Don't Get Her a Diamond

[Tim Lee]

I'd like to associate myself with the remarks of my esteemed co-blogger regarding diamond engagement rings. I got engaged last fall, and after reading a variety of articles on the subject, including the Atlantic article Conor mentioned, Amanda made clear that she'd be happy with a non-diamond engagement ring, as she wasn't keen to have me sending thousands of dollars to African despots as a way of proving my love to her. She was also unenthusiastic about perpetuating a "tradition" that was manufactured by the diamond cartel within our grandparents' lifetime.

I investigated getting a cultured diamond, which are identical in every way to "real" diamonds except that I can be sure there were no child soldiers involved in extracting them. Most cultured diamonds are yellow diamonds, which are rare in nature but no more difficult to create in the lab. There's some beautiful jewelry available with cultured diamonds in them. Unfortunately, the closest cultured diamond shops were in Chicago, and the makers of cultured diamonds have focused on catering to the high end of the market, which made most of the options way out of my price range.

So instead I chose an engagement ring with a cultured ruby as its centerpiece. She liked it. And because we're believers in gender equality, we decided it would be good if she got me an engagement ring too.

I, for one, am looking forward to the impending commoditization of the gem industry. Cultured diamonds are still rare enough that they haven't put much downward pressure on diamond prices, but it's only a matter of time before the technology improves to the point where almost any diamond can be manufactured for a couple hundred bucks. And without the option of spending thousands of dollars on a garish status symbol, men will be forced to exercise more creativity in choosing tokens of affection.

Comments

I got my lady a cultured sapphire, it is identical to a real sapphire except it wasn't dug out of the ground and the saleslady will try real hard to convince you of its artifice.

I thought it was super neat that there was a machine that could make sapphires. She has an engagement ring of Science!

Posted by Bill Mill | May 26, 2008 2:56 PM

I have always been surprised that diamonds are so popular as jewellery, when there are so many pretty stones out there.

Posted by Tracy W | May 26, 2008 3:16 PM

If I get married I always thought I'd do something like this. The ruby's lovely and doing something a little different seems neat to me.

Posted by Thomas R | May 26, 2008 3:22 PM

Ugh.

Horrible post.

You should know that if people don't buy diamonds you will destroy the economies of African nations that depend on them for their livelihood (i.e. Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Lesotho.)

Nelson Mandela and others have spoken out many times about this. Do you really think you know Africa better than Nelson Mandela?

Even Amnesty International has said that people should continue buying diamonds, or Africa will suffer.

Right now there are NO child soldiers involved in any of this. A system was put in place to stop it years ago.

(By the way, the issue was NEVER African despots. It was rebels against the African despots. So you don't even have the charges correct.)

If you think that is true, please inform your readers of African wars that currently involve diamonds.

Please DON'T rely on 25 year old articles for information. That was all true, but a lot has changed in the diamond industry since then.

I really thought that the Atlantic had better standards than to publish this stuff.

PLEASE get a fact-checker.

Posted by ugh | May 26, 2008 3:36 PM

While still working on getting my PhD I moonlight as a jeweler for my father. It's a family thing (grandfather and uncles and whatnot). I've known for years that natural diamond prices are artificially inflated due to tight control on supply. Even so, the conditions many diamond miners work in are still horrendous. Yes, they provide a boost to the respective nations in which they're mined, but I don't think that's enough to justify the treatment of diamond miners. Moreover, almost any natural gemstone of any value is mined in conflict areas. The best emeralds still come from Columbia and ever since the fall of the Taliban I've seen a rise in the number of sapphires and rubies coming to the market. The majority of sapphires and rubies (both the same mineral mind you) come off the Himalayan mountains into India, Pakistan, and yes, Afghanistan.
The problem with any kind of gemstone mining is that the places where the most activity is are the same places where the labor is cheap and the laws are lax. The whole idea of 'conflict-free' stones is actually pretty damn laughable, particularly with diamonds. The only time you can actually tell with any degree of accuracy where a diamond was dug up is with certain diamonds mined in Australia and that's only due to those diamonds being slightly harder than the rest. Otherwise, a diamond can come from anywhere and there's no way to tell.
As to Ugh's post on African economies relying on diamond mining, the only reason why African mines are heavily used is because DeBeers, the primary controller of the diamond trade, has done everything it can to keep Russian mines from becoming another major source of diamonds (yes, Siberia is actually pretty diamond-rich among other things). Also, Ugh ignores all of the other gemstones and minerals mined in Africa, of which there are many.
My last point is that diamonds only became the standard for engagement rings after WWII when DeBeers wanted to sell more diamonds and sought an effective way to market them. A diamond, as we say, is only worth as much as you pay for it.
Oh, and synthetic rubies and sapphires are nothing new. The Germans started the process back around the 1880s or 1890s and for a while synthetic rubies were actually more desirable than the real thing since no one could believe that it was possible.

Posted by Jordan Lawrence | May 26, 2008 4:23 PM

The diamond in my engagement ring is synthetic. It's beautiful, and every time I look at it I get the warm fuzzy feeling that it was created by fellow nerds in a lab :-)

Posted by Erica | May 26, 2008 4:26 PM

Jordan -

You are totally wrong. Russia now supplies close to 25% of the world's diamonds. De Beers now controls 40%, meaning it's not the monopoly of yore.

How does that imply De Beers prevented Russia from becoming a major producer? 25% is pretty damn major.

Industrialized diamond mining has less fatalities than other types of mining, and is considered environmentally friendlier. That is NOT true for Columbian emerald mines.

"Conflict free" refers to diamonds not being involved in conflicts. So yes, it is not laughable to say that.

