[Cody Dawg]

Apparently diamonds are relatively worthless according to this article in The Atlantic magazine.

Personally, after reading this article, I'll never be bothered to buy another one again.

I'll buy Moissanite instead - an indistinguishable copy of diamonds for 1/10th the price and better than cubic zirconia.

It's an EXCELLENT article - I suggest everyone reading it.

You'll never look at diamonds the same way again.

[strictlyplaid]

Anyone tried proposing to their girlfriend with Moissanite and lived to tell the tale?

For better or worse, De Beers has very effectively made the size of an overpriced diamond a metric women use for "how much you love me." And woe to the person who unilaterally deviates from the convention.

[Dork.]

It is an excellent article. And it has been for the past 24 years, ever since it was written in 1982!

Timeline, anyone?

Not to take anything away from it, though: It is worth reading through the whole thing if you haven't already! Just keep in mind that if some references seem a bit dated, it's because they are....

For the record, when I proposed I gave my wife a modest diamond ring. The most important thing about it was the fact that I bought it on credit, and worked in an internship between undergrad and Grad School to pay it off. That mattered more to her than the actual ring, I think.

[Cody Dawg]

Honestly, that is EXACTLY what the article talks about - did you READ it?

Because if you did, you'd find that the entire Western public has been brainwashed by DeBeers through clever ad campaigns for decades that drum into our heads that a "diamond is forever," including the fact that diamonds should never be resold. Why? Because if everyone started reselling their diamonds DeBeers would go out of business.

The ONLY reason there IS a diamond market is because DeBeers has systematically infiltrated and bought out EVERY single diamond source on this planet in their quest to control the entire diamond market.

If DeBeers didn't have a stranglehold on all of the diamond mines and natural supply and demand were allowed to operate, a diamond would be relatively worthless when compared to, say, any other gemstones.

After reading the article I'd rather have a real sapphire or ruby, not a diamond, and Moissanite?

I think it's great.

A young couple starting out shouldn't start out with $10 to $20K on the wife's finger and struggling to make ends meet, pay bills, etc., just because DeBeers has convinced Western society that a diamond is THE measure of love.

No, for me, I'd rather have that $10K in my pocket and a beautiful Moissanite ring on my finger, which, when tested by a diamond tester, tests as a diamond.

[Cody Dawg]

It was just republished by The Atlantic, dork.

It's still worthwhile no matter the timeline.

And it gives credence to the notion that all of a sudden DeBeers is pushing the "buy a more rare COLORED diamond" because the colored diamonds can bring them more cash.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

It was just republished by The Atlantic, dork.

Ah, retracted then. Sometimes, my screen name does come in handy!

[Cody Dawg]

No, it's okay.

If you visit their homepage here you'll see where they gave it to us to read again.

It's a great article.

[andi*pandi]

::looks at diamond 3ring on finger:: oh well.

I would have been more than happy with a saphire or something else picked out with love.

[strictlyplaid]

Cody, everything you said is "common uncommon knowledge"--which is of course why I said it in my post. My point is that despite its artificiality, it is still a convention, and your willingness to flaunt it doesn't make it not binding for 99.9% of the rest of us. With a small or fake ring on your finger, people will think ill of you and/or your husband whether it's warranted or not.

For an equally arbitrary and silly convention that's socially painful to break despite its arbitrariness, try wearing a fire-engine red dress on your wedding day. Or, have your husband take your name instead of the other way around.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

No, for me, I'd rather have that $10K in my pocket and a beautiful Moissanite ring on my finger,)

Actually, the 10k would be in his pocket.

[Kerrigan]

I thought everyone knew that the price of diamonds is artificially inflated by the DeBeers cartel. Nevertheless, they are in short supply b/c of the way the market is set up, so they aren't worth what people pay.

edit- fixed important typo

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

No, it's okay.

If you visit their homepage here you'll see where they gave it to us to read again.

It's a great article.

The "Roots of Muslim Rage" article from 1990 was a very good one, too, although I see they're not giving that one away to nonsubscribers. I think those are the only two articles I remember reading from Atlantic Monthly, and here they both are on the homepage again!

Anyway, back to diamonds: Do people really pay $10k for a diamond ring? Why would a woman even want to wear something that valuable on her finger?

