"Peter W.. Rowe," <rec.crafts.jewelry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:digt54dib7v44ibvae05meah823u3sgb2k@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:27:42 -0700, in rec.crafts.jewelry "William
Black"
> <william.black@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>I understand that their sucess was challenged until they managed to get
>>>the
>>>output of the Sierra Leonian mines under their control.
>
> Sierra Leone is/was hardly the only diamond source operating outside of
> the
> DeBeers line of control. Venezuela, Canada, Australia, and many of the
> Russian
> sources sell, or have sold, outside of the DeBeers organization to one
> degree or
> another. DeBeers is no longer a total monopoly. But they do still
> control the
> majority of the sources, and that seems to be enough.
My understanding is that the huge Kimberly mine in Austrailia and most of
the Russian sources now sell through the de Beers cartel.
de Beers 'invented' eternity rings to sell the vast quantities of small
gemstone quality diamonds produced by the Kimberly.
It makes a great deal of sense to sell this way. It turns out that
diamonds
are actually no more scarce than any other gemstone.
That's why I keep waiting for the 'other shoe to drop' with respect to
artificial diamonds.
As soon as they show up in any serious numbers the whole diamond business
may well come cra****ng down around our ears.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
>
>>>
>>>It is the 'unregistered sellers' that were causing them the problem.
>>>
>
> Or any sellers working outside of their organization, as noted above.
> But for
> many diamond sellers, it doesn't make too much sense to work outside of
> DeBeers,
> since often they'll simply get the best prices through them...
>
> Perhaps the greatest long term threat to DeBeers isn't the "out of
> network"
> sales of rough diamonds. It may well be the developing field of
synthetic
> diamonds. If available in enough quantitiy, at high enough quality, to
> cause
> serious competition with natural diamonds but at lower cost, the
> implications
> for DeBeers could be significant. Part of their response to this has
been
> the
> aggressive work to promote DeBeers as a brand name for diamonds, rather
> than
> just a source, as well as a lot of research in developing methods of
> accurately
> detecting the synthetic diamonds. Much of the current crop of yellow
> fancy
> colors, and perhaps the other fancies also being made, ARE identifiable,
> at
> least by a good gem lab if not by the average gemologist. But the
> colorless
> high quality stones that may be coming down the line in the future could
> be a
> LOT more difficult to identify with certainty, and if we end up where a
> diamond
> can no longer be absolutely identified as natural versus synthetic, the
> effect
> on diamond prices could be dramatic, at least in the higher qualities
> where this
> is most likely to be an issue.
>
>>>deBeers doesn't operate directly in the USA because their normal
business
>>>practices would be considered illegal there...
>>>
>
> Not any longer. The Antitrust / monopoly issues the justice department
> had with
> DeBeers for many years were, so far as I know, settled via a rather
large
> class
> action lawsuit earlier this year. virtually anyone who'd bought
diamonds,
> either wholesale or retail, in the U.S. during the past ten years or
> something
> like that, could, if they wished, file a claim to get some of the price
> back.
> For large dealers and sellers, it made sense to file claims. For most
> individuals, the payment funds would have been sufficiently diluted as
to
> make
> the end payout not much worth the paperwork. But whatever, the lawyers
> made a
> lot of money on the suit, as they always due, and since that settlement
> agreement, DeBeers is no longer under that cloud of prosecution here in
> the
> U.S. Even the top executives, who for many years didn't travel to the
> U.S. to
> avoid arrest here, apparently are now again free to do so if they wish.
> At
> least, that's what the news stories said. I don't have all the details
> handy.
> But as Abrasha has pointed out, they are now opening offices and stores
in
> the
> U.S.
>
> Peter
|
