The Facts About Diamonds (and why I don’t like De Beers)
February 7th, 2010
|
| Share |
In light of the upcoming Valentines Day holiday, when diamonds are often purchased as a means of telling your significant other how much you buy into media hype and advertisements, I thought it was about time I posted about some of the pervasive myths and the realities of diamonds. This post does contain some actual scientific and historical facts verses myths, but it also has some social commentary that I figured I might add.
Some would argue that this is why I’m single, because the fact of the matter is that I’m not keen on buying diamonds*. If I did ever buy a diamond as an engagement ring it would be synthetic. Yes, this may limit my options, although most of those excluded would hopefully not be anyone I’d be interested in anyway.
If this seems written from a male perspective, it’s because, traditionally, it’s the man who is generally expected to purchase expensive jewelery. Diamonds are not generally given from women to men, except perhaps in narrow circumstances of things like cuff-links or tie tacks.
*note: I am referring to gem diamonds. I have no problem buying diamonds that are inset into a saw blade or drill bit.
Diamonds are rare and valuable – Diamonds are fairly rare, at least compared to other minerals, but not nearly as rare as you might think. In areas where kimberlite can be found, diamonds are actually fairly common, although most are small and not gem quality. The cost of diamonds has a lot more to do with a stranglehold on the market than it does the natural rarity of diamonds.
The De Beers Group managed to acquire a large portion of the diamond production business in the late 1800’s. At the time, nearly all diamonds came from South Africa. Once De Beers acquired most of the mines, it took some very aggressive steps to secure its monopoly. It would offer to buy out smaller producers and if they refused, De Beers would flood the market with diamonds of similar characteristics to destroy the viability and force producers to submit. De Beers managed to keep a monopoly control of the world production throughout the 20th century and operated as a cartel. To keep the price of diamonds artificially high, they sat on huge stockpiles, keeping them from entering the market.
De Beers price fixing, production withholding and strong armed tactics kept them out of the United States and many other countries. Their business practices being downright illegal, not to mention their alleged crimes of a more violent or direct nature. That was fine, however, as they simply sold through other countries, making diamonds even more coveted. Jewelers had to travel to places like Belgium to even get a chance to bid for diamonds, and sales could be invitation only. (Pretty much, they worked like the Mafia)
It wasn’t until the early 2000’s that De Beers faced a competitor who could go toe to toe with them when it came to heavy handedness and sheer brutality: Russia. The discovery of diamonds and their subsequent production in Russia was the first major blow De Beers Cartel. This was followed by Canada, where business law prevented De Beers from resorting to the measures it had taken in Africa. The Diavik Diamond mine opened in Canada in 2003 and was one of the largest single blows to the De Beers monopoly. Since 2000 several other, generally small diamond mines have opened up, chipping away further at the total control that De Beers once had on the market.
Not surprisingly at all, the price of diamonds plummeted. Today, De Beers continues to maintain control of 50%-60% of the world diamond market and controls the producers of some of the best quality and largest gemstone diamonds. While this does not allow them to dictate the price of diamonds like they once did, it is still more than enough to have a profound influence on the market. They continue to withhold massive stockpiles of diamonds, and other producers too may keep their production under check to prevent a flood of diamonds from causing a huge reduction in price. Artificially controlling the price of a commodity does not require that any one entity control all production, only that they control a very significant proportion of it. OPEC, for example, only controls 33% of the world’s oil supply, still more than enough to make a huge difference in the price of oil.
Diamonds Nature’s Perfection – Far from it! Nearly all natural diamonds have flaws in them. If the diamonds are small, the flaws may not be noticeable, but any large diamond will have some fairly major flaws in it, if you look closely.
While the diamonds you see in a store are symmetrical, clear and shaped like teardrops or other geometrical shape, this is entirely artificial and the result of cutting and polishing the rough diamonds. The natural condition of a diamond is actually quite unimpressive to look at.
“A diamond is forever” - No more so than anything else. Diamonds are the hardest known material, which makes them quite durable, but they are not infinitely durable. While diamonds are extremely hard, this should not be confused with overall strength. A diamond can be cut, in some cases fairly easily, by splitting it along lines of cleavage. In fact, a diamond can sometimes even shatter if it’s struck in the right place and at the right angle. In addition to this, diamonds will burn if they get hot enough and can be ground down to dust with another diamond.
Diamonds can also be burned. They are fairly temperature tolerant, but if it gets high enough, they will vaporize and combust to nothing more than CO2. Thus, assuming something else doesn’t destroy it first, your diamond will eventually be vaporized by the expanding sun when it enters its “red giant” phase. Nothing is forever, not even diamonds.
Guess who introduced the term “a diamond is forever” and the myth that they are. Yep, it’s De Beers.
Synthetic Diamonds Are Not Real - If you mention synthetic diamonds to someone, they may say they would rather have a “real” diamond. Synthetic diamonds are not fake at all, they are real diamonds. Cubic zirconia and synthetic moissanite are both “fake” in that they simulate the look of a diamond but are not diamonds at all. However, a real synthetic diamond is made of crystalline carbon, just like a natural diamond is. It’s as hard as a diamond and looks exactly like a diamond, because it is a diamond.
Synthetic diamonds have actually been around for decades, but until relatively recently the processes used to make synthetic diamonds could only produce relatively small and low quality diamonds, suitable only for industrial applications and not gem quality. However, in recent years, new processes such as high temperature deposition can produce diamonds that meet or exceed gem quality standards and are often more perfect than all but the best natural diamonds.