[Cody Dawg]

strictlyplaid said
With a small or fake ring on your finger, people will think ill of you and/or your husband whether it's warranted or not.

No, they wouldn't.

THEY WOULD NOT KNOW. How would they (or you) know if I had a fake on or not?

(Besides, you just pointed out how completely caught up in materialism you really are if you would judge a person on whether their jewelry was real or fake. )

If my wearing a "real" diamond on my finger or not makes YOU decide that I'm not "worthy" enough for some reason, then you're a loser in my opinion.

Secondly, I live in the Palm Beach area where I go to a LOT of fundraisers for animal rescue. I've commented on the beautiful jewelry that some dowagers have worn and they made a "Hmmmph" sound and told me it was a "really good fake - Moissanite." That's how I found out about Moissanite in the first place. They do not wear their 10-carat diamond rings out while shopping. They wear replicas.

And if it's good enough for them, then it's probably good enough for others.



(Especially if two people REALLY love each other.)

[Eug Wanker]

Apparently diamonds are relatively worthless

That shouldn't come as a big surprise. The prez of DeBeers himself basically said as much...

He said that his company was diversifying its assets, because it would be a mistake to keep everything just in the diamond business, a business that is largely based on just cultural preferences not innate value.

try wearing a fire-engine red dress on your wedding day.

That's happening nowadays actually, since it's the standard colour for the bride's dress in Chinese weddings.

My Chinese's friend's Portugese wife wore a fire engine red dress at her wedding dinner. Mind you, she also wore a white dress too, in the actual ceremony.

I must concede though that if I wore a fire engine red dress at my wedding, my family would be worried.

Or, have your husband take your name instead of the other way around.

Well, hyphenation (as much as I hate it) is pretty common nowadays, and in many places in North America, the default legally is to have both the bride and the groom keep their own surnames.

[Cody Dawg]

This is a Eug Wanker Smackdown™ moment.

[Eug Wanker]

P.S. I was very impressed by the DeBeers guy. It's nice to see a straight talker like that once in a while. Maybe it's because he knows they've got such a stranglehold on the business.

Oh, and I do think those über expensive pink diamonds look very nice (even if their innate value isn't a lot).

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Well, hyphenation (as much as I hate it) is pretty common nowadays, and in many places in North America, the default legally is to have both the bride and the groom keep their own surnames.

In New York State, marriage is a free ticket for either party to change their surname, either to the husband's or wife's name, a combination of the two, or something else entirely. A friend of mine added his wife's maiden name as an additional legal middle name -- if Bill did the same thing, he would have been "William Jefferson Rodham Clinton".

I guess the gays are stuck with the name they were born with.

[ghporter]

Cody, I can tell the difference between Moissanite and diamonds without anything more than a loupe. And while they're nice, they just ain't diamonds-there is a significant difference in the lustre and depth of the two types of stones; Moissanite is very pretty, but it doesn't stand up to carbon.

As for De Beers, that's the game they want to play and that's the rules they want-they do own the back yard. I for one have no problem with that because De Beers does prevent conflict diamonds from hitting the market in large numbers, so I know almost any diamond I buy will be free of blood.

One of the attractions of diamonds is their relative scarcity-which contributes to their cost as much as each stone's individual attributes. A nice diamond ring says a lot more than "I spent a bunch of money on you." Or at least it can...shallow people will go whole hog to make points no matter what the medium they use. My wife likes her Moissanite stones just fine-but she's very, very attached to the princess-cut diamond triplet I got her for our 20th; that ring is much prettier than any Moissanite we've seen-and we've looked at a whole lot of Moissanite.

It comes down to the thought, after all. I got my wife a 1/4 carat round brilliant diamond in a Tiffany-style mounting lo these many years ago, and in spite of the fact that it was pretty tiny, it meant something to both of us.

P.S., Aren't the principles of De Beers still under threat of arrest if they ever come to the States because of their anti-competitive cartel?

[Jellytussle]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Actually, the 10k would be in his pocket.

You: not married.

[Fireball XL5]

I like Neil Diamond. He rawks!!!

[goMac]

I knew about this for quite a while.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ghporter

P.S., Aren't the principles of De Beers still under threat of arrest if they ever come to the States because of their anti-competitive cartel?

