Do Lab-Grown Diamonds Hold Their Value?
0 comments
SHOP BY STYLE ✧
SHOP BY SHAPE ✧
METAL COLOR ✧
WEDDING BANDS
SHOP BY STYLE ✧
SHOP BY STONE ✧
SHOP BY METAL ✧
JEWELRY FOR THE BIG DAY
NECKLACES ✧
EARRINGS ✧
BRACELETS ✧
Engagement ✧
SHOP BY SHAPE ✧
SHOP BY COLOR ✧
SHOP BY CATEGORY✧
SHOP BY CATEGORY✧
SHOP BY OCCASION✧
SHOP BY PRICE✧
Birthstone Jewelry
For over a century, natural diamonds have enjoyed an exceptional position in the world of fine jewelry—not merely as rare gemstones, but as long-term stores of value. Their scarcity, geological mystique, and cultural symbolism have helped justify high prices and created a robust secondary market. However, this value proposition is being fundamentally challenged by a rapidly growing competitor: lab-grown diamonds.
Once relegated to industrial applications or dismissed as novelties, lab diamonds have matured into fully marketable luxury goods. Produced using sophisticated technologies like HPHT and CVD, these stones are chemically and optically indistinguishable from their mined counterparts. They are graded by the same labs (GIA, IGI, GCAL), cut to the same standards, and often marketed with a similar emotional narrative—yet they are often priced 60–80% lower.
This disruptive pricing model has created both excitement and uncertainty in the industry. Many consumers now ask: If a lab-grown diamond looks the same and costs less, why pay more? But industry professionals must confront the deeper and more complex question: Do lab-grown diamonds retain—or even possess—market value over time? This article will dissect the issue from multiple angles, including cost structures, market psychology, resale dynamics, and long-term investment potential.
To assess value retention, one must first grasp the ontological difference between mined and lab-grown diamonds—a distinction not in material but in origin, perception, and economics.
Lab-grown diamonds are not simulants; they are carbon crystallized in the isometric system, with identical hardness (10 on Mohs), refractive index (~2.42), and thermal conductivity. The CVD method deposits carbon vapor onto a substrate, layer by layer, producing Type IIa diamonds—purer than 98% of mined stones. The HPHT method, by contrast, replicates mantle conditions to create Type Ia or Type IIb diamonds, often requiring post-growth treatments for color optimization.
Even seasoned gemologists using 10x magnification often require advanced spectroscopy or inclusion pattern analysis to differentiate origin. Standard gemological reports from institutions like GIA now explicitly state whether a diamond is lab-grown, a shift from prior reluctance, reflecting increased market legitimacy.
The key divergence lies in perceived scarcity and production economics. Natural diamonds derive much of their value from geological rarity and the costs associated with deep-earth mining, environmental risk, and geopolitical entanglement. Lab-grown diamonds, on the other hand, are subject to Moore’s Law-style deflation: as technology advances, quality improves and production costs decrease, putting sustained downward pressure on prices.
Thus, while material equivalence is no longer in question, economic fundamentals and consumer psychology create a bifurcation in how each is valued—and this becomes especially relevant in resale and long-term holding scenarios.
To discuss whether lab-grown diamonds “hold value,” we must first unpack what value means in the context of fine jewelry. It is a layered concept, influenced by not only material worth but also market behavior, consumer perception, and long-term demand dynamics.
In the traditional diamond market, value has always been a blend of intrinsic rarity and perceived desirability. Mined diamonds derive much of their market value from the geological time and difficulty of extraction, supported by carefully engineered scarcity—historically dominated by major players like De Beers.
Lab-grown diamonds, by contrast, lack geological scarcity, and their production is scalable. While they have intrinsic value due to material and craftsmanship, they currently lack the perceived long-term rarity that investors and collectors associate with appreciating assets.
It’s essential to distinguish sentimental/emotional value from liquid market value. A lab diamond may be deeply meaningful as a gift or engagement symbol, but when the owner seeks to resell, that emotional equity is not transferable.
For professionals, the relevant value is resale liquidity—the price a stone can realistically command in the secondary market. Here is where lab-grown diamonds face structural disadvantages.
Unlike gold or platinum, diamonds—natural or lab-grown—are not traded on global commodities markets. Their valuation is opaque, fragmented, and subject to branding and narrative. Mined diamonds have built a century-long legacy and have some institutionalized secondary markets (e.g., auction houses, estate dealers, pawn systems). Lab-grown stones, in contrast, are still finding their footing in such ecosystems.
The past five years have witnessed a remarkable shift in both production costs and consumer sentiment regarding lab-grown diamonds.
From 2016 to 2024. the price of lab-grown diamonds dropped by over 70% in certain categories. In 2016. a 1-carat lab-grown diamond might retail at only 20–30% below its mined counterpart. By 2024. the gap widened significantly—lab-grown diamonds are now often priced at 70–80% less, despite equivalent quality certifications.
This pricing erosion stems not from demand weakness but from technological over-efficiency. As CVD and HPHT manufacturing scaled, especially in countries like China and India, supply outpaced demand. In economic terms, lab diamonds have become a technology product more than a geological one—subject to rapid innovation cycles and price compression.
