Talk:Diamond/Archive 6

The use of diamond as an accessory (including cutting and polishing methods) and its worth was originally recognised in India. Diamonds were exported from India before being exported from Brazil and then later Africa. Also, "diamond" is a Greek word. Is there a place in the article for this information? Media Research (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the article is, excuse me, a mess. It devoids bearing a star for many reasons including confusing statements, inconsistent semantics and bias. 66.46.103.18 21:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I heard that the DTC assortment book was modified in 2006 and is now around 14,000 price points rather than 16,000. The DTC's Russian intake decreases every year due to its agreement with the European Union competition authorities so its market share has presumably gone down (it closed a couple of mines in ZA and the new mine in Snap Lake hasn't started up yet).

I have read elsewhere that dentine (tooth enamel) is harder than diamond. Is there any truth in this assertion? --212.196.144.1 (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

- no, there isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.148.144 (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

______ The whole hardness section is severely deficient. There is no discussion of the nature of the various properties that are collectively referred to as 'hardness', no comprehension of the properties of natural diamond crystals, and far too many references to sources that are themselves deficient. Here's the text of the article with my comments in curly brackets.

"The diamond hardness{sic} depends on its purity{define purity! Also, I'm aware of at least one reference that suggests yellow diamonds containing nitrogen impurities are actually harder than Type II diamonds}, crystalline perfection {so why is it that maccled diamonds are widely reputed to be 'harder' than normal diamonds? 'Harder' in this case meaning 'more difficult to polish into a final gemstone'.} and orientation: hardness is higher for flawless, pure crystals oriented to the <111> direction (along the longest diagonal of the cubic diamond lattice).[14] Therefore, whereas it might be possible to scratch some diamonds with other materials, such as boron nitride{What type of boron nitride? Cubic boron nitride or hexagonal boron nitride? 'Boron nitride' by itself usually refers to CBN, which is NOT harder than diamond as far as I can tell, despite numerous internet references that state the contrary.}, the hardest diamonds{What does this mean: 'hardest diamonds'? Diamond is diamond! Is this a reference to directional hardness and therefore to diamonds that are aligned in the hardest direction, or does it imply that some diamonds are harder than others? In which case, there appears to be some confusion between 'hardness' and another property that is frequently referred to as 'hardness' but which is probably better described as 'difficulty in processing the rough stone into a finished gemstone'} can only be scratched by other diamonds{Not true if the articles about hexagonal boron nitride and lonsdaleite are correct}. In particular, nanocrystalline diamond aggregates were measured to be harder{Again, the use of 'harder' with no context, and a failure to understand that diamond is still diamond whether it is in the form of a nanocrystalline aggregate or a monocrystal} than any large single crystal diamond. Those aggregates are produced by high-pressure high-temperature treatment of graphite or fullerite (C60).[15] The hardness of diamonds contributes to its suitability as a gemstone. Because it can only be scratched by other diamonds{Again, if the articles about hexagonal boron nitride and lonsdaleite are correct then this is untrue. Also, Wilkes & Wilkes state that diamond can be scratched by non-diamond material - just VERY VERY VERY slowly - in other words, you could grind a diamond with a sapphire - but it'd take an enormously long time and the sapphire would get worn down vastly more than the diamond}, it maintains its polish extremely well. Unlike many other gems, it is well-suited to daily wear because of its resistance to scratching{Scratch hardness is only one of the durability factors that make diamond suitable for everyday wear; there are plenty of stones that are quite hard but unsuitable for finger rings - such as zircon, which is hard but brittle}—perhaps contributing to its popularity as the preferred gem in engagement or wedding rings, which are often worn every day. The hardest natural diamonds mostly originate from the Copeton and Bingara fields {Citation needed!!!!! Also, failure to understand that 'hardness' in this context probably refers to 'difficult to manufacture' in this case.} located in the New England area in New South Wales, Australia. These diamonds are generally small, perfect to semiperfect octahedra, and are used to polish other diamonds. Their hardness is associated with the crystal growth form, which is single-stage crystal growth. Most other diamonds show more evidence of multiple growth stages{Citation needed!!!!!}, which produce inclusions, flaws, and defect planes in the crystal lattice, all of which affect their hardness{NO - again, diamond is diamond: a heavily-included, flawed, defective diamond is still just as hard as any other diamond - not necessarily as durable, admittedly...}. It is possible to treat regular diamonds under a combination of high pressure and high temperature to produce diamonds that are harder than the diamonds used in hardness gauges{Again: diamond is diamond...}.[16] Industrial use of diamonds has historically been associated with their hardness; this property makes diamond the ideal material for cutting and grinding tools{Not necessarily! If that were true, there would be no other abrasives. There are a variety of factors which affect the choice of abrasive, such as cost, availability, particle size, friability, chemical characteristics, etc...}. As the hardest known naturally occurring material{Again, if the articles about lonsdaleite are correct, then diamond isn't the hardest NATURAL material as lonsdaleite is naturally found in meteorite craters.}, diamond can be used to polish, cut, or wear away any material{ANY material? It can't polish air, as far as I know...}, including other diamonds. Common industrial adaptations of this ability include diamond-tipped drill bits and saws, and the use of diamond powder as an abrasive. Less expensive industrial-grade diamonds, known as bort, with more flaws and poorer color {Not necessarily. Some bort has very good colour. Also, some industrial applications require the use of exteremely fine, gem-quality stones} than gems, are used for such purposes.[17] Diamond is not suitable for machining ferrous alloys at high speeds as carbon is soluble in iron at the high temperatures created by high-speed machining, leading to greatly increased wear on diamond tools when compared to alternatives{OK but, strictly speaking, this is nothing to do with hardness!}.[18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael314159 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I archived the talk page (First 5 archives). The talk page was getting way too long. Please help fix any mistakes I might have made. Each archive is about 32 kilobytes long. Abby724 23:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If you watch the History Channel about Blood Diamonds, you'd know that we must help all people immediately by giving every person a Guaranteed Income (RFID) because they had their hands cut off, all for diamonds! USA has to lead the world in ending the wage system because it is slavery! God is putting this in all people's hearts to end the wage so now we just have to do it & help millions of starving children & adults worldwide. It's very urgent! It's the only way to end all of these horrible crimes! Sundiiiaaa 03:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Helping people" by giving them "a Guaranteed Income (RFID)" is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia--Wikipedia solicits donations, it doesn't give them. Please search for NGOs (Non-governmental organizations) or advocacy groups that interest you to assist in spreading your message, if it really is your intention to "end all of these horrible crimes." Speaking to a small group of editors on Wikipedia is a waste of effort, when there are solid advocacy groups with large audiences available. If you would like to add factual material about diamonds and their economics to the article, please discuss it here first, provide references, and join in making the Wikipedia article on diamonds useful and relevant. Thanks, KP Botany 01:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. But shouldn't encyclopedia's say the truth? The wage is slavery, & employees are slaves, & corporations are slave plantations? I think that would help us to quickly end world poverty. Maybe someone could compare a corporation to a slave plantation, & mention that many slaves were able to BUY their own freedom so they were obviously paid, but not much, just like most people today (McDonalds, Wal-Mart etc)? Can we talk about this in a sandbox (where is it)? Sundiiiaaa 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 1/11/07

If Diamonds are so valueable compared to weight, why do banks refuse to keep their reserves in diamonds, but insist on Gold? It would make more sense to keep something more smaller and compact. Possibly because diamonds are continuously being made underground, whereas Gold has limited supplies, making Gold in the long run more valuable. --78.86.117.164 23:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly because diamonds really *aren't* a valuable but they are enough that not many people can sell it so, good luck reselling a diamond for even half the price you got it for. More to the point, diamonds are carbon, carbon isn't valuable, and we're getting better at manufacturing arbitrary molecules all the time. Twenty years from now on diamondoid might be a common building material. Gold, on the other hand, is a type of atom - while it can theoretically be produced via certain alchemical uses of radiation, that would be considerably more expensive than the resulting (radiactive) gold. Anaholic 03:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is another reason. While gold, as a "atom" as you say it, can be melted and form uniform pieces and stack up neatly in a vault, a bunch of loss diamond is not exactly the easiest thing to keep a inventory of. Also, diamond's value is determined on a stone to stone bases, not merely by weight(there are a lot of other factors such as color and shape). Thus there is no way to store a large amount of it and keep track of it all(values and all that). It devalue the diamond a lot if you sell it as a bunch due to possible valueing diffrnece compared to as individual stones so it's not smart. So the only easy to keep, value consistent ones are the man made ones--ones that worth nothing compared with gold because they are just pretty and hard charcoal. Note: you can't exactly melt and reform diamonds and keeping cut diamonds orderly like in a jewel store actully take ALOT of space. Besides that, everytime a diamond is cut, it usually loss valus beyond the intial cutting, so makeing them stackable or uniform in size is not economical.(68.251.251.7 00:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

Good idea, but consider that diamonds are unstable forms of carbon and will disintegrate over time. The disintegration is very slow at room temperature but can be extremely accelerated depending on what other materials a diamond is exposed to beyond approximately 700 degrees Celsius. Beyond about 1100 degrees Celsius your diamonds will either fall apart into a dusty black form (a modification) of carbon known as graphite or, if Oxygen is present, simply burn similar to a log of wood. Graphite is the only form of Carbon that is stable under (air) pressure and temperatures that humans would find comfortable. Gold on the other hand is, well, merely Gold. It is a chemical element just like carbon. Its value arises not from a specific form or modification of the element. In comparison, graphite is basically worthless for all uses of diamonds.

