Lots of things have happened in the 40 years since that article was written. De Beers do not control the market anymore the way they did before. Wikipedia says > De Beers's market share of rough diamonds to fall from as high as 90% in the 1980s to 29.5% in 2019 > De Beers sold off the vast majority of its diamond stockpile in the late 1990s – early 2000s and the remainder largely represents working stock (diamonds th…
[flagged]
what kind of anti-intellectual stance are you taking here?
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.
When I last researched the topic, Moissanites almost exclusively came with a kinda ugly yellow tinge, but apparently that's not an issue anymore. Definitely a great choice. (Though I disagree that laypeople can't tell the difference between doubly-refractive and singly refractive gems)
When considering getting a Moissanite ring, I spent a significant amount of time researching the differences between diamonds and Moissanite, but I couldn’t explain or recognize the difference between doubly-refractive and singly refractive gems. We’ve even had jewelers who have looked at my wife’s ring and thought it was diamond. Admittedly that was a casual look and not a thorough appraisal, nevertheless, I doubt even a tiny percentage of the population could spot the difference.
> Shiny carbon is shiny carbon to me You're only considering intrinsic value. That's helpful for raw commodities. For nearly everything else, value is tied to perception, history, etc. If I have two identical baseballs, they're both "just" baseballs. But one of them could have much more value due to its history: maybe it was a homerun ball by a famous player, or a ball that I or a family member hit/caught. Same funct…
Yeah, that makes sense. It’s not about the function, that’s for sure. > Misunderstanding that is a failure to understand essential human characteristics. I’ll add that to the list of human behavior that I don’t really understand.
That seems supremely othering. Do you have people in your life that you value over humans you don't know? What are the people you know, over the people that you don't, other than them being a meat bag that you know stories about, vs a meat bag that you don't?
> artificial in a human machine in a lab - and the other by raw natural forces in the wild What do you suppose is the value that distinguishes these two processes? The story? Or is it the persistence of the naturalistic fallacy, surfacing in all sorts of places and in all kinds of minds including those one would expect are habitually vigilant against what is essentially a generalized form of superstition.
“Artificial” usually isn’t a positive thing when the word comes up. We’re often told to avoid artificial sweeteners, artificially hydrogenated oils, artificially enhanced flavors, artificial dyes and colorants… and that’s just in food and beverage, and totally ignoring the luxury image of natural hardwood instead of wood veneer, natural glass/crystal instead of plastic. Diamonds are just about the only thing I can th…
> We’re often told to avoid artificial sweeteners, artificially hydrogenated oils, artificially enhanced flavors, artificial dyes and colorants
Well I say we should avoid artificial distinctions - such as the one between natural and artificial!
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,…
With logic like that, why buy a diamond at all? Sounds like your wife gets it!
Hopefully she gets the travel vacation she actually wants instead of a ring she doesn't!
Eh… stupidly expensive, unethically sourced, low store of value, easily substituted by superior cheaper alternatives feels like the height of “bad” materialism if there is such a thing.
Considering how many marriages end due to finances and how often couples fight over money, "wastes money" is probably one of the least desirable traits in a future spouse. "Failure to see reason" is probably the next biggest red-flag/dealbreaker for me. I'm going to die alone.
Fortunately it's the future. Just (gently) advertise on your Tinder (well, more likely Hinge) profile that you've watched that movie about blood diamonds and will be buying your and your future wife a lavish foreign honeymoon instead of a blood diamond to pre-screen potential dates if it's a deal breaker to you.
A good analogy is ice. We all use “freezer-grown crystalline water,” but prior to the invention of refrigeration, we harvested natural ice from frozen lakes and stored them in ice houses for use throughout the summer. Sure, there’s some romance from hand-harvested ice, but you can’t beat the price and purity of ice from a freezer.
Ice from a freezer is extremely impure. If it was pure, you could see right through it, the same way you can with a pure diamond.
(The freezer, of course, has nothing to do with this - it's the water you're putting into it that's impure.)
When I last researched the topic, Moissanites almost exclusively came with a kinda ugly yellow tinge, but apparently that's not an issue anymore. Definitely a great choice. (Though I disagree that laypeople can't tell the difference between doubly-refractive and singly refractive gems)
When considering getting a Moissanite ring, I spent a significant amount of time researching the differences between diamonds and Moissanite, but I couldn’t explain or recognize the difference between doubly-refractive and singly refractive gems. We’ve even had jewelers who have looked at my wife’s ring and thought it was diamond. Admittedly that was a casual look and not a thorough appraisal, nevertheless, I doubt e…
Oh, looking at one or the other, almost certainly not. I mean that if you lined up 2 diamonds and a moissanite, I'd bet the average person would be able to pick out the odd one out.
> "With the increase in supply we’ll see prices fall through the price point and reach a level where, long term, it does not compete with bridal because it comes too cheap"
> artificial in a human machine in a lab - and the other by raw natural forces in the wild What do you suppose is the value that distinguishes these two processes? The story? Or is it the persistence of the naturalistic fallacy, surfacing in all sorts of places and in all kinds of minds including those one would expect are habitually vigilant against what is essentially a generalized form of superstition.
> 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…
>it's the idea that you have a unique artifact formed over millions of years
No it isn't. There are plenty of ugly diamonds — they are also formed over millions of years and are never sold to consumers. This is an ad hoc justification. People only cared about the beauty of the diamond until lab made ones came along. They are cut to increase the beauty. That already makes it processed. Nobody buys uncut diamonds. And I'm sure there are other stones formed over millions of years that are just black and nobody cares for. Raw olivine for example is priced by the ton. I'm sure there are even cheaper minerals at these depths that nobody cares about at all.