Jump to content

Centaurus - Need Feedback


VentureC
 Share

Recommended Posts

Has anyone heard of http://www.centaurustechnologiesinc.com/ and their new technology for making synthetic diamonds?  I'm curious as to how this will affect the natural and industrial diamond market as they claim it can produce large carat diamonds at higher quality than CVD process.

 

I'd appreciate if any A-Listers can chime in to give their opinion after doing some due diligence into the patents, the process and the current gemologists reviews via the GIA.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never heard of them but what they SAY they're doing is raising money to start a business producing industrial diamonds.  I'm going to assume this is correct.   If I was a cynic I would suggest that what they're mining is investors, not diamonds but there's a large and successful market for synthetic industrial diamonds out there so it's entirely possible that a new player wants a piece.  Makers of drill bits aren't as concerned about origin as gem clients and they're unlikely to be particularly brand loyal after all.  Are they a game changer?  Well, I'm not buying their stock if that's worth anything. 

Edited by denverappraiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Neil! I was hoping you'd respond.  Much obliged.

 

My main concern was if the synthetic diamond were indistinguishable from natural gems do you think they'd enter the market and what effect it would have on the gem pricing if at all.

 

As far the industrial side, I think drill bits are a rudimentary but practical use.  The PC world and electronics in general have much more use for lower cost and less grainier makeup.

 

Have you ever inspected a diamond made by this method of magnetic flux compression? If so what did you see quality wise? I guess it's been around since 2007.

 

Just looking for professional advice on gem qualities, that's all. 

 

Thanks for taking the time here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, all synthetic diamonds produced so far are pretty easily identifiable in a well-kitted lab environment. Not to the naked eye or to purely optical instruments - the main (reliable) differences are measurable through spectrometry in the IR or UV range. The quality of synthetics is as good as that of natural stones, from a jewellery/appearance point of view.

 

So far, the production of gem synthetics has not affected the price of natural gems, and as long as prices for synthetics and the limitations on size remain as they are now, I doubt they will (the only significantly cheaper diamonds are synthetics with natural blue colour, and getting anything over 1.50 carats cut is near to impossible). On industrial diamonds it's a completely different game, but the price of industrial diamonds has already dropped considerably and use expanded a lot from the 1960s.

 

Re: electronics: as far as I know the use of diamond as insulator or semiconductor is still largely experimental, but in any case it would use an epitaxial process like CVD, not a compression-based process like the one they are describing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certain synthetic diamonds are actually pretty difficult to spot but it doesn’t really make that much difference.   Put another way, who cares?

 

In the case of industrial diamonds, meaning things used for purposes like drillbits to nail files or electronics, nobody gives whit unless there’s something ‘better’ about one or the other.  Electronics people, for example, are really interested in the purity of the materials.  Our standards of what is flawless are, frankly, laughable in that world where impurities are measured in parts per billion.    If anything, they like synthetics better because they’re likely to be more repeatable and therefore easier to design into a production cycle.  For all practical purposes, the electronics market doesn’t even exist at the moment but it’s the holy grail for the growers.   Making a wafer that makes computers 100x faster would be HUGELY more valuable than anything to do with the gem business.  That’s good for raising money from investors but hasn’t resulted in a single marketable product.   We’re not talking about investing a company engaged in growing diamonds or manufacturing anything else.  This is Tech R&D.  We’ll see if they ever come up with it but, so far, it doesn’t seem to be going all that well.    Industrial grits and the like is what is called a seriously ‘mature’ market.   There’s definitely money to be made in that sort of thing but it’s going up against big players with gigantic volumes and tiny margins.    Think of the companies selling concrete or oil.  Yeah, there’s money in that, and it might even be a good investment, but it’s the other end of the spectrum from a high flying tech research company.

 

So lets talk about jewelry, especially since they list an assortment of data about the pricing and grading systems for natural diamonds on their website.  So what?  Unlike the above, jewelry customers obviously DO care about the origin.   Some actually prefer synthetics by the way, but either way this means that customers just demand better proof of origin, whatever it turns out to be.  The harder the separation is, the more important it is to get credible lab work.  That’s good for the labs, that’s good for me, and I’m happy for the business, but I see no reason to link it all that much to prices or anything else.   People buying synthetics will shop them against other synthetic alternatives and people buying mined goods will shop them against other mined goods, just like they do with other gem materials (synthetics are significant in half a dozen gems including pearls, opals, sapphires, rubies, amethyst, spinel, and even cubic zirconia).    The only ones where there the lab and natural markets are noticably linked is amethyst, where the cost of lab fees is generally more than the cost of the stone regardless of the origin and most buyers just don’t care all that much. 