Millennials and Gen Z buyers are increasingly open to non-traditional luxury values. Lab-grown diamonds appeal to these groups for reasons beyond cost:
This demographic shift is significant. According to Bain & Company’s 2023 report on global diamond trends, lab-grown diamonds represented 15–20% of engagement ring center stones sold in the U.S. in 2023. and the number continues to rise.
Major jewelers—initially resistant—are now embracing lab-grown stones. Brands like Signet, Brilliant Earth, and even De Beers (via Lightbox) have introduced lab-grown lines, although Lightbox notably positions them as fashion jewelry, deliberately separating them from “forever” pieces.
This signals a growing acceptance—but also a strategic boundary being drawn by industry incumbents: lab diamonds are viable for certain consumer needs, but are not yet acknowledged as high-retention, long-term-value assets.
While lab-grown diamonds have gained ground in the primary retail space, their presence—and performance—in the secondary market remains minimal. This is a critical point when evaluating whether they hold value.
Unlike mined diamonds, which have long benefited from established buyback and resale channels—including pawnshops, auction houses, estate dealers, and manufacturer repurchase programs—lab-grown diamonds lack comparable infrastructure.
Most mainstream retailers do not offer buyback programs for lab-grown stones. When they do, the offers are often symbolic, with extremely low valuations. A 1-carat lab-grown diamond purchased for $1.200 may fetch as little as $100–$200 on the resale market, if a buyer can be found at all. In contrast, a mined diamond of similar specs might retain 30–50% of its original value, depending on brand, cut quality, and provenance.
Ironically, while lab-grown diamonds have benefitted from increased transparency in pricing (due to standardized grading and online marketplaces), this transparency has accelerated price competition and undermined resale potential. Buyers know that the same stone will likely cost less next year, making them reluctant to purchase pre-owned pieces.
Furthermore, unlike vintage mined diamonds, lab diamonds do not yet carry historical or collectible value, meaning there’s little demand among estate collectors or connoisseurs.
Another underappreciated aspect is the gap between retail and appraised value. Insurance appraisals for lab-grown diamonds often reflect original purchase price, not market replacement cost. This inflates perceived value but does not translate to resale liquidity. Many insurers are now revising appraisal practices to reflect realistic, depreciating values, especially as price drops become consistent year-over-year.
In summary, the absence of an active, liquid secondary market renders lab-grown diamonds poor candidates for traditional resale—at least for now. Their worth is largely consumptive, not investable.
From a jeweler’s perspective, answering this question requires defining what kind of “investment” a consumer or collector is seeking: financial return, emotional significance, ethical positioning, or design value.
Lab-grown diamonds are not appreciating assets. Their pricing trends resemble consumer electronics more than precious commodities—technology-driven, not rarity-based. There is no evidence of long-term upward value trajectories in the lab-grown space. In fact, the opposite is true: as techniques improve, supply increases and prices fall.
Unlike rare natural colored diamonds (e.g., Argyle pinks, vivid blues), which have a finite global supply and increasing demand among collectors, lab-grown diamonds do not meet the criteria for capital appreciation.
Where lab-grown diamonds excel is in areas outside traditional finance:
While lab-grown diamonds may not be investment-grade assets, they have opened a new realm of creative possibility for modern jewelers. Their affordability, availability, and ethical appeal allow designers to work with larger carat weights, experimental settings, and bold concepts—without the pricing constraints of natural diamonds.
Many high-end brands are now adopting a hybrid design strategy that integrates lab-grown stones in thoughtful, high-impact ways:
LisaJewelryUS is a prime example. Our collections aren’t crafted to save cost, but rather driven by a deliberate design philosophy that emphasizes clarity, symmetry, and modern elegance. By incorporating synthetic diamonds, LisaJewelryUS creates pieces that appeal to a new generation of buyers: those who prioritize rational consumption, individual design, and sentimental value over traditional resale.
The rise of lab-grown diamonds represents one of the most significant paradigm shifts in the modern jewelry industry. From a materials science breakthrough to a commercial phenomenon, they have challenged century-old definitions of rarity, luxury, and value. Yet, as we’ve seen throughout this analysis, value is not a singular concept—especially in jewelry, where emotion, narrative, and identity intertwine with financial considerations.
If we define value strictly in financial and investment terms, the answer is clear: no, not in their current market trajectory. The combination of rapidly falling prices, lack of a robust secondary market, and technological oversupply means lab-grown diamonds depreciate quickly—not unlike high-end consumer electronics.
However, if we shift the lens to emotional, ethical, and design value, lab-grown diamonds are a compelling choice for many buyers. They offer:
This duality forces the industry—and its consumers—to rethink what we mean by value. Lab-grown diamonds are not replacements for natural diamonds in every context; nor are they inherently inferior. They are a new category, deserving of their own metrics, markets, and respect.
As technology plateaus and production stabilizes, we may see pricing level off. Innovations in branding, limited-edition production, or proprietary cuts could even create new sub-markets of collectible lab-grown stones—though this remains speculative. For now, however, the safe position for professionals and clients alike is this:
Buy lab-grown diamonds for their beauty, ethics, and affordability—not as investment assets.
Jewelry has always been more than a ledger line on a balance sheet. And as the industry evolves, so too must our understanding of value—not just what it is, but what it’s worth to each individual wearer.