One of the most common varieties of synthetic diamond are yellow diamonds. Yellow colored diamonds occur in nature when nitrogen atoms replace a small portion of the carbon atoms. This occurred in the first generation of synthetic gem-quality diamonds because the production process uses high pressure nitrogen gas. However, there has been an enormous amount of progress in the production of synthetic diamonds and today they can be produced in any color or in a clear form. It is even possible to recreate the deep blue color of the Hope Diamond, created by a trace of boron in the crystal latice.
Modern synthetic gem-quality diamonds are indistinguishable from natural diamonds by even the most discerning jeweler’s eye. Realizing that their market could be about to collapse, diamond producers rushed to produce a non-destructive method of telling the difference. The only known method to distinguish synthetic from natural diamonds is through infrared, UV and x-ray spectroscopy, which can detect tiny traces of nickle, nitrogen or other impurities that are used in the process of producing synthetic diamonds. However, even this method is not foolproof and as diamond synthesis improves, it may also prove to be capable of detection even by sophisticated methods. Currently, many producers of natural diamonds are laser inscribing serial numbers on their diamonds to provide proof that they are natural.
But if you can’t tell the difference what is the point? After all, there are many natural diamonds in circulation without serial numbers inscribed on them. If you needed any more reason to consider diamonds about the worst investment around, this is it.
It is traditional for a man to give a woman a diamond engagement ring – This is probably one of the biggest single myths, and it’s come to be so pervasive that many think that an engagement is not “proper” or somehow is inadequate if there is no ring with a big diamond, costing three months or more of a man’s salary. However, this “tradition” simply did not exist prior to the 20th century. Rings have long been used as a symbol of relationships, especially marriage, where a wedding band is traditionally worn by both husband and wife, and there may have been some isolated examples of diamond rings given for engagements in centuries past, but they were not the norm. The most common jeweled rings given to lovers in the Victorian era were generally birthstone rings.
The “tradition” was invented in the 1930’s, by none other than De Beers, simply to drum up diamond sales. De Beers faced a problem in the early 20th century. They were expanding production, but diamonds were not all that popular and sales were down. They turned to the advertising firm of N.W. Ayer in the 1930’s, who began a multi-national publicity campaign that included encouraging wedding planners and bridal gown shops to promote diamonds as a necessity for a marriage. heir publicity campaign was brilliant, especially given that this was an era where such large efforts were rare. They managed to convince the public that a diamond wasn’t simply customary, but that a man was obligated to spend a large chunk of his salary on one. They managed to plant the myth that a man had to spend a good three months of his salary and that if he didn’t, he was somehow “cheap” or didn’t love the woman enough to make the sacrifice for her love. No diamond? What kind of man are you?
Convincing the public of this during the Great Depression meant that even while other sales were down, diamond sales soared. The general public didn’t have much money, but what they did have they felt compelled to spend on a rock for their lover’s finger. De Beers redoubled their efforts again several years later, when GI’s began coming home and marrying up. It’s amazing to stop and consider the logic here. A new couple, young and likely without much money could spend that money on a new home, a honeymoon or invest it to establish a fund for their future children’s college, but slick PR meant it was squandered on a rock.
A slick ad campaign continues to convince new generations that it’s only proper to buy an overpriced chunk of carbon for no other purpose than to look at. If you actually want to follow the “traditional” societial norm, don’t buy her a diamond. Buy her a birthstone ring or a ring with an opal, sapphire or ruby. Better yet, don’t buy any ring at all and put the money that would have gone into it toward a house, the honeymoon, or the start of an investment “nestegg.” If she’s too offended by this to accept the proposal, she ain’t worth it anyway.
Diamonds are a girl’s best friend – Okay, they do have some monetary value, but any girl who is shallow or socially dysfunctional enough to think that a gemstone is a substitute for human kinship and makes a good companion probably is not relationship material for anyone who isn’t a small piece of inorganic carbon.
One thing that I love to hate about the current ads is that they seem to indicate that a diamond is somehow a substitute for real affection, attention or time. It’s as if the only way to show someone that they mean something to you is to buy an overpriced rock with no consideration for the fact that it’s artificially expensive, will almost certainly lose value and comes from a supply chain of, at best, extremely questionable ethics. It implies that women are so shallow and stupid that despite wanting to spend time with their significant other, it’s possible to pacify them by giving them a shiny object to start at instead. (Diamonds don’t actually keep her company while you’re out ignoring her.)
Of course, the other thing one should realize is that diamonds have become the default all purpose gift to give for romantic occasions. In other words, there is absolutely nothing unique or creative about it. There’s no real thought involved other than the consideration of how much money you can put into the gift. You may as well get her a gift certificate, because that’s no more or less unique or thoughtful – even better, just cut her a check.
How about this? If you want to buy a woman a piece of jewelery, consider something a bit unusual, that will actually stand out from the crowd and show that you went out of your way to put some thought into it and seek out something meaningful. What about a platinum ring with a unique stone in it? How about something unusual like a lunar meteorite? You could even preface it with a meaningful metaphor like “Nothing on earth could be enough for you, so I got you a piece of the moon.” Alternatively you could get a unique fossil or piece of something else meaningful. If you prefer a gemstone, how about a nice sapphire? When was the last time you saw a beautiful sapphire on a ring? How about something custom made with a design that has some significance? Maybe an emerald shamrock if she’s Irish or a ruby maple leaf if she’s Canadian or if you met in Canada. These are just examples, of course. Try putting your own thought into it and come up with something else meaningful, but not a diamond, everyone gets a diamond.