Edited by denverappraiser
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CVD and HPHT processors run into economics problems with higher karat diamonds, or so they say, But Centaurus is using the magnetic pinches to build diamond progressively, even starting from the 'nothing' of carbon black, or graphite, Starting with the first pinches to create a custom shaped seed diamond, and then executing a cascading series of progressively more powerful 'crunches' to build perfect diamond layer upon layer over it. From what I'm hearing, they'll be able to fabricate diamond of any size, shape or composition. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil & Davide, 

Thanks for the thorough discussion and feedback here on this, I appreciate your time. 

I agree with the mine vs. mine and lab vs. lab separation.  I asked my wife if she cared, she said it had to be natural but just a preference.  That was my main question.

 

Regarding electronics, if the MagFlux diamonds were to be proven viable at the semiconductor level and as they claim capable of 2 carats or more it would mean more to my career in electronics hence my request here.  

 

I agree this is purely developmental as they state, the CEO Alvin Snaper is quite distinguished in the patent and design world and I'm curious if this highly respected fellow has actually broken through some tech barriers and might be ready for production albeit loaded in debt.  

 

If he has then computing power just got a massive boost that no one thought would be possible.  

 

I'm hoping someone here may have run across his prototype gems to state whether they can attest to his work and stated quality and capacity for production.  Supposedly they've already had their gems inspected by GIA.  I can't independently confirm that though.

 

Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've gathered, the business is structured very soundly, and they have some impressive machines already going from what little they had to work with in order to demonstrate an early iteration of the unique production concept. They've been using it to flesh out the technical parameters and things of that nature, but a great deal of data has been gathered, and with a cash infusion, anywhere from $5 to 25 million, they'll have the resources to build highly efficient manufacturing setups and enter into diamond production. Industrial markets will likely be the major source of income, but consumer offerings will generate substantive revenue of their own. 1 karat diamonds, 10 karats, 100 karats, 1000 karats, it makes no difference, except for the sizes of the chambers and the amount of energy that goes into producing them at those varying scales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I guess I see it differently.  As far as I can tell, they're not producing ANYTHING but plans.   Whether or not they have a good plan is an interesting enough question but it's NOT the same thing.  Again, I'm not buying their stock and I'm not impressed by their marketing.    Perhaps you should because apparently you are.  They don't even claim to have a product and they're up to their eyeballs in debt.  Keep us posted how it goes.  If they can do what they say they're planning to do, someone is going to make money at it.  If not, than the OTC stock folks will move on and raise money for some other scheme.  That's what they do. Again, we're not talking about a diamond manufacturer here, we're talking about an R&D company that's trying to raise venture capital. 

 

CVD and HPHT processors run into economics problems with higher karat diamonds, or so they say, But Centaurus is using the magnetic pinches to build diamond progressively, even starting from the 'nothing' of carbon black, or graphite, Starting with the first pinches to create a custom shaped seed diamond, and then executing a cascading series of progressively more powerful 'crunches' to build perfect diamond layer upon layer over it. From what I'm hearing, they'll be able to fabricate diamond of any size, shape or composition. 

Edited by denverappraiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good discussion gentlemen,

 

I appreciate the thoughts on this.  In doing some research I reached out to Element 6 which specializes in CVDs to ascertain if they've heard of the MagFlux methods and if they have any viability in the market.  Since they're appraised at a 500million marketcap I'd think they'd weigh in if they can.  

 

I did notice that Centaurus is debt free and financed through EOY 2013, so someone sees value in the process enough to invest in the chance they could be viable.

 

I agree that this is purely developmental, and based on the CEO's history as an inventor I'd think he'd sell the patents and technology before he'd agree to be a CEO of a production company.  That's not his calling.  To the industrial market it's probably better that it happens or he takes a more scientific role rather than CEO.

 

If a company like E6 or equivalent does buy the proprietary knowledge then we'll see production within a few years.

 

It's a very exciting development for my field and the possibilities are endless in electronics if the gem structure is repeatable per specifications.

