Janus Thinking

This month’s Smithsonian Magazine provides a look into the current status of chemical vapor deposition (CVD) diamonds, synthetic diamonds which are grown in a lab and have shown a marked increase in quality over the past few years. Apollo Diamond, an American company based in Boston, is currently the market leader.

Seeking an unbiased assessment of the quality of these laboratory diamonds, I asked Bryant Linares to let me borrow an Apollo stone. The next day, I place the .38 carat, princess-cut stone in front of Virgil Ghita in Ghita’s narrow jewelry store in downtown Boston. With a pair of tweezers, he brings the diamond up to his right eye and studies it with a jeweler’s loupe, slowly turning the gem in the mote-filled afternoon sun. "Nice stone, excellent color. I don’t see any imperfections," he says. "Where did you get it?"

"It was grown in a lab about 20 miles from here," I reply.

He lowers the loupe and looks at me for a moment. Then he studies the stone again, pursing his brow. He sighs. "There’s no way to tell that it’s lab-created."

These synthetics are an interesting development–they currently cost about as much as regular diamonds, but like all manufactured goods, prices are expected to decrease. These diamonds may be able to be used for greater engineering and computing purposes (perhaps used like silicon, the article suggests). As for how these synthetics fit with the “traditional” purpose of a diamond, the representation of love between two people, I’m not yet sure. Certainly there’s something to be said for a natural stone being forged of carbon over billions of years, that time representing the everlasting love between the diamond’s giver and recipient.

But at the same time, some might interpret these synthetic or “cultured” diamonds as something to be desired in themselves–a new feat of technology, in a way to be absolutely certain (in spite of increasingly strong regulation) that no one was harmed in the production of the diamond. If people interpret luxury in this way, then it’s a good thing that they have this new cultured option.

[via Boing Boing]

A little follow-up on Rolex from an article (subscription only) about the Baselworld watch fair in Monocle magazine:

Swiss watch brands are patriotic to a fault. Rolex is one of the few high-end manufacturers that does not stamp "Swiss Made" on the watch face in the belief that Rolex defines Switzerland rather than the other way around.

An iconic brand is one that defines its country. But is it easy for Rolex to define Switzerland because it’s, well, Switzerland? Can larger, more controversial nations have iconic brands in the same way?

[via Kottke]

Do accessories make the (sports)man or (sports)woman? The Wall Street Journal recently highlighted some luxury products sponsors have given athletes or athletes have otherwise chosen to endorse. Among the ’spoils’: Tiffany Elsa Perretti Wave Earrings (for tennis pro Maria Sharapova), Rolexes (for golfer Phil Mickelson) and luxury moisturizers (for NBA player Steve Nash).

Could an appreciation of these fine items by athetes lead to better performance on the field? Perhaps. The brands certainly enjoy being associated with high performers. As Rolex says on its website:

In 1927, a young woman named Mercedes Gleitze swam through the icy waters of the English Channel wearing a Rolex Oyster. It marked the beginning of a long tradition: the linking of Rolex watches with exceptional individuals.

Since then, many of the world’s greatest explorers, sports figures and artists have endorsed Rolex timepieces. These Testimonees all share Rolex’s guiding spirit: the constant pursuit of perfection.