This entry was posted on Sunday, February 7th, 2010 at 2:58 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Good Science, History, Misc, Not Even Wrong, Obfuscation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
February 8th, 2010 at 6:44 am
Thank you for writing about this. I wish this issue was more widely known. I noticed some errors in your post that I hope you will correct, in order to make your post more persuasive.
“buisiness” should be “business” in “Their buisiness practices being downright illegal”
In the last picture of the Natan ad:
“escourt” should be “escort”
“euphism” should be “euphemism”
Also, I found this confusing:
“In areas where Kimberli can be found”
Perhaps you could explain what Kimberli is?
(I’d have emailed this comment to you but I can’t find your email address on this website.)
Thanks
Michael
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Couldn’t agree with you more!
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Michael Keenan said:
It’s in the “contact” section. Er…Not that I have ever claimed to be good at spelling, but it really shows how bad I am when I get several corrections from a non-native english speaker. Oh well. I’ll fix it when I get home. I’m a little busy at the moment
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Oh… by the way, Kimberli was the auto-correct on the spell check getting me. It should be kimberlite. Apparently that was not in the dictionary file.
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Q said:
Go tell that to my wife, who received a purple sapphire palladium ring of my own design… and still married me. Maybe American women are that superficial but luckily we have Western European women (they tend to be smarter, too, and brains are sexy!)
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Reading some of the comments I marvel at what men think of women, ie, they’ll want something to show their friends. I know that I’m not traditional in any sense, but when I first fell in love and knew that marriage was imminent, I told my sweet man that I would kill him if he bought me a ring. We met in grad school and I was paying my own way, money was precious in a way that a diamond could never be. He is my gem, someone who respects me, loves me with his whole heart and body, and makes every day an absolute pleasure with his humor and intellect. Of course, that said, as you may guess, I don’t celebrate Valentine’s day or even birthdays, how could they compare to the way I feel every single moment with my husband.
I hope you find someone who sees you as the perfect complement to her life, and you’ll be warmer and more worthy than any rock or stone.
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Love this!
I actually went with a platinum setting (as gold tends to get worn down after a while. or at least gold rings I’ve had in the past have ) with a natural white sapphire (the sapphire is my birth stone). It is pretty and was affordable (for us). And it is tough enough to live through all of my messy art/building adventures!
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 10:50 am
luckily, the “engagement only with diamond”-meme doesn’t have as much hold over Western Europe as it seems to do over the US (at least if movies and this article are to be believed). I proposed without any ring at all and as a wedding-ring we have stainless-steel rings with an inset black ceramics-band. Looks mighty cool and is definitely different. But also has to do with the fact that my wife positively HATES gold.
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Q said:
Cynical much? My wife of 6 years would never have consented to marry me if I’d proposed with a diamond ring – it would have meant I didn’t listen to her, that I had no originality, and that I thought she was stupid.
You see, there are a lot of very smart and beautiful women out there who [i]don’t[/i] fall into the marketing trap that DeBeers et al have laid. Yes, if it’s more important that you have [i]anybody[/i] than to be yourself and stick to your ideals, a diamond ring might be a shortcut into that lovely and shallow woman you’ve been chatting up.
But if you’re after a meaningful relationship, the frickin’ ring is a footnote.
You, Q, have demonstrated by your comments that you are a cynical, sexist fool.
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Have to strongly disagree with Q on this one. I’m happily engaged and no diamonds were involved.
While I have certain stereotypes when it comes to Americans, I refuse to believe that ALL girls in the USA are shallow enough to think that expensive gifts are important for a relationship. Gifting can be a nice way to make your significant other happy, but if it becomes a condition, something is going very wrong with your relationship.
I’m aware that many relationships are not as much about actual love as about other things (material or not), but if you can put a price tag on affection, you should be aware of what kind of a relationship you’re engaging in.
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 11:15 am
A said:
I don’t think you understand just how effective De Beers was in inculcatiting this mieme in North America. I have listened to young people that were placed under tremedious pressure by their parents, because ‘a diamond proves he is serious’ or cases where the parents understood it was wrong but could not face down the expectations of their social group in this matter.
There are times when you can swim agaist the current, and times when you have got enough on your plate, and you can’t afford to fight yet another battle. Marrage is one of those times when a lot is going on, especialy if on side of the family is not keen on the matchup to begin with, and you take the path of least resistance.
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Both my wife and I are from the United States. When we began talking about marriage, she specifically stated that she didn’t want an engagement ring of any type. We instead took a 30 day vacation throughout Europe. Because we both don’t really care for the look of yellow gold, she did some research and fell in love with titanium. Our simple rings show virtually no wear after ten years of marriage.
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Ahhh, nothing like odious misogyny as an excuse to be pathetically bad husbands, while still blaming WOMEN for the advertisizng of male owned and run companies.
Thanks for the laugh, boys. Nothing makes me feel like more like a superior man then watching cowards blame “american women” for their shortcomings.
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Kissmymango said:
Where are women being blamed? If women in general have been taken by the myths of diamonds (as men have as well) it’s a slick ad campaign that is to blame.
