Engagement Ring - FACTS, not fiction

evie08

Does anyone know anywhere where I can get my mam's engagement ring sized and cleaned. It is very dear to me and my DP and I have decided this will be my engagement ring.

butty24

Hi,is it worth it to go to ANtwerp?how much do u really save?

LowOdour

I just purchased my engagment ring today.
it was an 18ct white gold 3 stone diamond (0.35). I paid **** for it from a good jewellers.
The ring is lovely, and the band is standard but it has a kind of groove in it. The jewellers were pushing me towards it over other slightly more expensve ones.

Now, my problem is that I loved one particular ring that was **** euro, but couldnt afford it. The diamonds on the one I got seem tiny compared to it.

Im not looking for help, just hoping someone can humour me that the ring I got will be fine. Nort sure I even want to propose now. I hate been broke

John Mattioli

Well, I'm sure she will like it...

Look, if you really want to get our opinion, how about you take a picture and post it online so we can give you our honest opinion about it?

The size of the diamond doesn't matter that much. It's more a question of how much it sparkles (combinaision of good color, good shape, few inclusions, etc.)...

LowOdour

John Mattioli wrote: »

Well, I'm sure she will like it...

Look, if you really want to get our opinion, how about you take a picture and post it online so we can give you our honest opinion about it?

The size of the diamond doesn't matter that much. It's more a question of how much it sparkles (combinaision of good color, good shape, few inclusions, etc.)...

I tried taking pictures of it this morning but camera is playing up, so can't get a good zoom in on it. Took a look at it again this morning, diamonds are begiing to look smaller and smaller!! I know my partner isnt matarialistic (sp?) but still hope she loves it. Ive even thought, when I get my next wages we can take back the ring and let her pick out something more expensive. I need a drink ha ha

keyes

bensoneb wrote: »

Hi,

I had read alot of the other threads about having 'foreign' engagement rings valued and contacted the companies that were recommended. I called ESL to find that you had to have the original certificate for them to carry out the valuation. Unfortunately I had lost this so they couldn't proceed with the valuation. What type of jeweller are they if they can't value a ring based on their own expertise???

of course you should have the lab cert. what if the stone is hpht treated?

seamus

bensoneb wrote: »

I had read alot of the other threads about having 'foreign' engagement rings valued and contacted the companies that were recommended. I called ESL to find that you had to have the original certificate for them to carry out the valuation. Unfortunately I had lost this so they couldn't proceed with the valuation. What type of jeweller are they if they can't value a ring based on their own expertise???

To the best of my knowledge, the official certification of the ring is completely unrelated to the valuation. Official certification takes a good deal longer than valuation and requires a certified lab.
Valuations take a very high-level look at the diamond, note the major features, then compare that to what's on the cert. This is how they confirm that you have presented the diamond that is listed on the cert. Then they can give you a proper valuation.

I might be wrong though.

Peckham

Was in New York a short while back and purchased our wedding bands and necklace there. The store was heavily discounting items as they were having cashflow problems, so got some good deals.

Two questions:

1) One of the wedding bands (plain platinum) is slightly too large. I presume I can get this resized in any reputable jeweller in Dublin city centre? What sort of price should I be expecting to pay?

2) One of the items we bought was a necklace with diamonds inserted into it. The only valuation certificate he provided was the shop receipt. Price was discounted so heavily (by 60-70%) that I'd like to get it checked-out. Have read some posts above about valuing diamond rings. What about necklaces?

gearoidc

Just back from Antwerp.
Overall v satisfactory experience. I'm happy we got value and most importantly herself loves the sparkler.
(Antwerp would be well worth an overnight anyway...lovely old town/cathedral)

freespirit96

Hi guys,

Have spent the last two months researching and looking at diamonds, lots of drama (such as our original choice apparently being lost in the post!!) which I will spare you.

Anyway, we decided to go for a loose diamond which we bought over the internet and it arrived on Monday. It is an absolutely beautiful .92 D VS2 GIA Certified stone. We are now trying to have it set/mounted in a band.

Our local jewler recommended a guy he uses and we met him today but I just was not in any way impressed by him and would not feel confident to entrust our diamond to him.

We were looking for a standard knife edge six prong setting in 18K yellow gold with platinum claws. He said we would be talking in the region of 850 euro. I was absolutely shocked as we had expected it to be more in the region of 4-500 euro. We could have had the diamond set from the website where we bought the ring for approx 350 euro and so I am wondering if he is a chancer - if anyone has had a loose diamond set and if there is anyone who can be recommended. We are living in Mayo but willing to travel.

Any and all help would be greatly appreciated!

helimachoptor

Folks, was in NYC last week. Saw some fantastic deals there 1.5 carat (VS1 not sure on the rest of the details) for $1500.

sandy09

still thinking on the engagment ring...have started to think bout going to belfast?....have being looking at one website and they have some gorgeous rings. does anyone have any opinions on what they think? also if we paid cash would we be able to haggle with the price a bit?

Yoda08

Personally, I would put priority as follows:

Cut
Colour
Carat
Clarity

Cut is important as it will determine the amount of sparkle off the diamond, and colour will accentuate that. Carat size is less imporant, and once clarity is SI1 or above, it's not visible to naked eye.

My 0.02 anyway!

aviendha

helimachoptor wrote: »

Folks, was in NYC last week. Saw some fantastic deals there 1.5 carat (VS1 not sure on the rest of the details) for $1500.

wow, sounds almost too good to be true... but no info on colour, if colour is P then less surprising....

helimachoptor

aviendha wrote: »

wow, sounds almost too good to be true... but no info on colour, if colour is P then less surprising....

Afraid not, but the OH was impressed and she's done a lot of research into engagement rings :P

roseym

Hi everyone, am just wondering what price ye think the following ring should be? It's on a three stone ring with platinum band, two side stones of .20 carats each, both VS2 and G colour and not sure what their cut is. The middle diamond is .35 VS2 G colour Ex cut and is GIA certified.

I'm just nervous because I really had to push to get the info on 4c's etc, they kept glossing over by saying "all our rings have a lovely sparkle to them" and "we only stock the best". In a way almost felt more knowledgeable than the sales person on the subject of diamonds! That feeling makes me REALLY nervous because I know very little about them other than what I've gleaned from the internet lately, and this thread has been fantastic help. I know the GIA cert should calm my nerves but I know so little about diamonds, how would I know if the diamond on the cert is the one in the ring?

M007

Does anyone have the link to the sticky on buying engagment rings in NYC - not sure if i saw it here on boards.ie or on askaboutmoney.ie during the week

Any advice on engagement ring shopping in NYC appreciate - where to shop and where to avoid - thanks

looktowindward

Been looking at rings for a few weeks and we went to a jeweler in Kerry on Saturday. The jeweler was really nice. She liked one ring in particular, really liked it, rush of blood to head, put a deposit down (€200).

Now, she seems happy enough but I'm a bit worried.

1) Did we get value?
and
2) Should I have haggled on price?

