The
Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece on the recent trend in using rough diamonds in jewelry. We first checked this out earlier this year when we saw the
jewelry from Diamond In The Rough, and De Beers has also used rough diamonds in their Talisman collection. The stones lack the appeal of faceted diamonds: no flashes of color, no sparkles, in fact, as the Journal says, they look downright gravel-like. The stones have a certain organic appeal and the jewelry stores like them because they are cheaper to produce and offer a chance to use stones which may not have been suitable for cutting. But one of the major caveats here is that a rough diamond isn't appraised in the same way as a cut stone and so it can be tough to know the true value of a stone. One thing that is not mentioned in the article but is a question for me is how the value of the rough diamonds will hold up over time. It seems to me that it might be hard to resell one of these once the trend fades away. I've always thought of the beauty of a diamond as being a collaboration between nature and man because it takes a skilled cutter to reveal a diamond's true beauty.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Richa Kasrija Jun 18th 2008 6:01AM
We are minner of Holy Himalayan crystals, all quartz family stones, quartz lumps (35 kg of single piece is available) and blood stone (clear red color)
We wish to supply you a rough or beads of gemstones on 15% less than your last buying price.
robin Jul 30th 2007 8:34AM
The diamond resale market is horrendous as it is. This is just another silly trend, IMO.
Will Jul 31st 2007 12:09PM
Hard to determine the true value of the stone? Sure with anything except diamonds. The true value of diamonds is that they're essentially worthless. They're incredibly common, but since DeBeers controls almost all the diamond mines in the world the supplies are completely controlled. Don't believe me? Think of how much carbon is bound up in the world between plants, animals, coal, oil and other things. Now imagine how much of that found its way underground with the dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. Imagine how much of that turned into diamonds.
interesting Aug 2nd 2007 2:11PM
its very different, you have to admit. i'll always prefer the polished look, but the pictured ring is really cool too.
carol Aug 2nd 2007 2:31PM
Nothing sparkles like a well cut,polished, faceted diamond. Why would you pay big money for something that looks like a dirty rock.
Lisa Aug 2nd 2007 2:43PM
sorry but it looks like a nasty rock. not attractive at all. i wouldn't wear one if it were given to me..
Jack Aug 2nd 2007 3:13PM
Anyone that buys a diamond for anything other than they have money to burn..is crazy. They have NO value. Want that big 3 carat beauty? Go to a pawn shop and get it for about 1500..Go to a jewerly store and spend 4500 and up..People that say they can tell the diffeence in real or not is also nuts. The fakes are now testing as real..save your money
nancy Aug 2nd 2007 4:15PM
Diamonds are actually very cheap stones. Debeers controls the pricing absolutely and has been very successful making women think that they all have to have diamonds to be happy. If you need one so bad get a cubic zirconia. They are very well made and who is going to tell the difference? Who cares! (By the way, I'm a woman and yes, I can very well afford them) It is very sick to think how we have all been brain-washed!
kellen Aug 2nd 2007 3:21PM
So do little slave boys have to dig for these?
Joseph Aug 2nd 2007 4:35PM
How many slaves have to dig for this one? Stop supporting the diamond industry!!!!!
curious Aug 2nd 2007 4:00PM
No thanks, my diamonds are my kids. They shine just fine. And they're great when they're dirty too.
DEBORAH WHALEY Aug 2nd 2007 4:16PM
THAT IS THE MOST HIDIOUS RING I HAVE EVER SEEN. DIAMOND OR NOT NO WAY WOULD I WEAR THAT ULGY ASS RING!
Tia Aug 2nd 2007 4:08PM
Diamonds are from the blood of slaves anyway...Screw DeBeers, don't buy diamonds!
Jane Aug 2nd 2007 4:19PM
I have better looking rock in my driveway
Sharanne Wick Aug 2nd 2007 4:22PM
UGLY! Not only is it ugly, I bet it costs a mint! I agree with Will's comment. Yes, I do have diamonds. They are family heirlooms. Other than that, I prefer emeralds, rubies and sapphires to look at. I wonder how many people will think this is a good idea. No, I do not wear or own conflict diamonds.
hblanthorn Aug 2nd 2007 4:27PM
having worked for Tiffany & Co. years ago, I can say this:
diamonds are worth only what the buyer is prepared to pay. When a superb cut combines with a superb stone, there is a certain beauty revealed. And many people are prepared to pay well for this beauty.
One afternoon, I saw a 100+ carat emerald cut stone being placed in the Window. I was staring at it, when the fellow inside walked out. "Ugly, isn't it"
I agreed. Then he said "but, someone will give us over $500,000 for it.
As I said, it's all in what people will pay.
Funk Aug 2nd 2007 4:55PM
has anyone ever seen the movie ' Blood Diamond'? it was a great movie in that it showed really what goes into gettin a "beautiful stone" ofcourse i want the most expensive rock on my finger when i say 'i do' but when i saw that movie... i dont want to contribute to something like that. all that 'rough diamond' is is a way to earn more money. someone will think it is amazing and pay what ever is asked for it.. and god knows its going to be a lot!
Tonni Canaday Aug 2nd 2007 4:52PM
The stone is never as important as the thought put into the gift, or the work put into the art. The ring shown has interbeauty in as much as understanding not all diamonds are conflict diamonds such as diamonds from Canada or Arkansas..
Ann Aug 2nd 2007 5:06PM
7. So do little slave boys have to dig for these?
Posted at 3:21PM on Aug 2nd 2007 by kel
Who cares? At least, the money will feed them so you won't have to.
Ann Aug 2nd 2007 5:06PM
7. So do little slave boys have to dig for these?
Posted at 3:21PM on Aug 2nd 2007 by kel
Who cares? At least, the money will feed them so you won't have to.