I also don’t see any kind of message about being “pathetically bad husbands.” Actually I see the opposite. The author states clearly that you should give gifts that are unique and thoughtful and that it’s not a good thing to use an expensive diamond as an excuse to neglect someone.
I assume you believe that a “good husband” wants to go out and drink beers with his friends and ignore his wife, so he should just do this and buy her a diamond because if he does that she’ll feel obligated to let him neglect spending time with her? Also, I assume you believe that sex is a reward that a woman gives a man when he buys her something?
Maybe it’s the fact that this page is mostly read by men, but I hope that women will read this and realize that a diamond is not customary, just as men should read this and realize that they’re not obligated to buy one.
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
I had to laugh at Q’s logic. I didn’t give an engagement ring to my wife. I did propose. I did tell her I loved her, but I also told her I didn’t believe in buying overpriced rocks. She didn’t like it, but she understood.
I personally have a problem with doing some I don’t believe in, especially when it costs a lot.
Giving a ring is a good idea of finding out where your marriage will really stand. If the woman will either (1) marry you for a diamond or (2) reject you for not giving her a diamond, then you should count yourself lucky to find out just how superficial she really is.
Let me say that again: when the choices are (1) marriage or (2) relationship over, choose relationship over and count yourself lucky.
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
It’s not just women being lured in by the ad campaigns. When it was clear that my husband (then boyfriend) and I would get married, I told him flat out I didn’t need a ring, and when he said he wanted to get one, I suggested he go to a quarter machine at the super market. He laughed at me. I’m not sure if he realized at all that I was serious. I also promised him that if he got me a traditional diamond engagement ring that he would not have a wife any time soon. It didn’t even have anything to do with cartels, at least not in a political sense. I think the commercials promoting diamonds as the way to express your love are materialistic and shallow and unfortunately, my mother bought every word. If it wasn’t a diamond, it wasn’t pretty. If it wasn’t expensive, it didn’t count. That sort of attitude makes me sad. Every time I see a big diamond engagement ring, I’m reminded of that and who wants a shallow engagement?
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Spousal unit and I avoided diamonds. It was one of many things we agreed on – DeBeers = evil therefore no overpriced carbon chunks. He had a ring made for me – cobalt and platinum – love it.
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
I live in a Midwest town where every other ad on the radio is a store selling diamond rings. When my husband and I got engaged he let me pick out the ring for myself after he asked me to marry him. I was perfectly happy to take him without a ring. I think some of the commenters here are grossly underestimating how much most women in long term relationships focus on marriage (which is meant to be “forever”) vs a ring. (Yes, I know there are some who are superficial, but as the author of this post points out, it’s a good weeding technique.)
I went with a spinel in a gold ring that is very unique (not a currently popular style, because I find those dead boring). All the folks that are fussing about how your fiancee will be hurt by being “talked about”? Don’t listen to them. Sure, people commented on it, but no one said anything disparaging. Our culture doesn’t generally allow you to talk to future brides rudely unless there are other social shenanigans going on. (She’d be in the right and they’d look stupid/catty, is what I’m saying.)
Anyway, the stone in my ring was beautiful and because spinel isn’t popular or pricefixed like crazy it was also large and inexpensive (not that I told people that part). if people asked I told them I didn’t like diamonds and I never had anyone ask me any further. I did have one person tell me that he had bought his wife an engagement canoe, but I think that was more incidental amusement than related to the choice of stone.
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Well, I have to say, and i hope this won’t get anyone to jump down my throat, but when (and if hopefully) I get engaged I would like a ring. It’s not that it is even a tradition in the historical terms, but it would be nice to have a memento to mark the occasion and have a tangible thing to look at as a reminder and to show that it had gone to that step.
I do agree though that a diamond would be about the worst thing to put in it. Especially after reading this, the fact that it is so much less rare and valuable than it is made out to be and that it’s all from a slick marketing and artificial closed market. It’s not a scam. Also, the fact that it’s so standard makes it very unoriginal and meaningless too.
I think that it would be great to have something that was unique like with a date on it. The idea of a leaf or clover in gems would be nice too. I think the idea of a meteor or a fossil would rock too. That would be really sweet to know that the guy didn’t just fork over cash for it, but that he actually set his mind to find something different and fitting.
As far as money, I don’t think that should be the measurement. Three months salary is WAY WAY too much. It almost seems objectifying, like it’s a dowry or something, or like it’s a decoration for a prize or something. It’s just so impersonal. If a guy wants to spend some money, that’s nice and everything, but it shouldn’t be ridiculous.
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
It is hard to believe that no one has mentioned the high tech applications for synthetic diamonds in a blog like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_diamond#Applications
Also, if you want to buy a synthetic or cultured diamond, make sure you are getting a real diamond and not cubic zirconia. Some places don’t seem to be very clear about explaining what exactly they are selling.
Of course, I can remember when I first read the “Engines of Creation” discussion of diamond as a basic construction material.
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Q said:
I beg to differ. I am happy with my partner, and I’ve never given her a diamond. I discussed it with her and gave her a locally manufactured green stone.
It is better in every possible way.
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
It’s not just diamonds though. My husband, when we were still newish-ly married, wanted to buy me a ruby choker necklace. I told him I’d much prefer a high-performance laptop! After several years, he finally got the message and now my gifts are more along the lines of geek tech or good times together. The problem with jewellery is that, besides the cost and basic uselessness of the thing, you also have the worry of something dropping out or getting scratched or someone stealing it. Too much angst all around. It more resembles a millstone around one’s neck rather than a declaration of love.
