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

71–80 of 314 posts

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

#71

Post by CydeWeys »

arikrak wrote: post #40
hyper_reality wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also highly recommend Edward Epstein's Atlantic article on this too: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-yo... One of the best pieces of long-form journalism ever published, without a doubt.

The Priceonomics post didn't really say much more than the Atlantic article, I don't think it discussed synthetic diamonds or the internet or anything. Cubic zirconia looks identical to diamonds but it's not chemically the same so people always considered it fake. Synthetic diamonds are chemically identical so De Beers need to invest millions in figuring out ways to distinguish them. Natural diamonds don't add anythi…

Cubic zirconia is significantly different from diamond in hardness, optical dispersion, and density. Moissanite is a much closer match, but is more expensive to manufacture.

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

#72

Post by cptskippy »

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?

Probably but I doubt they'll be successful. For decades they've talked about the flawlessness and purity of diamonds, now faced with a superior product they have to change everyone's minds.

They could go the granola from the earth natural route but unlike organic farming, which evokes images of the stoic farmer, their image is of conflict diamonds and exploited children in dangerous mines.

Couple that with the fact that many people no longer buy the diamonds or see the value that DeBeers put on them. And the fact that millennials are poor and they have a fading empire.

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

#74

Post by djtriptych »

bawse1 wrote: post #68

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 an…

On the other hand, we don’t need $50,000 robots to tell the difference between phones or cars.

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

#75

Post by MereInterest »

zaarn wrote: post #42

I wonder if I could buy lab diamonds from alibaba, I'm currently not able to check. I would certainly get the cheap "fake" over the ""real stuff"".

You can, but they aren't as cheap as I had been hoping. If I recall correctly from when I searched a few years ago, they are about 30-50% the price of mined diamonds. Much cheaper overall, but not at commodity levels yet. I had been hoping that they would be cheap enough to buy a few hundred, then hand them out as party favors to weird people out. At some point, I hope they get there.

Rubies, on the other hand, are ridiculously cheap. If I feel like picking up another hobby, learning to cut gemstones from bulk corundum could be rather fun.

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

#76

Post by ThinkingGuy »

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.

They should do what they did with pearls: start referring to the lab-grown ones as "cultured diamonds."

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

#77

Post by wolfgke »

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)

> Yep I am calling man-made gems “real” diamonds from now on.

I believe that De Beers has hired a group of highly qualified advertising specialists. So your "little first world anarchy" is really futile.

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

#78

Post by aaron695 »

megaman22 wrote: post #34
vanderZwan wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I guess if there's no blood on your diamond, it isn't real...

Just like a drawing done by a random child is exactly the same as a drawing done by your own child?

Of course it isn't real if it's missing blood, a stupid cliche with a movie to boot, but I'll run with it.

Yes where it comes from matters. How it's made matters.

We are not children in philosophy 101. The history counts.

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

#79

Post by wolfgke »

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…

> 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"?

For some certificate of "naturalness" that comes with the diamond which the jeweler will be able hand out to his customers.

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

#80

Post by Jedd »

mseebach wrote: post #63
Jedd wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

Normally with his books I can self-restrain in the 'this is interesting, but I want to keep it going as long as possible' and put the book down for a bit. REAMDE was the first book of his where it was more along the lines of 'jesus christ I must know what happens next, I don't care what time it is' ... and got through the whole thing in a couple of days. Much agreement on the 'exhausting' sensation, but also in a good way.

REAMDE was also similarly received by my other half -- a case in point to my earlier observation about being unable to predict which NS book matches (my understanding of) someone's literary tastes.

Seveneves also backs up my low-quality self-assessment capabilities -- my other half loved that too, despite always pushing back on 'science fiction'. I read an astonishingly annoying spoiler in an HN comment soon after that book was released, and I've subsequently been very cautious talking about it. Suffice to say the ending of that book is frustrating primarily because it's still not clear if there may be a follow-up work.

Post reply on HN