 

As far as jewelry and such goes, I'll take Neil's point of direction as it seems likely this won't have an influence.

 

Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Wayne D. Prentice is the COO of the company.  That says something about legitimacy?

 

They have quite the team assembled as well.

 

Wayne's background includes being a former Resident Gemology Instructor at the Gemological Institute of America (GIA), an award winning gem cutter and a retailer and wholesaler in the jewelry industry. He is a graduate of the Gemological Institute of America, where he earned in residence a Graduate Gemologist degree. (July 1986).

 

After graduation, he accepted a position as GIA Resident Instructor of Colored Stones and Gem identification (August 86 through September 88). In addition to his Gem Industry academic qualifications, he has also been a wholesale dealer of one-of-a- kind gems, focused on precision cut colored gemstones for the designers, and diamonds larger than one carat.

He is a qualified gem cutter with expertise in precision faceting of colored gemstones (Cutting Edge Award winner), diamond analysis for re-cutting and manufacturing diamond rough. He continues to act as a gemological consultant, providing services for both commercial and private clientele and his corporate clients have included Kennecott Minerals, D. Swarovski & Co., Chatham Inc.

He is the founder of the Troy Diamond Report® - Global Diamond and Currency Market Guide, an international diamond report and pricing guide debuted September 2007 to provide a "Global perspective and foundation, promoting stability and value. http://www.troydiamondreport.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 I guess I see it differently.  As far as I can tell, they're not producing ANYTHING but plans.   Whether or not they have a good plan is an interesting enough question but it's NOT the same thing.  Again, I'm not buying their stock and I'm not impressed by their marketing.    Perhaps you should because apparently you are.  They don't even claim to have a product and they're up to their eyeballs in debt.  Keep us posted how it goes.  If they can do what they say they're planning to do, someone is going to make money at it.  If not, than the OTC stock folks will move on and raise money for some other scheme.  That's what they do. Again, we're not talking about a diamond manufacturer here, we're talking about an R&D company that's trying to raise venture capital. 

 

CVD and HPHT processors run into economics problems with higher karat diamonds, or so they say, But Centaurus is using the magnetic pinches to build diamond progressively, even starting from the 'nothing' of carbon black, or graphite, Starting with the first pinches to create a custom shaped seed diamond, and then executing a cascading series of progressively more powerful 'crunches' to build perfect diamond layer upon layer over it. From what I'm hearing, they'll be able to fabricate diamond of any size, shape or composition. 

 

and they're up to their eyeballs in debt.

 

I respectfully disagree with your sentiment. Based on the filings, the company is debt-free. While it is correct that the true colors of the company are not yet known, I wouldn't discount the possibility that there is the potential for success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand corrected on whether they're funding through debt or equity.

 

I didn't say they have no possibility of success.  I said that I'm not sufficiently convinced of the likelihood to buy their stock.  Obviously others disagree given that they DO seem to be raising money.   

 

I'm not even slamming their 'true colors'.  It's a tech R&D company with big plans and they don't call themselves anything different from that.  Their ad includes a lot of irrelevant information (like the whole section on the grading and marketing of natural gem diamonds) but given that they don't claim to be selling those, I see no misrepresentation, just a distraction.  I wish them all the best in their research. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Wayne D. Prentice is the COO of the company.  That says something about legitimacy?

 

They have quite the team assembled as well.

[snip]

I don't know Mr Prentice at all, so please take this as simply a comment or expression of personal opinion, but while his CV seems totally legitimate, I see nothing that makes me go "wow" with respect to the company's mission/ambitions. You have highlighted the GIA GG qualification - perfectly respectable, but there are lots of those (Neil is one, but that is far from being his outstanding qualification in my eyes), and while it is a good course and a relatively tough qualification to gain, it's nothing to do with the production or marketing of synthetic diamonds. Edited by davidelevi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand corrected on whether they're funding through debt or equity.

 

I didn't say they have no possibility of success.  I said that I'm not sufficiently convinced of the likelihood to buy their stock.  Obviously others disagree given that they DO seem to be raising money.   

 

I'm not even slamming their 'true colors'.  It's a tech R&D company with big plans and they don't call themselves anything different from that.  Their ad includes a lot of irrelevant information (like the whole section on the grading and marketing of natural gem diamonds) but given that they don't claim to be selling those, I see no misrepresentation, just a distraction.  I wish them all the best in their research. 

