Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

scmp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 314 posts

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#61

Post by inanutshellus »

ansgri wrote: post #57
phkahler wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> From what I understand, these gems are actually better than natural ones... Yes, for decades they claimed clarity and purity to be indicators of the highest quality. Now that humans can manufacture them with better specs than nature, they're shifting to claim that "natural" is better. In the end it's a pretty carbon lattice.

I'd expect a significant change in diamond pricing structure — De Beers and the jewelry industry sure can keep prices from dropping uncontrollably, but I'd guess some kinds of impurities will become markers of superior value ("true natural 10..100× more expensive") due to difficulty of artificial reproduction.

I can see the desire for obviously occluded diamonds to become chic, since their manufacturing value would be low enough that fakes likely wouldn't exist, but I don't see how impurities would be "difficult to reproduce".

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#62

Post by MereInterest »

Jedd wrote: post #53
3pt14159 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s my favourite book of his, but I’ve stopped recommending it to non-programmers because I think much of it’s magic is knowing how much of it is actually possible in the future.

Possibly a key indicator of a quality SF idea / author -- how much closer we are to their universe a decade or two later. I've loved everything Neal's written, though I may begrudgingly agree with various critics that suggest he really doesn't do endings very well (REAMDE and Anathem are much, much better on this front). I've tried recommending various books of his to different friends, and I've concluded that I have…

I read somewhere (cannot find source at the moment) that Neal Stephenson would start each day with a complete reread of the book he was working on, editing as he went. This would explain why the first few chapters of his books are always the strongest, because they get the most attention and polish in this method, while the endings tend to be weaker.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#63

Post by mseebach »

Jedd wrote: post #53
3pt14159 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s my favourite book of his, but I’ve stopped recommending it to non-programmers because I think much of it’s magic is knowing how much of it is actually possible in the future.

Possibly a key indicator of a quality SF idea / author -- how much closer we are to their universe a decade or two later. I've loved everything Neal's written, though I may begrudgingly agree with various critics that suggest he really doesn't do endings very well (REAMDE and Anathem are much, much better on this front). I've tried recommending various books of his to different friends, and I've concluded that I have…

> though I may begrudgingly agree with various critics that suggest he really doesn't do endings very well (REAMDE and Anathem are much, much better on this front).

It seems his "formula" is that the first 90% of the book is world building (and he's absolutely amazing at that), then the last 10% is the actual story, but packed into an impossibly small space, so it feels like everything happening at once.

In REAMDE and Anathem, the split feel more like 70/30, but he "compensates" by having so much more story, so it's still everything happening at once, but for much longer. It almost feels exhausting.

Seveneves tries a different formula, it's more like 40/10/40/10. Still, I'd wish he'd nail a story that actually goes on throughout the novel, with the world building interleaved.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#64

Post by samastur »

gruez wrote: post #46

>Indeed, even the most experienced diamantaire’s in the world can’t tell the fakes from those extracted from mines when using their naked eye, which is where technology comes in if they look identical to the naked eye, how can jewelers and debeers justify buying the naturals? are you now buying the diamond for its "history" or "story"? is it like buying "organic" food? or is it purely because it was never about the d…

As somebody who recently had to buy a replacement wedding ring I can assure you price of jewellery has little to do with price of materials. Mark-up is huge, but knowing this doesn't help you much if everyone is on the racket (to some extent).

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#65

Post by mseebach »

WingH wrote: post #6
saagarjha wrote: post #3

> De Beers fights fakes with technology as China’s lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems From what I understand, these gems are actually better than natural ones, since they're 100% pure. Maybe it's time to call lab-grown diamonds "real" and mined ones "fake".

Yep I am calling man-made gems “real” diamonds from now on. Der Bers, take that! (I hope your social listening catches this)

> Der Bers, take that! (I hope your social listening catches this)

You probably might want to, like, spell their name even remotely correctly for that to happen.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#66

Post by scythe »

kbutler wrote: post #35
userbinator wrote: post #15

As the price of diamond continues dropping, I wonder if people will find more interesting applications of the material and it'll eventually become as mundane as things like steel and aluminium. Besides its hardness, it also has very high thermal conductivity. Diamond is still too expensive to be a bulk material, but I look forward to when things like this become cheap and commonplace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi…

Aluminum in the 1800s was more expensive than gold, and was used as jewelry, fancy cutlery, the capstone of the Washington monument, etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aluminium Inexpensive mass production moved it from niche prestige uses to unlock its many utilitarian applications.

In Napoleon's day it was more expensive than gold. By the time the Washington Monument was constructed the price had dropped to roughly the level of silver. Titanium might be poised to follow in its footsteps after the discovery of electrolysis of titanium oxide in molten calcium chloride, analogous to the cryolite process.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#67

Post by pjc50 »

vanderZwan wrote: post #31
Jedd wrote: post #2

> De Beers is fighting Chinese lab-grown diamonds And I hope they lose. https://priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bulls... (and HN comments on original posting 2013-03-19 -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5403988 )

If you ever want a proof that the market can be utterly irrational, look no further than: > The arrival of lab-grown diamonds has challenged the widely-held assumption that diamond prices could only go up

Someone should tell the bitcoin people.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#68

Post by bawse1 »

I think that many of us are missing the main factor in what makes organic diamonds so expensive. Organic diamonds are "desirable". Desire is strong emotion that can defy logic and is pinnacle to the purchase of any luxury item. It is always the same argument when many of us like to compare a luxury item based on its utility rather than its desirability be it $100k tesla vs. $2k beat up honda, $1k iphone x vs. $600 android. The old honda can take you from point a-b, the android can do what the iphone can. Sure you can nit-pick differences between them but we forget how much of a premium we all pay for things we desire.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#69

Post by wolfgke »

ce4 wrote: post #48
cptskippy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's organic vs synthetic. Not real vs fake. There was a similar problem with Rubies and they detected the fakes by virtue of the fact that they were flawless.

Even if they succeed (edit: with that fake-vs-natural campaign), what if the next step introduced artificial flaws and impurities?

> what if the next step introduced artificial flaws and impurities?

Develop methods to distinguish "natural"/"organic" impurities from artificially introduced flaws.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#70

Post by dsacco »

sharpneli wrote: post #16
saagarjha wrote: post #3

> De Beers fights fakes with technology as China’s lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems From what I understand, these gems are actually better than natural ones, since they're 100% pure. Maybe it's time to call lab-grown diamonds "real" and mined ones "fake".

Saying lab grown gems are fake is like saying "Is that Orchid you bought me a fake from greenhouse or a real one that someone picked from a jungle?" It's funny what massive marketing campaign can do.

In fairness, that massive marketing campaign only worked because people are very susceptible to preferring “natural” things over “artificial” things, especially with art and luxury items. Diamonds are not unusual in this regard.
Post reply on HN