Not anymore. They can see the cartel crumbling around them, and figured they'd better be able to come to the U.S. to strike deals easier, so they settled their beef with the government. This Economist article from a few years back is a good update on the situation. Anyone have a more recent piece?

[Fireball XL5]

There are tons of diamonds under Antwerp. Tons. They just leave them there to keep the price up.

Saw it on 60 minutes last year.

Rubies are rarer but less expensive. Go figure.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

No, they wouldn't.

THEY WOULD NOT KNOW. How would they (or you) know if I had a fake on or not?

Knowing you, you'd tell them.

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

(Besides, you just pointed out how completely caught up in materialism you really are if you would judge a person on whether their jewelry was real or fake. )

If my wearing a "real" diamond on my finger or not makes YOU decide that I'm not "worthy" enough for some reason, then you're a loser in my opinion.

Ooh, deep. As a matter of fact, I don't care. But 99% of other people do. Maybe they're all losers, but good luck with that attitude.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

That's happening nowadays actually, since it's the standard colour for the bride's dress in Chinese weddings.

My Chinese's friend's Portugese wife wore a fire engine red dress at her wedding dinner. Mind you, she also wore a white dress too, in the actual ceremony.

:sigh: OK, sorry to have referred strictly to the Western cultural context.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Well, hyphenation (as much as I hate it) is pretty common nowadays, and in many places in North America, the default legally is to have both the bride and the groom keep their own surnames.

We kept our own names, because of the furor we created by suggesting that I would take my wife's name. Keeping your own name isn't a great option IMHO, because your children won't have one of your names (unless you make them hyphenate--in that case, what happens when they get married? Will their children be the Cody-Dawg-Eug-Wankers?)

You can call people losers if you want, but unfortunately 99% of them will shoot you a dirty look and think less of you if you break these cherished "norms."

[birdman]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

If my wearing a "real" diamond on my finger or not makes YOU decide that I'm not "worthy" enough for some reason, then you're a loser in my opinion.

I don't think he meant he thinks imitation diamonds aren't "worthy," but rather that society doesn't. It doesn't matter how the trend came about, really; if tomorrow JCPenney started a campaign to get everyone to wear underwear over their pants at weddings, and the campaign were successful, those of us who say that's stupid and pointless would be in the minority and laughed at for keeping our drawers hidden.

-birdman

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by birdman

I don't think he meant he thinks imitation diamonds aren't "worthy," but rather that society doesn't.

Should I claim that this is some kind of smackdown?

However, DeBeers no longer has a monopoly on diamonds. Yet, they still seem to hold value.

Here's some of their competition:
http://www.polarbeardiamond.com/

[ghporter]

The thing with saphires and rubies (which are the same mineral with slightly different impurities and thus the differing colors) is that they can very nicely be produced in the lab. In fact saphires, rubies and emeralds from the lab tend to be prettier-much, much prettier in the case of emeralds-than "natural" stones. (Side note: if it's corundum, the mineral base of both saphires and rubies, and it's a particular red, it's a ruby; any other color and it's a saphire.)

There ARE processes that produce gem quality diamonds in the lab, but they are not yet competitive with natural diamonds in terms of size and yield. And when they are, they will probably not show up in huge numbers, any more than you can point to a ring and say "that diamond came from Canada," which, by the way, is quite possible.

The "stockpiles" of diamonds in Antwerp are indeed there-but Antwerp is the inbetween point for almost all gem diamonds (along with Tel Aviv). They're cut there and then aggregated into lots and buyers get to bid and haggle over the lots-not individual stones. The whole market model helps keep things both rare and expensive, because the wholesalers are the ones who decide what's in each lot of stones, thus controling the assortment of stones going to each buyer. And if you decide you're not going to bid after you've been invited to...don't expect another invitation.

Finally "society" can't tell a cheap cubic zirconium stone from a real diamond. And I'm not talking about the high quality, hand cut, exquisitely set CZs that stand in for some of the most impressive diamonds around, or even the wonderfully cut and mounted stones that show up either. I'm talking about cheap, cheap, cheap. "Society" can't tell it's anal orifice from a hole in the ground. This "society" thing is a bunch of self important know-nothings who like reinforcing their own beliefs and stereotypes to maintain their illusion of superiority. Bah. They should take a hike. Wear what you like, value what you like, and assign importance to things that are important to YOU. Tell this "society" to get lost.