Consider further that if you broke a large diamond into pieces, the sum total of the value of the pieces would be less than the value of the whole diamond. In contrast, two bulk pieces of the same amount of refined gold are (essentially) worth the same as another piece of Gold equal in amount of the sum total of the two pieces.

Consider even further that mankind has developed technology to make synthetic/artificial diamonds in gem-quality of sufficient size in an economic fashion and that so made diamonds have almost reached or, for certain colored diamonds, surpassed the quality of diamonds formed by mother nature. While we know of physical processes that can turn (with lots of "help") certain elements into others, for example, Uranium into Lead, or Hydrogen into Helium, generating Gold that way would be a costly undertaking that is far from being technically and even further from being economically feasible.

Besides that, pieces of Gold may be as easily stolen as diamonds.

These considerations are just examples which do affect the value of diamonds in various ways which will hopefully make it clear why banks prefer to keep their reserves in Gold. 66.46.103.18 20:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gold is heavy and hard and can be used as a weapon, on the other hand diamond's can be used a weapon too. I pick gold(it can really make a killing[both ways])--Leira77 (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

- Actually, some banks HAVE kept diamond reserves. So this whole discussion is pointless really... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.148.144 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a link to Diamond Sutra should be included in the article?--RF 21:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The article seems to infer that the Diamond Sutra is a Tibetan Buddhist text. It is not. Although used in Tibetan Buddhism, the Diamond Sutra is in fact a Mahayana Buddhist text.

Also, Edward Conze suggests that "vajra" is misintrepeted as "diamond" in the title of the text and in fact should be translated as "thunderbolt" (a secondary meaning of vajra). He may be correct but the translation of vajra as diamond has been in use for centuries so the reference here does indeed make sense.

I think it should be mentioned that the USSR created mechines that could actually MAKE yellow diamonds (the rarest of them all). Sadly they have been dismantled but some have been restored and in use outside Russia.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.151.94.15 (talk • contribs)

hmmm... yellow rare? chuckle... An article on lab created diamonds should include this yes. SauliH 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

-Yellow and brown fancy colored diamonds are the most common colored ones. It's the pink, blue, green and red diamonds that are very rare.Garfieldt 12:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

-Actually, from what I understand:

• yes, obvious yellowish tinted diamonds that range from N to Z on the diamond color scale are the most common. I believe only 1% of all diamonds are colorless enough (D-J) to be gem quality.
• BUT, once the yellow color becomes more intense beyond Z on the grading scale and is evenly saturated to what is called a "fancy yellow" (especially "fancy vivid" or "fancy intense") then they are actually more rare than white diamonds when natural. Alhough yes, fancy colors other than yellow are even more rare than fancy yellow.
• yes, USSR created HPHT machines that can make real fancy colored diamonds (not diamond simulants but real diamonds!)
• BUT, they weren't the first to do so AND they weren't dismantled. Gemesis diamond down in Florida have bought the machines and still make fancy colored diamonds with them today, they can make any color diamond you want except colorless (the only ones that can make real colorless diamonds is newcomer Apollo Diamond.)

-Fromos 01:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Desirable fancy yellow mined diamonds are rare, relative to the quantity of near colorless. The more saturated, the more rare they are in nature. With HPHT, the opposite is true. The easiest and most available color is a fancy vivid or deep yellow (also with an orange modifier), with the most rare being a colorless or near colorless. The HPHT machines can currently only grow yellow, blue and colorless diamonds, while CVD is primarily colorless. The machines used by Gemesis and D.NEA are based on USSR technology. EEFranklin (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody should fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.157.66 (talk • contribs)

All of the statements made in the "Symbolism and the occult" section are under the one reference I added a while back, "Encyclopedia of the Occult", Spence, Lewis, 1960. All five of them are linked the the reference below, but should the whole section have that one reference instead? ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 16:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

See the Optical properties - this is ambiguous - do most diamonds fluoresce of not the middle of the paragraph says not the end says do. I'm not sure what the original contributor intended to say? Are you monitoring? --Dayorkmd 00:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)DYork

The article reads:

"Most diamonds show no fluorescence although colored diamonds show a wider range of fluorescence than the blue fluorescence normally observed in clear diamonds."

Hmmm. "Most diamonds show no fluorescence" but "blue fluorescence [is] normally observed in clear diamonds"  ?????

I don't know from diamonds, but I know a contradiction when I see one. Someone who knows diamonds needs to fix this.Daqu 04:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading that artificially created diamonds fluoresce but natural ones don't, I'll look into this a little bit later. BebopBob 04:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Natural diamonds can and do flouresce. It is a characteristic that can be exhibited in diamonds. Flouresence is used to seperate diamonds from ore. (I have yet to understand how the non-flourescing diamonds are seperated - anyone in diamond mining out there?) Blue is the most common color, yellow is less common. The Hope diamond flouresces red. The percentage of diamonds - needs to be researched, and the article needs correction. SauliH 05:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The section is confusing because it discusses fluorescence from two sources:long wave ultrviolet and X-ray. X-ray initiated fluorescence is used in the diamond ore processing by Sortex machine technology. A bit of googling returned the following:

The ore passes on a covered conveyor belt through a Sortex machine. The Sortex machine beams an X-Ray over the ore, which will cause any freed diamonds to fluoresce. When a light detector identifies the fluorescent diamonds, the Sortex machine sends a blast of air to knock the diamond off the conveyor belt and into a secured recovery chamber.

from http://sec.edgar-online.com/1997/04/14/00/0001017062-97-000644/Section2.asp - a profile of Global Diamond Resources, Inc

Also mentioned in Barren Lands: An Epic Search for Diamonds in the North American Arctic by Kevin Krajick.

Vsmith 12:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Added a section on fluorescence which should clear all this up Fromos 23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Except: the "x-ray fluorescence" discussed here is using x-rays to cause emission of visible light. This is different from what is normally meant by "x-ray fluorescence" in analytical chemistry/geology, which is using hard x-rays to generate fluorescence in softer x-rays wvaelengths characteristic of the elements making up the material. Carbon characteristic x-rays would not be useful for identifying diamonds the latter way, since they are stronglt absorbed by air and are difficult to detect efficiently. Thortveitite (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The diamond cartel is so successful that the wikipedia entry for Diamonds doesn't even mention the word cartel. 85.205.254.135 13:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know that International Gemmological Institute, has no right more to be member of the bourse in Antwerp. So I would be very carefull when you mention a company who is well know to make fake certificates. Never forget that when you bying a diamond certified or certified trough a jewellry,helas for the industry, they will sell you a false certifiate, (grading a false color or clarity or shape.In a certificate, the laboratory, will never take the responsability of the analising result. I LET YOU GUESS WHY. If you think bying a diamond for investment,you will never receive back the costprice, but much more less. Hope to help the public to be aware of the dangers.

                         James Harris

I will try to give a follow up, for the sake of the public, about the industry depending the available possibilities. james Harris

The diamond certification authorities you describe do not reflect the consensus of the diamond trade. The two main certification authorities used by the top tier of jewelers are the HRD (the official body of the Belgian diamond industry) and the GIA. Certainly laboratories like EGLUSA should not be mentioned without a caution.213.2.22.144 23:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I just happened upon this article when the first sentence correctly declared that diamonds are the hardest metal known the man. When I refreshed, this fact was replaced with some bogus information about "natural materials" or something. Everyone on the internet knows that diamonds are a metal, and not just any metal, but the hardest metal known the man. Just look at this quote from a top expert in gemology:

"Diamond is one of the hardest metals (If not THE hardest metal) known the man. Definitely much harder than anything walls are made out of these days."

-Professor Z. L. Cableemerhiemer June 13, 2005

Diamonds are harder then walls these days but do you know how much it hurts if you punch a wall?Sylvan wu 07:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

-Arn't diamonds minerals, not metals? Garfieldt 12:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

-This is strange to me. Earlier in the article in the Electrical Conductivity section it states that diamonds are either insulators or semiconductors. Metals, by conventional definition in material sciences, are conductive. I can only surmise that this is a misprinting of the "hardest material" as can be found on pages such as www.webelements.com or any other number of web sites that do thorough checking on their science. And though diamonds is a mineral so is silver, which is a metal. If there is a reliable source that claims diamond to be metal please provide it as the references that I found with a google search found it quoted by a mock-encyclopedia and myspace sites. It is possible that the term "metal" is being used in some other fashion, though I don't think that is the case.

