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

De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

money.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 455 posts

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#401

Post by dragontamer »

jagger27 wrote: post #380
ISL wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the Diamond Age arrives, it's going to be amazing. For a sneak peek, look up "diamond-like coatings", already in use in physics experiments and industry.

One diamond crystal smartphone screen for me, please.

The chief problem with smartphone screens these days is not them getting scratched, but with them cracking.

Diamonds, despite being very hard, are also very brittle. They'll likely crack much more easily than Gorilla Glass (another hard material that is hard to scratch).

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#402

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

fgonzag wrote: post #10

"Lightbox will transform the lab-grown diamond sector by offering consumers a lab-grown product they have told us they want but aren't getting: affordable fashion jewelry that may not be forever, but is perfect for right now" This is clearly a play to devalue the image of man made diamonds. "May not be forever" my ass, it's the exact same thing. Their goal is probably to try to quickly drive the price of man made dia…

This reminds me of the story about how Coke launched an intentionally bad competitor to "Crystal Pepsi" in order to confuse the marketplace.

http://11points.com/coke-made-intentionally-terrible-clear-c...

The strategy is called Kamikaze marketing... and can result in fantastic stories like this, but it is almost never successful. Unfortunately I think DeBeers might have the ability to pull it off.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#403

Post by gowld »

riffic wrote: post #395
Retric wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents last for 20 years and can be invalidated or worked around. Copyright is ~forever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_term

Beautiful illustration of how "for now" becomes "forever" as "now" moves forward.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#404

Post by AstralStorm »

jagger27 wrote: post #380
ISL wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the Diamond Age arrives, it's going to be amazing. For a sneak peek, look up "diamond-like coatings", already in use in physics experiments and industry.

One diamond crystal smartphone screen for me, please.

Did you mean one that shatters on the first hit? Even Gorilla Glass is better than this.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#405

Post by nonamenoslogan »

wlesieutre wrote: post #147
thaumasiotes wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Their goal is probably to try to quickly drive the price of man made diamonds down to the price of Moissanite, and create a artificial distinction between natural and man made dimaonds. > Indeed, diamond jewelers claim that silicon carbide (SiC) has "excess fire" as it has greater dispersion than diamond. SiC has a greater index of refraction, which improves the properties of total-internal-reflection as well! As…

Mineral name wise, sapphires are a type of corundum. Usually blue, sometimes green, yellow, orange, or others, depending on various metals mixed into it. But if it’s red (via chromium) it’s a ruby instead. Clear crystalline aluminum oxide you’d generally just call corundum (or aluminum oxide if you’re not feeling fancy), but that doesn’t market as well when you’re making watch faces and camera lenses out of it, so I…

Not all red sapphires are rubies--ruby describes "pigeon blood blue" red color. There are also ceylon sapphires that range from pinkish to fire-engine red through burnt orange in color.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#406

Post by gowld »

test6554 wrote: post #181
sigi45 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We as humans just need to be less stupid. Srsly no one cares if a stone is real or not.

Everyone is "trying" to be less stupid. But selling my wife's diamond rings and buying cubic zirconia replicas at this point feels like a very stupid move even though I know I will net a bunch of money up front, I hear divorces are very expensive.

You can't put the horse back fully in the barn. I applaud you for trying to help some poor sap trapped in demands made by his fiancee's adveristing-brainwashed mind, but as you note, not "everyone" is "trying" to be less stupid -- your wife isn't letting go of her cartel (and possibly blood) diamond.

This issue is squarely in the women feminists' court, and (for the most part) they haven't taken up the cause to stop supporting this evil system that hurts both men and women.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#407

Post by sandworm101 »

skykooler wrote: post #389
sandworm101 wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the 80s but only tiny or imperfect stones. The true diamond age is when we can make large structural things with diamonds. Imagine an aircraft wing made from a honeycomb of diamond rather than aluminum.

Diamond is a very poor structural material. It is very hard, but also quite brittle; it breaks easily, is heavy, and is flammable. Additionally, airplane wings specifically need to be flexible to absorb turbulence (like the suspension system on a car), while diamond is very stiff.

Diamond is stuff just like any other type of carbon. Solid diamond wings would be silly. But engineered microstructures of diamond could be very flexible where needed, and stiff where not. Diamond ropes, like bundles of carbon nanotubes, could do all sorts of things.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#408

Post by gowld »

astura wrote: post #303
test6554 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is "trying" to be less stupid. But selling my wife's diamond rings and buying cubic zirconia replicas at this point feels like a very stupid move even though I know I will net a bunch of money up front, I hear divorces are very expensive.

She's better off holding onto them because selling the won't actually net you "a bunch of money upfront," the resale market for diamond rings is incredibly poor. Personally, I just didn't even bother buying an engagement ring (or wedding ring for that matter) because it's a "tradition" that means literally absolutely nothing to me. My husband doesn't care that I don't want jewelry and he prefers to not wear a wedding…

> won't actually net you "a bunch of money upfront,"

Even if its a "charitable gift" on the seller's part, it saves one family from the suffering of buying a diamond.

> it's a "tradition" that means literally absolutely nothing to me.

Please preach to all the impressionable young women you know.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#409

Post by gowld »

6nf wrote: post #305
himom wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diamonds have little resale value because of high retail markups, on top of previous De Beers monopoly price controls. If someone paid $3000 retail for a ring, good luck getting $700 for it.

If that is true, where can I buy second-hand diamonds for a fraction of the cost? I've looked and I can't find any.

https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/jwa?query=diamond+engage...

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#410

Post by gowld »

kenning wrote: post #66
fgonzag wrote: post #10

"Lightbox will transform the lab-grown diamond sector by offering consumers a lab-grown product they have told us they want but aren't getting: affordable fashion jewelry that may not be forever, but is perfect for right now" This is clearly a play to devalue the image of man made diamonds. "May not be forever" my ass, it's the exact same thing. Their goal is probably to try to quickly drive the price of man made dia…

Very reminiscient of the intentional devaluation of Crystal Pepsi by Tab Clear (see the second paragraph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tab_Clear#Post-discontinuation )

That's absurd.

People just didn't go for the colorless cola fad that year. Why did "Tab Clear" "kill" Crystal Pepsi, but not Sprite or 7-Up?

The person who tried to copy Crystal Pepsi failed, and made up an excuse to cover his failure.

Post reply on HN