Q, if you really believe what you wrote, I feel sorry for you. You obviously haven’t been socialising with the kind of women who are able to think for themselves.
Lithrael, right on. Agree with every word you wrote.
Quote Comment
February 8th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
I think Q is living in the past just a little. I’ve known my share of ladies and been married, not a single one of them had any interest whatsoever in diamonds. Maybe it’s just because I value intelligence above all else when it comes to women but it certainly shows that women with good sense number more than “4 or 5 in a billion” :p
TBH if a woman ever demanded or expected a diamond from me you wouldn’t see me for dust. Credulity and shallowness reek.
Quote Comment
February 9th, 2010 at 12:28 am
Cannonball Jones said:
Well, there are two issues here. One is the issue of giving expensive jewelery at all and the other is diamonds. I’m really focusing on the diamond issue. I mean, I’m not against jewelery – if that’s what makes your lady happy, then that’s great. I do think that a quarter of a man’s annual salary is ridiculous, but I don’t see a problem with jewelery as a gift or to mark an occasion.
Rubies are not as over-hyped, over-valued, over-priced, prone to losing value, unoriginal and controlled by a cartel in the way diamonds are. What disgusts me about diamonds is that they have perceived value based primarily on slick ads and unethical buisiness practices. this has convinced people of things that are not true.
I’d have no problem buying a woman a ring with an opal or sapphire or some unique and nice gem like that. As I said, I’d also prefer something a bit more original and meaningful.
What I’m really trying to do with this is get more people (men and women) to realize the truth behind the hype of diamonds.
Quote Comment
February 9th, 2010 at 7:13 am
I only glanced at the comments, but just wanted to comment that I’m a woman and I would love to get a turquoise ring as my wedding ring or engagement ring. Not only because it’s my birthstone and I like how it looks, but also just to go against the norm. Yes, even without the facts about De Beers some women and men question the whole diamonds thing. There are so many places to travel in the world, I’d rather spend money on that.
One thing that was not mentioned is the traditions among Latin Americans, even the affluent ones. Most common tradition is that the man and wife both wear simple, gold bands, and no engagement ring is given.
So, for all the men out there that think a woman would only marry you or sleep with a man that gave them a diamond engagement ring, you couldn’t be more wrong. It’s quite pathetic that you do think that of women, clearly you’re been brainwashed by De Beers propaganda. If you have any doubt, just speak to you girlfriend about it!
Quote Comment
February 9th, 2010 at 10:36 am
Just to clarify on the engagement ring thing, while DeBeers invented the idea of putting a diamond on there, they did not invent the idea of an engagement gift, and they certainly didn’t invent the idea of giving the woman expensive jewelry at her wedding. They just marketed the hell out of using lots of diamonds in that jewelry. The whole tradition of women being given jewelry dates back to the times when women were not allowed to keep property — except for what they could wear on their bodies. It was portable, durable wealth, and if a woman cannot make an honest living by herself, nor own any property, it may be all that stands between her and disaster if her husband falls ill, dies, or abandons her.
Wedding rings: an ancient European custom, though traditionally made only of gold (the metal that does not tarnish) without ornamentation, these are worn on the fourth digit of the left hand because this finger was believed to be physically connected to the heart. “Heartstrings” wasn’t originally meant as a metaphor. The custom held on even as modern anatomy revealed it to be baseless, and today nobody remembers why the ring finger is the finger for rings. The function of the rings (whether engagement or wedding) was to bind the people together, so if any ladies think this is a wonderful gift, think carefully.
Diamonds are often believed to be the most valuable stone, but historically this was not true, and indeed, clear diamonds were not considered the most valuable even of diamonds. Historically, colored stones have been most prized, particularly rubies (which are rarer than their blue cousins, sapphires) and emeralds (which are more common but difficult to work). It isn’t true, though, that diamonds in the rough are all ugly. The shape of their crystal (a double-pyramid, or to gamers, a D8) makes them more liable to survive reasonably intact. Before faceting was invented, such stones would be polished as much as possible. Today, they can be cut into the shapes we’re more familiar with. The very popular “brilliant” cut is made out of whichever point of the crystal is most intact, and will generally yield a finished stone only half the weight of the original crystal (but it may be possible to cut a much smaller stone out of the opposite point).
I have a relative who is involved with diamond mining — Canadian diamond mining. He was involved in the prospecting that led to the Diavik mine. (Awful place to have to drill. You can only survey in the summer when there’s light, but then you get eaten alive by giant mosquitos. Seriously. But you can only drill in the winter, when the ground is frozen and doesn’t just slop back into the hole. At least until you get down into the permafrost, that is, and can start setting up walls and things to keep the muck out.) They were under a lot of pressure from De Beers, and suspicious helicopters were often overflying their facility. But they stuck it out, and have managed to evade De Beers entire distribution network — with the result that their diamonds are much cheaper than De Beers. Even an amateur can easily tell one of their diamonds — look for the polar bear laser-etched into it. (You may need to ask a jeweler for help finding it; it’s quite small and unobtrusive.)
Funny story he related: during the drilling, De Beers ended up being the first to announce that it had found diamonds. They had to retract that statement, however, when they realized that the diamonds had actually come from their own drill bit.
