Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

Post by stordoff » Fri, Mar 09, 2018, 3:39 PM UTC

dsacco wrote: post #58

vanderZwan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They’re called fake because they’re artificial, not because they have more flaws (...) give credit to the other side’s point: they have a reasonable and internally consistent argument The only thing I credit them for is being ruthlessly manipulative. "Fakes" is not a neutral word. It was very specifically chosen for its emotional baggage, similar to "pro-lifer" or "franken-foods". It is an emotional distracting pie…

You’re taking away a lot of agency from people who prefer natural diamonds. Yes, of course their marketing campaign set off the industry, but the reason it worked is because many people are already predisposed to prefer natural things over artificial things. What you’re calling “emotional baggage” is a subjective preference for some things over other things. It’s only doublespeak if you subscribe to a literalist form…

Post by rhino369 » Fri, Mar 09, 2018, 3:40 PM UTC

theandrewbailey wrote: post #136

andrewla wrote: post #98

> At a trade fair in Hong Kong on Tuesday De Beers unveiled its latest diamond verification technology, the coffee-machine sized AMS2 that costs US$45,000 – already a substantial discount to the US$65,000 price tag of its predecessor. Within the first few hours of its release, over a dozen orders had flooded in, the company said. All I can think when I read this is that of course they get orders -- all the companies…

Maybe I missed something: how exactly is a diamond "organic"? Do you mean "natural"?

Post by sah2ed » Fri, Mar 09, 2018, 3:41 PM UTC

dsacco wrote: post #82

zaarn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes a diamond "natural"? IMO it's not much different than deciding to drink "natural water" over simple tap water (though I'm basing this off living near a spring well that supplies my tap water, experiences may vary).

That’s an interesting analogy, I’m not really sure how to answer that. I suppose I would respond by saying that water isn’t exactly analogous because it’s not a luxury good. A better example might be a “fake” Rolex or a “fake” Hermes handbag. Both such items can be convincingly faked (at least up to very close review, even if not by a qualified inspection team with knowledge of trade secrets). But people still prefer…

Post by dsacco » Fri, Mar 09, 2018, 3:44 PM UTC

vanderZwan wrote: post #99

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…

> In other words: calling it manipulative isn’t productive, because that is essentially how the entire luxury industry works. The fact that an entire industry relies on fallacies does not make calling out those fallacies counter-productive. On the contrary.

Post by abritinthebay » Fri, Mar 09, 2018, 3:45 PM UTC

ce4 wrote: post #114

cptskippy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I wouldn't be so quick to say that they won't succeed - their marketing has been managing the public opinion about diamonds for 7 decades. Neither blood diamonds, environmental issues nor the (false) perception of scarcity has brought them down yet.