-Chemgarcia 07:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Chemgarcia, this is, as the date shows, a very old comment. The article does not state that diamonds are metals. Maybe I missed it, so copy and paste if it's still there.KP Botany 01:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The diamond is a metal statement is an insertion made by a vandal under different user names/IP's see this recent block User:Incrediblechicken. If it rears it ugly head please report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for immediate blocking. SauliH 04:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Diamonds are pure Carbon which is by no means a metal. They exhibit no metallic properties whatsoever. This is WRONG and needs to be changed.70.51.139.101 07:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So is diamonds a mineral or metal?Sylvan wu 00:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clear up for all of you, it's a nonmedal (due to the fact it's made of carbon alone, usually and any such pure carbon compound have nonmedal properties), does no body here learn chemistry. And mineral is defined as a natural occurring homogeneous solid with a definite chemical composition and highly ordered atomic arrangement made by inorganic process. No where does it say that it have to be a medal/nonmedal. which means one can be both. iron is a medal and a mineral while ice or H2O, is a mineral but not a medal. By the way, i suck at English, I'm a Chinese. and Diamond is not the hardest material, it's the 3rd(or 4th, there is no mention of Beta carbon nitride, which is believed to be harder, although extremely difficult to creat, thus proof well). But it IS the hardest MINERAL, because all the harder stuff is man made, thus not natural occuring. a nonregistered user, and hopefully know what I'm talking about. if i'm wrong, please correct me, but i'm pretty sure on the defination of mineral since i'm studying it right now (68.251.149.2 22:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

You know, with a bit of research into the world of memes, one can figure out what Sylvan wu was talking about. He didn't make a typo, by the way, diamonds are the hardest metal known the man. known the man.

some kid said this on some forum and it leaked to outsider sites. my guess is that it was ebaumsworld. well anyway, it was just some stupid quote so pay him no mind.

Besides, DETHKLOK is the hardest metal known the man. Nice job Sylvan wu, but you had your fun. Someone take a gander over at Encyclopedia Dramatica and you'll be able to figure these obscure inside jokes for yourself. Vicious203 12:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

lol, I'm pretty sure musical refrence is not the right stuff here. Besides, you can't exactly say what is the hardest medal after reading the aticle, all the stuff that's hard here are carbon based, I believe, thus non-medals. Besides, Sylvan wu is using the wrong defination of hard. If you make a diamond in just the right shape and punch it, it's gonna break to shreads(perfect cleavage). Hardness is not how painful it will be to punch it, it is the resistence to scraches. I think it's elasticity or something like that that determines how "hard" it will be when you punch it(the resistence to change??). Will someone look up that term? And once again, lol to the little animition thingy.(68.254.80.86 23:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

Would anyone else be interested in a WP for this subject. I see a lot of holes that could use expansion. Anyone? SauliH 17:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Diamons are NOT METAL, their of carbon... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.234.72 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

there is too much vandalism going on.--F3rn4nd0 ^{BLA BLA BLA} 18:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

and i quote "Diamondsare forever, They are all I need to please me, They can stimulate and tease me, They won't leave in the night, I've no fear that they might desert me. Diamonds are forever, Hold one up and then caress it, Touch it, stroke it and undress it, I can see ev'ry part, Nothing hides in the heart to hurt me. I don't need love, For what good will love do me? Diamonds never lie to me, For when love's gone, They'll lustre on. Diamonds are forever, Sparkling round my little finger. Unlike men, the diamonds linger; Men are mere mortals who Are not worth going to your grave for. I don't need love, For what good will love do me? Diamonds never lie to me, For when love's gone, They'll lustre on. Diamonds are forever, forever, forever. Diamonds are forever, forever, forever. Forever and ever. is the hardest".... ???? the fuck???? i'll change it back... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.255.66.194 (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

shouldn't there be a sup topic on famous diamonds? like the kohi-noor and the hope etc.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.139.81 (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

== Commodity Fetishism == ɘ ɵ ɤ ɘ ɵ ɤ ɘ ɵ ɤ

A link to this subject has been entered on numerous occasions, and I have removed it for the following reasons -

1. The See Also section is intended for related articles. Articles that relate to the topic of Diamonds in this instance.

2. Commodity Fetishism is a Marxist theory that relates to luxury goods, and at present makes absolutely no discussion of diamonds.

3. Due to there being no relationship, the link is made purely on the supposition that Diamonds are an example of a luxury good that fits the theory of Commodity Fetishism.

4. An example is insufficient grounds to make the reference to the other article, when one could apply this suppositional POV to ANY consumer good. That would mean that simply on someones whim the article Television could be referenced to that article because they felt it was an example of Commodity Fetishism

I will be removing any link made to this article. SauliH 05:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How can you list famous diamonds without Neil Diamond, Dustin Diamond, or Lou Diamond Phillips!? Thank you, and goodnight. Vicious203 12:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether diamonds should be termed valuable or expensive is important. When an appraisal is done on an item, it is valued at market value - ie the price a willing buyer and a willing seller will pay. If an item is expensive it connotes that in relation to that market, the item is 'overpriced' ie the price is too high. Conversely, a cheap item is an item that is underpriced. When you compare diamond and graphite you are comparing apples to oranges. To pay $25 for a graphite drawing implement may be expensive, but to pay $1000 for a 1 carat diamond of excellant quality is cheap. To correctly state that diamond fetches a high price than graphite, is to state that it has more value. For this reason I am reverting the recent edit. SauliH 03:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Word meanings are not always universal, and I disagree that "expensive" always carries semantic connotations of overpricing. (It doesn't, not for me.) For me it just means that the market price is objectively high, regardless of its market equilibrium.

For me, valuable is slightly irrelevant to price; air is valuable, but cheap, for example.

I've been in a couple of similar situations, and I think the best way to resolve these problems is to come up with a paraphrase. ;) We need one that doesn't use "valuable" or "expensive." --Kjoonlee 04:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with costly. Thanks for the compromise. SauliH 04:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

According to an article at diamondregistry.com from 2008, they assert that diamond prices will continue to hold up because even in a recesion, demand will outstrip supply. Click here for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.12.252 (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The following quote is from The New York Times web site: "At one of Alrosa’s cutting shops in one of Moscow’s outer districts, Aleksandr A. Malinin, an adviser to the president of Alrosa, showed a typical collection that might become the basis for such an investment vehicle. The gems fit in a felt box about the size of a laptop computer. The larger stones, a circular-cut 10 carat flawless white and a princess-cut yellow, were estimated at about $400,000. The smaller ones ranged from $16,000 to $100,000. But the value of the box, while surely several million dollars, is something of a mystery just now given the depressed market. How the buy-in price for the stones will be set, and how the company will determine when the price goes up and down, is unclear, Mr. Malinin said. “We have to tell people that diamonds are valuable,” he said. “We are trying to maintain the price, just as De Beers did, as all diamond producing countries do. But what we are doing is selling an illusion,” meaning a product with no utility and a price that depends on the continued sense of scarcity where there is none." Here is the page (registration required): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/business/global/12diamonds.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&em John richard leonard (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The recent addition of overabundant fact tags to, in some cases, every sentence in a section is quite absurd and renders the finished page ugly and difficult to read. The material in the article when the FA status was achieved was very well referenced with the general references, now a citation fanatic seems intent on disrupting the flow of the article with ugly fact tags all over the place. It seems to me that the vast majority of these tags are quite unneeded. Please only apply them to possibly controversial material and not to generally common information that is available in a variety of general refs. Vsmith 16:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I admit I am a citation fanatic. The article lacks direct citations of assertions made which require a specific source for verification. I acknowledge that I did go somewhat overboard, and am jhappy with a toning down of the tags. I would hope that this article can have a greater level of citation applied to it. to bring it back up to FA status. Cheers. SauliH 21:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if it is not cited, it shouldn't be there in the first place. It's good to use the fact tag, in all cases where information is not cited, so people can either cite them or remove the none cited sentence/information. --78.86.117.164 23:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello My name is erhan and I m from Turkey,I like to read more information about TTLB TTLC colored diamond and how do they priced? also I like to read and see the color grade of TTLB and TTLC diamond ..

At present certain topics are discussed throughout the article, despite there being specific sections for their discussion. For instance the usage of diamonds is discussed throughout the materials section, even though there is a whole subsection dealing with diamond usage. Someone could copyedit the article with this in mind. SauliH 22:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Diamonds cannot form beneath oceanic crust because the lithosphere is too thin to reach the pressures required for diamond stability" gets it more or less backwards. The temperatures at which diamonds form are high compared to the Earth's surface, but low compared to the Earth's ambient temperature at the appropraite depth. Within the Earth, pressure is a function of depth, without much lateral variation. The significant difference between ocean and stable continent, where diamonds are concerned, is one of temperature, not pressure -- at sufficient depth to reach the required pressure, oceanic mantle is too hot to produce diamonds. Thick cratonic lithosphere is required because it's colder than the rest of the mantle, and reaches the appropriate depth for diamond formation.

204.112.133.75 05:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(Went ahead and corrected it. I've tried not to alter the writing style or structure.)

204.112.133.75 05:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Diamonds....Beautiful arent they?

