won't go up in the current climate. No amount of blaming-and-shaming will have any impact. Maybe that's ok. But people who would like to see the marriage rates rise are going to have to do better than say "you need to learn better." Such a tactic utterly fails to address the reasons motivating the current trends.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
In this economic landscape, it is almost selfish to want to be a stay-at-home-spouse
Maybe, it all depends on the two people. Most women today agree with you, that's why we are seeing women's success in college outpace men's in the recent decades and the "wage gap" (which is both real and not real, it's complicated) is closing YoY.
But women aren't here pining for "transitional marriage roles", they on the whole are doing great, making money, getting educated.
50% divorce rate
People use this but tend to forget that like 90% of human relationships don't succeed, marriage or not.
But people who would like to see the marriage rates rise are going to have to do better than say "you need to learn better." Such a tactic utterly fails to address the reasons motivating the current trends.
I never said I was in favor of higher marriage rates, only trying to explain the other end of the issue.
I think just the same and putting blame on "feminism" is pure cope. Times are different, human relationships evolve.
But I do agree if one wants to make higher marriage and families a legislative priority then easing the financial burden on families is critical. Meanwhile in the US we have
No mandated paternity leave
No mandated vacation time
Barely any public childcare services or any pricing regulations on things like daycare
Until recently there wasn't even public Pre-K in most places
We had the CTC which did great but then rescinded it with no sign of reinstating it.
Re: (Score:3)
But I do agree if one wants to make higher marriage and families a legislative priority then easing the financial burden on families is critical. Meanwhile in the US we have No mandated paternity leave No mandated vacation time Barely any public childcare services or any pricing regulations on things like daycare Until recently there wasn't even public Pre-K in most places
Those (lack of) things are all intended to keep women at home.
Re: (Score:2)
But I do agree if one wants to make higher marriage and families a legislative priority then easing the financial burden on families is critical. Meanwhile in the US we have No mandated paternity leave No mandated vacation time Barely any public childcare services or any pricing regulations on things like daycare Until recently there wasn't even public Pre-K in most places
Those (lack of) things are all intended to keep women at home.
Perspective is a funny thing.
One could also say "do what you want, but why should society have to pay for it?"
Paying poorer women to watch your kids so you can go to an office is a luxury.
Re: (Score:3)
"do what you want, but why should society have to pay for it?"
Unless you are a person who is advocating (or in general complaining about or is concerned about) marrage and childbirth rates than that is part of the cost you have to accept if you want those numbers to go up. If you don't care about that then I am not really talking to you, status quo is fine, your perspective is intact.
I am talking to people who are like "we need more families" and also "i dont want to pay for anything" well, you cant get both, as they say "we live in a society". Just accept your fall
Re: (Score:2)
This is argument from emotion, the initial financial status of childcare workers is a non-sequitor so long as they are paid farily for doing the work.
So do the poor women have a "right" to childcare too? Who exactly is going to watch their kids?
Is it poor women all the way down?
Re: (Score:2)
Are those women going to be still poor when they get paid a fair wage for a highly in demand job?
Does a guy having a job as a mechanic mean I have a "right" to car care? What kind of argument is this? Let's use our brains here.
Re: (Score:2)
Are those women going to be still poor when they get paid a fair wage for a highly in demand job?
After working part time for minimum wage at a daycare? Yeah, probably.
Does a guy having a job as a mechanic mean I have a "right" to car care? What kind of argument is this? Let's use our brains here.
Er, if you demanded and got taxpayer subsidies for your car repair ... then, yes?
Let's use our brains here.
That's what I've been asking you to do ... I know what I'm saying goes against the cultural zeitgeist, but I think you know it's true, however uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
You want more kids born in America you will need subsidized daycare on top of lots of other wrap around child services and tax adjustments.
If you don't care about childbirth rates then don't change anything, rates will continue to fall naturally.
Because ... that's worked so well to make native European birthrates skyrocket? You know, those countries who have all that stuff in spades?
I don't think it's me who's arguing from emotion here.
Whose birthrates are higher, euro-paradises of taxpayer paid childcare, or traditional patriarchal societies where women stay home? I mean in actual empirical terms?
You seem to think that white collar women have some right to have poorer women raise their children. Just how British aristocrat women felt, though I
Re: (Score:2)
Because ... that's worked so well to make native European birthrates skyrocket? You know, those countries who have all that stuff in spades?
Yeah, it's complicated but it certainly seems not doing those things doesn't help either. Also which country has the highest birthrate in Europe? France. Which country has the most childcare public services? France.
Whose birthrates are higher, euro-paradises of taxpayer paid childcare, or traditional patriarchal societies where women stay home? I mean in actual empirical terms?