I appreciate that you have identified your position in this matter, however I must add that I am at least somewhat optimistic in the direction of the company, based on the start-up data provided for in the SEC filings. I believe that there is a reason why the synthetic diamond market has been receiving tremendous amounts of buzz past few months. While I do not know this reason, I do believe it to be speculative, at least at some level. To finish off here, I also believe that the synthethic diamond market will potentially be defined by new market entrants, as that whole sector has yet to gain definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[snip]

To finish off here, I also believe that the synthethic diamond market will potentially be defined by new market entrants, as that whole sector has yet to gain definition. [my emphasis]

In which way? I don't rule out disruptive technology (or even uses), but the synthetic diamonds industry IS rather well defined and definitely mature at the moment: there are 20 or so main players, using well known and mature technologies to produce gem-quality and/or industrial diamonds, and production volumes/capacities are steadily growing more than demand, keeping prices stable or even declining.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

[snip]

To finish off here, I also believe that the synthethic diamond market will potentially be defined by new market entrants, as that whole sector has yet to gain definition. [my emphasis]

In which way? I don't rule out disruptive technology (or even uses), but the synthetic diamonds industry IS rather well defined and definitely mature at the moment: there are 20 or so main players, using well known and mature technologies to produce gem-quality and/or industrial diamonds, and production volumes/capacities are steadily growing more than demand, keeping prices stable or even declining.

 

In every fundamental way. If the synthetic diamond industry was well defined and mature, then why is there a deficit with supply vs. demand? You are correct, there are sufficient technologies in place, but their efficacy is declining because demand is growing, rapidly, especially with the next economic boom around the corner. I would even venture to argue that the industrial synthetic diamond industry, is so malnourished now, it simply wouldn't sustain itself in terms of growth due to economic trends and upcoming boom. I stated that because I believe that there are new players coming to the market that are bringing new technology; that which I believe will re-define current catacombs, and head for higher highs in new applications and uses never imagined before. That is what I strongly believe (but cannot ascertain) caused rather stringent background noise within the whole synthetic diamond industry. At this point we can only speculate, as we have no raw data to prove any of these assertions, but one can only hope. This is how I see it.

Edited by RogueDiamond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no deficit - that's my point. There is more supply than demand, hence falling prices.

 

If disruptive production technology (e.g. possibly magnetic pinching) or disruptive demand-generation technologies (e.g. carbon-based semiconductors, not just insulators) come to fruition, then we may see a shake up. But then so we may in 1001 other sectors (e.g. usable, small-scale fusion technology could revolutionise the transportation sector, but we can't call that sector ill-defined or immature at the moment). Otherwise, I don't see any sign of immaturity or lack of definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no deficit - that's my point. There is more supply than demand, hence falling prices.

 

If disruptive production technology (e.g. possibly magnetic pinching) or disruptive demand-generation technologies (e.g. carbon-based semiconductors, not just insulators) come to fruition, then we may see a shake up. But then so we may in 1001 other sectors (e.g. usable, small-scale fusion technology could revolutionise the transportation sector, but we can't call that sector ill-defined or immature at the moment). Otherwise, I don't see any sign of immaturity or lack of definition.

There's more supply than demand? I think it would be fair to narrow this down more. Supply of WHAT diamonds for WHAT uses of WHAT quality? Cause it obviously is not the same thing.  I am not aware of that. I have researched that the price margins for the current synthethic diamond manufacturers actually are rising (mostly due to elaborate processes and inflation), so price - coupled with inflation and competition is more than likely not going down in the foreseeable future. Put this in a scenario where there is a red-hot would-be-market, and you see companies going out of business cause they simply cannot produce the minimum demand to stay viable.  As I see it, a lot of the companies are really just competing against each other to stay afloat, rather than the market for product.

 

Another current substantial negative is the quality of the product. 90% of all sythetic diamonds are made in China. And as you would come to expect, the current product is very low quality, even for industrial use, so margins are not improved - either for manufacturer or end user.

