Talk:Diamond (gemstone)

message: On August 28, 2007, a giant gem, 7,000 carat (2x the size of the Cullinan Diamond and about the size of a coconut, with a greenish tinge) was reported discovered by a small South African mining company. Still to be confirmed, Brett Jolly (shareholder at the mine), deposited the gem to a bank vault in Johannesburg. BBC NEWS, 'Massive' gem dug up in S Africa The company announced that it asked the president of the World Federation of Diamond Bourses to make the examination next week. De Beers however stated that "the north-west province was not known for producing gems and greenish stones were even rarer". BBC NEWS, Fresh tests for 'giant diamond' World Federation of Diamond Bourses (which represents exchanges from Bangkok to Antwerp), president Ernest Blom confirmed having met with Brett Jolly, Cape Town property developer, by chance in a hotel in Sandton, and agreed to assess the gem claim. Martin Rapaport, chairman of the Rapaport Group stated that the giant gem could be worth 10 times more than the 603-carat Lesotho Promise sold last year for US$12.4 million. Mining Journal, World diamond group head to assess gem claim
It was a fraud, turned out to be a lump of plastic.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael314159 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stone of the Century

message: This page is in dire need of a rewrite. There are two typographical errors in the first sentence alone and the assertion of "thousands of years" is just wrong. 195.29.113.138 (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost 4 years later, and a rewrite still wouldn't hurt. "All the rage" is not encyclopedic language. Saberus (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just changed "all the rage"  to "popular." "Sought-after" should probably go too, as it sounds like marketing-speak. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

text: By the way, the "thousands of years" part is totally accurate, although it's been reworded to "since ancient times." Diamonds are mentioned by Pliny the Elder and in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. Zyxwv99 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly Written Addition to Wikipedia 

message: I made an attempt at improving the intro section of this article, and removed the "too short" tag.  Improvements in addition to what I have done are welcome, thanks.Theseeker4 (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrote intro section 

message: I'm utterly mystified by this diamond market and the vaunted ability of one company to dominate it.  Why aren't used diamonds readily sought after as a better buy?  After all, most of the really big diamonds have changed hands over and over again and been cut and recut over time.  What am I missing - why isn't the resale value as high as the first sale value? Wnt (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But once the diamond is placed in a new setting, who can tell?  Even if the buyer has some bias against it, why would the jeweler? Wnt (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Artificial scarcity. This happens when you have a cartel like De Beers. Diamonds simply are not worth the price you pay. 87.165.122.188 (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The big problem is the huge amount you pay for the diamond compared to the actual cost to produce the diamond. Diamonds are incredibly marked up, partly because the jewelry industry makes a lot of money from that process and partly because of the De Beers cartel control. Basically, a jeweler doesn't care if he gets the diamond from a used ring or from a wholesaler, but due to the actual wholesale price being so much below the retail price, if you sold a diamond to a jeweler you wouldn't get anywhere near the price you paid for it. The Seeker 4 Talk 23:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand.  If the wholesalers are selling the diamonds very cheaply, then how can DeBeers be responsible for the high prices?  And why isn't any jeweler on earth capable of doing discount sales, slapping a diamond in a setting without charging a large markup?  This still doesn't seem to make any sense. Wnt (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, re-reading my post it doesn't seem clear to me either, lol. What I mean is that there are two different issues at work.  First, prices are somewhat inflated at the wholesale level due to DeBeers' cartel which keeps the available supply lower than it would be without their controls, which of course drives up the prices.  Jewelers do sell diamonds for discounts at times, but their entire source of profit comes from "slapping a diamond in a setting" while charging a large mark-up. The point I was trying to make above is that retail prices are well above wholesale prices (obviously there are some exceptions) so that while you can buy a diamond ring for example, and sell it at a later date to a jeweler, you will almost never receive anywhere near as much as you paid for it. I don't pretend that I know all of the factors that influence this, but I was simply trying to explain in response to your first question that the nature of the business is to have very high mark-ups on retail items, so for someone to sell a "used" diamond to a jeweler as a better buy, they would only get a fraction of the price they paid for it originally. Since for obvious reasons most people don't want to sell a ring they bought at a 75% loss for example, it is easier for dealers to simply buy new stones on the wholesale market. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I've seen multiple source in the diamond business that say De Beers only controls about 35% - 45% of the market. The widely-cited 85% figure is apparently a vestige of a bygone era, a kind of urban legend that keeps getting quoted and re-quoted by unreliable 99th-generation sources. As for used diamonds, they do in fact constitute a substantial percentage of diamonds in wholesale inventories today. Many round brilliants were recut from pre-1919 stones, then recut again 50 years later, only to be recut a third time to Hearts and Arrows specs. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The global size of the repurchased second-hand polished diamonds segment ('recycled polished') was estimated at 0.96 billion US dollars in 2013http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullEditorial.asp?id=39407 and the market has been growing fairly rapidly in recent years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelLDN3141 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resale value 

message: Someone recently changed carat weight to mass. I just reverted it. My reasons are as follows.
1) Every field of human endeavor has its own vocabulary and vocabulary of concepts, including technical terms and terms of art. In the diamond trade, "carat weight" is a term of art.
2) As the weight article clearly states, in law and commerce weight is a synonym for mass.
3) It is not the task of Wikipedians to reform the English language. (I don't know if that's in WP:MOS but it should be.)
Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carat Weight vs. Mass 

message: So, we learn that diamonds reached ancient Rome...but then we learn that they really didn't. Might be helpful to clear up that bit.--172.190.66.132 (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Diamond (gemstone). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107014127/http://www.news24.com:80/News24/South_Africa/News/0,6119,2-7-1442_1708011,00.html to http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,6119,2-7-1442_1708011,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070318042323/http://www.rapaportdiamondreport.com:80/ to http://www.rapaportdiamondreport.com
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/themes/landmarks/diamondsutra.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worlddiamondcouncil.com/antwerp.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canadiandiamondcodeofconduct.ca/html/Code_EN_Jan_06_FINAL.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Shouldn't it be "type of gemstone"? It shouldn't change much other than stating that it is a type of gemstone. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description 

message: `` Thurain ´´ 210.14.108.142 (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  `` Thurain ´´