The Diamond Racket

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,195
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Diamonds are for Suckers

The diamond invention—the creation of the idea that diamonds are rare and valuable, and are essential signs of esteem—is a relatively recent development in the history of the diamond trade. Until the late nineteenth century, diamonds were found only in a few riverbeds in India and in the jungles of Brazil, and the entire world production of gem diamonds amounted to a few pounds a year. In 1870, however, huge diamond mines were discovered near the Orange River, in South Africa, where diamonds were soon being scooped out by the ton. Suddenly, the market was deluged with diamonds. The British financiers who had organized the South African mines quickly realized that their investment was endangered; diamonds had little intrinsic value—and their price depended almost entirely on their scarcity. The financiers feared that when new mines were developed in South Africa, diamonds would become at best only semiprecious gems.

The major investors in the diamond mines realized that they had no alternative but to merge their interests into a single entity that would be powerful enough to control production and perpetuate the illusion of scarcity of diamonds. The instrument they created, in 1888, was called De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd., incorporated in South Africa.

. . .

The diamond invention is far more than a monopoly for fixing diamond prices; it is a mechanism for converting tiny crystals of carbon into universally recognized tokens of wealth, power, and romance. To achieve this goal, De Beers had to control demand as well as supply. Both women and men had to be made to perceive diamonds not as marketable precious stones but as an inseparable part of courtship and married life. To stabilize the market, De Beers had to endow these stones with a sentiment that would inhibit the public from ever reselling them. The illusion had to be created that diamonds were forever -- "forever" in the sense that they should never be resold.

. . .

N. W. Ayer suggested that through a well-orchestrated advertising and public-relations campaign it could have a significant impact on the "social attitudes of the public at large and thereby channel American spending toward larger and more expensive diamonds instead of "competitive luxuries." Specifically, the Ayer study stressed the need to strengthen the association in the public's mind of diamonds with romance. Since "young men buy over 90% of all engagement rings" it would be crucial to inculcate in them the idea that diamonds were a gift of love: the larger and finer the diamond, the greater the expression of love. Similarly, young women had to be encouraged to view diamonds as an integral part of any romantic courtship.

Since the Ayer plan to romanticize diamonds required subtly altering the public's picture of the way a man courts -- and wins -- a woman, the advertising agency strongly suggested exploiting the relatively new medium of motion pictures. Movie idols, the paragons of romance for the mass audience, would be given diamonds to use as their symbols of indestructible love. In addition, the agency suggested offering stories and society photographs to selected magazines and newspapers which would reinforce the link between diamonds and romance. Stories would stress the size of diamonds that celebrities presented to their loved ones, and photographs would conspicuously show the glittering stone on the hand of a well-known woman. Fashion designers would talk on radio programs about the "trend towards diamonds" that Ayer planned to start. The Ayer plan also envisioned using the British royal family to help foster the romantic allure of diamonds. An Ayer memo said, "Since Great Britain has such an important interest in the diamond industry, the royal couple could be of tremendous assistance to this British industry by wearing diamonds rather than other jewels." Queen Elizabeth later went on a well-publicized trip to several South African diamond mines, and she accepted a diamond from Oppenheimer.

The Diamond Cartel has managed to brainwash enough of us into this notion that now, you simply have to go along with it unless you are willing to break a social taboo. If you want to get married, you are expected to buy one of these things, whether you believe the hype or not. And if you were to buy a substitute such as a cubic ziconium, which after all sparkles just like a diamond, you would be considered a cheapskate.

(Full disclosure: yes, I bought a diamond engagement ring for my wife (about 15 years ago now). She doesn't understand why this annoys me, and it doesn't help our relationship for me to complain about it. So I'll complain here to you people instead. I'm fine with giving a gift, but why does it have to be a diamond ring?)
 
We have synthetic diamonds now. Why not get rid of the blood diamond industry altogether? If we could manufacture gold would people still want "real" gold?
 
I don't know much about synthetic diamonds. According to this article, it doesn't seem that they are much cheaper than natural diamonds. Not by an order of magnitude anyway.

A Gemesis-created yellow fancy-colored diamond--visibly indistinguishable from a natural one, even to a trained gemologist--can be purchased for about $4,000 per carat. That's about 30% less than the price of a natural diamond of similar color and quality, according to Robert Chodelka, Gemesis' vice president for technology.

If it's jewelry, and just for the sparkle, a cubic zirconium can do the trick just as well for a lot less.
 
