lab grown diamonds

[Rock]

My Wife wears a beautiful 125 yo diamond engagement ring originally worn by my grandmother. The size and quality of the diamonds in it are nothing special and I would venture to say that whatever intrinsic 'value' the ring has lies solely in it's curiosity value as an antique piece. For my Wife (and I) however, it is rightly a treasured item that represents something entirely different. It will of course, be passed down to the next generation. Diamonds are common as glass and the most price-inflated item on the planet (after maybe Rolex) The 'value' is all in the eye (and heart) of the beholder.

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by Gladiat0r

Apparently yes. When seeing a large multi karat diamond on the hand of someone with a very meager living situation and luxuries, the assumption is indeed that it’s a lab grown. So people start talking and of course someone will have enough nerve to ask it.
At least that’s how I think the rumors start, being a bit of a fly on the wall hearing my wife’s friends spewing gossip.

My wife wears a 3.5ct solitaire lab diamond. It’s insane, and it’s not expensive. She wanted something large, laughed at the price of a natural diamond so she got a lab. The color is way too good for $10,000.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hollie_Rollie]

I don’t mind lab grown at all. Heck the divorce rate is between 40-50% in America for first time marriages. You spend 40k on a mined diamond and you get divorced its value is now 10k.

Get engaged with the lab grown …if you make it to 10yr anniversary get the mined diamond.

Tangentially, I wondered how this affects the ADs who require a bundle of high margin diamonds? Mined diamonds just aren’t sexy anymore


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AzPaul]

I'll say this much, the diamond industry has done a fine job of convincing people that the stones they sell are much more than just stones.

[ThatOtherGuy7]

Originally Posted by Hollie_Rollie

I don’t mind lab grown at all. Heck the divorce rate is between 40-50% in America for first time marriages. You spend 40k on a mined diamond and you get divorced its value is now 10k.

Get engaged with the lab grown …if you make it to 10yr anniversary get the mined diamond.

Tangentially, I wondered how this affects the ADs who require a bundle of high margin diamonds? Mined diamonds just aren’t sexy anymore


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those were two of the reasons why we went with lab. She told me that the more expensive rings and weddings typically equate to higher rates of divorce. And to your point, we could always upgrade and get her a different stone as needed. She has petite fingers and chose a 2.1 carat stone. It was 1/5 the cost of a real diamond.

Originally Posted by AzPaul

I'll say this much, the diamond industry has done a fine job of convincing people that the stones they sell are much more than just stones.

DeBeers definitely has done a great job with the “diamonds are a girl’s best friend” campaign. The only other comparable one would be “got milk?”

[Greenp]

Originally Posted by ThatOtherGuy7

Those were two of the reasons why we went with lab. She told me that the more expensive rings and weddings typically equate to higher rates of divorce. And to your point, we could always upgrade and get her a different stone as needed. She has petite fingers and chose a 2.1 carat stone. It was 1/5 the cost of a real diamond.



DeBeers definitely has done a great job with the “diamonds are a girl’s best friend” campaign. The only other comparable one would be “got milk?”

I think Patek's "generation" advertisement beats them.

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by Hollie_Rollie

I don’t mind lab grown at all. Heck the divorce rate is between 40-50% in America for first time marriages. You spend 40k on a mined diamond and you get divorced its value is now 10k.

Get engaged with the lab grown …if you make it to 10yr anniversary get the mined diamond.

Tangentially, I wondered how this affects the ADs who require a bundle of high margin diamonds? Mined diamonds just aren’t sexy anymore


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just don’t think most people are going to care about mined vs lab in the future. The price difference is just too large. The ADs love it. Their margin on lab is huge. I get substantial discounts on anything lab I’ve bought my wife.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Hollie_Rollie

Mined diamonds just aren’t sexy anymore

And where were they mined, who mined them, what damage was done to humans in the mine, and to the massive land excavation needed and resources accordingly?

Go lab.

[inadeje]

If they’re allegedly indistinguishable how is it that any jeweler worth his certification can tell you in 5 seconds that it’s a worthless lab grown stone ?

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by inadeje

If they’re allegedly indistinguishable how is it that any jeweler worth his certification can tell you in 5 seconds that it’s a worthless lab grown stone ?

Worthless stone that’s 100% identical to a natural diamond in every way. On a diamond test it will read as a diamond. You need a different diamond test to determine lab or not. What lab diamonds have done is make natural diamonds less valuable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pw92676]

Just my opinion: lab grown diamonds seem like superclone watches….they look identical from afar and cost way less….but those aren’t necessarily advantages.