The ring is an 18ct white gold, solitaire engagement ring. A single diamond set in six claws with diamond set shoulders.

The centre stone is 0.40 ct and is GH S1.

It's €2,000 (budget was 3.5/2k).

Now, my concerns are
A) that we're not being ripped off
and
that she won't regret not getting something with more bling.

Phototoxin

I know where I am at the moment in the UK you can get a .15c G VS1 18cGold diamond for about €400. Seeing as .40 is under the .5 mark I'd say welcome to Oirland

Muinis

Thanks for all the helpful advice on this thread.

I'd appreciate any advice on the following:

1. I'd like a three stone princess cut diamond ring with the centre diamond being larger and in a higher setting than the other two diamonds. Should I go for the same quality in terms of the 4Cs for all three diamonds or could I get away with the two side diamonds being of lesser quality without detracting from the centre diamond. Also, will I end up paying a lot more for a three stone ring than a solitare of similar quality?

2. Since money is a big issue I am wondering whether I would be better off going for another gem rather than a diamond. Any ideas on other stones that look special but are not as pricey as diamonds?

3. Is there any reason not to go for a yellow gold setting for a diamond ring other than personal taste?

Thanks in advance.:)

antiskeptic

Muinis wrote: »

Thanks for all the helpful advice on this thread.

I'd appreciate any advice on the following:

1. I'd like a three stone princess cut diamond ring with the centre diamond being larger and in a higher setting than the other two diamonds. Should I go for the same quality in terms of the 4Cs for all three diamonds or could I get away with the two side diamonds being of lesser quality without detracting from the centre diamond. Also, will I end up paying a lot more for a three stone ring than a solitare of similar quality?

2. Since money is a big issue I am wondering whether I would be better off going for another gem rather than a diamond. Any ideas on other stones that look special but are not as pricey as diamonds?

3. Is there any reason not to go for a yellow gold setting for a diamond ring other than personal taste?

Thanks in advance.:)

Google "have you ever tried to sell a diamond" and read the atlantic.com article at the top of the list. You'll recognise truth when you see it. You can track down a free ebook by the same author which goes into the whole diamond cartel thing in more depth - a fascinating read in which the nature of the myth isn't hidden by the mythmakers themselves. Either one will probably be enough to convince you that diamonds, in reality, have little intrinsic worth (unlike gold, platinum etc which are rare materials). The uber-elevated prices you pay arise largely from cartel control / clever marketing

Given the above, one thing you could do - if still desiring diamonds (they are pretty and they are de rigeur given the success of the myths propagation) - is to go for pretty and cheap, forgetting about that part of the myth called "the 4c's" which will cost you money and give only more myth in return.

Or you could do as we did and get an attractive, decent-sized gemstone with some small (cheap) diamonds surrounding it in a supporting role (a sort of two fingers to the myth makers).

Muinis

Thanks a mil for your post. I have read that article and know what you mean about the huge rip off element of buying a diamond.

I have to admit though that I am finding it hard to convince that I don't want that little bit of bling! I do always notice the sparkle of a nice diamond on friends' hands etc. At the same time I don't want to waste money that we def don't have or put my boyfriend under pressure for a piece of jewellery which as I know as no real intrinsic value - except for enjoyment value- as I won't be selling it on.

keyes

Phototoxin wrote: »

I know where I am at the moment in the UK you can get a .15c G VS1 18cGold diamond for about €400. Seeing as .40 is under the .5 mark I'd say welcome to Oirland

a 0.15 is tiny, and not really comparable to a 0.4ct. 400 pounds for a 0.15 sounds about right IF it's in an 18kt mount, to be honest the ring is half of that amount.

Muinis wrote: »

1. I'd like a three stone princess cut diamond ring with the centre diamond being larger and in a higher setting than the other two diamonds. Should I go for the same quality in terms of the 4Cs for all three diamonds or could I get away with the two side diamonds being of lesser quality without detracting from the centre diamond. Also, will I end up paying a lot more for a three stone ring than a solitare of similar quality?

you could get away with the sides being a bit lower in clarity, but they should really match in colour. you can price a three stone simliar to three solitaires with stones of the same size as those in the three stone. (leaving aside the cost of the ring mounts for a second.)

Muinis wrote: »

Any ideas on other stones that look special but are not as pricey as diamonds?

sapphire?

Muinis wrote: »

3. Is there any reason not to go for a yellow gold setting for a diamond ring other than personal taste?

none whatsoever.

and antiskeptic, you and i have debated this in another thread. that article is what, 30 years old? it's laughably out of date, and has no relevance to the industry since the early 1990s. what "decent-sized gemstone" do you suggest?

in what way are the 4 Cs a myth? you admit that diamonds are pretty; in what way? is there some way to quantify that a certain diamond is prettier than another, or is every diamond on the planet identical? perhaps you could write post on it? (without just lobbing up a few google links, i mean actually find out some facts?)

antiskeptic

Muinis wrote: »

I have to admit though that I am finding it hard to convince that I don't want that little bit of bling!

I can understand that: there is the sense of following with tradition during many aspects of betrothal/marriage (which is a good thing in fact and not something to be cast aside at the drop of a hat). The fact that some or other business interest has created/latched onto an element of that tradition - over and above normal commercial interest in meeting a demand - doesn't dissolve the fact that the tradition is there.

I do always notice the sparkle of a nice diamond on friends' hands etc. At the same time I don't want to waste money that we def don't have or put my boyfriend under pressure for a piece of jewellery which as I know as no real intrinsic value - except for enjoyment value- as I won't be selling it on.

Horses for courses.

The "enjoyment" value you speak of was fatally tarnished for me as soon as I found out that diamonds are essentially worthless. I can understand a bit of pushing the boat out for the occasion but in the case of diamonds + engagement, the rip-off element was just too great. Thankfully, she likes big rings - meaning that insane amounts would have had to have been paid if diamonds were on the menu.

looktowindward

Phototoxin wrote: »

I know where I am at the moment in the UK you can get a .15c G VS1 18cGold diamond for about €400. Seeing as .40 is under the .5 mark I'd say welcome to Oirland

Don't mind paying a bit more but twice as much is sort of gutting.

Any advice what to do here? I want this to be something she can be proud of. It's not about bling, that's not what she's about (just one of the reasons I love her!) but at the same time I want it to be worth the money that's paid for it.

Do you think the jeweler will budge on price if I've already put a deposit down?

Really appreciate advice here.

Thanks everyone.

antiskeptic

keyes wrote: »

..and antiskeptic, you and i have debated this in another thread. that article is what, 30 years old? it's laughably out of date, and has no relevance to the industry since the early 1990s.

That 30 year old article outlined a cartels modus operendi stretching back the previous 80 years or so. That cartels m.o. dealt with world wars, the discovery of vast quantities of diamonds outside it's immediate sphere of influence, political attempts to interfere, the threat of of synthetic diamonds, etc. Unless you're supposing mankind to have altered significantly or something new by way of threat in the last thirty years - which has managed to usurp 80 years worth of successful cartelism - then there is little reason to suppose any change in the diamond world order.