Me, I think it is reasonable to buy valuable stones and precious metals as part of the wedding process, partly for tradition but also because it isn’t unreasonable to have some of that old durable, portable wealth. (In India, this is still done as the primary means of storing wealth in many families, which is why they have such a booming goldsmithing industry.) But I think it is very foolish to go into debt for it, and for Valentine’s Day and such, there are better gifts. Chocolate, for instance.
Quote Comment
February 9th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Calli Arcale said:
Of course engagement gifts were not invented by De Beers, but the idea that a ring was customary or necessary was largely their invention as well as the idea that it needed to be a diamond and that it was “proper” that it be 3 months salary – truly a crippling amount of money when you consider that this started up during the great depression when many could not spare one month’s salary.
I should clarify (once again) that I’m really focusing on the diamond as the over-valued, over-hyped, meaningless, invented, contrived, unoriginal custom that was marketed into existence.
To put it bluntly: Diamonds are a scam. Don’t buy into the scam. Get a gift that is actually meaningful and not entirely based on slick advertising.
Calli Arcale said:
That’s fine too, but again, diamonds are not the way to do it. In addition to their generally falling value and the threat of synthetics, they are overpriced to begin with and a new diamond from a jeweler is going to cost you a lot more than what you’ll ever be able to sell it for.
These are horrible investments and bad financial decisions that cost more than they should. If you want something compact and valuable that is not going to end up worthless, a good choice is precious metals like platinum. These can’t be synthesized except by nuclear reactions which involve using extremely powerful proton beams to bombard targets, neutron irradiation and repeated chemical separation – even to make micrograms quantitites. The enormous amount of energy involved pretty much assures that synthetic element production is not going to be a threat to the platinum or rhodium markets.
Samantha said:
You’re right. There are many women out there who actually have a brain and think for themselves and are not suckered into this scam by the slick advertising.
Don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of men who are shallow nit-wits too. It cuts both ways. Neither gender is free of non-thinking trend followers who are easily wooed by advertising and invented concepts of importance.
You can’t deny that there are women who make way too big a fuss about their man not buying them a diamond or the latest Prada handbag. Not to single out women, though, as there are men who think it’s appalling to not belong to the proper country club or something.
There are equal status symbols with men which are generally poor investments and are entirely invented. Some men fall for the diamond crap too and buy overpriced diamond cufflinks or lapel pins as if it somehow was meaningful. Another one would be watches, especially Rolexs. For the time begin they hold their value okay, but they actually keep worse time than a cheap digital watch.
Quote Comment
February 9th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
If you can understand this article, and agree with its points, and if your fiance reads this article, but still demands diamonds, chances are you are not going to be compatible. One of the big red flags in my engagement was my fiances irrational obsession with jewelery. We watched Blood Diamond, but the message never sank in. She knew about The Atlantic article from 1982 which exposed the diamond fraud, but still insisted on diamonds, even when I discussed alternatives.
Love being what it is, I overlooked it as an exception. Two and half years and one kid later, I wish I’d seen the warning signs and gotten away from this stupid materialistic cow (little more than a respectable prostitute) when I had the chance, as her attitude to jewelery reflects her attitude to life.
Quote Comment
February 9th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
While I agree wholeheartedly with the main point of this article, regarding diamonds being a fraud that are overvalued, I think the author is wrong about something. De Beers is widely believed to have a lot less influence in the market now than it once did. This is not true.
“Today, De Beers continues to maintain control of 50%-60% of the world diamond market”
Actually, their influence is a lot greater than that. It’s a myth that they went from 90 to 50% It’s more like 90 to 80%
Take a closer look at the Russian diamond mines. De Beers owns a large portion of that operation. They don’t own a controlling stake, but they invested enough money to get some big favors. One thing is that there are quota contracts. They buy a large portion of the diamonds.
The graph does not show that diamond prices started to rise again in 2004-now. This is because De Beers managed to get some agreements with the Russians. The Russian mines are not necessarily part of De Beers, but they are allied with them now. They realize that working with the cartel benefits them financially.
There are diamond mines around the world, but the only ones large enough to have any impact on the market outside the cartel are in Canada. They still have some influence there though. The author states the following:
“It would offer to buy out smaller producers and if they refused, De Beers would flood the market with diamonds of similar characteristics to destroy the viability and force producers to submit”
This is still the case! De Beers can’t buy the mines in Canada, but they have enough pressure to keep them in check. They could ruin the mines in one swoop by dumping inventory in North America. There is an uneasy truce that prevents anyone from being too productive beyond what De Beers will tolerate.
The cartel is alive and well. Do some more research. They’ve been at this for more than a century. They know all the tricks of the trade.
Quote Comment
February 9th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Q said:
B.S.
Bitter much? You certainly sound like it. As a woman, I would much rather have something like a lunar meteorite or birthstone ring than a diamond. In fact, I personally find diamonds to be the most boring rock on the planet. “Oh look. It’s clear. … woo.”
The idea that any woman would leave a guy over a lack of a stupid sparkly rock is appallingly simple minded of you. Screw shininess. I want a guy who loves me, that’s all. Maybe if you actually showed some *affection*…….
Quote Comment
February 9th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
My girlfriend wanted a nice big diamond ring. I gave it to her, we got married. We’ve been happy for 17 years and she’s not a shallow stupid cow or a prostitute. I’ve never been sorry I married her, and we spend all of our free time together. If you don’t want a ring that’s fine. If you do, that’s fine too.