[Cody Dawg]

This "society" thing is a bunch of self important know-nothings who like reinforcing their own beliefs and stereotypes to maintain their illusion of superiority. Bah. They should take a hike. Wear what you like, value what you like, and assign importance to things that are important to YOU. Tell this "society" to get lost.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Apparently diamonds are relatively worthless

Let me guess your single.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Honestly, that is EXACTLY what the article talks about - did you READ it?

Because if you did, you'd find that the entire Western public has been brainwashed by DeBeers through clever ad campaigns for decades that drum into our heads that a "diamond is forever," including the fact that diamonds should never be resold. Why? Because if everyone started reselling their diamonds DeBeers would go out of business.

The ONLY reason there IS a diamond market is because DeBeers has systematically infiltrated and bought out EVERY single diamond source on this planet in their quest to control the entire diamond market.

If DeBeers didn't have a stranglehold on all of the diamond mines and natural supply and demand were allowed to operate, a diamond would be relatively worthless when compared to, say, any other gemstones.

After reading the article I'd rather have a real sapphire or ruby, not a diamond, and Moissanite?

I think it's great.

A young couple starting out shouldn't start out with $10 to $20K on the wife's finger and struggling to make ends meet, pay bills, etc., just because DeBeers has convinced Western society that a diamond is THE measure of love.

No, for me, I'd rather have that $10K in my pocket and a beautiful Moissanite ring on my finger, which, when tested by a diamond tester, tests as a diamond.

It's almost a sickness. A friend is being forced to spend about 10k on a rock to prove he loves someone. I'm called him an idiot, for his debts are about five times that amount yet he has to buy this ring for her to prove his love. Those DeBeers commercials are brainwashing material for sure.

They might as well advertise stapling testicles to a woman's hand, with the woman saying "good boy" afterwards.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by osiris

They might as well advertise stapling testicles to a woman's hand, with the woman saying "good boy" afterwards.

[production_coordinator]

FYI, there are synthetic diamonds on the market that are indistinguishable by the human eye. There are also some coming on the market that are indistinguishable even using machines...

The whole diamond market is going to fall apart when you can dump coal in a bin and diamonds come out the other end... and it's just around the corner.

[11011001]

I am seeding these kinds of stories to my gf, in an attempt to sway her opinion towards this stupid industry. I don't have a problem buying her something expensive if it's worth it, but diamonds are not, and I would rather not give her something which I consider trash.

[SirCastor]

So is the reality of the diamond the same as the reality of the dollar?

Does a diamond have any real value?

[Macfreak7]

There's quite a bit of misinformation in this thread about diamonds and I'm not going to try to dispel it all. But if you really think that synthetic moissanite is a good replacement for a diamond, then you're guilty of falling for another marketing gimmick (yep, just like DeBeers').
A diamond is the hardest substance known to man, because of it's chemical composition and physical structure of closely packed carbon atoms. It rates 10 on the Mohs scale of hardness which is a relative scale. So even though a ruby or a sapphire is rated 9 on the same scale, the diamond is apporoximately 140 times more resistant to cutting than a ruby or sapphire. Synthetic moissanite is about 9.25 on the Mohs scale (still not even close to a diamond). Talc has a rating of 1. Btw, ruby and sapphire are a variety of the same species, i.e. corundum. Like ghporter pointed out, the only difference between a ruby and a sapphire is color. Chemically and physically they're the same. And personally I prefer natural rubies or sapphires to their synthetic counter parts because synthetics are "too clean".

Another significat difference between a diamond and its imitators (including syn. moissanite) lie in it's optical properties. Diamond has a refractive index of 2.417 and is singly refractive. Synthetic moissanite is doubly refractive and has an R.I. of 2.67. So in that respect it's super easy to tell the difference between the two. A syn. moissanite might imitate a diamonds "looks" only under a certain carat.. let's say about 0.50 carats. Another above that, the differences are just too obvious and also moissanites tend to have a greenish hue. And again, the double refraction of light passing through a syn. moissanite makes it look quite ugly.