[enjoythemusic]

What if the superclone was EXACTLY the same... maybe ever higher quality :)

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by shaunylw

Worthless stone that’s 100% identical to a natural diamond in every way. On a diamond test it will read as a diamond. You need a different diamond test to determine lab or not. What lab diamonds have done is make natural diamonds less valuable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except, not really. The lab grown have increased in popularity for sure but lab grown diamond prices have plummeted over a period where natural diamonds have stagnated (after rising sharply and then more recently declining). I am talking about the last 5-10 years.

Switching to medium-term, natural diamonds show price movement over the past 20 years reflecting moderate performance (inflation +). Lab grown show typical “technology” type pricing patterns, falling as production costs fall (down about 90% over that same period). So prices for mined roughly 50% up to near doubling over 20 years (not great, not awful) thought lots of volatility and also differences based on size and quality.

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

What if the superclone was EXACTLY the same... maybe ever higher quality :)

Exactly. Someone could replicate Bitcoin’s code - right up to its artificial scarcity characteristics of no more than 21 million coins. Even better, someone can make it 10x scarcer / an improvement! Like a higher quality super clone. Would that immediately render it more valuable or make Bitcoin worthless? I am setting aside the maturity question as of course network security is derived from actual buy-in … but my guess is we need buy-in for synthetic diamonds as jewelry too (and to some degree it works, except, apparently, not in terms or holding any value).

So there must be something else beyond someone merely ripping off Rolex IP and miraculously creating an equivalent watch (I admit, it won’t happen sub-$10k at any scale).

But the market has spoken already. Lab grown diamond pricing is mostly disconnected from natural diamonds. Not that surprising.

[BraveBold]

Nothing against lab grow diamonds. Just that so long as distinguishable, they likely will not supplant in terms of value.

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

Except, not really. The lab grown have increased in popularity for sure but lab grown diamond prices have plummeted over a period where natural diamonds have stagnated (after rising sharply and then more recently declining). I am talking about the last 5-10 years.

Switching to medium-term, natural diamonds show price movement over the past 20 years reflecting moderate performance (inflation +). Lab grown show typical “technology” type pricing patterns, falling as production costs fall (down about 90% over that same period). So prices for mined roughly 50% up to near doubling over 20 years (not great, not awful) thought lots of volatility and also differences based on size and quality.

Lab diamonds have not been popular for 5-10 years. It’s been the last few years that they have made a big push. People are realizing that paying 10x for a diamond that’s from the ground vs a lab isn’t worth it. It’s exactly the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pw92676]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

What if the superclone was EXACTLY the same... maybe ever higher quality :)

Would you buy a fully machined superclone MB&F (or Akrivia or any independent du jour) that was finished at a much higher quality and only cost 1/5 the price? Not sure how many on TRF would. No judgment either way, just curious to what the thought process would be.

[Easy E]

To me, the clone watch analogy is too thin. A nice watch, be it from a high end independent or a mass produced Rolex is still a crafted item. Designed, thought out, planned out, produced, to varying degrees of finish. A diamond is a rock pulled out of the dirt, or grown in a lab. That’s it.

Most diamonds are not rare or even valuable. Rhodes did an even better job than Wilsdorf of selling their story.

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by shaunylw

Lab diamonds have not been popular for 5-10 years. It’s been the last few years that they have made a big push. People are realizing that paying 10x for a diamond that’s from the ground vs a lab isn’t worth it. It’s exactly the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We can agree to disagree. But the market being flooded by Chinese-made lab grown diamonds, while at the same time as demand for luxury goods (including real diamonds) has cratered in that same market (China) has a big role to play…

Diamonds are not good investments. They are reasonable stores of wealth because they can be transported and have significant value “density”… a lot of value in a small volume/weight. Lab grown, however, have shown no tendency to store value at all - they depreciate massively and continue to do so.

Nothing wrong with buying them and they absolutely have pulled a meaningful chunk of demand from natural diamonds. No doubt. But to really have a sense for how this plays out, we need to see the cycle continue because the last bubble-like diamond market came after the rise in acceptance of lab grown, and is too recent to ignore.

