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

Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 686 posts

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#181

Post by humanrebar »

coddle-hark wrote: post #131
Nursie wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point, the difference doesn't have to be in the item itself, BUT - Does anyone, other than geologists of course, really care about the back-story of the diamond, how it was created and how it was mined? Or are they just hanging on to an idea that some of them are "real" and some "not real" for the purposes of social signalling? If the latter, I would consider this much more changeable over time.

> Does anyone, other than geologists of course, really care about the back-story of the diamond, how it was created and how it was mined? Yes, very much so, as is the case with all lifestyle products. People want to believe that they’re buying something special.

Someone should pay celebrities to wear specific jewelry with lab created stones to galas and awards ceremonies. Then resell the pieces, or even just the stones, at a premium since they were worn by .

Then folks would be buying something ethical and more glamorous. Maybe philanthropic donations could be associated to revitalize areas hurt by the diamond industry to further tell a story for the celebrities and consumers.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#182

Post by vonwoodson »

We just got out first “fake” diamond. It is not perfect, it does have bubbles in it (s1), so the idea that lab grown diamonds are all flawless is just not true. The price was what reeled us in. My wife in inherited two diamond earrings from her mother that were fairly large, also my wife has three piercings in each ear. Buying a property sized natural diamond was way, way, too expensive. We tried to look for a zirconia or crystal that would match the set, but nothing sparkles like a diamond; well the lab grown diamond just fist right into the set like a long lost sibling. What made my wife finally be ok with the lab grown diamond, in her mind, was that the gems and the gold were not what made the jewelry valuable to her. They are valuable because they were her mother’s. When my son, or his kids, eventually get our jewelry I hope that the value is the same for them for their sentiment and not their spot price. The lab grown diamond will be just as durable and beautiful as the natural ones. And, I would not be unhappy if the price of diamonds drops to be as cheap as a pebble.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#183

Post by onion2k »

coward76 wrote: post #145
joeblau wrote: post #65

Random diamond story! As a freshman in college, I took a geology class and our teacher asked all of the women in our class to raise their hand if they would rather have natural or human-made diamonds. Most of the women (over 80%) raised their hands for natural. The reasons they gave all seemed to tie back to branding and natural diamonds being “real.” Then our teacher gave another analogy. He asked if people would ra…

Would you rather buy a Banksy NFT Or JPG of a Banksy they are the same image at a fraction of the cost?

The NFT is a pointer to the image, not the image itself. Owning a copy of the JPG is actually closer to owning the art.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#184

Post by zaroth »

myfavoritedog wrote: post #169
coward76 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you rather buy a Banksy NFT Or JPG of a Banksy they are the same image at a fraction of the cost?

You can turn around and resell a Banksy for something comparable to what you just paid. Try doing that with a diamond. You walk out of the diamond showroom with it, and its resale value plummets to the value of the base metals, the work of the setting, plus a small fraction for what you had just paid for the diamond.

A certified laser etched diamond is a mass produced item that is pretty easy to authenticate. The brand name store selling it to you is invisible once it’s on your hand. There’s no such thing as a “used” diamond.

So the diamond is worth whatever it can be bought / sold for online. If walking out of the store drops it’s value, you’re donating to the store.

Buy an exactly equivalent stone elsewhere if the price drops too much after you buy it.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#185

Post by Kalium »

joeblau wrote: post #65

Random diamond story! As a freshman in college, I took a geology class and our teacher asked all of the women in our class to raise their hand if they would rather have natural or human-made diamonds. Most of the women (over 80%) raised their hands for natural. The reasons they gave all seemed to tie back to branding and natural diamonds being “real.” Then our teacher gave another analogy. He asked if people would ra…

I find it helps to remember that diamonds are a status symbol and a form of conspicuous consumption. People often want as much of that expensive, visible status and commitment signal as they can get.