Actually this whole section is extremely difficult to read. And many of the statements seem to be out of order. ie:"Diamonds rise to the Earth surfaces in molten rock, that commence at substantial intensity (What commences? Rocks? Diamonds? What do they commence doing? What is intense?). Diamonds cannot form beneath oceanic crust because the oceanic mantle is too hot at the appropriate depth. Diamonds that contain tiny amounts of other elements dramatically change the electrical properties of diamonds (this section has little to nothing to do with the preceding and following statements). Thick continental lithosphere is cooler than asthenosphere at the same depth, reaching the required pressure at a low enough temperature for diamond stability." I suggest someone with knowledge on the subject thoroughly edit it.colincbn

It seems someone has cleaned up this article beautifully. What else would it need to regain its featured status? Colincbn 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The duration of formation of "1-3.3 billion years" was not cited for source and is most certainly orders of magnitude wrong. Some diamonds can form in milliseconds via impact. Is there perhaps confusion with the two time spans where diamonds erupted to the surface? Also no links or discussion of comet-delivered, black, carbonados and the new allotrope of carbon: lonsdaleite(?)(Mstreman (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC))

All tons are not the same. A “long ton” equals 2,240 pounds; a “short ton” 2,000 pounds; and a “metric ton” 2,204.62 pounds. International data are usually cited in metric tons, see Ton#Common abbreviations. And yes, this is confusing. Antonio Carlos Porto 22:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the link given after the sentence about jewellers noticing a correlation between cleanliness and the marriage quality. It's a fairly dodgy site. Naysie 23:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

82.196.41.2 15:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC) The diamond article has suffered vandalism. Under the section on hardness the text has been recoloured and an "I love wikipedia" message added.

Has been fixed. Anyone can restore a page to an unvandalized revision, see Help:Reverting on how you can help. Femto 15:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Diamond is the hardest natural material known, scoring 10 on the relative Mohs scale of mineral hardness[2]

Thats a bit of an odd way to put it. Diamond was CHOSEN to be mineral #10 on a scale that has 10 minerals. It didn't "score" a 10. That would imply that 10 had some meaning independent of diamond. Diamond was labled 10. So in mohs scale, 10 just means "diamond". Brentt 22:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. SauliH 00:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The spelling in this article varies from American english to "British" english depending on the editor who has contributed. For instance we have this sentence with a variety of color/colour

When the color is saturated enough in yellow or brown diamonds, a stone may be referred to as a fancy colored diamond by the gem trade, otherwise they are graded for colour in the normal colour range of white diamonds.[citation needed] Colored diamonds contain impurities or structural defects that cause the colouration, while pure or nearly pure diamonds are transparent and colorless.

Wikipedia policy on spelling standardization is here, and offers little help except to state that we should standardize the article in one spelling standard. Which should we standardis/ze with? I am Australian (British english) but live in the US so I can go either way, and really have no opinion. Something should happen though. I do not want to change them to one or the other at this point AND I think we should all have this discussion before we leap into it and annoy others. SauliH 18:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As both are "standard", I would say go with the usage that's used more frequently in the whole article now, and stick with that for the future. --Fru1tbat 18:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As I read the article it appears to me that American english is more in use. But all spelling looks correct to me these days, so picking out the variants is not as easy. If the weight of the article is towards American spelling than the manual of style leads us in the direction of most common spelling variance. What spelling variation does the article appear to lean towards to you? SauliH 18:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

When the article became a featured article, the spelling was consistently American English. -- Jasper 06:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I standardized the spelling to the American style. I did this based on the fact that the section of this article that refers to a diamonds color is titled "Color" as per American spelling standards. If anyone takes exception to this by all means change it back but I request you change every use of the word including section names in order to maintain standardization. I think this should settle this issue. --colincbn

Garry Holloway asked me (via private e-mail) to change the spelling of IdealScope to Ideal-Scope. Since www.idealscope.com redirects to www.ideal-scope.com, I made the change. He also asked, "if it is within [Wikipedia's] rules", if Ideal-Scope could be "a hyper link to www.ideal-scope.com". Since GemEx is already a link to gemex.com, this seemed reasonable to me. While I was at it, I cleaned up the paragraph's grammar. -- Jasper 07:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was reading this article when I noticed that it said diamond is the third hardest material known, but then later goes on to state that diamond can be stratched by 4 other materials. If this is true, then wouldn't diamonds be the fifth hardest material? First of all, it can be scrached by other diamonds, thus 3 possible "scracher". Then it is believed that Beta carbon nitride is harder than it and can scrach it, although that is not writen on this page. I'd like somebody review that because on Beta carbon nitride site it says it's harder than diamond while there is no mention of it here. That makes 4.(68.76.217.119 23:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

I made a quick search for the claim that Borazon is harder than diamonds, and some sources tell that that diamond is instead the hardest of the two [1]. A related question is whether we can use "Cubic boron nitride" instead of "Borazon". Tizio 12:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

borazon is ge's tradename for cubic boron nitride, first made in 1957, patented in 1969. at one time, it was believed to be harder than diamond, but since hardness of diamond varies, this is hard to nail down. Bob Emmett (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Let us put it this way, best quality diamond is harder than best quality borazon. Indeed, diamonds often contain inclusions or extended defects which might reduce its hardness. Materialscientist (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, as prestigious as this article is, I don't seem to see a section in the article relating to the value of diamonds and how its determined, that is a ver important aspect. 192.30.202.20 00:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there has been many cases in the past with South African/Israeli firms price fixing. However, it goes largely uncovered on the media. BBC mentioned it. There was a couple of cases in 1990's. It would also make sense to see other value and price related information on this article. --78.86.117.164 23:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

could somebody write some thing on the chemical structure please

Do you mean "crystal structure"?. The chemical structure is just lots of carbon atoms, each bonded to 4 others. The crystal structure is a more detailed description of how they are arranged.Thortveitite (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to include specific information on proprietary cuts? I have been given a lot of information on the Hearts on Fire cut, but can find no source, other than the company itself, stating the this cut is better than the Ideal cut. --Iscariot40 03:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Iscariot,

You might want to add notable cuts to the Diamond cut page. Specific, verifiable details are more appropriate than generic, weakly-supported claims.

Technical details about the distinguishing features of proprietary cuts might be interesting. For example: Does the cut have a different number of facets? Where are any extra/missing facets? Does the claimed number of facets count the girdle? (The standard cuts' facet counts do not count the girdle facets.) Does the cut have a painted or cheated girdle? Does the cutter consistently achieve angle variations less than one-quarter degree? less than one-tenth degree? What pavillion and crown angles does the cutter aim for? What (quantified) facet-lengths does the cutter aim for?

What dimensions are normally used to measure the stone? For example, square cuts are measured across the flats, not along the hypotenuse. Is the cut designed to maximize carat weight, regardless of cross-sectional area?

You allude to WP:NPOV issues when describing the appearance of the cut. If notable reliable sources, preferably other than the manufacturer, the distributor(s), and retailer(s), consistently describe a very obvious distinguishing feature of the cut, you might want to mention it. If the difference is comparable to that between the ideal round brilliant cut and the Portuguese cut, it is probably worth mentioning.

Some historical information might be useful. When was the cut first designed? When was it first sold? Has the designer registered a patent or copyright on the cut? Is the patent or copyright limited to particular countries? Has the patent or copyright been challenged? Is the design now in the public domain?

-- Jasper 15:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this statement is misleading as Asscher and cushion cuts are not "newer cuts". Cushion cut is older that round brilliant and the asscher was created in 1902. "Newer cuts that have been introduced into the jewelry industry are the "cushion" "radiant"(similar to princess cuts, but with rounded edges instead of square edges) and "Asscher" cuts." Blondiebebe 14:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. That whole part has to be rewritten. To call Asscher new, is in fact totally absurd. Philip Youngman for example is a fairly famous, multiple award winning cutter, who developed a new diamond cut (which he patented) more recently. And like him there are more. The innovation comes from a whole group of new cutters especially in America these days, which started in the 1950's and 1960's in California (Henry Hunt amongst others) and in Idar Oberstein (Erwin Pauly, Bernd Munsteiner and a few more.) Whilst many focused on gemstones in general, some in fact developed innovative new diamonds cuts as well. I would be a bit more reluctant with manufacturers... and their cuts.. since there is a clear trend in the industry for branding of gems/diamond cuts. Like patents in technology, (much weaker) design patents + trademark of a name for the cut, are the trend these days. Especially since internet retailers are carving out the market for normal cuts. BE CAREFUL therefore not to fall into a propaganda trap. Individual artist who see their cuts reward with some award (like de beers, AGTA or other) are a different story. That's where a lot of the innovation comes from, if you want to mention specialty cuts. Gem-fanat 23:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A section for diamond cutting styles would be great. Ragemanchoo 15:24, 3 September 2007

I was actually wondering is there was anyone who might know if there are any Piezoelectric properties in diamonds. I know that a fair number of natural and synthetic crystals exhibit this property, and I also know that carbon, when its molecular structuring is right, has conductive and super-conductive properties. I'm just wondering if anyone has ever done tests on these properties with the common diamond? and if so, where might I find the research?

also, I've just read, that boron-doped synthetic diamonds, at super-cold temperatures, are in fact super-conductors, and research is being done to find out more. (site: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/carbon-04h.html)

but unfortunately, this still doesn't answer my question. if one were to set it up right, and apply mechanical stress to a diamond(synthetic or natural) would it exhibit any piezo-electrical properties, i.e.- convert said stress into electrical energy?

ok you're mixing quite a few things here. Superconductivity has nothing to do with piezo-electricity (either stress or heat induced) and crystal structure IS important. Having said that I have not heard of Diamonds showing piezo electric properties such as tourmaline or of course quartz have. Gem-fanat 23:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)М

A WORD ON DIAMOMD PLACERS? OFFSHORE DIAMONDS?

