Samuel Ord's Key Points • The debate between natural and lab-created diamonds is a small part of a larger universal experience. • The reality of your customers is shaped more by images and stories than by the products themselves. • To keep your business relevant in a rapidly evolving market, it’s important to consider ‘big picture’ shifts in consumer perception. |
The Great Diamond Debate evokes strong emotions. Those who have firmly chosen a side may struggle to see the broader picture. Those caught in the crossfire between warring factions can easily feel overwhelmed - especially when there’s money on the line.
For decision-makers in jewellery businesses, these broad debates can affect stock and pricing decisions, as well as consumer relationships.
With that in mind, I would suggest that this debate is just one part of a much bigger story. Understanding it offers insight into how we perceive and assign value in a changing world. For retailers, the Great Diamond Debate might guide strategy and anticipate market shifts. Before we take that ‘big picture’ perspective, let’s step back in time.
In 1982, a little-known Japanese company achieved something remarkable. While the development of lab-created diamonds had been underway for more than 30 years, Sumitomo Electric shattered a significant barrier.
The company created a lab-created diamond weighing around 1.2 carats. At the time, it was widely throught that synthesising diamonds of that size was impossible. It was a landmark acknowledged in the Guinness Book of World Records. It was a milestone that hinted that one day lab-created products might rival nature itself.
Meanwhile, more than 7,000 kilometres away, British geologist Maureen Muggeridge had recently discovered diamond deposits in Western Australia. Power brokers were weighing the commission of a new mine.
The Argyle Diamond Mine was given the green light in 1983. It would evolve into one of the world’s most important sources of gem-quality diamonds and, in so many ways, reshape the jewellery industry.
In hindsight, these developments, industrial synthesis and natural discovery, set the stage
for the tension that defines the industry today.
Four decades later, retailers would find themselves navigating a landscape where lab-created and natural diamonds seemingly compete side by side.
These events were critical moments in the history of diamonds. In another corner of the world, around this time, something seemingly unrelated was happening. French philosopher Jean Baudrillard published Simulacres et Simulation, otherwise known as Simulacra and Simulation.
The book was published in 1981 and translated into English in 1983. Though abstract, his work speaks directly to the intersection of value and perception in the jewellery market.
To describe the book as ‘influential’ is an understatement. In simple terms, it examines the relationships between reality, symbols, and society. It’s a study on how symbolism is used to construct a shared understanding of existence.
It is this exploration of how symbols overtake reality that makes Baudrillard unexpectedly relevant to the Great Diamond Debate.
Since its publication, many artists, authors, and academics have drawn inspiration from Baudrillard’s work. Perhaps the most notable example is The Matrix (1999), a film in which a hacker discovers that reality is a computer simulation controlled by machines.
The cast were given Simulacra and Simulation to read during production. A copy of the book is also visible in the protagonist’s apartment during the opening minutes of the film.
Hilariously, Baudrillard actually hated The Matrix and suggested that it amounted to a crude misunderstanding of his ideas. That’s a story for another day.
Signs & Symbols
It’s French philosophy, so you won’t be shocked to hear that it is complex. I won’t bore you with the nitty-gritty; I’ll keep it simple. Baudrillard argued that in modern society, we often cannot tell the difference between what is real and what is a copy.
Copies, otherwise described as symbols or images, can become so convincing that they begin to replace reality itself. It’s an idea worth considering in any industry where perception, presentation, and trust directly shape value. Baudrillard outlines a four-stage process describing how a copy relates to the real.
• Stage one is the simplest: a copy that reflects a basic reality. Think of a straightforward staff photo taken at your jewellery store — an honest snapshot of the people who work there.
• Stage two is when the copy begins to reshape what it represents. The photo still shows the same staff; however, now there’s curated lighting, strategic positioning, or a touch of editing to create a more polished image. It remains real, but it’s already edging toward idealisation.
• Stage three occurs when the copy masks the absence of reality. People see the perfected portrait and assume your staff looks that bright, coordinated, and perfectly composed every hour of every day. The edited image becomes the expected truth.
• Stage four is the point where the copy cuts all ties to reality. It creates a meaning of its own. Over time, that edited staff portrait becomes how customers, and even the staff themselves, remember the store.