Part of the significance of the gesture is the level of painful expense involved. So making the item much cheaper also cheapens the gesture.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#186

Post by Digit-Al »

crocsarecool wrote: post #153
Nursie wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that we shouldn't keep funding exploitative companies that treat people badly, and industries that are dangerous for workers and environmentally damaging. I think that's a win anyway. Here's another take - able bodied workers are less likely to be sucked into an industry which digs up shiny rocks to send overseas, and may be able to take up something of more benefit to the local economy.

I’m worried that it takes a certain amount of poverty/desperation in the local workforce to be exploited heinously. For them, an exploitative job is probably the difference between eating a little or not eating at all. Yes, it’s good that they won’t be exploited once the mined diamond industry goes away, but I think they’re still getting the rug pulled out from under them. Their income is replaced with nothing, and i…

There's a very strong chance I am completely wrong about this but my feeling on the matter is as follows.

As long as mined diamonds are profitable there is a strong incentive for criminal interests to hinder any attempts to improve the lot of the local inhabitants so they have a continued supply of very cheap labour. If you make diamond mining unprofitable then the criminal elements move on to other more profitable enterprises. This leaves the local populace free from interference, and efforts by aid agencies to improve their lot may have a better chance of succeeding.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#187

Post by mattowen_uk »

whitepaint wrote: post #146
mattowen_uk wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engagement rings are rings of ownership - They are a marker to tell other prospective suiters that the wearer is is 'off the market' and belongs to someone else. If you think you are any kind of forward thinking person, you would not be on board with this archaic practice at all. Also, De Beers invented[1] the concept of diamond-based engagement rings back when diamond jewellery sales were at an all time low, as a bu…

> If you think you are any kind of forward thinking person, you would not be on board with this archaic practice at all. What if both people want to do it? You are demonstrating a vast amount of ignorance.

> You are demonstrating a vast amount of ignorance.

No need for insults.

I'm allowed my own opinion on this. I am also allowed to express it, this is, after all, a discussion forum.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#188

Post by kijin »

paholg wrote: post #54
dotancohen wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many considerations and compromises to be made when finding a partner. Compromising on her stance regarding blood diamonds might be necessary when finding a partner who shares your other values.

I think it's safe to say that if I were marrying someone who required a blood diamond, we'd be on different enough pages that we should not get married.

Few people outside of a satanic cult would actually require a blood diamond specifically. But people do have different tolerances to the risk of getting a stone that isn't as "conflict-free" as the jeweler says it is.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#189

Post by alias_neo »

berdario wrote: post #160
alias_neo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, although the question-asker is being downvoted, your response does actually cover interesting discussion topics, and to summarise, the answer could be that the systems and conventions need to change? - I believe in the UK (where I live) one has all of the legal and financial implications automatically when a relationship reaches a certain age (3 years I believe). Legally you would be treated the same way as if yo…

> I believe in the UK (where I live) one has all of the legal and financial implications automatically when a relationship reaches a certain age (3 years I believe). Legally you would be treated the same way as if you were married. That's not true https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/how-to-sor... The sibling comment mentions family visas, and indeed those are not restricted to your married partner, but…

Interesting reading, thanks for that. I have learned something. I was intentionally liberal with my use of the word "believe", because it seems difficult (to me) to prove the relationship without that piece of paper. I imagine (note I say imagine, this is based on no evidence or research),you could challenge it successfully in a court of law though, if required, for some reason?

The myth aside, I don't think you have "no" rights, the first link says "fewer". It's really hard to prove something without an "official" document though so I understand how it could be more complicated.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#190

Post by pentae »

tom_mellior wrote: post #140
simonh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the best option available to people was diamond mining, by taking that away from them we’re by definition pushing them into an even worse option. That’s a big problem I have with a lot of the do-good commentary on developing world labour. Taking away options from people, even bad ones from our point of view, isn’t necessarily doing them any favours. None of these peoples options are going to look good to us. Actua…

> Actually helping these people means improving their existing options, or giving them new better ones. Yes. A basic income for which one doesn't need to go into the diamond mines, for example.

Or how about a functioning government with minimal corruption for starters? clean water? a functional banking system? access to education? UBI is putting the cart before the horse
Post reply on HN