You say that the De Beers cartel has been busted by the discovery of diamond mines which lie outside it's direct control. But if new sources of diamonds are being released onto the market (so as to destroy the artificial rarity element micro-managed by De Beers for nigh on a century (rarity = inflated value) then why are diamonds horrendously expensive? If you are right that diamond mines exist outside the control of De Beers then all that has happened is that others have jumped onto the cartel band wagon. It would be still a cartel.

Newtons Law of Motion: a cartel in motion will travel in a straight line forever - unless acted upon by an exterior force.

You never said what this exterior, cartel-busting force was (apart from supposing US anti-trust laws to somehow have curtailed the activities of a non- US company who is globally active in the sale of an inherently smuggleable product without having said how). Indeed, my last response to you (which linked to a far more modern investigative article - in which the only concerned party mentioned (who was active in defending against the threat of synthetic diamonds) was the aforementioned De Beers) has gone unanswered.

Scroll down to post 73

in what way are the 4 Cs a myth?

When something is intrinsically worthless, the idea of setting up a standard by which to compare it to another intrinsically worthless piece of matter becomes moot.

Is there a 4C standard for beach pebbles? I'm not saying that diamonds are beach pebbles - but the truth lies somewhere between beach pebbles and prices.

you admit that diamonds are pretty; in what way?

In the only way that matters - in the eye of the beholder. The 4c's is like the Ms. Universe pageant: a completely arbitrary measure of "prettiness" with people being encouraged to rack upwards on the 4C scale by an industry with a vested interest in flogging diamonds. The 4C's is a device which infuses the punter with a sense of the worth of putting a whole load of effort/money into the choice of diamond. Classic smoke and mirror/emporors new clothes territory.

It seems to me that if you can't flog it worth a darn then it's worth is precisely that.

Muinis

Thanks for the advice Keyes re getting a three stone diamond.
Looks like I have expensive taste as usual!
We'll have a look at saphires as well.

Antisceptic- I'd just like to clarify that my comment regarding the diamonds having no intrinsic value was made in the context that we hopefully won't be selling the ring in the future rather than on the basis that the diamond itself is totally worthless. I do think diamonds are beautiful etc and of course they have value (dependant on demand) I just don't want to bankrupt us in order to get one. I'm happy to pay for most of the price of the ring myself but am trying not to get carried away about it all as I know the marriage is the important part.

The downside of the diamond ring tradition is that its used by a lot of girls to get one up on each other. Lots of girls fret over the fact that 'her ring is bigger than my ring etc' which I know is childish and pathetic and puts terrible pressure on their boyfriends. It has almost turned into a rating system as to how well you have done in life financially which is really repugnant. When my mum got married most people seemed to have diamonds of a similar size but not so these days. Having said all that if i'm totally honest I'd still love a diamond ring even though I know all the reasons why I shouldn't.

antiskeptic

Muinis wrote: »

Antisceptic- I'd just like to clarify that my comment regarding the diamonds having no intrinsic value was made in the context that we hopefully won't be selling the ring in the future rather than on the basis that the diamond itself is totally worthless.

Then you haven't really read the article "Have you ever tried to sell a diamond". It's not that the diamond is totally worthless, it's that the price you pay for it has been grossly inflated, rendering the publics perceived value of diamonds an artificially generated contrivance. It wouldn't be the first such thing: it used to be considered cool to smoke cigarettes.

If you bought 5k worth of gold/silver/platinum/palladium today you could sell it again the next day for 5k (minus fees). If you bought a 5k diamond today the next day you probably couldn't sell it at all - or if you could, it would be at a hugely discounted price.

.. and of course they have value (dependant on demand)

Diamonds aren't a commodity like oil, gold, chromium whose value rises and falls with demand. There are sufficient diamonds to meet all demand and there is never any shortage of diamonds - indeed, the industries task is to figure out other ways to flog them so as to absorb the existing stockpiles of diamonds (see later).

I do think diamonds are beautiful etc and of course they have value (dependant on demand) I just don't want to bankrupt us in order to get one. I'm happy to pay for most of the price of the ring myself but am trying not to get carried away about it all as I know the marriage is the important part.

Beauty is a subjective thing. That said, most people would appreciate the beauty of diamond ... and topaz, sapphire, emerald, etc. Each has it's own unique features which make it beautiful in it's own way. So why is it that the most expensive (by a long shot) happens to be the one found to be the most beautiful by so many. I'd suggest that much of a diamonds beauty lies in the fact that it's expensive. But given that a large portion of that expense is an artificial contrivance one would have wonder whether one wasn't being lead around by the nose. There's a simple test:

It's possible to purchase fake diamonds of such quality that only a experienced jeweler could hope to tell the difference. Indeed, synthetic diamonds are so perfect (in the 4C's stakes), it's their very perfection that gives away the fact that they are synthetic - real diamonds contain flaws here and there. So: if you like the look of diamonds then save a pile of money and purchase fake. If you balk at that notion then consider the fact that the myth has a hold of you.

The downside of the diamond ring tradition is that its used by a lot of girls to get one up on each other. Lots of girls fret over the fact that 'her ring is bigger than my ring etc' which I know is childish and pathetic and puts terrible pressure on their boyfriends. It has almost turned into a rating system as to how well you have done in life financially which is really repugnant. When my mum got married most people seemed to have diamonds of a similar size but not so these days. Having said all that if i'm totally honest I'd still love a diamond ring even though I know all the reasons why I shouldn't.

We do consist of head and heart - something which is known of and managed by the diamond cartel. I'm in no way judging (the engagment ring we got consisted of diamonds supporting a topaz centrepiece - diamonds do sparkle beautifully and there is that residual sense of their worth despite the facts as they stand. You don't remove a lifetimes worth of brainwashing by reading a single newspaper article or even the associated book) - I'm pointing out the facts as they appear to stand: this thread being about the facts about engagement rings.

A marketeers job is to create a demand for their product and the world consists of their advertising which is aimed at creating desirable myths around all manner of products. There is something very unseemly about the diamond trade however: the price is enormously inflated and folk are manipulated into spending vast quantities of monies they are unlikely to be able to afford.

Then there's the move towards encouraging us to buy diamonds at all stages of the "love-contract"

- engagment rings
- diamond studded wedding rings
- eternity rings down the road
- diamond "push-presents" (on the birth of each child)

It won't be long before women will be encouraged to give men diamonds back in return - now that they have significant purchasing power. And what about those couples who choose not to get married - a huge market evading the diamond gauntlet is what they represent. Can we expect a diamond studded "life partner ring" sometime soon ?

keyes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed, synthetic diamonds are so perfect (in the 4C's stakes), it's their very perfection that gives away the fact that they are synthetic

Nope. That's not right. I'd love to know your source for that.

