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

De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

money.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 455 posts

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#421

Post by thaumasiotes »

radisb wrote: post #318
thaumasiotes wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The names ruby and sapphire are not marketing driven; they are color terms that long predate the development of chemistry to the point where we could determine what gems were. Many famous historical "rubies" are not corundum but spinel; they were called rubies because "ruby" was the term for any red gemstone. "Moissanite" is purely marketing, though.

I can also verify this. I currently have 932 flawless imperial rubies in my stash and they are all red.

Sadly, I do not personally own any historically significant jewelry. But you can read about it pretty easily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Prince%27s_Ruby

> The Black Prince's Ruby is a large, irregular cabochon red spinel weighing 170 carats (34 g)

> It wasn't until 1783 that spinels were differentiated from rubies.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#422

Post by astura »

gowld wrote: post #408
astura wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's better off holding onto them because selling the won't actually net you "a bunch of money upfront," the resale market for diamond rings is incredibly poor. Personally, I just didn't even bother buying an engagement ring (or wedding ring for that matter) because it's a "tradition" that means literally absolutely nothing to me. My husband doesn't care that I don't want jewelry and he prefers to not wear a wedding…

> won't actually net you "a bunch of money upfront," Even if its a "charitable gift" on the seller's part, it saves one family from the suffering of buying a diamond. > it's a "tradition" that means literally absolutely nothing to me. Please preach to all the impressionable young women you know.

Sorry, I don't really "preach" (at least unsolicited) because people don't generally like being preached to and this is a topic that is incredibly emotional for some people for some reason.

The idea someone would worry replacing expensive trinkets with cheaper but similar looking trinkets might damage your marriage is extremely foreign to me! I can say that much at least!

Plus I don't know many impressionable young women these days because I'm approaching 40 and the majority of my friends are already married or no longer impressionable. :)

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#423

Post by sametmax »

nradov wrote: post #418
sametmax wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US people can't remotely agree on death penalty, marijuana usage, gun control, gay support, the church, abortion, war, trump or snowden. In a country where it's legal to openly give money to politicians, spy on all citizens and by pass habeas corpus. I really doubt your statement.

So you agree with me that there are no clear universal ethical standards in some areas. You still haven't shown how Monsanto's actions were unethical.

Yes. Lying about harmful products you are selling is something unethical to my taste. At this point, I expect you to disagree.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#424

Post by mcv »

propogandist wrote: post #75
fgonzag wrote: post #10

"Lightbox will transform the lab-grown diamond sector by offering consumers a lab-grown product they have told us they want but aren't getting: affordable fashion jewelry that may not be forever, but is perfect for right now" This is clearly a play to devalue the image of man made diamonds. "May not be forever" my ass, it's the exact same thing. Their goal is probably to try to quickly drive the price of man made dia…

The slogan "a diamond is forever" is one of the most successful marketing campaigns of all time. It encourages people to voluntarily limit circulation of a rock that's mined by the tonnes, whose supply is carefully controlled to keep profits high. The links they've made with the slogan to love also helps keep the money flowing.

The diamond con is forever.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#425

Post by gowld »

motohagiography wrote: post #385

Diamonds were the original bitcoin. Knew a bit about the diamond business from growing up. - Required huge proof of work. - Few practical use cases. - Store of value. - Highly portable. - Price a function of liquidity. - Clustered around use cases like capital flight, high denomination cash, opacity, and black market transactions, asset protection/hiding. I would argue blockchain has done more harm to the diamond mar…

Diamonds are a very poor store of value, as they depreciate 50% or more after initial purchase.

Portability / Launderability, perhaps, but that's a bit different from "store"

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#426

Post by gowld »

exabrial wrote: post #309

What drives the female desire to have an expensive engagement ring in the USA? I'm not criticising anyone for desiring one, but I've never asked easier. I like the idea of wearing rings, but I'd do something more exotic and rare, like iridium or something.

de Beers' marketing campaign, sustained for over a century:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-yo...

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#427

Post by gowld »

redm wrote: post #366

"..it's the exact same thing." This seems like flawed logic. It's not the exact same thing. If a painter reproduces a Picasso, otherwise knows as art fraud, does it have the same value as the original? Why not? I'll leave it at that.

If you reproduce a Picasso, it's not a Picasso. But if you reproduce a Guernica, it's a Guernica.

If you reproduce a diamond, it's not a de Beers, but it's still a diamond.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#429

Post by gowld »

triviatise wrote: post #367

People will keep buying natural diamonds, because they are more expensive. Just like $30K handbags will continue to sell because they are $30k. Some people will buy copies, but many people would rather have nothing than a fake. For status conscious people (which is most people) they would rather have a smaller natural diamond than a larger man made diamond. This has already been proven with pearls. Most sheeple would…

People would wear a just-big-enough artificial diamond, though, and enjoy pocketing the difference in price. Pressure to compete then drives everyone to buy only artificial.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#430

Post by Borealid »

rocqua wrote: post #325
Borealid wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anodized aluminum and titanium don't rust - and if by whatever means you DO allow them to oxidize, the oxygen-bound outer layer forms a protective barrier against further rusting. Neither of those metals becomes structurally weaker in any meaningful way over time due to oxygen exposure.

Both anodizing and oxidation of aluminum look different from polished steel. Notably, oxidized aluminium loses its shine. Moreover, anodization can get scratched after which you get the ugly oxidized aluminium. All of this is to say that as a "Symbol of lasting love" every-shiny platinum jewelry seems to make some sense.

Although in theory you could scratch anodized aluminum, the anodized layer is both harder and more abrasion resistant than the underlying raw aluminum. If you're thinking about scratching chrome-plated steel, let me ephasize that it is much harder to scratch a hard-anodized finish. The only anodized-aluminum object I have ever known to get scratched is the older iPhones (5?). That's probably a combination of people physically dropping them from heights and Apple's choice of a thin, relatively soft anodization process.

A clear anodization finish leads to "bright aluminum" - the natural shine is absolutely preserved. Natural oxidization on the other hand does dull the metal.

Yes, all forms of aluminum look different than steel. Gold and platinum do have the advantage of being homogenously non-oxidizing. But I think anodized aluminum is a great alternative with many advantageous properties for jewelry (low cost, wide variety of beautiful colors, high strength/weight ratio, low density, non-allergenic). I'm not sure why it's used so infrequently - perhaps because of the connection with aluminum cans and thus the image of "cheap"/"disposable"?

Post reply on HN