 

Here are just some interesting links you might want to have a look at:

 

http://rough-polished.com/en/expertise/57720.html - synthethic diamonds are essentially out of the jewellery market

 

http://en.hhxf.com/NewsView.aspx?id=11

 

http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/30/stories/2008103053520300.htm

 

 

The bottom line for me is that the current technology as it stands, in my opinion, while sophisticated, is not adaptable or efficient enough to provide for the evolving, and increasing demand of the market. If the manufacture margin is too high, product doesn't sell and nobody makes money. On the other hand, if they make a lot but it's very poor quality, it will not serve its purpose and will increase costs on both ends. I believe that if current synthetic diamond manufacturers really wanted to, they could meet all the diamond demands for the market, but they would lose a lot of money doing that. That's one of the biggest cons, and that which I see could be very detrimental to the present industry.

Edited by RogueDiamond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the current production of diamonds is focused on abrasives and tools (and it is), then I don't particularly see the need to define it better because some high-end uses are seeing better times than the rest. It would be a bit like saying that the car industry is not in a crisis because Ferrari or Rolls Royce have 2 year waitlists.

 

The rest is speculation on your side re: new uses or technologies. The three links you have posted are respectively:

 

1. No big news: synthetic diamonds are no big threat for natural ones in the jewellery market (and incidentally, the Bain & Co. report on the diamond industry which is the main source of this is a nice advertorial piece commissioned by Antwerp's World Diamond Centre, a key bourse for gem-quality diamonds, so pardon me for being slightly sceptical about vested interest here...).

 

2. A Chinese source stating that China is poised to continue its dominance of synthetic diamond production, even assuming a 4x market growth due to carbon-based photovoltaic cells becoming producible on a mass scale (BIG assumption).

 

3. An article on the economic difficulties in the cutting houses in India due to increased manufacturer prices on gem quality material (which is way less than 1% of the volume of synthetic diamond produced, and fundamentally irrelevant in economic terms to the synthetic diamond industry as a whole).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the current production of diamonds is focused on abrasives and tools (and it is), then I don't particularly see the need to define it better because some high-end uses are seeing better times than the rest. It would be a bit like saying that the car industry is not in a crisis because Ferrari or Rolls Royce have 2 year waitlists.

 

The rest is speculation on your side re: new uses or technologies. The three links you have posted are respectively:

 

1. No big news: synthetic diamonds are no big threat for natural ones in the jewellery market (and incidentally, the Bain & Co. report on the diamond industry which is the main source of this is a nice advertorial piece commissioned by Antwerp's World Diamond Centre, a key bourse for gem-quality diamonds, so pardon me for being slightly sceptical about vested interest here...).

 

2. A Chinese source stating that China is poised to continue its dominance of synthetic diamond production, even assuming a 4x market growth due to carbon-based photovoltaic cells becoming producible on a mass scale (BIG assumption).

 

3. An article on the economic difficulties in the cutting houses in India due to increased manufacturer prices on gem quality material (which is way less than 1% of the volume of synthetic diamond produced, and fundamentally irrelevant in economic terms to the synthetic diamond industry as a whole).

I never questioned the the uses for synthetic diamonds as that is always up for grabs and refinement. I think it would benefit greatly to refine the quality of industrial synthetic diamonds because if some theoretical companies could hypothetically produce a much higher quality product at lower cost and faster (with new technologies), then you have a potential market shift, hands down.

 

In respect to those links I provided, I didn't try to make a point on sourcing issues, just wanted to illustrate what's happening to different niches around the world that manufacture (and could potentially be significant players in future) synthtetic diamonds, such as China and India. If Chinese production to dominate a segment of the market is a a big assumption, then what isn't?

 

Like I identified in my other post(s) prior to this, the data is not definitive, and in my view if 20 companies are using the same technologies, it will not improve the overall market, in and out. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, sorry, I explained this poorly. The big assumption is that carbon-based photovoltaic cells will become producible on a mass scale. I take China's domination far more for granted, at least in terms of volume.

 

My challenge - to which I feel you still haven't responded - is based around your statement that the industry is far from maturity and is "yet to gain definition". My view is that short of disruptive production technology (which I don't see coming, and a question about which started this thread) or disruptive shifts in demand (due to other factors, that I think very unlikely to happen in the next 5-10 years), the structure of the industry is what it is, and it will not change. That to me is a clear sign of a mature, well-defined sector.