Correlation/Causation. Traditional patriarchal societies have higher birthrates but that isn't the cause, there's a huge overlap between being that sort of country and being a still developing country. The falling birthrate tracks very cleanly across cultures as countries develop. Asia, Ch
Re: (Score:2)
Also do please update me on the success of your plan of just telling women to give up getting an education, a career, financial independence and contraceptive services. I am confident that plan has success all over it.
Re: (Score:2)
If your brain connect daycare services where people get paid for an in demand job to victorian british servants, well, that's your issue.
lol, they are both people paid to raise your children for you, during the non-leisure portions of your day. I notice the similarities, but I didn't create them.
It's "in demand", certainly ... especially with artificial demand being created by subsidies and also the "every (middle class and up) woman must work outside the home" philosophy.
Yes, they do get paid ... as little as possible.
So anyway, let me get this straight. Child rearing is so soul-killing that women - well, the women who matter - should ge
Re: (Score:2)
One could also say "do what you want, but why should society have to pay for it?" Paying poorer women to watch your kids so you can go to an office is a luxury.
I don't disagree. Not having kids myself I have no problem with my tax dollars going to support single parents child care so they can get out in the workforce, I'm less enthusiastic about subsidizing child care for working couples so they can afford the second SUV and winter vacation every year. The argument that it be considered a necessary benefit to encourage more people to have kids does not really sway me. There is no shortage of kids in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
More and more guys are seeing that [marriage] is just NOT a good deal for them.
And, for people with attitudes like those expressed in your post, that decision is generally not made BY them, but FOR them. (See: Incel. [wikipedia.org])
Re: (Score:2)
Sour grapes is that that is. If they have flaws, they either fix the flaws or accept things. The incels are bitter and angry and has turned them misogynist in their absurd belief that they are "owed" sex partners. The more that they buy this incel attitude the more that women are repulsed by it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Weddings don't need to be expensive. It's normally done just to flaunt the wealth. The wedding in the courthouse or city hall is just as effective, even a church wedding with only 20 guests at a backyard barbeque after will save a ton of money over inviting 100 people, and skip the dress and requiring costumes for the maids of honor and groomsmen. I've been to a Vegas wedding presided over by Elvis, it seemed to be affordable though I didn't see the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been to a Vegas wedding presided over by Elvis, it seemed to be affordable though I didn't see the bill.
Around 3-4k, all-in, if I remember correctly. (I thought I still had it all in a spreadsheet, but a cursory search didn't turn anything up.) The biggest expense was the plane tickets for me, future wife, and 5 kids. It wasn't presided over by someone actively impersonating Elvis, at my specific request, but he was definitely an Elvis impersonator. We had the ceremony, dinner at a buffet, then partied in a suite till all hours of the night. I can't fathom shelling out 20k+ for a wedding, but to each thei
Re: (Score:2)
Women were not allowed to open a bank account or hold a credit card of their own in the US before 1974.
It's not just about social pressure, it was about the entire way our society was structured. The options were far more limited for single women just a few generations ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Marriages do not require diamonds, that is a 100% marketing invention in the western world. I've known married couples without the rings, or with plain bands instead.
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell has their marriage survived without a (not particularly) rare polished rock on their fingers? The absolute horror! /s
Re: (Score:2)
If they do. One couple it didn't survive over time. But the reason for not having the ring is getting married in college when they had not a lot of money. Another person had an interesting band, but it's casual couple. I asked how he proposed and he said "Maybe we should get married?" and his girlfriend said "why not."
Now the drawback of not having the ring. My parents poking me with their elbows whispering "she's single!" when they met my friends and I had to tell them that no, they're not single.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
We purchased a new diamond a couple years ago from a local jeweler
You would've paid much less if you'd bought it online. Diamonds have a huge retail markup.
I asked her about man-made diamonds
You asked a jeweler about a product that means less income for jewelers, and you expect an honest answer?
Even a lab diamond is a silly waste of money. Look at diamond and Moissanite side-by-side and try to guess which is which.
Re: (Score:1)
'You asked a jeweler about a product that means less income for jewelers, and you expect an honest answer?'
It's like asking a baker if meat or bread are healthier.
Re: (Score:3)
Moissanite is fairly easy to tell from diamond because it's dispersion is so much higher. Cubic zirconia is a closer match, although still considerably higher.
Moissanite is much prettier than diamond though, and since the patents expired in 2018 gemstone silicon carbide should be getting pretty cheap.
Re: (Score:3)
Diamond rings also have a shitty resale value. The prices drops drastically when it leaves the store. Best bet is to take grandma's ring and resize it or reset the stone, but you won't be able to resell it for much.