The Golden Jubilee was surpassed by an unnamed 555.55 carat diamond cut in Belgium in 2004 (I've also mentioned this on the GJ discussion page). See the Guinness entry. --Anshelm '77 22:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Diamond is the hardest diamond known by mankind and the third-hardest known diamond after diamond and ultrahard fullerite. It is also a metal known the mam. Its hardness and high dispersion of light make it useful for industrial applications and jewelry."

Seems like vandalism to me. DJLarZ 13:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism has been reverted. --BorgQueen 13:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a stupid joke if you ask me--Leira77 (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The largest rough diamond in the world has just been found in the North West province of South Africa. It is about twice the size of the Cullinan diamond. Can the article be modified please to reflect this new information? --87.185.217.97 22:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It has still to be confirmed as BBC NEWS said, and it is not yet official.

--Florentino floro 14:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And it will take until next week (or even longer) before "the stone" will be verified or not [[2]] 141.2.22.211 13:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If its real, I doubt its gem quality. People like the tout the Sandofu(sp?) thing about a lot, but its a low-quality stone.Ragemanchoo 15:26, 3 September 2007

I'm wondering, whether we will ever hear of that thing again. Now it's tuesday and there's still no news on the "giant gem" at all. Nothing, nowhere. According to the last press releases ([[3]], [[4]]) the stone should have been already examined. 141.2.22.211 15:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the last news about the stone (which i found via LexisNexis, therefor i have to include it here), its owners seem still to be hestitant to get it scrutinized:

The sparkle in what is believed to be the biggest diamond the world has ever seen appears to be getting dimmer and dimmer. It is now almost three weeks since Brett Jolly hit the headlines claiming he had in his possession a large green stone that may, or may not, be the biggest diamond the world has ever seen. Jolly's claimed the so-called "Jade Giant" diamond, which, if authentic, would be twice the size of the Cullinan diamond, was 8 120 caratst. Jolly, the director of Two Point Five Group and guardian of the stone, said half the world has called him a charlatan. The other half congratulated him. This comes amid claims this week by a Cape Town pensioner who lost nearly R10 000 in a timeshare scheme run by a company whose chief executive officer was Jolly. Thousands of others across the country reportedly also lost money in the timeshare deal. But Jolly, a British property developer based in Cape Town, claims he lost R8 million through his involvement with the company and later brought a liquidation application against it in the Cape High Court. World Federation of Diamond Bourse president Ernest Blom - the man who will decide if the giant stone is a diamond or not - told the Tribune he still has not seen the stone. "Jolly and his partners have stashed the diamond away. Its location is being guarded. I am hoping to see the stone this week." (Sunday Tribune (South Africa), September 16, 2007, Page 4 (Section: News))

I think it would be better to curtail the paragraph. A short mention should do. And if there will be no confirmation until the beginning of october i recommend to erase the whole paragraph. 90.186.163.111 10:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

- It turned out to be a fake. See here for details... http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=581515 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.148.144 (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I heard my professor of chemistry say that diamonds revert back to graphite, although very slowly. Does anyone know if this is true and how long this process takes? 24.136.88.151 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Millions of years, at least. I would ordinarily think that it would be longer than the amount of time required for hydrocarbons to rearrange to more stable isomers (which I estimate as longer than the current age of the universe), since such a massive structural reorganization must occur, but perhaps I am wrong; Chemical Principles by Steven Zumdahl says that Beri Bousera, a giant slab of graphite under Morocco, may have originally been diamond. So we are looking at a time scale of millions to billions of years. Bbi5291 23:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it really depend on the envirment. Under normal envirment(we consider this as room tempture at 1 atm) it will take a long time, a few million to billion molecule a second kind, based on surface area of slow, or a few grams a billion years or something(size of diamond play a role, the center is not going to change until the shell does first because the shell will hold the center with pressure, chmically and physically, and only if it losens due to the shell's reverse does the center begin to change.) But if it's in vacuum or if it's in high heat, or both(the opposite of creation of diamond) it will go a bit faster as the condtion become more extreme. Excuse my English, I can't spell please edit a bit. (68.76.217.119 23:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)) There are reasons why we must treat diamond carfully. becasue is we don't then i would turn into an big ol chunk of rock--Leira77 (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As a teenager, I saw a heartbreaking educational video at school, which I wish was available on YouTube or somewhere. A diamond was heated in air with a powerful laser. After it got hot enough, it started blackening, and turning into layers of graphite which peeled off. They they burst into flames. All this happened in a couple of minutes, at a few hundred degrees with oxygen around.Thortveitite (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a separate section? A mention and details of EGL is welcome. --Connection 11:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Diamond (gemstone)

This article was pretty big, and it seems that diamonds as a subject can be broken down between use as a mineral and as a gemstone. With that in mind, (WP:SIZE) I created a new article for discussion of diamond as a gemstone per WP:SS. I left the diamond industry here as it discusses both uses. Anynobody 05:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Add a uses section. Obviously they are used as jewelery, but they have other uses. Malamockq 21:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The information itself is present in diamond#the diamond industry, at the very least. Someguy1221 00:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I found a link on GIA's website with the locations of the DTC equipment that identifies synthetic diamond http://www.giainstruments.co.uk/worldmap.cfm --60.242.173.247 (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is an excellent information page

http://www.thediamondguru.blogspot.com/

Hope this helps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.76.235 (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The article states that there are large diamond trading houses dealing in conflict diamonds. I do not accept this but if any evidence is available of this it should be referenced so that readers can make there own mind whether it is factual or just speculation, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.24.53 (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Rhenium diboride is harder than diamond. This should be added to the page. Misterguch (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Several companies claim to be able to produce diamonds that include flaws which are indistinguishable from natural diamonds. According to some articals it's led the Diamond cartels to add serial numbers to diamonds to denote "real" diamonds. Shouldn't this deserve a mention or some research? Manic-pedant (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The article states that diamond is the fifth hardest known material, but then only gives three materials as stronger 24.252.195.3 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The section is dubious and I removed it. Someone readded it, again stating diamond was the fifth hardest substance, and listing five(!) harder substances - by my math, this would place diamond at sixth. So, I have removed it again. Now, the ultrahard fullerite article states it is not as hard as diamond, as does the cubic boron nitride article. Rhenium diboride is only harder than diamond in certain directions, due to extreme anisotropy. Aggregated diamond nanorods are the only substance for which the article backs up being harder than diamond. Neıl 龱 10:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be corrected:

"Some White dwarf stars are believed to have a carbon core. The largest diamond found in the universe, so far, is located 50 light years away in the constellation Centaurus. The Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics believes the 2,500 mile-wide diamond was once the heart of a star. It is estimated to be ten billion trillion trillion carats, more or less."

This is NOT a diamond! Yes, it consists of carbon, and it may have nuclei of carbon placed in a grid somewhat similar to diamond, but the grid is much much denser! At white dwarf's density of ~1000 kg/cm^3 it is not a diamond but a electron-degenerate matter, with properties vastly different from diamond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.207.196 (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous commenter is quite right, electron-degenerate carbon nuclei is not remotely comparable to diamond, regardless of the crystalline configuration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptschneider (talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree and removed. Will try to fit it somewhere in a carbon/carbon allotropes related article. Materialscientist (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to have adopted at least 2 materials that claim to be harder than diamond. However, as far as the mainstream "ultra-hard" scientific community is concerned, there is NOTHING harder than diamond.

In 2005 Dubrovinskaia, et. al. published a paper in Applied Physics Letters on a material called Aggregate Diamond Nanorods. To date there has been NO other publication reproducing their results.

Reproducibility is part of the scientific process. The Wikipedia community should not embrace the results from a paper that was published 3 years ago and has yet to be reproduced. Hard materials are extremely useful industrially, if the scientific community embraced (or at least were able to reproduce) the results from Dubrovinskaia, et. al., there would be an indication of that in the scientific literature. An example in contrast would be the results from the 2007 Science paper by Chung et. al. on rhenium diboride. In less than 1 year after its publication 3 other research groups have reproduced their results.

The results of Dubrovinskaia, et. al., as they currently stand, are a curiosity at best and should be stated as such, NOT as fact. Diamond has been shown to be the hardest material known by dozens of different tests, time and time again. One article that has shown a limited number of tests that cannot be reproduced by the mainstream scientific community cannot be adopted as fact.

After reading the article on aggregate diamond nanorods and with experience in the field of ulta-hard materials, allow me to offer a different view of the results. Dubrovinskaia, et. al. did not produce a new material; they simply produced nanocrystalline diamond. Hardness is nothing more than the ability to prevent a crack. If the particle size of a material is decreased, then the hardness is increased because the grain boundaries are strengthened (see the Hall-Petch relationship). They failed to prove that their material is anything other than small particle diamond. May I also point out that they even state that that is what they made in the given name of the material. Even if the scientific community published 100 papers confirming the results of Dubrovinskaia, et. al., there is nothing that proves that this is a new material. It would only prove that the traditional hardness measurements of diamond should be inflated. Aggregate diamond nanorods are not some new allotrope of carbon, they are simply man made diamond on the nano-scale.

