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

Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

worksinprogress.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 511 posts

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#401

Post by neallindsay »

Glyptodon wrote: post #66
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #11

Over the past 10 years, there has been an explosion in cheap lab diamond and moissanite producers in China and India. 10 years ago, it was hard to find quality lab diamonds at a reasonable price, and moissanite was still reasonably expensive at $400-600/ct. Today, given cutthroat competition and "race to the bottom" pricing strategies, lab diamonds are ubiquitous, extremely high quality, and cheap. Less than $200/ct…

I think large natural diamonds will exist as a market. Just expect large real gems to become much less common for the non-wealthy. And large gemstone jewelry to become more ubiquitous with the increasing spread of lab gems. Definitely a trend towards seeing more such gems paired with silver as the prices have gone down.

Sorry for the pedantry, but “real” isn't a synonym for “natural”. My phone is real and is as artificial an object as I can imagine.

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#402

Post by 65 »

robertritz wrote: post #397

My wife runs a jewelry business (in Asia not the USA). Natural diamonds are still in high demand and it's usually younger people getting the lab diamonds. Mostly beacuse of price. Most people want the nicest thing they can afford in the moment, whatever that is.

I expect natural diamonds to go down in demand in the coming years not because they're more expensive, but more because of the horrible working conditions of miners. Perhaps they might be taboo in the future, "Oh you have a natural diamond, what did a child slave mine that?"

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#403

Post by dirtdobber »

Natural diamonds have value in terms of luxury. Synthetics do not, hence why they are cheap. If you want to buy a diamond because you think they're pretty, buy a synthetic one. If you want to buy a diamond as a luxury gift, buy a natural one.

Rolex doesn't put synthetic diamonds on watches. Cartier doesn't put synthetic diamonds on bracelets. Tiffany's won't put synthetic diamonds on rings.

If you think that natural diamonds are trending towards no longer being a luxury item, then don't buy them at all (why purchase a synthetic one if you think the diamond market is just a marketing ruse anyways?)

I've never met someone that bought a synthetic diamond that didn't immediately try to justify it. I think that says a lot.

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#404

Post by chronogram »

dredmorbius wrote: post #245
takinola wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am curious to know if there is precedent for goods losing their veblen status.

Pineapple and aluminium come to mind. Both were considered absolute luxuries in the 19th century. Mechanical watches, perhaps.

Sugar was a Veblen good, now its superfluousness is the worst part about it.

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#405

Post by highfrequency »

Nice article, and these links to other articles on the DeBeers monopoly / advertising campaign are great as well: “You can’t look at Jane and say she’s not worth 2 months’ salary.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/82feb/8202diamond1.h...

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27371208

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#406

Post by hungie »

dirtdobber wrote: post #403

Natural diamonds have value in terms of luxury. Synthetics do not, hence why they are cheap. If you want to buy a diamond because you think they're pretty, buy a synthetic one. If you want to buy a diamond as a luxury gift, buy a natural one. Rolex doesn't put synthetic diamonds on watches. Cartier doesn't put synthetic diamonds on bracelets. Tiffany's won't put synthetic diamonds on rings. If you think that natural…

Why though. Like, genuinely, why bother with the mined ones?

"This diamond caused untold human suffering and exploitation to acquire, and that makes it rare and valuable." It's just a weird flex at this point. It marks you out as someone who doesn't care about the wellbeing of others.

But every time someone gets excited about natural diamonds they try to justify that synthetic ones just aren't the same. I think that also says a lot.

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#407

Post by amluto »

Xcelerate wrote: post #389
Animats wrote: post #105

That's a good article. The whole history is there. The commercial side has made huge progress, too. Look up "diamond making machine" on Alibaba. You can buy a high-pressure, high temperature six sided press for about US$200,000. A chemical vapor deposition machine is about the same price. De Beers, the diamond cartel, has an R&D operation, Element Six. They sell synthetic diamonds for lasers and other exotic applicat…

> diamond windows for lasers 10cm across > Diamonds are now something you can buy by the kilo, in plastic bags. I can’t wait to use diamond cookware. A pan with a thin layer of 430 stainless steel for induction, a wafer of diamond, and then another thin layer of stainless on top will be amazing. Almost perfect evenness over any cooktop.

I’m not sure how hot one would need to get one’s pan to have potential problems, but diamond is carbon, and carbon is soluble in hot steel.

The mismatched coefficient of thermal expansion could also be a problem.

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#408

Post by nathan_compton »

BeetleB wrote: post #131
nathan_compton wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, people are going to people. My wife and I are American and we did not do a diamond ring (we just exchanged simple hard wood rings). In any case, what I really object to is your assertion that women "demand" it and men "acquiesce" to their demands. In most cases people just figure its the tradition and its fun and frankly, if I were a woman, I wouldn't say no to a costly sign of commitment if the dude wanted to do…

> In any case, what I really object to is your assertion that women "demand" it and men "acquiesce" to their demands. You may not be in the target audience of his comment. Of course, he is stereotyping and generalizing, but my anecdote matches his comment. I still know plenty of people who go by the N months rule: https://www.theknot.com/content/spending-three-months-salary...

Even going by the nth month rule doesn't indicate that the woman _demands_ it. It is a cultural practice, no doubt one spurred on by the diamond business. But that doesn't mean every woman out there is screeching that their paramour buy them a diamond. I'd actually be willing to bet that a significant portion of women are ambivalent about the practice.

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#409

Post by hungie »

dimgl wrote: post #200
poisonborz wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why and how became diamonds a necessity of marriage in the US? Did your fiancé really expect a diamond, and would have she be disappointed by something that has only worth to you?

Women expect it. It's that simple.

Some women in some cultures in the U.S. expect it. Many women in the U.S. expect a ring, diamond or not.

Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined

#410

Post by craftkiller »

dijit wrote: post #358
saagarjha wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe Apple tried to get sapphire for phones screens at some point, but their supplier folded.

They did however manage to get Sapphire on the watch display (at least on the stainless steel LTE edition of the apple watch series 4 and 8, which I'm aware of). The difference between my watch (which was 4 years old at the time) and a colleagues almost brand new apple watch (without the sapphire) was really telling, is his was lightly scratched on the edges despite him being quite careful, and I was exceedingly reck…

The sapphire on the Apple watch was a marketing gimmick, barely better than gorilla glass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF72hGIdrG8&t=10m20s

But there are other devices with better sapphire that actually live up to the hype.

Post reply on HN