To inform yourself about the state of the market, you shold perhaps read "Gems and Gemmology" quarterly journel, you'll find everything you need there' I think you can access some of it online. It's printed by the GIA, which is an informed, not for profit organisation. They print (either annually or bi-annually) a full detailed description on the market.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

Indeed, synthetic diamonds are so perfect (in the 4C's stakes), it's their very perfection that gives away the fact that they are synthetic

keyes wrote: »

Nope. That's not right. I'd love to know your source for that.

I'm not quite sure who the Diamond High Council is but it sure sounds authoritive enough. Granted, this only covers one method of manufacturing gem-quality diamonds...

Back at the Diamond High Council, I open the film canister and shake the Apollo stones onto the table. Van Royen tentatively picks one up with a pair of elongated tweezers and takes it to a microscope.

"Unbelievable," he says slowly as he peers through the lens. "May I study it?" I agree to let him keep the gems overnight. When we meet the next morning in the lobby of the High Council, Van Royen looks tired. He admits to staying up almost all night scrutinizing the stones. "I think I can identify it," he says hopefully. "It's too perfect to be natural. Things in nature, they have flaws. The growth structure of this diamond is flawless."

An Inconvenient Truth

To inform yourself about the state of the market, you shold perhaps read "Gems and Gemmology" quarterly journel, you'll find everything you need there' I think you can access some of it online. It's printed by the GIA, which is an informed, not for profit organisation. They print (either annually or bi-annually) a full detailed description on the market.

Not-for-profit doesn't mean neutral. Did you read whose on the board of governers of this organisation? Diamond traders and dealers is who.

Cast your eye down the list



From their blurb:

GIA wrote:

GIA is the global leader in gemological research, and its findings serve to protect the consumer. Using sophisticated technology, Institute researchers analyze thousands of samples each year. When new synthetic gems and artificial enhancement processes enter the marketplace, GIA is there to detect them.

Protect the consumer from what precisely? From gemstones that are as cheap as chips and are virtually indistinguishable from naturally occurring stones? Having read the shenanigans of De Beers in the above linked article are you beginning to see any similarity between their self-protecting actions and the activities of the GIA? Remarkable similarity I mean...

GIA a not-for-profit organisation? Perhaps. Tasked with defending enormous profits in the face of yet another threat to the diamond myth - most certainly.

keyes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not quite sure who the Diamond High Council is but it sure sounds authoritive enough. Granted, this only covers one method of manufacturing gem-quality diamonds...



An Inconvenient Truth

The HRD is like the beligian version of the GIA, who you rubbish in the same post. So, it's ok to back the HRD to the hilt, but not the GIA? i see.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Did you read whose on the board of governers of this organisation? Diamond traders and dealers is who.

And academics, PhDs, scientists, businesspeople. but part of your fantastic conspiracy theory is that anyone who disagrees with you is part of the conspiracy.

now, as for the flaws in synthetics, read the proceedings of the International Gem Symposium, and most significantly "CVD grown synthetic Diamonds from Apollo Inc", the very company in the report you quoted. Not one of the stones were flawless.

Read the sections on graining and birefringrance, on clarity, on reactions of UV radiation, and then the conclusion, and come back with specific questions if you have any. otherwise, lets finish the discussion here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

antiskeptic

keyes wrote: »

The HRD is like the beligian version of the GIA, who you rubbish in the same post. So, it's ok to back the HRD to the hilt, but not the GIA? i see.

You asked for a source for the claim that the distinguishing feature of gem quality synthetic diamonds (viz-a-viz gem quality natural diamonds) was their very perfection. I gave you that source (which you should find authoritive - if you consider the GIA authoritive). I've satisfied your demand in that case.

As to your objection above. That the source (being the Belgian version of the GIA) also happens to have a vested interest in maintaining the diamond myth needn't impinge negatviely on their ability to correctly state what the difference might be between natural and synthetic diamonds. I'm not saying their incompetent in what they do - I'm saying that their trade is directed at maintaining the diamond myth. You're conflating two quite separate things.

Did you read whose on the board of governers of this organisation? Diamond traders and dealers is who.

And academics, PhDs, scientists, businesspeople. but part of your fantastic conspiracy theory is that anyone who disagrees with you is part of the conspiracy.

From the GIA website. Their board of governors:

Chair Susan M. Jacques
President and CEO
Borsheim's a Berkshire Hathaway Company

"Borsheim's loose diamond inventory features over 85000 carats of diamonds to go with our more than 6000 ring, mounting, and wedding band styles."

A VERY big Cahoona in other words...

Vice Chair: Anna Martin Managing Director
Head Global Marketing, Diamonds & Jewelry Standard Chartered Bank

nuff said.

Donna Baker
President and CEO
Gemological Institute of America

...whose bonefides we are examining..

Rodney C. Ewing, Ph.D.
Donald R. Pecor Collegiate Professor
The University of Michigan

Vested interests of all sorts employ Ph.Ds. It doesn't make them any less a vested interest.

Jeffrey H. Fischer
President, Fischer Diamonds, Inc.

Nuff said

John A. Green President and CEO, Lux Bond & Green

"Features a catalog of jewelry, diamonds, watches, and giftware. Store locations in Connecticut and Massachusetts."

Dione D. Kenyon
President, Jewelers Board of Trade

'nuff said

Frederick N. Levinger
President and CEO, Nobadeer Enterprises, Inc.

"Dione D. Kenyon and Frederick N. Levinger, both industry leaders in the jewelry industry, have been elected to GIA's Board of Governors. They will assume their duties at the Board meeting Nov. 10 and 11 in Carlsbad, California".

Dilip Mehta CEO, Rosy Blue Group

"Rosy Blue Group. the world's largest diamond manufacturing Company with a presence across fourteen countries headquartered in Antwerp, Belgium."

Roland Naftule
President, Nafco Gems, Ltd.

'nuff said

Glenn R. Nord
Past President and Governor for Life, GIA

'nuff said

James P. Shinehouse
Managing Director, Kroll Talbot Hughes

"Kroll Talbot hughes Limited - Corporate finance advisory services."

Every board should have one..

Hank B. Siegel
President and CEO, Hamilton Jewelers

Onwards...

Timothy J. Stripe
Co-President, Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc.

No other diamond interest evidenced

Matthew G. Stuller
Chairman and CEO, Stuller, Inc.

"Stuller Inc., a prime manufacturer and distributor of jewelry and jewelry- related products, is dedicated to providing solutions to the global jewelry"

Aron Suna
President, Suna Bros., Inc.

"Suna Bros has been creating fine jewelry for over 70 years. See our collection of timeless pieces and diamonds."

Ephraim Zion
Managing Director, Dehres Limited

"Dehres Limited is the leading supplier of fine, exquisite jewelry pieces to the diamond industry. Its main distribution center in Hong Kong services..."



In short: the GIA is a self-interest group whose board of governors is made up almost exclusively of people engaged in making a profit from the sale of diamonds (according to the current yet long-established model involving the propagation of the perception that diamonds are rare/precious/forever.)