As mentioned in an earlier post, the page on fullerenes no longer lists ultra-hard fullerene as harder than diamond. This is because the claims of the initial discoverers have not been accepted.

This article should be updated to reflect current scientific fact and not unproven scientific curiosities. (Shalomamigos (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

In the discussion of diamond's material properties, shouldn't some mention be made of its thermal conductivity? Search for diamond in the article on thermal conductivity. Diamond has the highest thermal conductivity of any material, which is odd since it is an electrical insulator. Tthermal conductivity in diamond is achieved through a different mechanism than for metals, which are good electrical conductors as well as good thermal conductors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermanoere (talk • contribs) 17:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add a few words about potential health risks for mine workers, e.g. after the section about "blood diamonds".

Mine workers can be x-rayed very often to make sure they do not steal diamonds by swallowing them. However, irradiating people several times a week or even a day can increase their risk to get cancer. See e.g.:

http://books.google.de/books?id=raO8jHBdDhYC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=diamond+mines+x-ray+workers&source=bl&ots=Kt7BmSTcDE&sig=kIYStKma3gFYKU5wNIBgQQExxng&hl=de&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA26,M1

or (german source):

http://www.greenpeace-magazin.de/index.php?id=3507

or (the same babelfished, x-ray = roentgen):

http://de.babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greenpeace-magazin.de%2Findex.php%3Fid%3D3507&lp=de_en&btnTrUrl=%C3%9Cbersetzen

Nevermore4ever (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Regards, Goldpan (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)goldpan

I wish to correct the claim made about the Crater of Diamonds State Park, as being the only park open to the public.

I regulalry go fossicking for Diamonds in Australia, at a Free fossicking site, unlike the above pay dig. It is called Staggy Creek and is located near Inverell and Copeton in NSW.

Copeton and Bingara were the main Diamond Fields in Australia, until the discovery of the Argyle AK1 pipe in 1979.

The names of Copeton and Bingara need to be added into the section on Diamond Hardness, preceeding the New England area.

These ultra hard Diamonds were known as Can-ni-faire (cannot be cut) by the Antwerpt Cutters, when Bingara/Copeton Diamonds were first exported to Europe, starting around the 1870s.

The section on Toughness needs mention of Cleveage Plane, as contributing to, as is currently put - fragility in some orentations!

The coverage of Diamonds in Australia and their importance on a world scale is sadly lacking, in the present article. No mention has been made about the very high concentrations (by world standards) of AK1 Diamonds, nor the prolific output of Argyle since mining started in the mid-80s.

The last sentence of the section on color, quotes a blue diamond sale price, without giving a carat weight, this makes the $8m price tag, as a comparision to presumedly other gems, meaningless.

Regards, Goldpan (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)goldpan

The article has been unprotected. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Diamonds are like crystals.....mostly but not. My friends are doing on other topics though so I am not that sure how diamonds are formed. But I am happy that Wikipedia can tell me about it...I feel lucky to be a member and comment on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmaine135 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Possibly the article Quasicrystal may of interest, but not sure if it is used in diamond terminology. SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

NPR reports Canada is the third largest diamond-producing country in the world. This is not what the current map shows. It would also be nice if this were available in list or table format. -- Beland (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

((EditSemiProtected))

Article says: "when they started to arrive in quantity, from Australia in the 1870's."

The apostrophe should be removed. It is neither a contraction nor a possessive.

It should read: ". . . in the 1870s." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianacoon (talk • contribs) 15:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Can the diamond dust be electrically charged? Is it possible to capture the diamond dust with electrostatic method? Nitin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitinsomkuwar (talk • contribs) 13:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I just happened to run into this article, which says that some researchers studies some other substances and found that they were 18 and 58% harder than diamonds... Can this be included into this article or should we wait for some magazines like New Scientist or Laboratory News to publish this material? Siliconov (talk • contribs) 08:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't really include it yet. The article itself says the status of diamond as the hardest natural material will only be usurped if the new materials indicate they are harder in further physical tests. I would definately wait to include any information about this until there are publications in peer-reviewed journals about further testing that confirms the claims. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanx! I thought about it too, but just wanted to make sure. We'll wait then... Siliconov (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What does diamond, as a substance, look like when it is not cut in a brilliant cut but, say, smoothed in a clear ball? or rod? I always wondered that. Diamond has become synonymous with brilliant, so it's impossible to find any pictures of diamond gems with curved surfaces, if there even are --62.101.126.215 (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

____________ Diamond cabochons are now available. They look like very, very shiny beads. A GIA article appeared to suggest that they were polished using chemical means (presumably etching with hot alkali).

The so called Hearts and arrows cut of recent decades may be of interest. They say the outer edge of it forms a near perfect circle, but not curved surface.  SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

By removing the strain is some brown and yellow diamonds, General Electric is marketing and producing near colorless, colorless, and, in some cases, pink diamonds.Gemamos (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)gemamos

By removing the strain in some brown and yellow diamonds, General Electric is marketing and producing near colorless, colorless, and, in some cases, pink diamonds.Gemamos (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)gemamos

"Ayer's multifaceted marketing campaign..."

Was this pun deliberate or accidental? Either way, it's hilarious, but as this is an encyclopedia and not a comedy site, perhaps it should be rephased? Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

are deleted because

1. They are too specific for general reader;
2. They are inaccurate and uninformative: 415 nm refers to a sharp line; there are numerous other absorptions at this (and other wavelengths). Blue flurescence does not say much - all carbon materials emit blue under UV.
3. There are several hundred visible absorption and fluorescence features in diamond and there is no reasonable way to mention them properly in the infobox. NIMSoffice (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

May I add a link to the James Michener novel about South Africa because it's so excellent & a good way to learn facts about that history: The Covenant (novel)? Stars4change (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is a bit off topic, as we don't need a link in the Diamond article to every piece of literature which discusses/deals with diamonds, diamond mining, diamond culture, etc. (I assume that is why you believe it should be linked here, correct me if I am wrong) The Seeker 4 Talk 16:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(The Seeker 4 TalkMoved this from "hardness" section above as not directly related to that sections thread, and that thread was from last year)

The opening paragraph contains this sentence: "It is possible to treat regular diamonds under a combination of high pressure and high temperature to produce diamonds that are harder than the diamonds used in hardness gauges." This seems to be problematic. Firstly, why is is so important to be included in the opening paragraph of the article rather than in the section on hardness? Secondly, it contains an unexplained implicit assumption that diamonds used in hardness gauges are especially hard - how could someone coming to article know this to be the case: the article contains no further discussion of hardness gauges? Lastly the word "regular" in this context is ambiguous since it could be interpreted as regular in the US English sense of "ordinary, not special", or regular in the sense of demonstrating regularity (i.e. "not irregular"). Merlin Cox (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed that factoid from the lead and placed it in the hardness subsection in the article. It is too obscure of a fact to merit a reference in the lead. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The article currently asserts

They were called can-ni-faire ("cannot be processed"—a combination of English "can", Italian "ni" = not and French "faire" = do

with a web reference in Russian.

The obvious problem here is that ni does not mean "not" in Italian. It means "neither" or "nor", neither of which seems to make sense in context. The Italian word for "not" is non.

I note that there's already an HTML comment casting doubt on the reliability of the source. I hate to just remove the whole thing, but the current state is unacceptable. Can anyone shed some light? --Trovatore (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't delete for now. The previous explanation in the article was wrong and this does make sense. I don't see a contradiction with ni in italian. The russian link just copies a book text. I could not quickly find a better source, but I'l try and everybody is welcome to join. The term could be deleted, but it is used in the diamond world. My imagination tells me it could be Can-niet-faire where Can-niet means can not in Dutch (antwerp used to be Dutch-French bilingual city) and often reads like "can-ni", but I have no proof. Materialscientist (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Australian diamonds sold first years of 19th century in Antwerp were called that name according to a Newspaper from 1946 The Sydney Morning Herald. - Apr 16, 1946 --Stone (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That page contains the same explanation as I've read in the russian page, and thus could be used for the reference. Materialscientist (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is still that ni does not mean "not" in Italian. Possibly this fellow thought it did. But we have to find some way of removing the claim (or even implication) that ni is Italian for "not". Otherwise it makes Wikipedia look bad. --Trovatore (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For me it is diffucult to understand why this name does not show up more often. Is this than notable enough to include it into the article? --Stone (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think its a part of old history, and that the term is not used nowadays. Don't know whether its worth keeping or deleting. Materialscientist (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is OK. it is mentioned one time with a good ref and it does no harm so lets keep it.--Stone (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It does do harm. It makes Wikipedia look bad to any reader who knows Italian. --Trovatore (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be OK to remove the where it comes from and simply say can-ni-faire means cannot be processed.--Stone (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. --Trovatore (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving the sentence here. It is indeed a minor detail. Materialscientist (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

They were called can-ni-faire ("cannot be processed"—a combination of English "can", Italian "ni" = not and French "faire" = do^[1][2]) by the cutters in Antwerp when they started to arrive in quantity from Australia in the 1870s.

