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

181–190 of 314 posts

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

#181

Post by abritinthebay »

intrasight wrote: post #107
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".

I thought that De Beer had changed their approach to one of promoting the imperfections of real diamonds. And the news this week regarding "deeper" diamonds having exceedingly rare minerals embedded within could further this cause. https://www.sciencealert.com/super-deep-diamond-contains-cal... "Rare" still has status and therefore a price premium.

It does but it requires them being ok ceding the mass market.

Which is fine, but it’s a massive cultural shift for them & I’m not sure they’d want to do that (though they may have no choice).

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

#182

Post by MereInterest »

tjalfi wrote: post #158
MereInterest wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Were you thinking of William Gibson[0]? [0] https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6089/william-gibso...

You are correct, and I was thinking of William Gibson. Thank you for correcting me.

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

#183

Post by hdkrgr »

peatmoss wrote: post #150
intrasight wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iron was more expensive than gold at the dawn of the iron age. The only way humans obtained iron was from meteorites.

This is so incredibly badass. I mean, just imagine that the only practicable place to get this new, incredibly strong material, was from space. On the topic of found vs made materials: I’ve read that shipwrecks are getting mined as a source of steel because it’s more or less impossible to make new steel that isn’t contaminated by trace amounts of radiation from 20th century nuclear testing. While not a problem for sk…

More on the latter point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel

The same effect was also used in understanding brain development by looking at Carbon isotopes in brains of people born before WW2 to determine which cells were formed when.

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

#184

Post by specialbat »

There are extensive diamond mining operations in the Canadian arctic. I always thought it ironic that people choose for a symbol of their love an object that necessitated destruction of the natural landscape and the production of toxic tailings. Often it is the government who has to do the clean up when it is done at all. It would be a fine thing if lab diamonds could stop this.

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

#185

Post by dsacco »

sah2ed wrote: post #175
dsacco wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an interesting analogy, I’m not really sure how to answer that. I suppose I would respond by saying that water isn’t exactly analogous because it’s not a luxury good. A better example might be a “fake” Rolex or a “fake” Hermes handbag. Both such items can be convincingly faked (at least up to very close review, even if not by a qualified inspection team with knowledge of trade secrets). But people still prefer…

I think the gp's analogy of natural water is better than the luxury good you suggested because the underlying distinction is a choice between something naturally occuring vs man-made.

I disagree. Gold is clearly a luxury item despite being natural. More importantly, diamonds are luxury goods, for better or worse, which means they wouldn’t adhere to the price dynamics of water.

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

#186

Post by rhino369 »

SomeHacker44 wrote: post #97

I just don't get it. Who cares what the source of a diamond is? Isn't the point of a diamond its beauty in the eye of the beholder? If I had a big diamond I would definitely want the cheapest one possible with a visual aesthetic I like. Fortunately, my wife and I don't like diamonds and we have purple sapphires in our wedding bands.

It's about rarity and authencity.

You might as well ask why people buy first issue Superman Number 1 comics and not a reprint? Same shit pictures right?

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

#187

Post by smoyer »

Good! ... The DeBeers cartel is monopolistic and exploitative. There's an interesting article that talks about how they initially created demand for diamonds as they weren't commonly associated with an engagement. I'm glad to hear there's a competitor that should at a minimum lead to a price correction.

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

#189

Post by vanderZwan »

dsacco wrote: post #177
vanderZwan wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In other words: calling it manipulative isn’t productive, because that is essentially how the entire luxury industry works. The fact that an entire industry relies on fallacies does not make calling out those fallacies counter-productive. On the contrary.

“Productive” here means that there is no distinguishing feature of the diamond industry in particular with respect to the luxury industry. In other words, the criticism of the diamond industry is not productively precise. Of course, you can productively criticize the entire luxury industry, sure, I don’t disagree with that. More to the point, what exactly is the fallacy? That the “real” products are better? They are…

> “Productive” here means that there is no distinguishing feature of the diamond industry in particular with respect to the luxury industry. In other words, the criticism of the diamond industry is not productively precise.

Oh really? And you did not think of explaining this completely non-standard usage of the word "productive" until now? Who is not being "productively precise" in their argumentation here?

I'm done with this debate. Your style of discussion is basically building up a giant Rube Goldberg machine of words for something that is extremely simple at the core, which is turning it into an endurance run of who can keep up with the walls of text the longest. That is neither convincing, nor respectful of the person you are debating with to.

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

#190

Post by astannard »

So De Beers argument is that their shiny rocks dug out from the ground are worth far more than shiny rocks made in a machine. When no one really cares and people cant tell the difference apart from experts saying they are "fake" to keep their own industries assets from plummeting in value?
Post reply on HN