What is laughable is your high praise of Columbian emerald mines. Ridiculous.

Go ask your father for some updated info.

Posted by ugh | May 26, 2008 4:32 PM

Hi, Jordan. I misread your post and point about Columbian emerald miners. My apologies. The rest still stands.

Posted by ugh | May 26, 2008 4:51 PM

Have always wanted someone to come up with a cheap way of manufacturing diamonds and bust the de Beers cartel....

When someone has figured out how to churn out the stuff in blocks one meter on a side, get back to me. Otherwise it's all silly stuff.

Go read the article in Wired if you still think diamonds are worth anything. Bloody boring crystal structure, don't hold their value upon resale (you'd do better investing in a Honda), what's to like about them?

Feh.

Posted by grumpy realist | May 26, 2008 5:44 PM

My engagement ring is opal, a stone I've always found much prettier than diamond. It also cost under $300. The only downside is that opal is fragile, so I don't wear it most of the time as my job (photography) involves slinging metal stands and other heavy equipment around.

Incidentally, my husband's ring is an almost black sapphire, and was heavily discounted (under $100!)

I'm all for beauty. I just happen to believe that beauty does not necessarily have to be expensive.

Posted by B. Durbin | May 26, 2008 7:06 PM

I was frustrated by the lack of affordable cultured diamonds, but an alternative that worked for me was getting a diamond from Canada.

Posted by Christopher Monnier | May 26, 2008 8:50 PM

You make some interesting points "ugh." I just mostly like the idea of a different jewel because it's different. I doubt bloggers at Atlantic will start a trend that will hurt the African economy much. However if some trendy people decide to buy rings with jewels other than diamond what's the harm? Madagascar leads the world in sapphires and also has emeralds. Madagascar is, I believe, at peace and is partly free.

Posted by Thomas R | May 26, 2008 11:42 PM

Tim, I think that as the price of the diamond falls, people will think up new garish status symbols. People who care about creativity now will continue to do so, and people who care about garish status symbols will also continue to do so.

Posted by bcg | May 27, 2008 8:15 AM

If a nation's economy depends on mining a luxury product that can be found elsewhere, is getting increased competition form similar luxury products, and is getting easier to produce artificially, that nation is in serious trouble whether or not a few people decide to stop buying mined diamonds for ethical reasons.
The, "buy a luxury item to help poor people" argument is a bit silly.

Posted by bi | May 27, 2008 10:02 AM

WE DEALS
(TRADE / BUY / SELL /MFG./ IMPORT / EXPORT )
GEMS & JEWELLERY

IF U HAVE ANY INQUIRY PLEASE EMAIL ME AT

OR CALL

MR GUPTA P 00919828012691
MR GUPTA SUNIL 00919887907524 AND 00919351425345
MR GUPTA GAURAV 00919314613836

THANX
REGARDS
GUPTA SUNIL

Posted by SUNNY | May 27, 2008 10:52 AM

My engagement ring is a cultured blue diamond flanked by cultured sapphires. We got both it and the wedding rings at GreenKarat and have been very happy with them. (To assuage my guilt about insisting on an engagement ring at all I paid for the wedding rings.) Like Erica and Bill, I am tickled and proud that my ring comes courtesy of Science.

Your engagement ring is very nice! We thought about titanium rings but were worried about resizing. My husband is not a jewelry guy by nature, so I think he's okay with having just the one ring (though, sadly, not the One Ring).

Posted by Jessica | May 27, 2008 7:03 PM

'She was also unenthusiastic about perpetuating a "tradition" that was manufactured by the diamond cartel within our grandparents' lifetime.'

Lucky you! You might be surprised how many women think this is an 'ancient tradition', and would regard any man who didn't think so with disdain.

Posted by Jeff | May 29, 2008 12:31 AM

According to the new International Diamond Council rules, gem quality diamonds created in a laboratory or factory can be described as: “synthetic,” “laboratory-grown,” “laboratory-created,” or “man-made,” and the descriptor must always be followed by the word “diamond” or “diamonds.”
Under no circumstances can the term "cultured" be used to describe gem-quality synthetic diamonds.
The Diamond Guru
Sydney Australia
www.thediamondguru.blogspot.com

Posted by The Diamond Guru | May 29, 2008 9:43 AM

CIBJO, IDMA, WFDB Issue Joint Statement on Lab-grown Diamonds.

The presidents of CIBJO (The World Jewellery Confederation,) the International Diamond Manufacturers Association (IDMA,) and the World Federation of Diamond Bourses (WFDB,) have issued the following statement:

CIBJO recognizes and respects the revised IDC Rules for Grading Diamonds, which was prepared by the International Diamond Council (IDC,) which is a joint committee of IDMA and the WFDB, concerned with diamond grading standards and nomenclature. The revised rules were approved in Shanghai at the recent 33rd World Diamond Congress by the executive committees of both IDMA and WFDB.

The revised IDC rules includes terminology that broadens the range of descriptors that can be used for gem-quality diamonds that have been created in laboratory or factory, and to date have been referred to as “synthetic.”

According to the new IDC rules, gem quality diamonds created in a laboratory or factory can be described as: “synthetic,” “laboratory-grown,” “laboratory-created,” or “man-made,” and the descriptor must always be followed by the word “diamond” or “diamonds.”

Under no circumstances can the term "cultured" be used to describe gem-quality synthetic diamonds.

At present, CIBJO’s Diamond Blue Book only allows the descriptor “synthetic” to describe gem-quality synthetic diamonds

The Diamond Guru
Sydney Australia
www.thediamondguru.blogspot.com

Posted by The Diamond Guru | May 29, 2008 9:58 AM