No one remembers the arguments, the late nights and the slow days, or the difficult customers; they remember the store as it is represented on that day, captured in the perfect photograph.
The real faces, real lighting, real atmosphere fade from memory. The copy no longer imitates; it defines.
Once you recognise how easily a simple photograph can drift from truth to its own self-contained ‘reality’, the next step becomes unavoidable.
We must ask where else this pattern appears. Because if something as mundane as a staff portrait can slide through these stages without anyone noticing, what happens when the object
in question carries real emotional, cultural, and financial weight?
Tomorrow’s Consumers
If you’ve stuck with me this far, I’m sure you’d agree that Baudrillard was ahead of his time. His book was published in 1981, and the dominance of the internet and, more importantly, social media was still decades away; however, he believed we were progressing toward a phenomenon he described as ‘hyper reality’.
Baudrillard argued that through media, advertising, and technology, we live our lives surrounded by copies and symbols that appear real but no longer represent anything original.
As another example, consider the social media platform Instagram. People share images and videos of their lives; however, most people limit posts to the ‘highlights’ – travel, fancy food, and time spent with friends and family.
These images and videos are usually staged, filtered, and edited. These images and videos are copies or symbols of reality, and they are refined to look perfect.
Younger users tend to become deeply emotionally invested in how they are portrayed on these platforms because many people view these accounts as a reflection of reality.
That archive of someone’s perfectly curated life becomes the perception of who they are among peers. By extension, it becomes the standard of reality.
Why does this specific example matter to you? Well, the generation raised on these curated, hyper-polished versions of life will soon make up the majority of the people standing in your store, considering spending hard-earned money.
In many ways, they’ve been trained to forget the bad days, the messy moments, or the imperfections. Their sense of what is ‘real’ has been shaped by images engineered to outshine the truth.
If that’s the filter they bring into every decision, it’s worth asking how it will shape the expectations they bring to your business.
Alright, where are you going with this?
During the research phase of the Great Diamond Debate III, it became increasingly clear that
lab-created diamonds are an exceptional example of the phenomenon described by Baudrillard.
These stones are a perfect copy that no longer anchors itself with ‘reality’ – which in this instance, would be natural diamonds.
Stage #1: In the early days, lab-created diamonds were an honest ‘copy’ of a real object.
Lab-created diamonds were initially developed to imitate natural diamonds for industrial purposes. They were synthesised as a potentially inexpensive alternative to natural diamonds, beginning in the 1950s.
It took around three decades for Sumitomo Electric to shatter the barrier mentioned earlier, and even then, the idea of using lab-created diamonds in jewellery was still years away.
At this point, the relationship between the natural and the synthetic was still straightforward.
Stage #2: At this stage, copies no longer faithfully reveal reality; however, they can hint at the existence of a reality the copy itself is incapable of encapsulating.
Another quarter-century would pass until the Gemological Institute of America (GIA) rocked the boat by introducing ‘Synthetic Diamond Grading Reports’. Of course, this was important because jewellery suppliers, retailers, and consumers rely on certification.
As lab-created diamonds increasingly gained traction in the jewellery market, advertising frequently capitalised on the traditional characteristics of diamonds as symbols of love and value.
While natural and lab-created diamonds are chemically identical, these claims ignore the fact that this meaning is historically derived from perceptions of scarcity and natural beauty – two factors that cannot be rightly attributed to lab-created diamonds. The copy had begun to alter reality.
Here, marketing subtly nudged consumers toward a new understanding of value, one less tethered to geological origins. For retailers, this meant adapting sales pitches and training staff to navigate new customer questions.
Stage #3: The copy masks the absence of a profound reality, where the symbol still appears to be a faithful copy; however, it no longer has an original.
In recent years, lab-created diamond manufacturers have significantly increased their production capacity.
In 2024, Ethereal Green Diamond showcased a 75-carat lab-created diamond certified by the International Gemological Institute.
At the time, it was described as the largest polished lab-created diamond in the world. This diamond, known as the Pride of India, broke a record set by the same company less than a year earlier.
In this very magazine, Diamond Foundry’s Martin Roscheisen suggests that his company will soon create more diamonds each year than the De Beers Group mines from the Earth.
