>When you buy a mined diamond, you are paying for the story, of it being a finite thing, formed in the earth over a very long period of time. Lab grown diamonds don't have that story.

I do not know who the “you” is here, but I would bet most people that want to consume diamonds (especially mined) as an end user for display purposes want to do so to signal their (potential) purchasing power, especially amongst their network.

Although, in this day and age, diamond and jewelry in general are pretty poor status signals. In general, material objects are a poorer show of status than simply having vacation pictures from all over the world constantly showing leisure time (the more finite and expensive commodity).

The "you" here is someone buying a mined diamond. I would imagine you're right on status being one of the top reasons someone buys a diamond in the first place. There's other reasons (aesthetics, tradition), but I think the earth diamonds status as a rare expensive thing and it's artificial scarcity is what keeps them so desireable.

Yes, so my point is it does not have much to do with the story of the diamond.

I'd argue that the fact that they're rare, special things found in the earth is a big part of the story. At least from people I've talked to who prefer earth grown diamonds, this is something that's come up multiple times.

However, people always turn a blind eye to the part of the story that involves cruelty, which is largely down to De Beers excellent marketing and creation of artificial scarcity.

That sounds like industry apologetics, to me. I don't know that the population in general are that keen on geology.

I don't mean to sound like I'm apologising for the industry. I agree with you, the general population don't care about the geology of diamonds. But there's definitely this feeling that lab grown diamonds are seen as this "other" thing that "isn't real" and I think that largely stems from this mythical idea of diamonds being rare things that are found in the earth.

I think it's quite common knowledge that diamonds were traditionally mined before we were able to make them in a lab, and because of this it's seen as the default to which any other methods of making a diamond are compared.

I agree that the general population sees the ones dug out of the ground as "real" right now. I think the story being paid for is the DeBeers story though, of diamonds and marriage being inseperable, I don't think many people consider much where they came from, or consider the "rare thing dug up out of the ground" part of it particularly important in itself.

I guess I'm splitting hairs, yes there is definitely a cultural hangup about mined diamonds being "real" and made diamonds being imitations, fake, whatever. I just don't think many people care that much about the actual backstory, they just want a 'real' one. As such I think the synthetic diamond industry has a bit of an uphill struggle on its hands, but not an unwinnable one if they can convince people that theirs are 'real' too.

And to my (very literalist in many respects) mind, they are.

(edit - I will add that I have gone out of my way to source lab-created stones and silver settings to make jewellery for my partner in the past, so far mostly using star-sapphires, and she seems to have loved them. I find the idea of lab-recreated gems pretty fascinating, and I think that enthusiasm helped.)

Semi-related, but here's an interesting fact, De Beers (the company that popularised diamonds for engagement rings, hoards a huge supply, and creates artificial scarcity) has also invested heavily in lab grown diamonds: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-29/de-beers-...

They've been doing this to try and undercut lab diamond growing company's in an attempt to retain control of the diamond market in an era where lab diamonds are becoming more and more popular as people consider their ethical choices.