Personally, I don't like diamonds. Emeralds look much nicer, and nice looking ones are much rarer. Sapphires are my favorite despire being more common.
Re: (Score:2)
At one point in time during the discussion, she brought up the word 'rare', and I suggested tanzanite (only found in one mine in the world, many orders of magnitude more rare than diamond), but she didn't like the colour.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that's de Beers at work, if you're permitted a quota from de Beers you're not allowed to deal in stones not from them, and can't deal with anyone else who doesn't play by the de Beers rules. For the full details of how much they've got this sewn up, read "The Last Empire" which, despite being nearly 30 years old, is still valid today.
In addition, I've been seeing this "synthetic stones will change everything and kill the de Beers monopoly" since at least the 1980s (The Last Empire covers it too, from
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't I get voting points when I need them?
You are sooooo right.
Artificial Diamonds for the win.
(And artificial ebony would also be a good idea, as well as artificial rhino horn, if it collapses the market for the real thing.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I agree with you but don't underestimate DeBeers.
They have enough diamond reserves that they can steeply discount natural ones for long enough to put synthetic diamond makers out of business.
LK
Re: Good (Score:1)
Spot on. De Beers, as an example, is an outfit with a nasty history. Maybe the expression of all that's wrong with that business. Very disappointing that the road to a lot of wedding rings was far from beautiful.
Re: (Score:2)
Then [gstatic.com]
Now [minutemediacdn.com] (yes that is also Mr T!)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Also, diamonds? These are almost worthless, except for scarcity. Well, having diamond-based grinding equipment is nice for some cutting jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
DeBeers, etc, deserve every bad thing they have coming to them. If synthetic diamonds put them out of business tomorrow, it will be a great step forward for western society.
The owners of DeBeers changed a few years ago. I assume they saw the writing on the wall and sold off to some naive idiots who were eager to get into the exploitation game like their predecessors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Blood diamonds anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Find a girl who thinks its cool the diamond came from millions of tons of pure man made hydraulic pressure.
Re:Blood diamonds anyone? (Score:4, Funny)
This is slashdot, who care what girls think. They have cooties!
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, there are no women on the internet; only men pretending.
Re:Blood diamonds anyone? (Score:4, Funny)
So the internet is like woman's competitive sports?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Blood diamonds anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Find a girl who thinks its cool the diamond came from millions of tons of pure man made hydraulic pressure.
IF I were to buy my lovely lady a diamond. (Not likely, as she would prefer a kickass new laptop.) I would absolutely get her a lab created one, because she would think it was cool, and the ethics of diamond mining.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The only diamond ring worth owning is a cutting disc.
Re:Blood diamonds anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
If she leaves based upon how much you spend, then you possibly missed other red flags along the way.
Re:Blood diamonds anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think we both know there are women in who the value of the ring is not what it's made of but the dollar signs behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I said
Find a girl who thinks its cool the diamond came from millions of tons of pure man made hydraulic pressure.
and you say
You said women will care less about a diamond based on how it came from a lab.
Please explain how you got from A to B please.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Different question:
A girl who knows anything about tech might in fact find it very cool that a jewelry grade diamond came out of a complex and impressive industrial process. If they are socially conscious they know about the diamond trade problems and DeBeers and don't want to support that.
A woman who doesn't find your trains "cool" may still find appeal in your passion for it, your attitude around your hobby tends to be more attractive to people than the thing itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, women are neither uniform nor immutable.
In a good long term partnership you both make an effort and can often find hot and interest in each others interests.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's 2024, girls love nerdy stuff like tactical board games, D&D and video games now. I've seen girls that like 40K miniatures.
Honestly, compared to when I was a geeky teenager kids today have it easier with finding common hobbies and interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Women have traditionally been at a disadvantage in relationships as women were more dependant on them. Thus its more about the financial sacrifice of the man being a sign of commitment to the relationship.
Re: (Score:2)
>>The value of the diamond is currently about bragging rights; but that price is artificially controlled by DeBeers.
You want the actual real-world value of a diamond? Go hit a pawn shop. They have loose diamonds by the score and for pennies on the (original MSRP) dollar.
Buy those diamonds, and get a custom mount made for them. Your girl won't know the difference and you'll have saved a ton.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just find an intelligent girl who understands that there is no difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or find a girl of average intelligence who rolls her eyes at silly things like rings.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the lab ones tend to be higher purity and with fewer flaws.
If you really really want to impress a nerd by splashing dollars, get an isotopically pure diamond, which has even higher thermal conductivity.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're marrying a nerd, get him or her a ring made of carbon nanotubes. Or a ring with an embedded RFID that unlocks a box to put keepsakes in.
