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

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 270 posts

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

#141

Post by bluedevil2k »

arcticbull wrote: post #7

De Beers basically controls the whole diamond market. They make it almost impossible to resell them and strictly control the supply. They were also responsible (via advertising agency N. W. Ayer) for the idea that diamonds should be used in engagement rings in 1938-1941. This write-up from The Atlantic from 1982 explains the situation well. [1] Not sad to see the cartel taking an L. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ma…

> This write-up from The Atlantic from 1982 explains the situation well.

It explains the situation 40+ years ago, but is completely irrelevant today.

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

#143

Post by OJFord »

mortureb wrote: post #133
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?

Because it’s something women show off precisely as a signal of how much it cost. It has only so much to do with its aesthetic beauty.

What is? The certificate? Because otherwise you wouldn't know. For the same value of 'how much it cost', a lab-grown diamond (we're not talking about other non-diamond synthetics) will look better (clearer, fewer flaws) and/or be bigger. If you want to show it off on your finger, you want lab-grown.

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

#145

Post by Tao3300 »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #135
Fezzik wrote: post #95

What a great opportunity to re-share one of my favorite articles: https://priceonomics.com/diamonds-are-bullshit/ I really can’t think of an example better than people buying shiny rocks for absurd amounts of money that demonstrates how non-advanced we are, as a society generally.

The same can be said of BMWs, Philip Patek, Louis Vuitton, and dozens of other luxury brands. People like buying status signals, but it doesn’t signal how “non-advanced” we are. It’s how society has always worked and will always work.

> It’s how society has always worked and will always work.

There are a lot of things throughout history that you could say about. At the time it would have been impossible to see any other way, and yet we have advanced.

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

#148

Post by Tao3300 »

gnicholas wrote: post #31

I wonder what the second-order consequences will be. That is, people will still want to signal their commitment/ability to provide when proposing, so the drop in the price of diamonds won't necessarily reduce the overall outlay. Instead, it would shift the expense to another category (platinum or other expensive metals) or simply lead people to buy more carats (4 is the new 2!). In some ways, these moves could help l…

> That is, people will still want to signal their commitment/ability to provide when proposing

I think that's a maybe. It's equally possible that people are seeing through the bullshit of this faux ritual.

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

#149

Post by satvikpendem »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #139
satvikpendem wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, being able to see through it has nothing to do with water purity (unless your water is so muddy that it's not clear even as a liquid), it's to do with the formation of the ice and the incorporation of air bubbles. You can make clear ice pretty easily with molds.

"This crystal isn't impure - it's just full of pockets of an alien substance"?

If by purity you mean any sort of "alien substance" whatsoever, stick with liquid water. And I hope you don't like any colored minerals, as those all have "alien substances" inside.

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

#150

Post by OJFord »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #130
Xcelerate wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want a lab grown diamond in the shape of a giant wafer. That way I can build a pan around it and use that to cook food in. That incredible thermal conductivity is wasted sitting in a piece of jewelry.

Lab diamonds are routinely grown in the shape of giant wafers. (And then smaller parts are cut out of the wafers.) This shouldn't be that hard to get if you really want it. (I have a friend who used to have a job drawing cut plans for diamond wafers at Kyocera Unimerco.)

Hm, almost 5x the thermal conductivity of copper. Since this is HN.. let's say we were actually to build such a pan, is it practical?

My first thought is that the high conductivity doesn't necessarily mean it won't, being loose and hand-wavey with terminology because I don't know it, fracture with thermal shock, like non-borosilicate glassware (don't change the temp. too quickly) say, or ceramics (don't introduce too much of a temp. delta across the item, e.g. heating on a hob)?

Second thought is 'is it too much better than copper', in the sense that is the conductivity no longer the limiting factor? Copper is prized (and actually bloody hard to get these days - afaict everything on Amazon is copper-coloured or at best clad aluminium) because of fast 'response time' to change in heat, as you adjust the burner or pull it off the heat altogether. Conductivity also helps with even heating of course, but it doesn't help it cool particularly, which is limited by the rate of loss due to convection through air (and what's being cooked, which is what we want to limit if we're hoping for it to cool) and radiation?

Post reply on HN