Rethinking jewellery’s worth

When a €30 diamond crashes the system

Updated October 4, 2025

Upheaval in the jewellery world! Last week, Dutch low-budget chain Zeeman released a lab-grown diamond pendant for just under 30 euros. Their claim, in a spin on De Beers’ ‘diamonds are forever’: diamonds are for everyone. This affordable, lab-grown diamond caused quite the stir: jewellery experts hastened to explain the difference between lab-grown and natural diamonds, lawsuits were filed, the Zeeman website crashed because of the number of people trying to get one of these. For me, as a jewellery historian, this is fascinating because of the underlying question: what is the value of jewellery, and who gets to decide it?

The Zeeman diamond pendant controversy

So, what is all the fuss about?

Zeeman is a Dutch, low-budget chain of stores, usually associated with cheap products and low incomes. Just to be clear: no shade to Zeeman, I used to work there as a teen to pay for my school books, and learned quite a lot there, too. It’s not, however, a store that people visit for leisurely shopping. And now, this of all stores releases an affordable diamond pendant… wait, what?

Here’s what they offered: a silver pendant set with a small, round brilliant cut diamond of about 0.10 carats, VS2 clarity, and D–F colour. The diamond is lab-grown, and the pendant was priced at €29.99. The ad was brilliant, too: starting out with sepia-hued casino luxury vibes, it then switched to behind the scenes where everyday people were seen enjoying diamonds. See it here (Dutch spoken, but the imagery says it all)

When the diamond pendant finally went online, thousands of people rushed to buy one. The website crashed under demand, and stock sold out within the hour. A budget retailer, usually associated with socks and cleaning cloths, suddenly had a runaway success with diamond jewellery – that’s in the same league as Meghan Markle’s As Ever sellouts (also: the price of two tins of As Ever flower sprinkles equals one diamond pendant – just so you get an idea).

The controversy, of course, didn’t lag far behind. A Dutch wholesaler, Gisser Jewels, filed a lawsuit against Zeeman, arguing that their advertising was misleading. Zeeman had compared its €29.99 pendant to ‘similar’ pieces sold for hundreds of euros, which competitors said was an unfair comparison. The case was settled and a rectification of the comparison statement issued.

But still, a pendant that cost less than dinner for two found itself at the heart of a very public debate on what jewellery is worth.

Are lab-grown diamonds less ‘real’ than natural diamonds?

One of the first questions raised was, of course, whether these diamonds are ‘real’. The answer is: yes, they are. Lab-grown diamonds are chemically and physically identical to those mined from the earth. They score the same on the Mohs hardness scale, have the same brilliance, and can even be graded in exactly the same way by gemmological institutes. They sparkle just as amazing in candlelight. The only difference is origin.

That difference does carry social and environmental weight. Mining has long been associated with ecological disruption and, in some regions, with labour exploitation and conflict financing. The term ‘blood diamonds’ says it all, wouldn’t you agree?

Lab-grown diamonds sidestep those issues, although they, too, come with their own footprint: the process of creating them costs insane amounts of energy. Still, many see them as a more transparent alternative, and certainly as a more affordable one.

What makes jewellery really valuable? Rethinking jewellery worth

This is where it gets interesting. Because, despite the rectification issued, much of jewellery marketing (actually, any marketing, when you think of it…) does rest on scarcity and exclusivity. Books like Aja Raden’s Stoned and documentaries like Nothing Lasts Forever peel back that history of how desire is created and maintained through careful control of supply and clever advertising. According to these sources, De Beers famously built the 20th-century diamond market on that very idea: diamonds were not inherently rare, but they were presented as such.

We tend to fall back on that way of looking at jewellery: by the worth of its materials alone. But as I wrote earlier, this is a very limited way of thinking about adornment. Jewellery is not just about price tags. It can be made of glass, shell, copper or plastic and still be ‘real’ because its value lies in meaning: in how it is worn, who gave it, what story it carries.

See that earlier blog here: what is real jewellery?

