trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Natural gem-quality diamonds are not geologically rare.

the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
Recorded sources
0 sources for · 2 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that natural gem-quality diamonds are not geologically rare?

No. One source directly compares unmined gem-quality diamond reserves to gold reserves and concludes gem-quality diamonds are roughly 300-400 times rarer than gold, while another notes declining world production of gem-quality natural diamonds. Together they indicate gem-quality diamonds are geologically scarce rather than common.

Verdict: REFUTED · 0 sources for, 2 against · Last checked

The private library was unavailable for some searches in this check. Missing library results are not evidence against the claim.

Evidence against · 2
Are gem-quality diamonds common?
Get citation
Are gem-quality diamonds common?. (n.d.). skeptics.stackexchange.com. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/19573/are-gem-quality-diamonds-common

See more details
More against · 1
宝石概念の将来における変化
Get citation
宝石概念の将来における変化. (n.d.). cir.nii.ac.jp. https://doi.org/10.14915/gsjapan.4.2_60

Receipt History
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work