The GIA is not neutral and is not out to "protect the consumers interest".

now, as for the flaws in synthetics, read the proceedings of the International Gem Symposium, and most significantly "CVD grown synthetic Diamonds from Apollo Inc", the very company in the report you quoted. Not one of the stones were flawless.;

Your inability to see the wood for the trees is beginning to cause me to wonder whether you aren't in the diamond trade yourself. Are you in the diamond trade?


Who cares if sophisticated techniques are developed to spot a synthetic diamond from a natural one - given that the two are different it's inevitable that some or other technique would be arrived at.

Remember the point from whence we came: a poster finds diamonds pretty and if that's the motivation for buying a diamond encrusted engagement ring then by all means buy synthetic diamonds. It'll look the same and cost a fraction of the natural diamond.

You can't re-sell real diamonds worth a darn so it's not as if you're making an investment (even in principle)

If the person isn't prepared to go synthetic then one would have to conclude the the motivation for purchasing a diamond lay elsewhere. That elsewhere lying most likely within the elements which go up to construct the diamond myth.

- diamonds aren't rare: their only marketed in such a way as to make you think they are.

- diamonds aren't precious: common place materials aren't ever precious.

- diamond are forever: you won't be able to sell them for love nor money

Read the sections on graining and birefringrance, on clarity, on reactions of UV radiation, and then the conclusion, and come back with specific questions if you have any. otherwise, lets finish the discussion here:

You might have gathered by now that I don't put a whole lot of store the what a vested interest has to say by way of protecting it's interest.

I note your failure to put up an argument against evidence supporting the notion that the De Beers cartel is alive and well today. As mentioned already: unless there is some good reason to suppose that a hugely profitable cartel - stretching back to the beginning of the last century - has gone up in a puff of smoke then the logical and reasonable thing to do is suppose that it's alive and well today.

The nature of conspiracy theories requires they evidence themselves in the face of what common sense tells us is the case. Common sense tells us that cartels have no reason to put themselves out of business.

keyes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I note your failure to put up an argument against evidence supporting the notion that the De Beers cartel is alive and well today.

read the proceedings of the International Gem Symposium. all the answers and evidence are there. would you like me to type in all 200 pages for you? otherwise, you're just spouting ill-informed nonsense.

now, off to the conspiracy theories forum with you!

antiskeptic

keyes wrote: »

read the proceedings of the International Gem Symposium. all the answers and evidence are there. would you like me to type in all 200 pages for you? otherwise, you're just spouting ill-informed nonsense.

The ill-informedness of evidence presented is rendered thus by objectively better informed evidence. My point was that no evidence of any type has been presented in order to conclude the death of a cartel

By "better informed" I don't mean the likes of a vested interest such as the GIA.

now, off to the conspiracy theories forum with you!

Hmmm. You yourself accept that the De Beers cartel existed but assert that that cartel has been dismantled to 40% of it's former glory at some point. You haven't evidenced this claim however (other than by handwaving US anti-trust laws around - the relevance to a South African/global operator of which is beyond me)

What we're left with is the long-term existance of a cartel and no reason to suppose it's gone out of business. The very best evidence of the destruction of the De Beers cartel would be a relative collapse in the cost of diamonds. This, for obvious reasons (so many people making a pile of money from them) hasn't happened.


This isn't the stuff of conspiracy theories I'm afraid. We start out with an acknowledged global cartel - and until it's death notice is produced we have no reason to suppose it ain't alive and kicking.

keyes

antiskeptic wrote: »

You haven't evidenced this claim however (other than by handwaving US anti-trust laws around - the relevance to a South African/global operator of which is beyond me)

just because you don't understand doesn't mean you're right. not everyone is a "vested interest".

the IGS is not related to the GIA. once again, read the proceedings, this time focussing on sections concerning global supply, sales and mines. all the data you'll need is there. please come back once you've read it.

i don't have all day for endless to-and-fro. this thread is about engagement rings, and discussion thereof. if you're really interested in de beers, why not start a new thread?

antiskeptic

keyes wrote: »

just because you don't understand doesn't mean you're right. not everyone is a "vested interest".

There isn't anything to understand - you haven't presented any evidence. You've simply claimed that the De Beers cartel was busted by (amongst other things perhaps) by American anti-trust action. That's a claim - not evidence.

the IGS is not related to the GIA. once again, read the proceedings, this time focussing on sections concerning global supply, sales and mines. all the data you'll need is there. please come back once you've read it.

Could you provide a link. I googled IGS ans diamond and got an itsy bitsy site called "International Gem Society". I couldn't find any proceedings on it

i don't have all day for endless to-and-fro. this thread is about engagement rings, and discussion thereof. if you're really interested in de beers, why not start a new thread?

I was discussing engagment rings. Discussing from the perspective of perhaps going non-diamond based on an evidenced viewpoint regarding the contrived worth of diamonds. You questioned that evidence - without ever actually answering the objections raised regarding your claims or producing any evidence to support your objections.

If you don't have the time then by all means desist from commenting.

keyes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you provide a link. I googled IGS ans diamond and got an itsy bitsy site called "International Gem Society". I couldn't find any proceedings on it

I was discussing engagment rings. Discussing from the perspective of perhaps going non-diamond based on an evidenced viewpoint regarding the contrived worth of diamonds. You questioned that evidence - without ever actually answering the objections raised regarding your claims or producing any evidence to support your objections.

International Gemmological Symposium, San diego, August 2006. I have the proceedings on my bookshelf.

i have quoted all the most accurate research, but you just keep going on and on about more "evidence". the IGS proceedings give world production, subdivided by carat weight, country, value, everything you need. you can't keep on going on and on about things if you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I've quoted reputable journals, and solid research and given you all the leads you need. if you can't be bothered finding out, i can't do it for you.

you bleated on and on about Apollo diamonds till i gave you the name of the most up to date research paper on them, which debunked your vehemently-held claims, then you went very quiet on that, deciding instead to attack de beers, but you haven't got any facts to back up your belief. facts now, not stuff you heard from somewhere.

sheehan1

Hi folks,

I'm thinking of heading over to Antwerp in a couple of weeks time. I'd be looking to get an Asscher cut diamond (between 0.5 and 1 carat) with lots of "sparkle" (i.e. cut and colour are more important to me than carat or clarity) set in white gold or platinum. I am thinking of a solitare something like this



Am also open to a three stone ring or some baguettes on either side.

My budget is 1500, 2k tops. I will only have one day in Antwerp

Anyone have any advice for me? What do ye think of the ring above? (I realise that the stone in the pictures above are larger than my budget will likely allow)

Thanks

Sheehan

antiskeptic

keyes wrote: »

International Gemmological Symposium, San diego, August 2006. I have the proceedings on my bookshelf.

I, unfortunately, don't

The issues are mainly twofold:

1) There is a long history of cartelism in the diamond industry. This resulted in a relatively plentiful supply of gem quality diamonds being managed in such a way (via strict control of supply + creating demand) so as to maintain prices at artificially high levels. Common day parlance for such activity is price fixing.

