Diamonds on Demand
Lab-grown gemstones are now practically indistinguishable from mined diamonds. Scientists and engineers see a world of possibilities; jewelers are less enthusiastic
- By Ulrich Boser
- Photographs by Max Aguilera-Hellweg
- Smithsonian magazine, June 2008, Subscribe
(Page 3 of 3)
Credit for the modern cult of the diamond goes primarily to South Africa-based De Beers, the world's largest diamond producer. Before the 1940s, diamond rings were rarely given as engagement gifts. But De Beers' marketing campaigns established the idea that the gems are the supreme token of love and affection. Their "A Diamond Is Forever" slogan, first deployed in 1948, is considered one of the most successful advertising campaigns of all time. Through a near total control of supply, De Beers held almost complete power over the diamond market for decades, carefully hoarding the gemstones to keep prices—and profits—high. While the company has lost some of its power to competitors in Canada and Australia over the past few years, it still controls almost two-thirds of the world's rough diamonds.
Diamond growers are proud of the challenge they pose to De Beers and the rest of the natural diamond industry. Apollo's slogan is "A Diamond Is for Everyone." So far, though, Apollo's colorless gems cost about the same as natural stones, while the company's pink, blue, champagne, mocha and brown diamonds retail for about 15 percent less than natural stones with such colors, which are very rare and more expensive than white diamonds. Meanwhile, consumers may well be receptive to high-quality, laboratory-produced diamonds. Like most open-pit mines, diamond mines cause erosion, water pollution and habitat loss for wildlife. Even more troubling, African warlords have used diamond caches to buy arms and fund rebel movements, as dramatized in the 2006 movie Blood Diamond. Actor Terrence Howard wears a diamond lapel pin with Apollo stones. He told reporters, "Nobody was harmed in the process of making it."
Half a dozen other companies have begun to manufacture gem-quality diamonds using not CVD but a process that more closely mimics the way diamonds are created in the earth. The method—basically an improvement on how scientists have been making diamonds since the 1950s—requires heat of more than 2,000 degrees and pressure 50 times greater than that at the surface of the earth. (Both the heat and pressure are more than what CVD requires.) The washing machine-size devices can't produce stones much larger than six carats. These HPHT diamonds—the initials stand for high pressure and high temperature—have more nitrogen in them than CVD diamonds do; the nitrogen turns the diamonds amber-colored. For now, though, the process has a significant benefit over CVD: it's less expensive. While a natural, one-carat amber-colored diamond might retail for $20,000 or more, the Florida-based manufacturer Gemesis sells a one-carat stone for about $6,000. But no one, Gemesis included, wants to sell diamonds too cheaply lest the market for them collapse.
Gemologists plying everyday tools can seldom distinguish between natural and lab-grown diamonds. (Fake diamonds such as cubic zirconia are easy to spot.) De Beers sells two machines that detect either chemical or structural characteristics that sometimes vary between the two types of stones, but neither machine can tell the difference all the time. Another way to identify a lab-produced diamond is to cool the stone in liquid nitrogen and then fire a laser at it and examine how the light passes through the stone. But equipment is expensive and the process can take hours.
Diamonds from Apollo and Gemesis, the two largest manufacturers, are marked with a laser-inscribed insignia visible with a jeweler's loupe. Last year, the Gemological Institute of America, an industry research group, began to grade lab-grown stones according to carat, cut, color and clarity—just as it does for natural stones—and it provides a certificate for each gem that identifies it as lab grown.
The diamond-mining companies have been fighting back, arguing that all that glitters is not diamond. De Beers' ads and its Web sites insist that diamonds should be natural, unprocessed and millions of years old. "Diamonds are rare and special things with an inherent value that does not exist in factory-made synthetics," says spokeswoman Lynette Gould. "When people want to celebrate a unique relationship they want a unique diamond, not a three-day-old factory-made stone." (De Beers does have an investment in Element Six, the company that makes thin industrial diamonds.)
The Jewelers Vigilance Committee (JVC), a trade group, has been lobbying the Federal Trade Commission to prevent diamond manufacturers from calling their stones "cultured," a term used for most of the pearls sold today. (People in the mined diamond business use less-flattering terms such as "synthetic.") The JVC filed a petition with the agency in 2006, claiming that consumers are often confused by the nomenclature surrounding lab-grown diamonds.
From the beginning of his research with CVD more than 20 years ago, Robert Linares hoped that diamonds would become the future of electronics. At the heart of almost every electrical device is a semiconductor, which transmits electricity only under certain conditions. For the past 50 years, the devices have been made almost exclusively from silicon, a metal-like substance extracted from sand. It has two significant drawbacks, however: it is fragile and overheats. By contrast, diamond is rugged, doesn't break down at high temperatures, and its electrons can be made to carry a current with minimal interference. At the moment, the biggest obstacle to diamond's overtaking silicon is money. Silicon is one of the most common materials on earth and the infrastructure for producing silicon chips is well established.
Apollo has used profits from its gemstones to underwrite its foray into the $250 billion semiconductor industry. The company has a partnership Bryant Linares declines to confirm to produce semiconductors specialized for purposes he declines to discuss. But he revealed to me that Apollo is beginning to sell one-inch diamond wafers. "We anticipate that these initial wafers will be used for research and development purposes in our clients' product development efforts," Linares says.
