Diamond prices are in free fall in one key corner of the market

Post by TylerE » Tue, Sep 05, 2023, 10:37 PM UTC

spiderxxxx wrote: post #41

slashdev wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pitched this to my wife a few years back. She insisted she’d rather have a smaller natural diamond. It makes no sense to me. Shiny carbon is shiny carbon to me. There’s no real logic in it. But given it’s a status symbol that derives its value from its rareness, I suppose it’s no different than a Luis Vutton or a Rolex. It’s not about the function, it’s about the fact that you can afford one. I hate that mentality,…

Diamonds are not that rare. They're durable, so it's not like an old diamond is going to break or something. So, there should be plenty of diamonds for everyone who wants one. Rings made in the 1920s and up probably have some sort of diamond in it, and if you don't like the ring, keep the gem and craft a new ring around it. I prefer more rare stones, such as a padparadscha sapphire, or Alexandrite. I prefer to give m…

Post by rbranson » Tue, Sep 05, 2023, 10:40 PM UTC

brianwawok wrote: post #17

slashdev wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pitched this to my wife a few years back. She insisted she’d rather have a smaller natural diamond. It makes no sense to me. Shiny carbon is shiny carbon to me. There’s no real logic in it. But given it’s a status symbol that derives its value from its rareness, I suppose it’s no different than a Luis Vutton or a Rolex. It’s not about the function, it’s about the fact that you can afford one. I hate that mentality,…

The difference between a $200 and a $2000 bottle of wine is mostly how expensive the thing you are drinking is. Tons of industries and products work like this. Why would it surprise you that gems are any different?

Post by xwdv » Tue, Sep 05, 2023, 10:41 PM UTC

OJFord wrote: post #5

It's crazy to prefer a natural diamond for anything other than a collectors' item. It's not about being 'cheap' - whatever your budget is, if you're picking an engagement ring say, why not get a technically superior (or larger) stone for the same price tag?

Post by OkayPhysicist » Tue, Sep 05, 2023, 10:47 PM UTC

irrational wrote: post #91

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you like the shininess of diamonds, they're really hard to beat on the "pretty" front. Diamonds have a crazy internal refractive index, which, once exemplified by an appropriate cut, gives them a pretty unique shininess. The only gems that come close are substantially softer, meaning they lose they lose the precise cuts that give them the extra shimmer relatively quickly. Don't enrich Russia by buying mined diamon…

But Moissanite are shinier than diamonds, very nearly as hard, but at a fraction of the price. And nobody can tell the difference without training and possibly a microscope.

Post by hutzlibu » Tue, Sep 05, 2023, 10:59 PM UTC

ChainOfFools wrote: post #100

munificent wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you suppose is the value that distinguishes these two processes? The story? Of course it is the story. The value in everything is the meaning we attach to it, not the thing itself. With a natural diamond, it's the idea that you have a unique artifact formed over millions of years, an irreplaceable corner of the Earth and its history owned by you and you alone, which then suggests that you yourself have a ce…

I don't argue that stories are very important, and they are in fact the only thing we have. But that does not make themselves Justified categorically. In fact my username, chain of fools, is the title of a song whose lyrics, although very brief, are very much about believing stories told with the motivation to do harm - or at very least to deprive others of something valuable so that the teller can have that same som…