These are just some of the differences. Other differences lie in manufacturing a diamond, since it is the hardest substance known. (I should add 'naturally occuring', because a friend recently told me about a synthetic substance that's apparently as hard, but I can't find that article right now, and again it doesn't share any of diamond's other properties). Anyway, the amount of money required to actually mine diamonds is a huge sum as well. Investments in machines, sorting facilities, a lot of technology and obviously employing a bunch of people amounts to millions. (check this out to get an idea )

I totally hate the marketing ideas used by DeBeers to sell diamonds, but apparently it works. As far as I'm concerned, diamonds are beautiful and simple by themselves to make it desirable. Even the well formed octahedral rough diamond crystals are amazingly beautiful (considering they're naturally occuring! I'm sure those who have seen enough of those will agree).
Example (from a link posted by Dork. in this thread):

Hopefully I'm going to get one of these by the end of this month.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Fireball XL5

There are tons of diamonds under Antwerp. Tons. They just leave them there to keep the price up.

Saw it on 60 minutes last year.

Rubies are rarer but less expensive. Go figure.

Under antwerp ? Antwerp is the diamond center that's all.

[Troll]

Funny how people look at De Beers and scream "cartel" and "illegal" but they don't do the same for Microsoft or any of the other occidental companies that have large market shares. South African Breweries (who own Miller) faces similar problems despite being only the 3rd biggest in their industry. Why is that? Sour grapes because for once it's an African-based company that's succeeding? The colonisers don't like having the tables turned on them. The global economy is still very much reliant on the dominant parties being in the North. It's the same problem we have in the oil industry. The dumb natives are supposed to exploited not the exploiters.

Yeah, yeah, now you're going to start telling me about De Beers being unethical. They have been involved in some shady things just like every company on the planet. But: 1) De Beers pays taxes and puts something back into the community. Just like many other companies do, but De Beers' communities are in places where it matters and where the money spent makes a big difference.

2) The Oppenheimer family that owns De Beers since the taking private has a history of philanthropy that is unmatched by any other family I am aware of. Take a trip into Soweto and mention Harry Oppenheimer's name and see the response you get. Ask WWII veterans about the Oppenheimers converting their home into a hospital.

3) De Beers has cleaned up its act. One of the reasons De Beers has clawed back market share from about 60% back up to 75% or so is because it's the only diamond company to have taken a stance against war diamonds. De Beers diamonds have a hologram inside them bearing the De Beers logo as a guarantee that they do not come from war torn areas. Look at the black empowerment schemes De Beers is involved in recently gifting a large part of its business to black empowerment. And how many American or European companies do you know of that give 40% of their employees free anti-retrovirals?

Finally, to all of those who say that diamonds are over-priced, how many of you have ever been to a diamond mine? I did a stint on the Cullinan diamond mine - the one where the star of Africa (the biggest diamond ever found) comes from. The diamonds are not lying around on the ground. Diamonds are rare and when you've found them, it's often quite difficult to get them out of the ground. People are hundreds of meters down shafts in 50 degree heat with jackhammers crushing rock for a few carats of diamonds a day. Those mines fluctuate between being profitable and unprofitable. The cost of a diamond int the jewellers' store reflects the cost of finding it, getting it out of the ground, cutting, polishing etc. Having briefly been part of the process, frankly, I'm amazed at how cheap they are.

[Cody Dawg]

There are many reasons to purchase synthetic diamonds instead of the mined variety. The prices charged for mined diamonds are, in the very best verbiage, an illusion. To put it more bluntly, Cecil Adams, in his award-winning newspaper column “The Straight Dope” says: “Diamonds are a con, pure and simple.” Diamond prices are largely controlled by the DeBeers diamond cartel, and they are not a fair reflection of diamond scarcity. Additionally, studies show that one out of three diamonds sold in the US today has been altered to artificially increase its value. Further studies have shown that on average a couple pays 40% too much for their diamond engagement ring.

Beyond deceptive pricing, there are the issues of “blood diamonds”, forced child labor, and a myriad of other disturbing diamond facts.

Recently, socially conscious celebrities such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Minnie Driver, and Angelina Jolie have made a vocal issue of wearing only synthetic diamonds to the many gala events they attend.

Good synthetic diamonds are virtually indistinguishable from the mined variety, but without the baggage, and additionally, they cost thousands of dollars less. But, which synthetic diamond is the best choice?