[East Bay Rider]

Searching out this thread was timely as I know that my son (28) and his GF (33) seem to be moving in the direction of probable engagement later this year. According to them, their peers their age don't attach any stigma to lab grown diamonds, at least at this point in their lives (I'm curious though about older coworkers and mentors). In fact, some even claim that lab grown is the more ethical choice. They all respect the diamond as the traditional symbol of everlasting love and the entry key to an engagement which I'm glad for, but they don't subscribe to the notion of throwing massive amounts of money at it while the identical, more reasonably priced alternative is in the next display case. It's good to have choices I suppose. We didn't back when I got engaged and my wife's ring is very small as a result (she's gotten more diamonds and jewelry since but the engagement ring is admittedly modest). As for my son, he accepts that a diamond must be bought, but really he's mostly just concentrating on his undergrad student loans. That's where all his extra money is going, not to feed the diamond industry. I'm not sure if he'd feel any differently if he had expendable income. That'll come in time. He's never been much for conspicuous consumption or appearances and if she's happy, he's satisfied. I was concerned that it'll be seen as 'less than' or a consolidation prize, but they genuinely don't ascribe those thoughts to them at all. I'll be interested in watching over time if this is something they're content with or if it eventually nags them into an 'upgrade' somewhere down the road. For now, all is good.

[77T]

If we are talking about colorless, or nearly so, I'd agree about the investment quality being low.

But one shouldn't make an unqualified rule against diamonds. Fancy ones out paced the lab crisis.

The difficulty is long-term certainty due to market control in the natural segment and fragmentation in the lab-grown segment.

The natural diamond market is primarily controlled by a few major companies, with De Beers historically being the most prominent player. Other significant companies include Alrosa, Rio Tinto, and Dominion Diamond Mines. These companies dominate the extraction, distribution, and pricing of natural diamonds. I don't trust the bas**rds - they can short the market and drown small fry in calls.

In contrast, the lab-grown diamond market is more fragmented and rapidly evolving. It includes a variety of companies, from large corporations like Diamond Foundry and Pure Grown Diamonds to numerous smaller startups and manufacturers.

As consumer awareness and demand for ethical and sustainable options grow, the lab-grown diamond market will continue to expand, potentially challenging the dominance of the natural diamond market in the future. Why?
Gen 𝛂 and 𝛃 may simply crater it for cultural/social reasons.

The natural diamond industry faces several ethical concerns like "blood diamonds," mined in war zones, poor working conditions, child labor, and exploitation of workers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

We can agree to disagree. But the market being flooded by Chinese-made lab grown diamonds, while at the same time as demand for luxury goods (including real diamonds) has cratered in that same market (China) has a big role to play…

Diamonds are not good investments. They are reasonable stores of wealth because they can be transported and have significant value “density”… a lot of value in a small volume/weight. Lab grown, however, have shown no tendency to store value at all - they depreciate massively and continue to do so.

Nothing wrong with buying them and they absolutely have pulled a meaningful chunk of demand from natural diamonds. No doubt. But to really have a sense for how this plays out, we need to see the cycle continue because the last bubble-like diamond market came after the rise in acceptance of lab grown, and is too recent to ignore.

No doubt, i agree with you. One thing that always struck me with labs is that i couldn’t possibly tell the difference. So the average consumer likely couldn’t tell the difference. I wonder if we see some lab growns being sold as mined, i would have to imagine it’s going to be a giant issue eventually.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hambone1983]

it is inaccurate to say lab-grown diamonds are fake. They are 100% genuine diamonds, made by the exact same process as natural diamonds. The only difference is where this process occurs.

[texasmade]

Originally Posted by 77T

If we are talking about colorless, or nearly so, I'd agree about the investment quality being low.

But one shouldn't make an unqualified rule against diamonds. Fancy ones out paced the lab crisis.

The difficulty is long-term certainty due to market control in the natural segment and fragmentation in the lab-grown segment.

The natural diamond market is primarily controlled by a few major companies, with De Beers historically being the most prominent player. Other significant companies include Alrosa, Rio Tinto, and Dominion Diamond Mines. These companies dominate the extraction, distribution, and pricing of natural diamonds. I don't trust the bas**rds - they can short the market and drown small fry in calls.

In contrast, the lab-grown diamond market is more fragmented and rapidly evolving. It includes a variety of companies, from large corporations like Diamond Foundry and Pure Grown Diamonds to numerous smaller startups and manufacturers.

As consumer awareness and demand for ethical and sustainable options grow, the lab-grown diamond market will continue to expand, potentially challenging the dominance of the natural diamond market in the future. Why?
Gen 𝛂 and 𝛃 may simply crater it for cultural/social reasons.

The natural diamond industry faces several ethical concerns like "blood diamonds," mined in war zones, poor working conditions, child labor, and exploitation of workers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's probably a huge generational divide between lab grown vs mined.

If I had to guess, Gen Z/Alpha/Beta are going to skew heavily towards lab grown with a negative stigma attached to mined. Millennials are 50/50 on lab grown vs mined while Gen X and Boomers are heavily skewed towards mined with a huge negative stigma to lab grown diamonds as fake.