Recent (albeit by mere investigative reporting) evidence suggests that the cartel in question: De Beers, is alive and well. No evidence has been presented to counter the notion that this cartel (which might include independant operators who've merely jumped on the cartel bandwagon) is still operating.


2) Logically speaking, the continuance of a cartel is logically supported by:

- the fact that cartelism results in large profits. There is no reason not to maintain a cartel once it gets going.

2) diamonds are still horrendously expensive. If the cartel has ceased to exist then diamond prices wouldn't have remained at cartel levels. They would have reduced to the level of other, more ordinary, gemstones.

i have quoted all the most accurate research, but you just keep going on and on about more "evidence". the IGS proceedings give world production, subdivided by carat weight, country, value, everything you need. you can't keep on going on and on about things if you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

With respect. Evidence that publishes itself so as to open itself up to scrutiny begins to satisfy the criteria attaching to the word. You correctly pointed out that one of the article presented by me was published in the 80's for example. You could do that because I presented the evidence.

Evidence that can't be accessed so as to evaluate it isn't much by way of evidence. You've already presented the GIA as representing some kind of informed view - when it's actually an out-and-out diamond merchant interest group.

Evidence?

You bleated on and on about Apollo diamonds till i gave you the name of the most up to date research paper on them, which debunked your vehemently-held claims, then you went very quiet on that

Bleat? Vehement?

What I did was quote someone from a body you find authoritive who (fairly recently) said that it was these diamonds very perfection that identified them as synthetic. That sophisticated methods have been developed to otherwise identify the synthetic vs. natural only goes to demonstrate the point originally made (and one which resulted in you responding in the first place):

If there's no difference in how it looks vs. a cultured diamond and if the diamond has no actual worth (in that you can't actually sell it) then the only factor remaining, when considering purchasing a natural diamond, must be influences arising from the De Beers manufactured "diamond myth".


Have you ever tried to sell a diamond?

deciding instead to attack de beers, but you haven't got any facts to back up your belief. facts now, not stuff you heard from somewhere.

Recall that you haven't actually present one scrap of evidence for your position. There have been lots of impressive sounding names put forward - as if one could argue from authority. Reference to papers, proceedings and synoposiums as yet unlinked

But not a shred of actual evidence. If deciding to address things evidentially, perhaps you could address the issues up top:

- where and why did the cartel go?
- why are diamonds still so expensive?

keyes

antiskeptic wrote: »

What I did was quote someone from a body you find authoritive who (fairly recently) said that it was these diamonds very perfection that identified them as synthetic. That sophisticated methods have been developed to otherwise identify the synthetic vs. natural only goes to demonstrate the point originally made (and one which resulted in you responding in the first place):

nope, that's not true. it was never the case that synthetic are flawless. anyone who knows diamonds knows that, and the fact that you don't proves that you're not knowledgeable. read the literature. some journalistic piece isn't proof, it's a piece of fiction.

i don't think a simple magnifying glass counts as sophisticated.

you can buy the symposium proceedings. i reckon you could find them in a library. but you don't seem to want to, because then you'd know the truth.....

took me 10 seconds to find this. granded it's only wikipedia, but it's better than any of your "sources": (note, my italics)

A range of factors contributed to the need for change in the De Beers model in 2000.[25] In the 1990s, it became increasingly evident that De Beers’ industry custodianship and supply-controlled model was no longer viable. De Beers was also unable to conduct business in several jurisdictions where it had interests or a corporate presence due to their dominance in the diamond industry. In addition, more producers from varied locations such as Russia, Canada, and Australia chose to start distributing diamonds outside of the De Beers channel, thus effectively ending the monopoly.[2][24] Also, diamond jewellery markets had fallen in comparison to other luxury goods. The behaviour of consumers had changed and the diamond industry had been slow to respond to market dynamics.[citation needed] To address this, on behalf of its own interests and that of the industry as a whole, De Beers conducted a strategic review with Bain & Company, consequently changing its business model from a supply-controlled industry to that which was driven by demand. De Beers also implemented their Supplier of Choice sales strategy.[clarification needed] As a result of company transformation, De Beers is now more profitable today with a 40% market share than when it maintained an 80% market share.[26]

The diamond industry of today is markedly different to that of a decade ago, and is a complex and constantly evolving geo-political phenomenon. Current major players in the diamond industry are the African producer countries, i.e. the Government of the Republic of Botswana, the Government of the Republic of Namibia, De Beers, Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, Lev Leviev, Harry Winston, and Alrosa.[27]


don't get me wrong, i'm no apologist for de beers, nor do i approve of cartels. but the fact is that you're wrong to suggest that the cartel is still around. market share of 40% does not count as a cartel.

antiskeptic wrote: »

- the fact that cartelism results in large profits. There is no reason not to maintain a cartel once it gets going.

de beers is more profitable in a open market than when it ran a cartel, see above piece.

antiskeptic

keyes wrote: »

nope, that's not true. it was never the case that synthetic are flawless. anyone who knows diamonds knows that, and the fact that you don't proves that you're not knowledgeable. read the literature. some journalistic piece isn't proof, it's a piece of fiction.

Straightening out the above attempt to misdirect:

1) An assertion was made by me that for all practical purposes, natural diamonds are indistinguishable from synthethic. The wearer can't tell and the jeweller can't tell.

2) You asked for the source for the assertion.

3) I gave you the source: someone from an agency you find authoritive (you equated that agency - the Diamond High Council - with the Gemological Institute of America). Their response to initial exposure to Apollo sythethic diamonds had them bamboozled - and stating the the perfection of those diamonds was what led them to suspect synthetic.


Is the journalist fabricating that quote? I'm inclined to think not - and here's why you shouldn't be inclined to do so either. You say:

Keyes wrote:

i don't think a simple magnifying glass counts as sophisticated.

...whereas the Gemological Institute of America (a special interest group made up of diamond sellers which you happen to consider an authorititive agency) says on their site:

But detecting today’s increasingly sophisticated synthetic and treated gems requires more advanced scientific instrumentation. GIA researchers use a variety of powerful analytical tools to determine the distinctive characteristics of natural, synthetic and treated gem materials. These modern gem research instruments, which have been installed at GIA Laboratory facilities, include:

....and goes on to list some of the highly sophisticated equipment on offer. The simple magnifying glass, curiously enough, is not on that list.

From this point I'll ignore misdirection and consider the original point made: for all practical purposes cultured diamond and mined diamonds should be considered to be identical.

you can buy the symposium proceedings. i reckon you could find them in a library. but you don't seem to want to, because then you'd know the truth.....

Is that another way of saying that you're not prepared to support your position?

took me 10 seconds to find this. granded it's only wikipedia, but it's better than any of your "sources": (note, my italics)

When one is inclined to posit a blatantly self-interested group such as the GIA as an independent source on which we can rely for our insight into all things diamonds, then wrapping the word "source" in quotes errs on the hypocritical.