There are many types of man-made or synthetic diamonds available. The choices are numerous, but unbiased information is scarce. Here is an overview and comparison of the synthetic diamonds currently unavailable on the market:

Cubic Zirconia
The grandfather of simulated diamonds, Zircons are available widely. In their best examples, CZ’s are actually a fairly decent diamond replica. Unfortunately, the commodity-like availability and vast differences in quality have made the stone synonymous with low-cost fashion jewelry. Perhaps a good choice for cheap bling, but not for fine jewelry. Many sources are available, a decent one is: http://www.czfantasy.com

Russian Diamonds
Including Russian Brilliants, Russian Stars and others, they are in fact nothing but high quality cubic zirconias. This is not mentioned prominently on their web sites and they will only cop to it when pressed, but that is the fact. Russian diamond simulates are priced around $280 per carat.

Russian Diamonds are a fine jewelry selection and are usually mounted in quality precious metal settings.

Russian Brilliants are one of the best and oldest sellers of “Russian Diamonds” available at: http://www.russianbrilliants.net

Moissanite
Moissanite is a lab-created mineral that is a very good diamond simulant. Moissanite has been on the market as a fine jewelry choice since the early 90s and has picked up quite a few fans. Moissanite is a hard mineral that, like diamond, will cut glass. There are a couple of minor downsides to moissanite however. First, it is quite expensive, (though still cheap compared to diamonds) usually priced about $500 per carat for good samples.

Secondly, moissanite does not have the same optical qualities as diamond and there are several indicators that make them easy to spot with the naked eye for an experienced practitioner. It is difficult to produce a pure white moissanite and they often appear slightly green when viewed in natural light. Also, moissanite has significantly higher radiance and brilliance factors then natural diamond, causing them to appear “too sparkly” to some. Overall though, moissanite is a beautiful synthetic diamond choice.

“Moissanite From the Sky” at http://www.fromthesky.com is a good source of fine moissanite jewelry.

Diamond Nexus
Diamond Nexus gemstones are the result of a fairly new scientific advancement in processing technique, and have only recently been available in the United States.

Diamond Nexus gemstones are excellent diamond simulants and come very close to matching the properties of mined diamonds at many different comparison points. They cut glass, being virtually identical to diamond on the Mohs (hardness) scale. They refract perfect “hearts and arrows” and have radiance and brilliance readings extremely close to flawless diamond.

Best of all, they are currently introductory priced for the U.S. market, and are a steal at $79 per caret. Diamond Nexus gemstones are only available in precious metal, solid-gold settings.

Diamond Nexus is only available from Diamond Nexus Labs at: http://www.DiamondNexusLabs.com

White Sapphire
Sapphire is the second hardest natural mineral on the Mohs scale, surpassed only by diamond. They are, unlike the others in this review, a natural stone. Their radiance and brilliance are not up to the standards of diamond however. Nevertheless, quality white sapphires priced at around $220 per carat are a good diamond alternative.

A quality source is: http://www.TheNaturalSapphireCompany.com

Gemisis Cultured Diamond
Gemisis diamonds are beautiful and almost perfect diamond replicas. Unfortunately, they are not available in a clear, white color, so they are not a good choice for traditional diamond settings. However, if a yellow, orange or pink diamond is what you crave, Gemisis offers stunning choices in beautiful precious metal, fine-jewelry settings.

Gemisis Cultured Diamonds are only available at: http://www.gemisis.com

Recap:

Synthetic diamonds offer many advantages over the mined variety. You can buy with confidence, knowing that you are getting exactly what you paid for, and have not been the victim of diamond pricing chicanery. If you are concerned with the world around you, you can have a clear conscience, knowing that your money has not contributed to the support of an unethical and abusive industry.

However, there are many choices of synthetic diamonds, with varying degrees of quality. Take a little time to review the seller’s information to get a clear idea of what the science is behind the gemstones you are buying.

For my money, I believe the best choices are quality Moissanite stones or the new diamond simulant gemstones available from Diamond Nexus Labs.

Gary La Court is a technical consultant, an expert in refractive dynamics and a frequent author. He has recently done research for several synthetic diamond manufacturers including http://www.DiamondNexusLabs.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Gary_La_Court

I guess the best diamond substitute is the Diamond Nexus gemstone according to this Link.