Before I leave the Apollo lab, Robert and Bryant Linares take me into a warehouse-like room about the size of a high-school gym. It's empty, except for large electrical cables snaking along the floor. The space will soon be filled with 30 diamond-making machines, the men say, nearly doubling Apollo's production capacity. It will be the world's first diamond factory, they say. "There was a copper age and a steel age," Bryant says. "Next will be diamond."
Ulrich Boser is writing a book about the world's largest unsolved art heist.
Photographer Max Aguilera-Hellweg specializes in medical and scientific subjects.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (50)
+ View All Comments
Yesterday morning i had to visit at mountain side.there i had found a shiny crystaly made pure stone wheel like grinder which is wounderful antique.sometime i took my mind about crystal diamond made. Is this true idea about many crystal diamond in one material.
Posted by shmran afridi on May 13,2013 | 09:32 AM
What caught my curiosity was using the process to replace silicone type applications such as in computers???
Posted by TNT on February 27,2013 | 03:51 AM
Excellent article sir. One of the most well written and well thought out pieces I have read on the internet in years. Kudos.
Posted by deBeers on February 27,2013 | 03:34 AM
Oh dear, I used this for a science project without realising it was from 4 years ago =_= still, fantastic article and very interesting to read!
Posted by Em on December 1,2011 | 09:06 PM
Austin, squeezing coal may get you a diamond, but an extremely impure one. it would have to be liquefied and purified to make a decent one.The superman squeezing coal into a diamond is ridiculous.
Posted by henry on February 3,2011 | 12:11 PM
About the carbon footprint of Apollo Diamonds... being in Boston they would be buying electric power through NSTAR power delivery. And NSTAR has options for their customers to purchase electric power form numerous sources. So maybe its coal for irony of converting coal into diamond, or Hydro-Quebec, or the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, or a wind farm, or a million squirrels in hamster wheels, or one of many "NStar Green" renewable sources. It all depends on what the customer wants from a fairly extensive list. But, it HAS to be better than mined diamonds, particularly in New England.
Posted by Mike B on May 5,2010 | 08:38 PM
Thank god for this article, it saved my speech grade.
Posted by Patrick V on February 22,2010 | 10:52 PM
Oh MY! The carbon footprint of a conventional diamond is enormous. Tons of rock has to be removed and grease-processed. I'm not sure how many tons per carat, but the industry seems to be avoiding giving the answer as well. "DIAMOND MINING AND THE ENVIRONMENT FACT SHEET" from diamondfacts.org has nothing but anecdotal information. It's skillfully written PR, but ultimately, it seems to be free of significant data. For example, they tout ISO 14000 certification as if has something to do with being certified as being environmentally responsible. If I understand it correctly, ISO 14000 certification is simply about documenting what you do. For example: If a company sprayed radioactive toxins directly over urban areas, killing them, that would not bar it from an ISO 14000 certification.
Oh, and http://www.diamondnexuslabs.com/ isn't selling man-made diamonds. They're selling fakes - stuff that isn't diamond at all, like cubic zirconia.
Posted by Matthew E on February 1,2010 | 03:28 AM
To the person who asked about the carbon footprint of synthetic diamonds, have you ever considered what the carbon footprint of mined diamonds is? Underground mines are not too bad but when you consider the size holes made at some of the Southern African open-pit diamond mines and the diesel required to remove that rock (not only the kimberlite but the waste as well) the carbon footprint is horrendous. Ask De Beers for an estimate and watch them squirm!
Posted by Richard on March 6,2009 | 03:05 PM
That's is pretty enlighting article I wish the writer take more in depth research in this subject
Posted by Rushdie Ahmad on January 15,2009 | 03:50 AM
awsome article but if we start mass producing diamonds in labs diamond price will go down
Posted by viktor on January 14,2009 | 08:47 PM
I though I read someplace that you could grow diamonds at about 650 degrees or so. Perhaps they use 1800 for quality control purposes.
Posted by Ed on January 4,2009 | 12:31 PM
Matthew, you said the Diamond age is about nanotechnology. This article is about using diamonds as a replacement for silicon, as a smaller, faster, more efficient semiconductor that's much more stable. If we were to use diamonds in our computers, we would be able to eventually create nanotechnology. Don't you see how 1+1 equals 2? And as for the diamond in Great Britain, the country "got" the stone how it got it, whether it stole, plundered, or whatever. The article isn't trying to stir up trouble. Its a science magazine! Smithsonian just wants to inform. And as for the comment about these diamonds creating green house gases, that may be true, but we could possibly benefit from further research, even find a way to reduce green house gasses by converting to this diamond technology.
Posted by Rachel on November 11,2008 | 05:30 PM
To: kris, I did not say that diamond was the most stable form at ordinary temperature and pressures. It is only at high temperatures and pressures that diamond becomes the more allotrope so that graphite can then be converted into diamond
Posted by Gerald Ceasar on October 31,2008 | 05:33 PM
+ View All Comments