I didn't actually want to get rid of the information. I just wanted to get rid of the weird claim about Italian. --Trovatore (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit confused... I know it is an allotrope of carbon, and it is loads of carbon atoms joined to oxygen and other dia/mon-otomic atoms... But i am sure it has a giant covalent strucutre? If i am right, i heard that giant covalet structures are just normal structures. Bascially my point is, the flat surfaces don't make any sense, as i thought flat surfaces in the cube shapes Only happened with ionic lattices..? help plz... I am confused. This i thought was cause ionic lattices were loads of pos/neg nuclei with electrostatic attraction in a big cube, with a sea of de-localised electrons.... (I learnt this in school, so i may be a bit wrong) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Stakingsin (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC) sorry for not putting ref in first time... I keep on forgetting...

Diamond is the hardest known material by July 2009. Period. Please read or discuss this first before changing diamond articles:

• Lonsdaleite may or may not be harder than diamond. The paper predicting it 58% harder than diamond is a theory, it has never been proved by experiment. Available lonsdaleite samples are much too small and contain too many flaws to test them.
• Rhenium diboride was reported to have hardness comparable to that of diamond, but the testing was performed not by accepted standards and the later reports found ReB₂ is significantly softer than diamond (see Rhenium diboride). --Actually the Chung et al. paper makes no claims that Rhenium diboride has a hardness comparable to diamond; the paper says that Rhenium diboride has incompressibility comparable to diamond on ONE axis and can scratch diamond. There are many compounds that can scratch diamond and I don't see that the authors ever make the claim mentioned above. -- Shalomamigos (talk)
• Boron nitride is perhaps the second regular (meaning available in macroscopic amounts) hardest material, but it is softer than diamond. Some BN samples may be harder than some diamonds, but the hardest diamonds are harder than hardest BN.
• "Aggregated diamond nanorods" (ADNR) are proved to be harder than diamond, but. ADNR is simply a diamond aggregate, having nanometer-sized grains, i.e. it is just another form of diamond. Materialscientist (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

_____ No, ADNR are not diamonds, they have a fullerene structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael314159 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My personal research experience and publications tell the opposite. I can provide refs for my claim. Can you ? Materialscientist (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest developing this subsection here or in a sandbox because its state and "Work in progress" tag are hardly appropriate for an FA, which has just survived an FAR. Please keep US spelling and note that talking about child labor issues in the country of Zimbabwe on the diamond page seems .. unusual. Materialscientist (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I will build article in 1 hour do not revert me. Kasaalan (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not use FA as a sandbox. The added material is not neutral and must be discussed at the talk page first. Materialscientist (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You won't be reverted as long as the work takes place on the talk page, where consensus can be developed amongst editors - then the text can be moved into the main article. We should include a child labor wikilink in the text. I recommend this being an additional paragraph under the "Controversial sources" heading. Can't help out today - maybe tomorrow. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What is FA. Added material is WP:RS like Human Rights Watch BBC no discussion is needed, if you feel POV tag it, yet there is none. There are no controversial sources in the text. While I am doing all the work, you people doing all the complaining. Kasaalan (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:FA and keep in mind that diamond has up to 10k views per day and is semi-protected because of extensive vandalism. Please note also "Neutral point of view" request at the top of this page. Child labor (or whatever such issues) in Zimbabwe will hardly qualify as a neutral topic, and thus a prior discussion here would be more than appropriate. Materialscientist (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright if FA has 10 k views each day, you have a good point. My mistake, FA was an acronym to Featured Article. I will continue in talk page. Yet the working conditions in mines are not something to be discussed about, no POV issue exists since the conditions are well documented by various independent WP:RS. Kasaalan (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The detailed content should be added as a section in the child labour article with only a brief mention and link here under the "Controversial sources" section. Vsmith (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)(outdent) My concern with this addition is not the truth of the claims (I am assuming they are all verifiable facts) but undue weight concerns. Is this issue so vital to the subject of diamonds that it requires several paragraphs of text about child labor alone? I suggest, considering the volume of information you have presented here, creating a new article about child labor in diamond mines, and placing short, 4-5 sentence summaries with references and a link to the main article. I think this would do the subject more justice, and avoid giving undue weight to the child labor issue in the main diamond article.The Seeker 4 Talk 13:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it was 4 links in the first place, when the links deleted in external links, I created a section with 3 paragraphs with summary, yet after section reverts I created a standalone article in Child labour in the diamond industry. Kasaalan (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember a similar discussion on "blood diamonds" 1-2 years ago before the movie came out. We can also have a discussion on "environmental impact" on "slavery" and on "Al Qaeda's use of diamonds". All perfectly valid topics but I think we're getting overboard. The article below and I quote: "The DeBeers Group, founded in 1880 and became famous in 20th century, is notorious for the marketing of diamonds and for their cruel work conditions." hardly constitutes a neutral POV article or paragraph for starters.

So all fine and well if in balance. We could actually have a list of contentious issues, perhaps altogether summarized by 2 paragraphs in the main article. In that way undue weight is further prevented AND we address all of those issues at once. I certainly do not see the need in that case to provide a per topic list of 4-5 links either. That is much more warranted in a separate article of each of these topics, provided neutral POV. Gem-fanat (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Environmental effects are disastrous, also indigenous people being forced to move from their own lands by firms like DeBeers is another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers#Controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers#Legal_issues_on_monopolizing_and_fixing_prices and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers#End_of_diamond_monopoly should be implemented in summary style. I build the main article. After balancing main article I will try adding proper summary implementations to the main article.

If the only objections are technical, we can solve issues. Kasaalan (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your solution of creating Child labour in the diamond industry and discussion the issues there was probably optimal. Materialscientist (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The DeBeers Group, founded in 1880 and became famous in 20th century, is notorious for the marketing of diamonds and for their cruel work conditions.

The Oppenheimers, who were the shareholders, took control of DeBeer’s financial direction and slowly guided it into what this corporation is today. Before the end of the 19th century came, a large diamond rush started in South Africa. In order to take advantage of this startling claim, DeBeers needed a large work force to mine the diamonds. Calling upon thousands of migrant workers, DeBeers had their labor force. Production was successful; however, in paranoia of theft, the workers were confined.

• http://www.iearn.org.au/clp/archive/write49.htm
• http://forum.newzimbabwe.com/lofiversion/index.php?t6538.html
• http://www.diamondtradenews.com/

No POV issue exists. Sources are highly Reliable. Kasaalan (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources being reliable is the not the same thing as there being no point of view involved. This will get sorted out on the talk page. Seek to build consensus amongst editors. I'll be back tomorrow. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

By multiple WP:RS the working conditions are well documented and cannot be objected. On the other hand diamond corporations has WP:COI to the case. If you have any WP:RS on working conditions are smooth, I will add them otherwise I am building the section with WP:RS critisizing the conditions. Kasaalan (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Child labour in the diamond industry is created. Kasaalan (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Should not the Molar mass be in 'g/mol', and not 'u'? Or it be stated as Molecular mass, anf then in the unit 'u'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.12.210.241 (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In the beginning of the article, it states that diamond is "the second most stable allatrope of carbon, after graphite" I would naturally think, based around the sublimation temperature being higher, and the complex lattice being harder, that diamond is more stable than graphite, who's covalent bonding is so weak, it tends to fall apart when exposed to a slight amount of pressure.. If, however, this is based around something else, maybe to do with the atoms which make these two up, and the stability relating to their charges, then i am probably talkig rubbish... I know it sounds stupid, but what is actually conveyed by 'stability' in this case? Stakingsin (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Stability here means that a solid would "prefer" to form one crystalline form over another. This preference is usually hard (impossible) to predict from simple arguments, and the hardness is not the ultimate criterium - graphite is rather strong within its sheets (see graphene). When graphite "breaks", those sheets slide, but the solid does not disintegrate - its particles become smaller. Materialscientist (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

at ordinary pressures, graphite is the most stable form of carbon. but at the depths at which diamonds form under the surface of the earth, diamond is the most stable form. diamonds exist at the surface of the earth because they were raised at relatively high speeds from the depths at which they formed. raised slowly, and kept at high temperature, they revert to graphite as they rise. Bob Emmett (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please fix the part which has red bolded words saying unexpected error! It's really irritating —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.124.98.96 (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The assumption in the article "color" about the rarity of colored diamonds is simply wrong and extremely vague: -Carbonados, aka the black diamond is the most common af all diamonds, and NOT the colorless transparent one. Carbonados are usually discarded, but some jewelers decided to initiate especially amongst the "hollywood star" spheres a trend concerning "black" diamonds, in a vain effort to put industrial grade diamonds (black diamonds) to the same level as precious material!!