These achievements signify a deep separation between reality and the copy. Lab-created diamond manufacturers have become so advanced that they are not only outpacing natural diamond production, but they are also producing stones that are so large and perfect that, broadly speaking, Mother Nature cannot compare.
At this stage, the ‘copy’ is no longer derivative — it is competitive, abundant, and could even be considered superior.
We also see this separation between reality and the copy in the GIA’s recent decision to alter grading reports for lab-created diamonds.
The GIA explained that, because 95 per cent of lab-created diamonds fall within a narrow range
of colour and clarity, it is no longer appropriate to use the standard nomenclature, which was developed to describe natural diamonds.
Grown Diamond Trade Organization’s Marty Hurwitz also inadvertently made this point in his contribution to the Great Diamond Debate III. He suggested that retailers and consumers can choose between ‘perfect’ and ‘very good’ lab-created diamonds, both of which are inexpensive.
Stage #4: The fourth stage is where the copy no longer has any relationship with reality whatsoever.
At this point, lab-created diamonds exist independently. They are no longer copies of natural diamonds; the symbol has become its own reality. In recent years, industry analysts and pundits have inadvertently described this phenomenon.
The supposed ‘bifurcation’ of the diamond market, where natural and lab-created diamonds were predicted to separate into entirely distinct categories, is one such example.
Other examples are found throughout this issue, where contributors have stressed that natural and lab-created diamonds both rightfully have a place in the jewellery market; however, they must be emphasised as distinctly different products.
Rapaport Group’s Joshua Freedman has documented the widespread belief that lab-created diamonds would find a final ‘resting place’ in the fashion jewellery market.
In contrast, fine jewellery would be reserved for natural diamonds.
Indeed, when it comes to lab-created diamonds, it would appear that the transformation from copy to reality is all but complete. Understanding these shifts isn’t just philosophical; it’s critical to keeping your store relevant in a rapidly evolving market.
So, what does it all mean?
If you’ve made it this far, you have my gratitude. You might outright disagree with Baudrillard – that’s fine, you’re not alone.
If you’re a decision maker in a jewellery business, you know that every choice, every display, and every customer interaction matters. With that said, you might feel that the parallels I’ve drawn between Baudrillard’s philosophy are too forced or pretentious for a discussion about the jewellery industry.
Perhaps it’s an ‘overintellectualisation’ of what is largely an economic or consumer-driven conversation. You may also think that, whatever my parents paid for me to study philosophy at university, it was a waste of money. Don’t worry, they agree with you.
You might feel that these parallels paint lab-created diamonds in a profoundly negative light – and that I’ve portrayed these stones as ‘soulless clones’ that have stolen the spotlight from natural diamonds.
Don’t get me wrong – lab-created diamonds are a testament to the relentless excellence of innovation.
So, what does it all mean? Given that Baudrillard was a French philosopher, his conclusion was unsurprisingly depressing.
He suggested that we live in a state of ‘hyper reality’. It’s a condition in which simulations, or copies, don’t just represent the real world; they replace it.
The final implication of Simulacra and Simulation is that we live in a time after the end of reality. It’s not just that we live in a world of illusions, it’s that illusion is all that’s left.
For those at the coalface of the jewellery industry, this is a reminder that perception often drives desire, and the reality of your customers may be shaped more by images and stories than by the products themselves.
It’s a dark way of looking at the world, and by making this point, I don’t mean to disparage anyone who supplies, sells, or buys lab-created diamonds. That is not my intention.
Instead, I’d rather readers view lab-created diamonds as a small piece of the puzzle on a universal tapestry. The so-called ‘Information Age’ is a never-ending spiral of symbols replacing reality, and diamonds are merely another example.
And with that in mind, let me leave you with this. Hypothetically, if Baudrillard is right, and my application of his philosophy to the Great Diamond Debate holds, consider the following:
If a copy, a lab-created diamond, can evolve into an independent entity, separate from its original, might natural diamonds have once done the same — centuries before Simulacra and Simulation was ever written?
After all, how does a simple mineral, carbon atoms locked in a perfect crystal, become the universal symbol of love and commitment?
At the end of the day, it’s still just a rock - isn’t it?
THE GREAT DIAMOND DEBATE III
Table of Contents
The Great Diamond Debate Collection