More from that article:

In its 1947 strategy plan, the advertising agency strongly emphasized a psychological approach. "We are dealing with a problem in mass psychology. We seek to ... strengthen the tradition of the diamond engagement ring -- to make it a psychological necessity capable of competing successfully at the retail level with utility goods and services...." It defined as its target audience "some 70 million people 15 years and over whose opinion we hope to influence in support of our objectives." N. W. Ayer outlined a subtle program that included arranging for lecturers to visit high schools across the country. "All of these lectures revolve around the diamond engagement ring, and are reaching thousands of girls in their assemblies, classes and informal meetings in our leading educational institutions," the agency explained in a memorandum to De Beers. The agency had organized, in 1946, a weekly service called "Hollywood Personalities," which provided 125 leading newspapers with descriptions of the diamonds worn by movie stars. And it continued its efforts to encourage news coverage of celebrities displaying diamond rings as symbols of romantic involvement. In 1947, the agency commissioned a series of portraits of "engaged socialites." The idea was to create prestigious "role models" for the poorer middle-class wage-earners. The advertising agency explained, in its 1948 strategy paper, "We spread the word of diamonds worn by stars of screen and stage, by wives and daughters of political leaders, by any woman who can make the grocer's wife and the mechanic's sweetheart say 'I wish I had what she has.'"

. . .

In 1951, N. W. Ayer found some resistance to its million-dollar publicity blitz. It noted in its annual strategy review:

The millions of brides and brides-to-be are subjected to at least two important pressures that work against the diamond engagement ring. Among the more prosperous, there is the sophisticated urge to be different as a means of being smart.... the lower-income groups would like to show more for the money than they can find in the diamond they can afford...

To remedy these problems, the advertising agency argued, "It is essential that these pressures be met by the constant publicity to show that only the diamond is everywhere accepted and recognized as the symbol of betrothal."

. . .

Toward the end of the 1950s, N. W. Ayer reported to De Beers that twenty years of advertisements and publicity had had a pronounced effect on the American psyche. "Since 1939 an entirely new generation of young people has grown to marriageable age," it said. "To this new generation a diamond ring is considered a necessity to engagements by virtually everyone." The message had been so successfully impressed on the minds of this generation that those who could not afford to buy a diamond at the time of their marriage would "defer the purchase" rather than forgo it.

Mass brainwashing.
 
The artificial creation of the diamond engagement ring tradition was the most successful advertising and marketing campain ever undertaken. Giving one has become an expectation and part of our culture. You might as well complain about the weather, for all the good trying to change this will do you.

On the positive side, diamonds have real value and they aren't going down in price.
 
The artificial creation of the diamond engagement ring tradition was the most successful advertising and marketing campain ever undertaken. Giving one has become an expectation and part of our culture. You might as well complain about the weather, for all the good trying to change this will do you.

On the positive side, diamonds have real value and they aren't going down in price.

Not necessarily. Amethyst used to be valuable until huge deposits were found. Surely artificial diamonds will become cheaper as technology progresses, and if they are accepted as gemstones, then the price of natural diamonds will fall dramatically.
 
We have synthetic diamonds now. Why not get rid of the blood diamond industry altogether?

At this point conflict diamonds do not make up a significant percentage of industry supply. Which is understandable since of the most part de Beers doesn't own the mines in those areas.

If we could manufacture gold would people still want "real" gold?

Probably not but gold is in a rather different situation. There is certianly a demand for natural gems of other types and to an extent non farmed pearls.
 
On the positive side, diamonds have real value and they aren't going down in price.

Curiously, I have hundreds of diamond saw blades and drill bits in my garage; most are about 10 years old. I was in Home Depot over the weekend and noticed 4" diamond stone cutting blades for half the price I paid a decade ago.

With the wide availability and relatively low cost of diamond cutting and honing tools, I find it hard to believe diamonds are all that rare.

And why isn't there a well established market for "used" jewelry diamonds? I would expect that something so valuable would be heavily traded in secondary markets at prices that reflect their scarcity. But, buy a new diamond and turn around and try to sell it for what you paid - you can't. They depreciate like new cars, yet we're expected to look at them as an "investment". Huh.
 
Yes, the Diamond Scam. I have not read the book but, assuming it is the same one, I heard the author interviewed on CBC Radio some number of years ago.