Quote Comment
February 9th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
gman said:
This makes me wonder: Why did she want a nice big diamond ring? Was it because nice big diamonds are a sign of wealth, a materialistic desire. Or does she genuinely like the appearance of diamonds? If it’s the latter, do you think she would have scoffed had you gotten her a synthetic instead of a mined diamond? And would she have rejected you, had you NOT gotten her a diamond? The answer to those questions determine whether someone just likes diamonds, or could really be called shallow, at least in my mind.
Quote Comment
February 9th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
gman said:
Well, then I’d advise you to keep her away from this article or any like it. As long as she’s blissfully ignorant of how little it’s actually worth and how empty the “tradition” actually is, I’d imagine she’d be fine with things.
I mean, she’s under the impression that the thing on her hand is rare and unique. Nobody likes to find out they’ve been had. It might be better for her not to. Just be sure she doesn’t ever take it to a pawn shop or jewelery recycle and get an estimate for its sale. You know, people sometimes do that for insurance or tax reasons, and it tends to get a very very rude awakening.
If she ever gets it appraised, make sure it’s only the direct replacement retail cost or an equivalent new diamond. NOT the actual value.
Evil Head Doctor said:
I know that there are people who genuinely appreciate a diamond because they believe the following:
1) it’s a rare item of high value that only occurs on very very rare occasions and therefore is special for that
2) it’s valuable
3) receiving one is part of a long established and elegant tradition of society and marks a milestone in a way that is iconic in culture and symbolic because of its rich history
4) It has a beauty that is uncommon in nature and impossible for man to reproduce and can be marveled at for it’s unique and unusual properties.
Now, all these are good and valid reasons to place value on something. That is, if they were true. The big problem is that they’re not.
Quote Comment
February 10th, 2010 at 6:11 am
DrBuzzo; I think of it as a filter.
If I were to propose to a woman I would pick something interesting like a custom-ordered ring made out of pure iridium. If she were to reject me because of the lack of a conventional gold ring with sparkely gravel on I would know that it was a mistake to propose to her in the first place, since we clearly have incompatible personalities.
Quote Comment
February 10th, 2010 at 10:14 am
You guys seem to think you know alot about my wife. How exactly do you do that, considering you’ve never met her?
Quote Comment
February 10th, 2010 at 10:34 am
drbuzz0 said:
Um, some people genuinely like diamonds because they enjoy a sparkly clear gem. That’s why I asked if she would care if it was a synthetic. If it’s just the appearance of diamonds that she likes, it probably wouldn’t matter if it’s mined or synthetic.
gman said:
Read my comment again. I assumed nothing. I asked questions. Not my fault you didn’t answer them.
Quote Comment
February 10th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
gman said:
Sorry. I was giving some of the common reasons. There’s not much more anyone can do but speculate unless you’d like to provide some details.
Evil Head Doctor said:
Well, if that’s what you like about diamonds, then a synthetic should be preferable. Synthetics have less flaws than all but the most expensive mined diamonds and they’re cheaper, so you can get more for the same price or have more money left over for other aspects of the ring, such as accent stones or the band, or the money could be spent on the wedding or other things.
If someone can think of a good reason why to get a mined diamond or why a mined diamond is desirable over something else or a synthetic, even desirable enough to justify the inflated price, I’d love to hear it. No matter how hard I rack my brain, I can’t think of one good reason.
The only thing I can think of might be that she does genuinely really really like diamonds for their look and that the purchase of it pre-dates the availability of gem quality synthetics.
Quote Comment
February 10th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
drbuzz0 said:
That’s why I said it shouldn’t matter to her. Basically, it wouldn’t NEED to be a mined diamond, so you pick the one that you can find that best suits your other desires. The one thing about synthetics that is sometimes difficult is they are hard to find, at least at the jewelers around me. I like to try my jewelery on and feel it before I buy it, and if I can’t find it in a store by me, that’s not an option. It doesn’t justify the inflated price so much as suggests that more jewelers need to carry synthetics.
There is only one place by me that does. They carry only synthetics or diamonds mined in Canada. But, if you don’t like the styles there, your SOL.
The other way mined diamonds might be preferable is if they are purchased at a pawn shop or estate sale. You can usually get a REALLY good deal on them there and some pretty classy styles as well.
Quote Comment
February 10th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Evil Head Doctor, you can buy synthetic stones separate from the actual settings. You can also buy stones online and then return them if you don’t like them (shipping is way cheaper than inflated prices!). Local jewelry places should be willing to set stones you provide into settings you have (or that you’ve bought from them). They will already be doing some business with people who are resetting stones from existing family pieces or damaged pieces, so it’s not like this is a strange thing for you to be asking them for.
Quote Comment
February 10th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Eva said:
Thanks for the information (and ideas!). I don’t like diamonds, but I’ll keep that in mind if I’m talking to someone who does.
Quote Comment
February 11th, 2010 at 2:47 am
Slightly off topic –borts vs gems
The DeBeers, AngloAmerican Mining, Consolidated Diamond Syndicate was responsible for extending WW2 by TWO years.
During summer of 1940 there was a fear that the worlds supplies of diamonds would fall into German hands during the invasion. In as much as diamonds were required for any significant industrial process, this would amount to a total victory.
The Syndicate did not want to ship its stockpile across the Atlantic for fear that after the war the US would seize everything as part of an antiTrust action.