-Also, the very imprecise "order" of rarity of diamonds should be definitely changed. "yellow" and "blue" for instance doesn't mean anything : there are some deep canary yellow (rare) diamonds, some other shades of yellow are not rare at all and very common. "Blue" is stated as being RARER than black?? Is this a joke? Ver light blue tones are much more common than intense blue tones and are amongts the rarest along with the orange, violet and red diamonds (speaking always of deep tones)

In fact the whole section with the "order" should be modified. 82.240.163.245 (talk) 3 November 2009

New update for highest price per carat of diamond sold: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091201/lf_nm_life/us_hongkong_diamond Please edit.

Thanks. Done. Materialscientist (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This Israeli site: [Haaretz] has an article about diamonds' industry in Israel.Agre22 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Last in section Extraterrestrial formation:

Carbon planets as well as Gas Giants like Jupiter are suspected to have mantles and surfaces rich in diamonds.

"Carbon planets" yes, but Gas Giants containing diamonds in their mantles must be very much unlike Jupiter. Jupiter is gaseous, then hypercritical down to the hydrogen metallic ocean. At the surface of the ocean the temperature is 10000 K and the pressure 200 GPa, and under that surface increasing up to the core with a temperature of 36000 K. If happenstance diamond would be solid at 10000 K/200 GPa then the diamonds would sink in the low density hydrogen ocean, until it melts. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Honestly, I was going to take that comment down anyway because there is no evidence whatsoever it is diamond - as you mentioned, it would melt or transform into other phases. Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ERROR is a temporary page for immmediate fixing of is appearing on the main page today or will appear tomorrow. If it is a problem which affects the article as well, then it should be discussed here. Claiming such a discussion in edit summaries is a waste of time. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This a good & infpr,ative topic, but since i an interested person of the subjecti.e industrial diamonds and since long searching for the addresses of the dealers to contect for purchase the cute diamonds for jewelery business, but despite of my struggle i coud'nt found the addresses of any of that kind, therefor it will be a great healp of the concerned peopls if you pubblished the same for enabling the needfulls to contact pleas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.83.158 (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Publishing such addresses would not go along with WP policies and spirit (WP:NOTDIRECTORY, etc.). It would be much easier to find those on the web. Materialscientist (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The modern metric carat isn't some kind of crazy, made-up weight unit: it's a unit of mass in the metric system, just like the gram. Why are carat-to-gram conversions provided throughout the text? You might as well use carat-to-tonne or carat-to-milligram. Seems pointless. Michael314159 (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Because carat is restricted to jewelry and jewelry is not part of everybody's life. Materialscientist (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

carat isn't an SI unit, gram is. 91.176.60.145 (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The diamond production map is incorrect. Diamonds are not produced in southern Canada but futher north in the Arctic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkmemr (talk • contribs) 17:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The dots are located at the countrys' capitals, not the location of the mines. Wizard191 (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is better to change this? Anyone who doesn't know where a country's capital is can look it up in appropriate pages. 89.178.71.244 (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are Marine diamonds not mentioned at all? This a very important issue, because it's there were the future diamonds are found (outside Namibia)and they have approximately 95% gem quality!! CORRECT this, PLEASE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.234.72 (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Fewer people realize that the world’s largest and most valuable resource of gem quality diamonds lays along the coastal beach areas of Southern Africa and extending offshore, entrapped in ancient submerged beach terraces. Diamonds found their way to this region, having been liberated by erosion over a period of some 100 million years from various volcanic kimberlite pipes, situated in the more central areas of the Southern African Continent and being transported by wind and river systems to their present day settling place. It is estimated that as many as 10 billion carats of diamonds were released in this manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.237.68 (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a section explaining the subject terms. There are links to nanodiamonds from articles here and here that could benifit from an internal link to a section of this article appropriately titled instead of the link that exits to "Diamond#Formation in meteorite impact craters". As I see it the description of micro/nanodiamonds should be along these lines: Nanodiamond, nano-scale diamonds with a diameter measuring in the billionths of a meter and Microdiamond, micro-scale diamonds with a diameter measuring in the millionths of a meter.I ♥ ♪♫ (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is missing pictures of rough diamonds (or they are well hidden), except for one in front of the mineral.

It has numerous shots of cut diamonds, but I am missing the (quite typical) shot of a few dozen rough diamonds on a cloth background or maybe held in the palm of a hand. (rough diamonds in smaller quantities are, after all, a historically quite significant store of value, besides being traded in that fashion until they are cut) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.119.8.21 (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In the lead sentence sentence, I propose inserting the word "a" before diamond because, while I understand that diamond is a material/compound structure (or so), people generally think of diamonds as objects, not a material. I thought I'd seek a consensus here from other editors for ideas/opinions. Thanks Tommy! 12:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This issue was raised once at the FAR review, with the outcome of having no definite/indefinite article when speaking of material, as the first sentence does. An article would be appropriate when speaking of a certain stone. Materialscientist (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks Tommy! 01:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

Following link contains interesting data and could contribute to the Diamond-page.

http://www.wtocd.be/DiamondInfo/literature.html

Guyberchem (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Not done: Should be incorporated as a reference, not external link. SpigotMap 20:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi:

New contributor - I have a picky chemistry edit for this article, and am not autoconfirmed so someone else needs to make the edit I believe. Diamond is currently listed as covalently bonded, but according to IUPAC, diamond, SiO, SiO2 et cetera are considered "Network Covalent Bonded", and thus are "macromolecules". Could someone please change the link to the "Covalent bond" article to "Network Covalent Bond"? I know the distinciton seems small, but in the discipline of chemistry, this distinction is very important. Thank you! Fourloves (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} In the section about the diamond colors, "by far the most common color" occurs twice. This is repetitive and confusing. MellowVids (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it there was a factual error there. Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

dimonds are a very uniqe mineral.they always are very shiny. they only come close enough to the ground for miners to be able to get is when a special kind of eruption happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.133.187.245 (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In the diamond crystal structure, they show a 14 carbon atom cubic cage, with 4 atoms occupying 9 of the possible interior positions (4 of the octant positions and none in the middle) Then they talk about impurities without regard to their position in the structure. Is this all speculative and how much variation of this concept is possible.WFPM (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

HOW TO SELL DIAMONDS??? > see more.

As of March 29, 2011 the second sentence of the second paragraph contains a mistake. Here is the sentence, "Small amounts of defects or impurities (about one per million of lattice atoms) color diamond blue (boron), yellow (nitrogen), brown (lattice defects), green, purple, pink, orange or red."

The mistake is that the origin of green (and only green) in diamonds is exposure to radiation, not lattice defects. This is correctly pointed out later in the article under the section titled COLOR.

The sentence should read, "Small amounts of defects or impurities (about one per million of lattice atoms) color diamond blue (boron), yellow (nitrogen), brown (lattice defects), purple, pink, orange or red, (radiation exposure) green." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.131.154 (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done with this edit. – Ajl^talk 07:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} The second sentence of the second paragraph currently reads:

"Small amounts of defects or impurities (about one per million of lattice atoms) color diamond blue (boron), yellow (nitrogen), brown (lattice defects), green (radiation exposure), purple, pink, orange or red."

It should read:

Small amounts of impurities (about one per million of lattice atoms) result in following natural diamond colors. Boron produces blue. Nitrogen produces yellow. Brown, purple, pink, orange and red are the result of defects in the crystal lattice structure. Green is the result of exposure to radiation.

Wikibunza (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Unlike cutting, which is a responsible but quick operation, polishing removes material..." and "The most time-consuming part of the cutting is the preliminary analysis of the rough stone. It needs to address a large number of issues, bears much responsibility, and therefore can last years in case of unique diamonds."

It doesn't read like standard English. I think the intent is to describe something as financially risky, but I'm loath to change it without complete understanding the intended meaning.

Abrothman (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} I believe we should add a section to this page that informs our readers about the quality and value of diamonds once they've gone to market. I believe we should add a bullet point to the "cutting" section of the page with the text: "For exceptional quality, the diamonds set in most diamond jewelry meet strict minimum quality standards. Each diamond is colorless to near-colorless (D–I grade color) with exceptional clarity (FL–SI grade clarity)."

This is a reference from: http://www.bluenile.com/blue-nile-quality-value

Rewp22 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Rewp22 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've cancelled out the "edit semi-protected" because, this isn't a request to "Change X to Y" type of thing; feel free to continue discussion here, and make a further specific request  Chzz  ►  01:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am Jimmy Snyder. In the wiki article it says: Diamonds have been known in India for at least 3,000 years but most likely 6,000 years. There is a reference to the book "The Book of Diamonds" by W. Hershey. Here is a link to that book. http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&id=35eij1e1al8C#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you look on page 23 of Hershey's book you will find the following:

"The diamond mining industry in India therefore is certainly 3,000 years old, and one may reasonably think that it is twice as old."

In other words, "one may reasonably think" has been rendered "most likely". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.117.8 (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this article was on the list of files to be reviewed for Project Spoken Wikipedia, however i do not see a ogg vorbis file attached to review, nor was it in the commons with things related to Diamond. If this was a mistake and it was meant to be put under articles currently being recorded please remove it from thee Review list and transfer it to the currently recording list. Also, whoever is recording this, if they are?, should put in the recording box on this talk page (for how-to just read the Project Spoken Wikipedia instructions). Thanks,
Betsi-HaP (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)