Re: (Score:2)
Find a girl who thinks its cool the diamond came from millions of tons of pure man made hydraulic pressure.
I can't. None of them seem to give a shit. Which is why I as a boy get to decide whether to support violence and exploitation.
Re: (Score:2)
Many Bothans died to bring you this diamond ring.
Re: (Score:1)
My husband turned a stainless steel hex nut on a lathe to make my wedding ring. Later on we bought a CZ engagement ring at Fedco. Not everybody is stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Blood diamonds anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the best way to tell a lab diamond from a mined one: the lab diamond is better. Yet somehow after decades of selling diamonds based on how few flaws they had, they flipped the marketing and got people to buy that flawless was bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The diamond, like your car, has a serial number on it. No need for imperfections from natural diamonds for identification purposes. Diamonds a very well documented.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Boo hoo (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure everyone is crying in their De Beers.
Diamond Shows Serious Cracks From Man-Made Stones (Score:2)
"Well that makes sense. They're fake, and nature of course does a much better job than man." I can just hear someone saying that line.
Good. Diamonds are stupidly overpriced (Score:5, Interesting)
Diamonds are abundant in nature - just in specific sites controlled by a couple of companies or so who control their supply tightly in order to keep prices artificially inflated. Demand is simply a result of great marketing. And I am not even going into the ethics problems.
When I proposed I chose an artificial moissanite in a nice setting. My then bride to be appreciated that it did not cost a fortune (spent the money on trips instead), was ethical, was actually very rare in nature - only appeared in meteorites, and it's arguably at least as nice or nicer (higher brilliance) than diamonds. If you like colour, there are many natural gemstones that are much rarer than diamonds that can come in many interesting shades. There is really no reason to prefer a diamond, especially not a natural one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Diamonds are only expensive because the cartels control the market.
I'm all for cheaper tools (Score:3)
Not seeing a downside here. Unless you are the tool? Oh yes, this is about vanity rocks, good for keeping you in your job for a few months longer. How many month's income is the appropriate amount of, ahem, "love" to satisfy the vapid desires of a grown child. The looks and sex don't last, but diamonds are forever good for cutting steel.
Re: (Score:2)
... but diamonds are forever good for cutting steel.
Not quite. The temperature at the cutting edge gets really high, and the iron reacts with the diamond's carbon, shortening the tool life. Diamond cutting inserts are then mostly used with non-ferrous metals and composites. For steel one would either use tungsten carbide or CBN (cubic boron nitride) inserts.
Re: (Score:2)
Diamonds are excellent for everything except steel, unless you're very gentle, eg hand sharpening of tools.
You see, carbon dissolves in iron, which is what makes steel in the first place and if you use diamonds to cut steel and you don't keep the temperature very low, the surface just dissolves away into the steel and blunts the diamond.
Every diamond is a blood diamond (Score:2, Troll)
Next (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Long since accomplished. It's much more expensive to make that it is to mine.
Heirloom/historical diamonds (Score:2)
I can see valuing natural diamonds highly if they have an interesting provenance. If it was my great-grandmother's or if it was used by someone famous or involved in some famous historical event, then I might be willing to pay $$$ for it. Ditto if it's authenticated as a meteorite diamond.
But otherwise, it's just a fancy rock.
Diamonds for non-industrial purposes are... silly. (Score:3)
I understand that jewelry has deep, deep roots in culture. I certainly don't object to it. But diamonds have always been at the top of my list of the greatest illogical marketing successes of all time. The dollars-to-impact ratio of diamonds is so skewed that it's simply bizarre. Those marketers are kickass. They planted and nurtured a multi-faceted (see what I did there?) attack of expectations. They tied romance into it, the suggestion that being a good provider entailed paying large amounts for this rock of "ownership", they glossed over atrocities, and managed to hold on to that for a very long time.
Even aesthetically, I think diamonds are just boring. Coloured diamonds less so... but white ones? Meh.
If we can disconnect the bridal expectation, we can let the decorative side of this industry slide into history.
Shiny Rock Syndrome Has Down Side? (Score:2)
Who woulda thunk it?
It's about time! (Score:1)
Oh, noes. (Score:2)
Anglo-American's De Beers, along with Russia's Alrosa, control two-thirds of the rough diamond supply. DeBeers this week said its rough sales dropped 23 per cent in the first quarter.
Two cartels that created a false scarcity of a common item in order to artificially inflate their prices in order to gouge consumers for over a century in De Beers' case? Oh, no! Cry me a freakin' river.
About freakin' time. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving group of assholes.
Oooh shiny rock (Score:2)