So things sat in British drawing rooms, and nothing was done. After The Battle of Britain was over the Syndicate retaliated. It cut the quality of the industrial diamonds while keeping the quantity and price the same. The net effects was as if they had halved the supply of industrial diamonds. So it took twice as long to build the stockpile of tanks and planes needed for the invasion of Europe.
In addition, the Oppenheimer controled AngloAmerican Mining was given control of the Congo fields which were mostly industrial diamonds. By some strange coincidence the stones from these mines ended up going to Germany via the diamond merchants of Tangiers and Cairo. For a price of 30 times the regular market.
In 1941 Germany predicted that its store of industrial diamonds would be gone by Sept 1943. As it was they found a source of smuggled diamonds and 1944 was the year of their greated war material production.
All this was in a wartime OSS study that is quoted in the in house history of the Syndicate.
( http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/diamond/chap9.htm)
So every death in WW2 after 1943 is directly attributable to the greed of the diamond merchants.
The irony is that the greed of the Jewish merchants of England was to cause the deaths of the Jews of Poland etc.
Quote Comment
February 15th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Regarding gem quality synthetics: Diamonds of all kinds are a HORRIBLE investment because synthetics are getting better and better and pretty soon even with spectrometers it won’t be possible to tell them apart. Right now most synthetics are engraved with a logo. As the technology gets more common, it will probably become more possible to get unmarked ones.
Synthetics are almost as bad an investment and will lose value as well. They are expensive, less so than natural, but still hundreds or thousands of dollars. However this is just because they’re new and not many produce them (yet). They’re actually cheap to make. Give it a couple of years and the price will fall on those, even as they become harder to detect.
If you’re going to buy a diamond expect to lose all the value of it. Buy synthetic becasue at least then you don’t lose as much. Don’t search “synthetic” though. Search for “cultured diamond” or “lab grown” or “lab cultured” because synthetic gets you stuck with the CZ and Moisonite sites.
Quote Comment
February 16th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
RowanVT said:
Heck, some birthstones are still worth more than diamonds. Even today, despite what DeBeers tells the world, diamonds are not the most valuable stones per weight. I’m not sure what is, but probably good quality rubies. Pink rubies are common. The really deep red ones are not, and clarity is rare in a ruby, so is highly prized. Also, rubies (being corundum) come in star forms, as do sapphires. (A star gem is one which, when polished, shows a shimmering star shape inside.) Diamonds never do; they have the wrong crystal lattice to support the star. And there are even synthetic star gems now; I used to have a synthetic star sapphire set on a white gold ring. Very nice.
But a lunar meteorite . . . dude. If my man got me one of those, I would be . . . well, I’d be over the moon.
I’m not seriously into expensive jewelry (I mostly just like to admire it), but I *am* into space. A lunar meteorite, even a tiny one, set into jewelry would show that a) he really knows me and b) he’s willing to spend a huge chunk of money. I’d rather he paid off the mortgage if he has that kind of money, though. 
Meteorites are very very expensive. Not as expensive (per weight) as a high-end diamond, but a small piece set into jewelry will set you back a few hundred bucks at least, so they’re certainly not junk. Lunar ones will set you back considerably further, to the point where I suspect determining the actual price will involve haggling.
Quote Comment
February 17th, 2010 at 7:52 am
Pfft noobs get diamonds – natural rubies are way better.
Quote Comment
February 28th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Not that it adds much to the topic, but deBeers isn’t a ‘cartel’.A cartel would require partners in crime, so to speak. They were at one time able to monopolise some aspects of the diamond market.
Their history is decidedly chequered, though I would need to see proof of claims like ‘owned 40% of the South African stockmarket’. Lots of older companies have some dodgy stuff in their pasts. deBeers tends to get put under the spotlight by readers of the Protocols of Zion.
Minor disclosure: I’ve done contract work for deBeers in the past. They’ve been excellent to work with, once you get over the security mindset they have.
Quote Comment
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:06 am
uh oh sounds like there are a lot of men who can’t afford real diamonds………bitter much? hey at least you don’t have to buy expensive jewelry for your right hand…..so i think most of you are safe.
Quote Comment
May 30th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Is there a way to sell my old diamond jewelry for cash? I live near philadelphia so anywhere around there. I have heard of pawn shops but I have never tried to do anything like this before. Even if I wanted to sell my jewelry over the internet, I would have no idea any information buyers might ask including the weight and carot.
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2010 at 12:38 am
Yes, but no matter who you sell it to, you’ll get a lot less than you paid. Another reason not to “invest” in diamonds.
A) Diamonds chip
B) They have to find a buyer who has the same taste (not as bad as ‘A’).
C) They know what it’s worth and can afford to make a low ball bid knowing that you’ll likely not realize that you could have had a higher offer.
D) They know that YOU don’t know. (Even worse than A/B/C combined)
E) You need the money fast, so you’ll take the first offer that is decent.
Next time, if you want something else to resell, just get certified precious metals. Or you can go with coins and jewelry whose main value is the metal content. And if that’s not to your taste, use the old standby of decorative guns ‘n ammo. (not joking at all!)
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2010 at 1:27 am
There is no market for small second hand stones. Unless your stones are over a few karats , they are worthless, usually you get more for the precious metal in the mounting.
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Yeah, the stones are rarely valuable. It’s like trying to sell a baseball card back to a dealer – once they sell it, they want nothing to do with it!
Quote Comment