Diamond Nexus Site.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

]I'll buy Moissanite instead

Even I could tell the difference between a diamond and a moissanite with nothing more but a good magnifying glass.

[Cody Dawg]

There is also Apollo Dimonds which are real diamonds grown in a lab.

I think the Apollo Diamonds offer the best alternative to mined diamonds, to be honest.

I've really learned a lot about synthetic diamonds in the last two days!

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Jellytussle

You: not married.

You're not married yet when you give the ring. Plenty of time to empty out the bank accounts before she gets her claws on them.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I guess the best diamond substitute is the Diamond Nexus gemstone according to this Link.

Diamond Nexus Site.

Notice how all of the companies listed in that article are American. What's really going on here?

[Troll]

Diamond prices are ... not a fair reflection of diamond scarcity.

WTF?! Is the price of any product sold in the US solely a reflection of the scarcity of the product?

You know, I've been thinking; one of the things I find so funny about the North's attitude to the South and the East is that the North so badly wants the resources the South and the East has but the North isn't prepared to pay for them. This is at the core of most of the conflict on the planet. It's what colonialism was all about, it's what slavery was all about, it's what Suez, Gulf War I, Gulf War II was about. The lengths that the North goes to to make sure that it doesn't have to give fair value for oil and gold and spices and metals and minerals and diamonds. These resources belong to someone else and they're entitled to make a profit from those resources. Just as Microsoft doesn't have to charge cost price for Windows, neither does De Beers have to charge cost price for a diamond. The sense of entitlement to other people's resources is so damn ingrained in the psyche that some people feel a kind of entitlement to diamonds at a price that reflects cost or that reflects "scarcity".

If you don't want a real diamond, fine, go and buy a fake. But don't sit here and complain that the countries that have real diamonds are making a business of it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll

Notice how all of the companies listed in that article are American. What's really going on here?

Yeah it's a conspiracy!

BTW, does this ring say "I love you" or "g o a t s e x" ?

[Cody Dawg]

Trollbait
The sense of entitlement to other people's resources is so damn ingrained in the psyche that Cody Dawg feels some kind of entitlement to diamonds at cost price.

You're an ass: For the record, I don't own any diamonds other than a Princess of Wales antique platinum engagement ring from turn-of-the-century England that my grandmother gave to me when she passed away. It was hers.

I don't even care about diamonds to be honest. I just thought it was a great article since I live in an area where flaunting wealth vis-a-vis jewelry is de rigeur.

I have a wedding band that I wear and that's it. My husband gave me a huge diamond engagement ring and we took it back because I explained that I'd never wear it, which is true, because I don't feel that my hands are my favorite feature and don't want to draw attention to them. I felt that putting the money into an investment or real estate or going on a great vacation would be better. I grew up on a farm handling horses and baling hay and I have bony fingers that I'd rather hide. I'm also a nail biter so my nails are not attractive. I wear little or no cosmetics unless necessary, I am not into designer clothing and instead opt for khaki shorts or jeans and plain cotton shirts, and I wear flip flops everywhere. That's how "sophisticated" I am: I could care less about jewelry, clothes, or other accoutrements of the female persuasion.

You, you're just a loser, Troll, because as usual from people around your parts you can only assume things about people you don't know.

[Kevin]

Yes, Troll has a bad habit of confusing his belief or projections to be absolute fact.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes, Troll has a bad habit of confusing his belief or projections to be absolute fact.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I just thought it was a great article since I live in an area where flaunting wealth vis-a-vis jewelry is de rigeur.

That's a complete non-sequitur. The article you approved doesn't even vaguely make any point about flaunting jewelry.

The headline of this thread is that a diamond is worthless and you then post articles about the history of diamonds that suggest that the price doesn't reflect the cost of production. The article you approved of is not making any statement at all about the fickleness of people who flaunt jewelry. If that was the point you were trying to make with the subject line and the articles that you posted, then you didn't communicate your point very well at all.

What I was trying to make you aware of is the fact that a lot of people that attack De Beers have an agenda and that you need to take that agenda into account when considering the points they're making.

You, you're just a loser, Troll, because as usual from people around your parts you can only assume things about people you don't know.

What's it called again when you attribute negative qualities to people that come from a certain area?