 

You say "it will not improve the overall market" - what does that mean? What would an "improved market" look like? Improvement in margins? In volumes? Both? For whom? Producers? Raw material sources? Equipment manufacturers? Buyers? These are all possible, but my propensity to invest in a new production technology would depend on which party ends up being favoured. At the moment, to me it's far from clear that there is a technology, never mind that it will successfully change the structure of the industry or "improve the market" for the party that is seeking funding.

 

You don't question the uses of synthetic diamonds because "that is up for grabs" - what does that mean too? There are well established uses for synthetic diamonds, basically as abrasives and tools (or tool hardening treatments). There are a couple of niche but more profitable current uses as transparent windows in high power lasers and as electrical insulator and heat-sink for high specific power components in the semiconductor industry, but these latter two cannot use magnetic pinching as the manufacturing method in the substrate for a number of reasons. There are a couple of more speculative technologies coming up which are based on the semiconductive proprieties of carbon, when appropriately doped. These are photovoltaic cells and solid-state electronic components. As far as I can tell, practical, mass application of these is over 10 years away.

 

Since we are discussing - at the end of the day - the attractiveness of investment in a company (or technology), my personal feeling is that 10+ years is too long a period for the company (or technology, or market) to be seen as anything other than huge risk, and it's not something I'd be willing to invest in. You seem to have the view that the industry is poised to turn a significant corner, but fail to say why or how... other than to suggest that a superior technology may change things. Production of synthetic corundum changed the life of watch movement makers (and abrasive makers), but not that of jewellers or phonograph needle makers. This despite the fact that jewellers and phonograph needle makers would have had - on the face of it - the most to suffer (or gain) from the appearance of good quality, cheap, synthetic corundum.

 

BTW - I am arguing my corner vigorously, based on my view and knowledge of the diamond (and semiconductor) industry, but am doing so in good cheer and because I'm enjoying the discussion; I have no vested interest for things to turn up one way or another.

Edited by davidelevi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

99% of the synthetic diamond business has nothing whatever to do with gems and jewelry other than that it's a supply used in the cutting industry.  Given that they don’t even claim that their research is in any way aimed at this sector, I don’t see that line of discussion as relating to these guys at all.  Not only are they not in that business, they’re not even TRYING to get into it.   Sure, they’ll take it if it falls in their lap but that’s simply not even one of their stated goals.  The cutting business as it currently exists is also irrelevant.  To the extent that industrial users want fabricated materials, their requirements are wildly different from those of the jewelry world.  Similarly, the distribution channels through sites, wholesalers, and retail jewelers is completely irrelevant to what they’re considering.  Industrial users don’t get their supplies at jewelry stores and I can’t imagine they ever will.   

 

The current industrial market is entirely about using diamonds as abrasives.   It’s a marketplace that’s been dominated by synthetics for decades and, in particular, with the products of DeBeers, a 2 century old billion dollar mining company that got into synthetics back in the 70s.  In what way is that not a well established marketplace?  The electronics market indeed is not established.  That’s because it doesn’t exist.  Maybe it will, and maybe someone will make a boatload of money at it.  Who it will be and when is a MUCH more difficult question.  Perhaps for that they should have hired with psychic creds rather than someone with gemological  training.

Edited by denverappraiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thank you very much for the thorough reply. Lots of interesting information for sure. In respect to your first paragraph, that is entirely based on our opinions I think, and that is precisely meant by the word "speculative". Your opinion, although more qualified than mine, is still an opinion - most respectfully. I do not think such technology as disruptive shift (or other not-yet-out-there technology) will take 5-10++ years to manifest. Why do you believe that to be true? Am truly curious as to why you think this.

 

By the term "improved market" I meant all the terms you listed, as a market is buyers and sellers and everything in between.  I think we could speculate all day as to if there is anything out there right now, but I am simply referencing the recent industry wide buzz as my foundation of reasoning for that implication. I have no other data, like I alluded to in my previous posts that will prove such even taking place.

 

In terms of my statement "up for grabs" I wanted to convey that the synthethic diamond market as a whole is continually evolving, but very slowly.  So "up for grabs" means anything from taking market shares from other, more inferior competitors, to designing new products that the market has not yet had chance to see and thereby capturing market share.

 

And in respect to the rest of your post, it all comes down to risk aversity. New technology is always a gamble to certain parties, especially funders that could be involved. I guess my bottom line here is, I am just waiting to see what the industry follow-up will bring by the end of this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
  • Create New...