If this technology produces real diamonds of high quality, but at cheaper cost, I wonder what its impact will be on diamond prices over time. Most likely they will decline, no?

Quality has nothing to do with it. If they were of even higher physical quality than mined gems but still reliably discernible, they would not have a significant impact on the market.

Look at it this way, the kind of person that places a high emotional value on a diamond is not going to feel the same way about a $50 diamond as they would a $3000 diamond. It's all about signalling and an inexpensive, albeit high quality, diamond does not send the same signals.

Now... if they could produce large stones that were indistinguishable from mined ones then you'd have a crack at eroding the gem market. But then the diamond cartel would just enact some sort of global "Certified Blood Diamond" program to prop up the traditional prices.

> .But then the diamond cartel would just enact some sort of global "Certified Blood Diamond" program to prop up the traditional prices.

de Beer's call this "The Forevermark"

like this : https://www.debeersgroup.com/en/building-forever/our-stories...

"Look at it this way, the kind of person that places a high emotional value on a diamond is not going to feel the same way about a $50 diamond as they would a $3000 diamond."

However, the kind of person who places a high emotional value on showing off the diamond to other people may. "Reliably discernable" by a lab is one thing. "Reliably discernable" by friends, family, and random people on the street is quite another.

AIUI they actually ARE higher physical quality: I believe the way experts tell cultured diamonds from 'natural' ones is that cultured ones have far fewer flaws. (IANADD)

But you are absolutely right of course - the physical quality is irrelevant in the market for such an emotional product.

> But investors may also like that Roscheisen is a seasoned CEO, having led the solar power tech company Nanosolar for roughly eight years previously. (It was wound down in 2013, after raising roughly $450 million in capital over its 11-year life.)

Why would an investor like this? "This guy must be good, he burned through 450 millions in 11 years!"

Look up egroups or the Wikipedia entry on him (disclosure: am an old friend of Martin's)

sorry if I was unclear, I meant that the sentence seemed a non-sequitur, I wasn't trying to argue the competence of the person.

How do they claim, "zero carbon footprint"? They don't say how they are powering their power-hungry process.

For that matter, what are they using in lieu of carbon in the diamonds in the first place? Imitation carbon?