To Wikipedia then - including the opening paragraph trimmed off by yourself:

De Beers is well known for its monopolistic practices throughout the 20th century, whereby it used its dominant position to manipulate the international diamond market. The company used several methods to exercise this control over the market: Firstly, it convinced independent producers to join its single channel monopoly, it flooded the market with diamonds similar to those of producers who refused to join the cartel, and lastly, it purchased and stockpiled diamonds produced by other manufacturers in order to control prices through supply However the transformation of the company, from the late nineties to present, is starting to become more widely known.

The above repeats the story detailed in the newspaper article: Have you ever tried to sell a diamond?. We can safely conclude that the high price of diamonds - at least up until the late ninties is an artificial construct, the result of monopoly control and clever marketing aimed at inculcating in the collective consciousness, the diamond as an object of worth/permanence/love.

A myth in other words - one stretching back nearly 100 years.

A range of factors contributed to the need for change in the De Beers model in 2000.[25] In the 1990s, it became increasingly evident that De Beers’ industry custodianship and supply-controlled model was no longer viable. De Beers was also unable to conduct business in several jurisdictions where it had interests or a corporate presence due to their dominance in the diamond industry. In addition, more producers from varied locations such as Russia, Canada, and Australia chose to start distributing diamonds outside of the De Beers channel, thus effectively ending the monopoly.[2][24]

The problems inherent with a wikipedia article become apparent. Clicking on the first of their references [25] links us to ... an economics text book. Clicking on the second reference [2] links us to an apparent research paper entitled "De Beers and beyond - the history of a diamond cartel". That paper treats us to the same information as the newspaper article I started out with, beginning as it does with:

Wikipedia source wrote:

"A gemstone is the ultimate luxury product. It has no material use. Men and women desire to have diamonds not for what they [diamonds] can do but for what they desire."

1 To hear these words from a person who attributes his entire wealth and power to the trade of diamonds illustrates the peculiar nature of the diamond market: Jewelry diamonds are unjustifiably expensive, given they are not actually scarce and would fetch a price of $2 to $30 if put to industrial use. Still, by appealing to the customers’ sentiment, diamonds are one of the most precious luxury items and enjoy almost global acceptance. This fact is often attributed to the history of one company. DeBeers, founded by Cecil Rhodes in 1870, has been a highly successful and effective controller of the diamond market, having developed a unique purchasing and marketing cartel that has influenced prices....

...and, after taking us through some of the familiar the trials and tribulations that have threatened the De Beers cartel in the intervening century, the paper concludes with the lay of the land as per 2003.

At least for now, DeBeers seems to have re-gained the upper hand on the Russian diamond industry, this time by undermining it from the inside. Attempts by major producers to defect from the cartel seem to repeat themselves at shorter and shorter time intervals. While it has been possible to force Zaire and Angola back into the cartel, Canada, Australia and Russia do not seem to accept such simple, uncompromising behavior by DeBeers: persuasion and incentives will play an increasingly important role in the future. Ultimately, however, the question that needs to be addressed is whether the “system we propose is the best one in the long term

A vital point to realise - and one in which your attempts to misdirect seem intent on ignoring - is illustrated here in the mid-paper:

The three (two Russian + DeBeers)parties could not reconcile, and finally, in 1996 –for the first time since 1957–, Russian diamond producers and the CSO did not have a joint marketing agreement.

For years, De Beers (the CSO referred to above in other words) exercised total control of the worlds diamond market - which is only fair seeing as they were the ones who created it. When vast quantities of diamonds were discovered in Russia, De Beers normal control methods: buy up all diamonds produced by others so as to maintain a grip on supply (and so, price) couldn't be expected to cope - there were simply too many diamonds to be absorbed. Instead they came to an agreement with the Russians so as to ensure that the Russians didn't flood the market and cause the price to collapse. Naturally the Russians concluded that it wouldn't be in their interests to have diamonds find their natural price level (ie: zip)

The above indicates just how long that particular aspect of the cartel situation has been active. Which is a point you, Keyes, seem intent on ignoring. DeBeers don't have to control every single mine in the world in order to run a cartel. A cartel can be made up of any number of interested parties.

The relevant-to-this-discussion point of a cartel is to maintain prices at artificially inflated prices. It's not all that relevant-to-this-discussion who the particular members of that cartel are.

don't get me wrong, i'm no apologist for de beers, nor do i approve of cartels. but the fact is that you're wrong to suggest that the cartel is still around. market share of 40% does not count as a cartel.

Unfortunately, neither the Wikipedia article (nor the article from whence that 40% figure comes from), offers any rational for believing an end to cartelism. Diamonds - which for 100 years have been the subject of cartelism and whose price has been an artificial construct made up of clever marketing and control of supply - haven't dropped in price.

Are we to suppose that the very thing which supposedly destroyed the DeBeers cartel (an influx of new diamond supplies to the point where De Beers are reduced to but 40% of the market) didn't also manage to reduce the price - according to normal supply/demand economics?

Are we supposed to have come down in the last shower?

Indeed, it's safe to suppose that the cultured diamond industry will set a price level at some acceptable-to-the-consumer percentage short of the natural diamond price. Not anywhere near a price reflective of the cost of manufacturing them however. They too, ironically enough, will feed on the Diamond Invention.

keyes

yawn. you don't believe any information that doesn't agree with your beliefs. i've given you the link to the authoritative data, but because it's not online i'm "not supporting [my] position". if you're interested in learning, go and learn, don't just sit around giving out. also, you ignore the fact that debeers profits are higher in a non-cartel world. there's a good reason for the cartel breaking up.

you're distancing yourself from the apollo diamonds issue now that it's been proven false, using my assertion that the GIA is the world's authority on gemstones to give weight to the HRD, thereby backing up the belief that synthetics are flawless. wtf?

clarity grading is done with a 10x glass. the apollo diamonds were ranging in clarity from SI to VVS. the quote from your article is rubbish. no jeweller would spend more than 30 seconds determining those clarities using a simple glass. it is untrue to state that what gives synthetics away is that they are flawless; not opinion, simply untrue.

of course the GIA use 10x magnifying glasses. to suggest otherwise is just silly.

run along and peddle your conspiracy theory elsewhere. it's all a conspiracy. you're the only person in the world to have cracked it. we're all in on it, but you're not, at least not until now. congrats.

actually, i reckon you work for apollo diamonds.

antiskeptic

keyes wrote: »

you don't believe any information that doesn't agree with your beliefs. i've given you the link to the authoritative data, but because it's not online i'm "not supporting [my] position".

If you're not able to assemble a rational case capable of dealing with the most basic of queries then it's asking a bit much that I go out and purchase information on your say so.

if you're interested in learning, go and learn, don't just sit around giving out. also, you ignore the fact that debeers profits are higher in a non-cartel world. there's a good reason for the cartel breaking up.