Some other points I remember:

  • When the Russia started producing diamonds, De Beers convinced then to join the cartel. Then, because the Russian diamonds were all quite small, the convinced us that rings with lots of small diamonds were just as valuable as rings with a bigger solitaire stone.
  • Before the end of WW2 the idea that every engagement required the boy to buy his girl a diamond ring was unknown in Japan. A few hundred-million yen in advertising later and now it is an absolute requirement.
  • If all the people who have diamonds socked away in the jewelry and safety deposit boxes were decide to cash in, the price of diamonds would fall to their true worth -- about a buck a carat.
And who says there are no conspiracies? :D
 
And why isn't there a well established market for "used" jewelry diamonds? I would expect that something so valuable would be heavily traded in secondary markets at prices that reflect their scarcity. But, buy a new diamond and turn around and try to sell it for what you paid - you can't. They depreciate like new cars, yet we're expected to look at them as an "investment". Huh.

The reason being that diamond merchants are essentially prevented from buying second-hand because then De Beers will refuse to supply them in future... and I guess selling/buying an engagement ring on Craigslist has yet to catch on due to the aforementioned brainwashing that it's what you spend that's important, not what you get for your money...

I looked into the trade in some detail after I picked up a big chunk of transparent crystal, just lying on the ground in a remote part of Namibia (like there's anywhere in Namibia that isn't remote...) and for a good while wasn't sure if it was a diamond or not. Turns out it wasn't, sadly, but even if it had been I would have been out of luck trying to sell it for anything like it would have been 'worth' as gemstones. De Beers have done an incredible job, really. Since I don't think I'm likely to ever buy one myself, and my elder brother cannily re-used 'heirloom' diamonds belonging to his fiancee's grandmother, I can only sit back and applaud them for sewing up the market in quite such a comprehensive way.
 
Not necessarily. Amethyst used to be valuable until huge deposits were found. Surely artificial diamonds will become cheaper as technology progresses, and if they are accepted as gemstones, then the price of natural diamonds will fall dramatically.

No insult; I swear: you don't get it. a gem is a gem because it is rare and if you can make it, it is fake/unnatural/yada. You have to ignore logic a bit to get this; yet there it is.

The [diamond] industry has invested quite a bit of time in promoting natural diamonds, along the technology to identify the unnatural breed.

Consider the consumer. Here's one...the bride. Let's get her a fake diamond instead of the real thing. How cool is that?

Again, here, for this, now, you have to ignore logic. One bit of logic you have to ignore is that the imperfections of a natural stone make it more valuable*.
 
Last edited:
  • If all the people who have diamonds socked away in the jewelry and safety deposit boxes were decide to cash in, the price of diamonds would fall to their true worth -- about a buck a carat.
Where would they sell them though?

More significant is the huge stocks De Beers have themselves. Production from Australia and Canada is extensive, and considerably larger than the market. So, with no credible rivals, they stockpile and continue to restrict supply and manage prices...
 
IIRC there was recently (this year?) a show on german TV (could have been an US one translated into german) where they bought diamond and tried to immediately resell them. They could never get anybody to buy them more than 30 to 50% of the "marketed" value. The bottom line is that if you want to throw money out of the window, buy a diamond. If you want to "invest" buy something else. They did not comment on the "social" aspect of diamond, but only on the investing aspect.
 
Dogs are man's best friend.

With women, it gets strange.

Ah, come on, you're as susceptible to this as she is - you plunked down the cash or other comestible to buy it for her. You thought you were just buying a good time.

Ayers was a genius - he cornered the market, and then guided the ad blitz to become the commercial powerhouse it is. There are stories about how deBeers used to store diamonds in mason jars when they became too plentiful. It's so good now that we use it to finance terrorist groups in Africa, even as we condemn them.
 
Last edited:
I don't know much about synthetic diamonds. According to this article, it doesn't seem that they are much cheaper than natural diamonds. Not by an order of magnitude anyway. If it's jewelry, and just for the sparkle, a cubic zirconium can do the trick just as well for a lot less.

I don't know a lot about diamonds, but corundum (read: rubies and sapphires) can be made to immense sizes, with mind-bogglingly high quality and clarity, with nearly any colour and colour intensity desired for far, far cheaper than the natural stones. Yet, the crappy stones are far more valuable than the good ones, since the crappy ones are clearly natural.
 
No insult; I swear: you don't get it. a gem is a gem because it is rare and if you can make it, it is fake/unnatural/yada. You have to ignore logic a bit to get this; yet there it is.

How hard would it be to make fake stones that are indistinguishable from natural?
 

Back
Top Bottom