Zeeman’s diamond challenges two long-held assumptions: that diamonds are scarce, and that they must therefore be costly. If both of those are shaken, then what really gives jewellery its worth…?

When jewellery loses (or gains) value: a historical perspective

This isn’t the first time jewellery has faced a shift in how value is perceived. In the 19th century, for instance, jet and gutta-percha were introduced as substitutes for more expensive materials like onyx or tortoiseshell. They were mass-produced and affordable, and at the time, some dismissed them as cheap imitations. But today, Victorian mourning jewellery in jet is prized for its craftsmanship and historical significance – literally prized, as real jet is quite expensive.

Glass, too, has long been used in place of gemstones – sometimes to deceive, often simply to make beauty available to more people. We don’t consider Roman glass intaglios less valuable because they’re not carved in amethyst or garnet; instead, we treasure them for their artistry and survival – and because they tell us a lot about the society that produced them.

That also works the other way around; materials that were once expensive, but now so common we can’t even imagine them as anything else.

Changing jewellery value: aluminium

Take aluminium, for example. In the mid-19th century, this was considered a precious metal. I know, right…? Let that sink in for a moment.

Aluminium was difficult to extract and more valuable than gold. Gold earrings were set with tiny blobs of aluminium – a fashion-forward lady would be showing off the latest of the latest. The pair shown above (click to enlarge the image) must have been worth a small fortune. Napoleon III famously had a set of aluminium cutlery reserved for honoured guests, while less important ones dined with silver. Imagine doing that today!

It was only after mass production was made possible after 1886, that aluminium became a common industrial metal. Those earrings shown above were just about 25 years old at that time, and suffered the same fate as your previous iPhone: expensive on purchase, totally worthless a few years later. Today, they’re expensive again – not because of their material value, but because of their historical value.

Changing jewellery value: amethyst

And did you know amethyst long ranked alongside diamonds as a major gemstone? It was associated with royalty and the Church – until large deposits were discovered in Brazil, amethysts became readily available, and its status plummeted. You can now buy amethysts anywhere, from spiritual shops to your corner jwellery store.

Changing jewellery value: a historical constant

So, in other words, what we see now with lab-grown diamonds is not entirely new. Materials once considered second-rate can, over time, take on new layers of value as they become part of cultural history. And materials once rare and exotic lost their financial value after mass production made them accessible to a larger audience.

I’ve shown you just two examples above, but this ebbing and flowing of material value is a constant throughout history. Fancy types of flint were imported from faraway lands in prehistoric times, iron was a breathtakingly new material for Tutankhamun, glass knocked everyone’s socks off when it was first invented, pearls were super expensive and rare until Mr. Mikimoto invented culturing….the list goes on. Why should the value of diamonds be any different?

The diamond for everyone: what the Zeeman pendant reveals

The run on Zeeman’s webshop shows there is real demand for accessible diamonds. For many, the chance to gift or own a diamond was out of reach until now. And if jewellery is about meaning, about marking moments and relationships, then a €29.99 pendant can absolutely become an heirloom in its own right.

That is what fascinates me most: Zeeman has forced us to look straight at the assumptions of the jewellery trade. Scarcity, prestige, value – they are not fixed truths, but shifting ideas shaped by people, culture and time.

I must admit that as a historian, I quite enjoy how Zeeman stirs things up, holding a mirror up to the jewellery world – and yes, if a second batch is released, I’ll probably be queuing online with everyone else!

—

Find out more about the symbolism of jewellery in the e-courses!

More jewellery opinion posts? Browse them all here!

Join the Jewellery List and receive new articles, jewellery news and more in your inbox!

—

References

See the diamond pendant itself here.

More on the lawsuit is here.

See more on the remarkable rise and fall of aluminium here.

The Bedouin Silver blog gives credit where credit is due! Transparent referencing and citing sources helps us all grow. Would you like to do the same and quote this article? Here’s how:

S. van Roode, [write the title as you see it above this post], published on the Bedouin Silver website [paste the exact link to this article], accessed on [the date you are reading this article and decided it was useful for you].