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by texasmade

There's probably a huge generational divide between lab grown vs mined.

If I had to guess, Gen Z/Alpha/Beta are going to skew heavily towards lab grown with a negative stigma attached to mined. Millennials are 50/50 on lab grown vs mined while Gen X and Boomers are heavily skewed towards mined with a huge negative stigma to lab grown diamonds as fake.

I would completely agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by hambone1983

it is inaccurate to say lab-grown diamonds are fake. They are 100% genuine diamonds, made by the exact same process as natural diamonds. The only difference is where this process occurs.

This is not accurate. While I agree the outputs are physically near-identical (and the differences are irrelevant for “practical” purposes) the production process is not comparable.

Most jewelry synthetic diamonds are created using CVD methods. Simply put, layering carbon using a carbon-rich gas as the carbon source, rather than using high pressure (which is closer to replicating the natural process).

Back to whether equivalent or not, it has to do with expectations and how you define something. Is the diamond defined in part based on its formation? “A naturally occurring gemstone formed over geological-scale time periods” or simply its constituent parts and properties “carbon, compressed into a crystalline form in a tetrahedral lattice structure, with the following properties”….

If Patek replaces a “handmade” guilloche dial and swaps to one entirely automated (or even cast) that was physically identical in every single way, would the value be different and/or is it still guilloche? I believe the cast version would not be, because it is not engraved - yet assume product is indistinguishable in this example, absent a special instrument. Simply put, the process matters when the value of something is not purely utilitarian.

[77T]

Originally Posted by texasmade

There's probably a huge generational divide between lab grown vs mined.

If I had to guess, Gen Z/Alpha/Beta are going to skew heavily towards lab grown with a negative stigma attached to mined. Millennials are 50/50 on lab grown vs mined while Gen X and Boomers are heavily skewed towards mined with a huge negative stigma to lab grown diamonds as fake.

Yes, for all the reasons In my post, there is a good probability of that happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Pw92676

Would you buy a fully machined superclone...

Never, ever had a superclone and would not even give one a thought. i do get your point, and at some point 3D printing and other additive/etc tech could have us revisiting this type of discussion. On the plus side, vintage automobile racers are able to create parts / etc easily to keep them racing on track event after event and year after year.

-------
-------

A diamond is just a chemical, pure carbon (C). Nothing that special about it, really. Very common Natural stone on planet Earth, actually, especially anything below four (4) carats with even the very teeny tiniest of flaws. Guess in 2025 it really comes down to if you support the treatment of mine workers and the environmental outcome for Natural. Old guys might care, but the young kids never got the whole De Beers marketing mantra seared into their heads. The kids might have seen videos and news reports about how mine workers may be treated.

[hambone1983]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

This is not accurate. While I agree the outputs are physically near-identical (and the differences are irrelevant for “practical” purposes) the production process is not comparable.

Most jewelry synthetic diamonds are created using CVD methods. Simply put, layering carbon using a carbon-rich gas as the carbon source, rather than using high pressure (which is closer to replicating the natural process).

Back to whether equivalent or not, it has to do with expectations and how you define something. Is the diamond defined in part based on its formation? “A naturally occurring gemstone formed over geological-scale time periods” or simply its constituent parts and properties “carbon, compressed into a crystalline form in a tetrahedral lattice structure, with the following properties”….

If Patek replaces a “handmade” guilloche dial and swaps to one entirely automated (or even cast) that was physically identical in every single way, would the value be different and/or is it still guilloche? I believe the cast version would not be, because it is not engraved - yet assume product is indistinguishable in this example, absent a special instrument. Simply put, the process matters when the value of something is not purely utilitarian.

the CVD process mimics the natural process of how diamonds are created in space while HPHT mimics how they are created on earth. The output is still an actual diamond. Physical chemistry is physical chemistry, it is chemically irrelevant whether it results from a human-engineered process or one that occurs in nature. Is there a difference in perceived value? Sure. But they are identical substances.

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by hambone1983

the CVD process mimics the natural process of how diamonds are created in space while HPHT mimics how they are created on earth. The output is still an actual diamond. Physical chemistry is physical chemistry, it is chemically irrelevant whether it results from a human-engineered process or one that occurs in nature. Is there a difference in perceived value? Sure. But they are identical substances.

I never suggested otherwise (re: the output being nearly identical).

But, again, you are incorrect about the process. CVD does not mimic natural processes for how diamonds are created in space (though I feel this is still reaching in terms of relevance for how we define diamonds as we know them, naturally, on Earth).

The vast majority of diamonds in space are hypothesized to be formed due to high pressure. Impact, gravitational or otherwise…