Given the points made in my last post regarding the long term nature of this cartel (which includes the Russians going back to the 50's) you've either

a) not read the post
b) understand the nature of cartels less than I do
c) are misdirecting things

you're distancing yourself from the apollo diamonds issue now that it's been proven false, using my assertion that the GIA is the world's authority on gemstones to give weight to the HRD, thereby backing up the belief that synthetics are flawless. wtf?

What?

clarity grading is done with a 10x glass. the apollo diamonds were ranging in clarity from SI to VVS. the quote from your article is rubbish. no jeweller would spend more than 30 seconds determining those clarities using a simple glass. it is untrue to state that what gives synthetics away is that they are flawless; not opinion, simply untrue.

Leaving aside the misdirection and asking some plain yes/no questions

Is it true that modern cultured gem-grade diamonds are indistinguishable from natural diamonds unless sophisticated detection equipment is employed.

Is it also true to say that your average jeweller isn't in possession of such equipment?

If the answer is "yes" on both counts then my original point is made: why buy expensive natural diamonds when you can buy cheaper cultured diamonds without anyone being able to tell the difference?

run along and peddle your conspiracy theory elsewhere. it's all a conspiracy. you're the only person in the world to have cracked it. we're all in on it, but you're not, at least not until now. congrats.

Could you answer the question as to how it is that an influx of diamond supply (acting to reduce DeBeers portion of the market to an alleged 40%) has failed to cause a collapse in the price of diamonds? We can't thank an exploding market for diamonds apparently - given that a shrinking market was one of the reasons posited for the cartels demise in the first place!

actually, i reckon you work for apollo diamonds.

Actually you'd be completely wrong: I work in the processed food industry and would have no qualms about telling people to steer as far clear of processed food as they possibly can. In 16 years work, involving thousands of meetings to do with costs/yields/production waste/contamination/added value/etc ... I've yet to hear the word "nutrition" mentioned. Not once.

Am I correct in supposing you work in the diamond business.

keyes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is it true that modern cultured gem-grade diamonds are indistinguishable from natural diamonds unless sophisticated detection equipment is employed.

No.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you answer the question as to how it is that an influx of diamond supply (acting to reduce DeBeers portion of the market to an alleged 40%) has failed to cause a collapse in the price of diamonds? We can't thank an exploding market for diamonds apparently - given that a shrinking market was one of the reasons posited for the cartels demise in the first place!

greater demand.

i have quoted trade journals, i read symposium proceedings, i subscribe to the the literature. of course, of course i work in the diamond business.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

Is it true that modern cultured gem-grade diamonds are indistinguishable from natural diamonds unless sophisticated detection equipment is employed.

keyes wrote: »

No.

Okay. So what are the GIA on about here then (leaving aside the lack of mention of a simple magnifying glass):

Prior to the 1980s, most gemological research was conducted with classical equipment such as the binocular microscope, spectroscope and refractometer, and many gem materials can still be identified using these basic testing tools.

But detecting today’s increasingly sophisticated synthetic and treated gems requires more advanced scientific instrumentation. GIA researchers use a variety of powerful analytical tools to determine the distinctive characteristics of natural, synthetic and treated gem materials.

greater demand. i have quoted trade journals, i read symposium proceedings, i subscribe to the the literature. of course, of course i work in the diamond business.

I was more interested in whatever rational case you can make.

You're asking me to believe that in the same period that the ca. 100 year oldd DeBeers cartel supposedly collapses (due to the arrival onto the market of significant diamond supplies which lie outside their control) the demand for diamonds rose to a level which ensured that prices remained at those artificially high cartel levels? That the transition from artificial-cartel price morphed into natural-demand-led price seamlessly and without blemish?


Question: assuming for a moment that it was in the interests of a number of large diamond players (which would include DeBeers) to maintain a cartel arrangment (it would maximise profits were they to do so - ask any cartel) then what reason would you have for supposing that they would provide accurate information regarding diamond supplies to those lower in the food chain. What possible profit would there be in letting it be widely known that there are pleny of diamonds - were it the case that there were?

Given that the various arms of the diamond business were established during a period of DeBeers dominance and can only have been lackeys of DeBeers for so much of their existance, how do you suppose to reckon on anything like independence when in comes to sourcing accurate information? Having read elsewhere of just how DeBeers dealt with any attempts to rock the boat, the idea of an independent diamond body strikes me as something of an oxymoron.

antiskeptic

double post

keyes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. So what are the GIA on about here then (leaving aside the lack of mention of a simple magnifying glass):

it says "gem materials". not necessarily diamonds. you should read things slowly and accurately.

antiskeptic wrote: »

...the demand for diamonds rose to a level which ensured that prices remained at those artificially high cartel levels?

who said that the prices have remained the same? have you data for this? where is this coming from? diamond prices have changed a lot over the last ten years. but before you retort with a snide "well prove it", let me say this: prove to me that diamond prices have remained the same over the last ten years, in a verifiable manner, from first-hand sources, not just some re-hashed nonsense. you have make this contention, now back it up. please also explain the existence of a secondary market for diamonds if they are so worthless?

with respect, you have small bits of information, and are presuming a lot. it's a classic case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. it's as valid as me going on about a conspiracy in the processed food industry to make us all obese.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Question: assuming for a moment that it was in the interests of a number of large diamond players to maintain a cartel arrangment then what reason would you have for supposing that they would provide accurate information regarding diamond supplies to those lower in the food chain. What possible profit would there be in letting it be widely known that there are pleny of diamonds - were it the case that there were?

Given that the various arms of the diamond business were established during a period of DeBeers dominance and can only have been lackeys of DeBeers for so much of their existance, how do you suppose to reckon on anything like independence when in comes to sourcing accurate information?

no, you prove it to me. the first line of those paragraphs is phrased in a biased manner. "assuming it was in the interest...." it's a leading question, that implies acknowledgement of this conspiracy.

many of these companies are PLCs. what reason have you for believing that large multinational companies lie to shareholders? back up that claim please. "can only have been lackeys". conspiracy talk again. prove that too please. prove that the boards of these huge companies, some of whom only have diamond mining as a small sideline, they are so big, distort a market.

have you considered the Kimberly Process and it's effect on the verifibility of data relating to rough diamond production? no, didn't think so.

it's conspiracy talk all over again. "the reason the numbers don't back me up is that the numbers are being distorted by an evil cabal". as i said earlier, YAWN...

Sizzler

^^ Jaysis lads, GET A ROOM.

Maybe the mods will set up a debating forum for you both on diamond grading :rolleyes:

keyes

Sizzler wrote: »

^^ Jaysis lads, GET A ROOM.

Maybe the mods will set up a debating forum for you both on diamond grading :rolleyes:

sheehan1

Have been emailed the following by one of the ADJA recommended jewellers in antwerp

white gold solitaire ring with a 0.66 carat asscher (excellent) D VS2 for 1553 euro total

any opinions? Obviously not going to commit to anything until i get there and see the ring and, if satisfied, haggle a bit