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

201–210 of 314 posts

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

#201

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

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.

There's a very philosophical question underlying this whole thing. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and is in pretty much all the ways that matter in any given context indistinguishable from a duck, is it a duck? Even if we know it's a robot?

At any rate, at least we can rest assured in the knowledge that if it weighs the same as a duck it is definitely a witch.

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

#202

Post by robotsonic »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #200
baldfat wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheap titanium bikes are high on my list but I think the killer application is titanium hinges. Springs will last a lifetime. Looks like this is starting to happen alreadt: https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/titanium-hinges.html $0.25 for a hinge Titanium is light, but my favorite thing is it is next to impossible to bend. So anything that shouldn't bend will be better with titanium.

> Titanium is light, but my favorite thing is it is next to impossible to bend. This gives an insane amount of tensile strenght since it always wants to retain its shape. TBH I have no idea why we haven't seen Titanium in things like golf clubs, hockey sticks, baseball bats, tennis rackets, snowboards etc, where you could really use its springy characteristics to a huge advantage. I've always felt like it has a huge…

As far as I know, they are used quite heavily in golf and tennis equipment.

Hockey sticks tend to be carbon fiber.

I think the baseball wood/aluminum debate can't handle another metal

Snowboards and such do benefit from being able to bend. I could see it more in alpine snowboard equipment, but again, I'm not sure that carbon fiber wouldn't be the better bet.

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

#203

Post by akgerber »

baldfat wrote: post #140
dmix wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, what are some of the places we would start to see titanium if the prices dropped?

Cheap titanium bikes are high on my list but I think the killer application is titanium hinges. Springs will last a lifetime. Looks like this is starting to happen alreadt: https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/titanium-hinges.html $0.25 for a hinge Titanium is light, but my favorite thing is it is next to impossible to bend. So anything that shouldn't bend will be better with titanium.

You can already buy a titanium bike (sourced from China) for a very reasonable place from Bikesdirect.com— mine was cheaper than a steel Surly Straggler for similar specs.

Habanero also sells them for low, but not quite as low, prices: https://www.habcycles.com/

There seem to be a bunch of low-cost titanium manufacturers in China selling directly on eBay.

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

#205

Post by ameister14 »

ancap wrote: post #164
ameister14 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A truly free market requires complete transparency, something the diamond market has historically lacked.

I disagree. I think in a lot of cases buyers should or would demand transparency (ie. has this house ever been flooded?), but I don't think it's a strict requirement in the broad sense you may be implying. Transparency can be subjective. For example, a person sells 100 shares of ACME stock to a savvy buyer. A short time later the stock triples in value, and the seller sues the buyer because they were not "completely…

I was talking about market transparency; it's more like the person selling the shares sells them to one person at a discount and another person at a high price. For a free market to function, the buyer would need to know the other prices people have paid for the same goods.

If you don't have that, a free market can't work well.

When you buy something in a free market, you should know its quality, characteristics and the price on the market. You should also know its provenance, relative supply and transport/marketing cost. That's transparency. It lets you buy things and make the most efficient choices, which is why it's fundamental for a free market.

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

#206

Post by kenning »

aeorgnoieang wrote: post #138
kalcode wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feel like diamonds are such a great example for the 'a free-market' people. They typically argue that in a truly free-market everything is better. Well diamond trade exists largely in a free market until it hits some of the countries they sell in but before that we basically have blood being spilt over them and companies existing outside of strong regulated countries to funnel the diamonds into and control the price.…

Typically 'free markets', at least among sincere proponents of them, don't include "blood being spilt"; that's what makes things un-free.

Here the guy you're replying to is talking about U.S. Libertarian ideology, which wouldn't care about foreign conflict of any type.

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

#207

Post by kenning »

danlash wrote: post #151

My SO is a geologist and likes the idea that Earth created the mineral over millions/billions of years through extreme processes. I'm a technologist, so I kinda like the idea that humans created something "better" using our tools and techniques.

have you bought the diamond yet? it sounds like you guys are one of the rare couples for whom diamonds are particularly romantic. maybe you could buy half of a 'real' and half of a synthetic diamond and combine them?

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

#208

Post by Brakenshire »

cptskippy wrote: post #72
ce4 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> 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.

I wonder whether they could go a fair trade route, focus only on communities which could be improved, and give them a small slice (which would make an enormous difference). It would require a change in approach, not just a marketing whitewash.

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

#209

Post by avisser »

cptskippy wrote: post #36
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".

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.

All the carbon is ultimately from a star. And the pressure that makes the real/organic diamond is 0% organic.

Geo-sourced vs anthro-sourced?

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

#210

Post by avisser »

aepiepaey wrote: post #196
dsacco wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s only manipulative to take advantage of people’s desires for “real” diamonds insofar as it is manipulative to take advantage of people’s desires for “real” luxury items of any sort that can be faked. In other words: calling it manipulative isn’t productive, because that is essentially how the entire luxury industry works. We can make hyperrealistic imitation handbags and watches, but people still prefer the real…

The use of fake/real is definitely manipulative. Especially for people who are not (yet) particularly invested/interested, it signals that the "fake" ones are flawed and objectively worse in terms of quality, because of the parallel to fake (counterfeit) goods which often are. Instead of fake, calling them synthetic or artificial would be more neutral choices. For "real" you could use "natural(ly occurring)" or simil…

"Look at that asshole eating fake ice out of his freezer. Go get some real glacier ice, shithead!"
Post reply on HN