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

441–450 of 686 posts

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#441

Post by literallycancer »

dboreham wrote: post #248
rndgermandude wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The societal answer is at least two months. Might be an American thing? My parents spent about 1 month worth of my dad's salary on two wedding rings a long time ago. My dad actually wanted to buy a far more expensive ring for my mom, but she insisted to keep it simple and "cheap" and "unproblematic" to wear. Same story in the rest of the family. Friends (usually a lot younger than my parents) spend even less on ring…

It's an American rich person thing.

Rich people don't work. Seems more like some sort of "aspirational spending".

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#442

Post by evrydayhustling »

Nursie wrote: post #293
evrydayhustling wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diamond branding taps into a much more fundamental obsession with scarcity, which manufactured objects cannot provide. Scott Galloway explores this really well in a recent post comparing NFTs to long-standing art world practices: "Scarcity has always been a function of bits, not atoms." [1] I wonder if synthetic diamonds that were organized into specifically limited editions would hold more value... [1] https://www.p…

Potentially synthetic diamonds could destroy the scarcity appeal of natural diamonds.

Right or wrong, Galloway's thesis would specifically reject that idea. Synthetic diamonds are equivalent (or superior!) on an atoms level. But on a bits level they lack the history of being formed in the Earth's crust, which stays scarce.

Diamond marketing exploits that to good effect -- most diamonds are marked and registered in a database that traces its unique history. Doing so makes it possible to value the history as unique, and also leads by example in investing in the value of that history (they make a big deal out of the tech used to confirm authenticity). Since the final purpose of the diamond is to demonstrate stored value rather than produce it, the target buyer is focused on whether others recognize the value, not whether it is justified.

On a personal level, I think the history of "real" diamonds is almost always horrific and a negative asset! I hope companies like Pandora can put marketing power into creating scarcity stories for synthetic diamonds.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#443

Post by danbruc »

washadjeffmad wrote: post #406
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 went through this not that many years ago buying a ring for my SO. My biggest mistake was including her in the decision. She described what she wanted exactly– nothing gaudy or ostentatious, just a singular, tasteful stone on a plain band. Couldn't be simpler, could it? Finding stones that met her criteria was easy. Some were natural diamonds, some lab grown, many moissanite. From the outset, she said the meaning o…

Apparently a lab grown diamond meant my love for her was also artificial [...]

Why then a ring [with a diamond] at all? It's nothing special at all, just what everyone does. Almost the definition of replaceability and arbitrariness. There is no connection between the relationship and a random ring with a stone you buy at some random jewelry store. Why not something individual, specific to the relationship? Every $1 toy ring used as a wedding ring is more personal and telling than any thousands of dollars ring with a diamond.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#444

Post by bsanr2 »

GordonS wrote: post #281
vagrantJin wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Okay class, child labour, a few thousand poor people dead, terrorist groups starving hundreds of thousands, destroying schools and libraries. That is where diamonds come from. How many would still want a natural diamond because diamonds are forever?" The elephant in that lecture hall was probably the hypocrisy. I think if you still raise a hand after hearing all that, the issue isn't branding at all. It's narcissim,…

I personally fully agree, but unfortunately not everyone thinks as logically as you or I. I talked about this with my wife recently, and even though she had a vague idea of the horrors that mined diamonds bring, she'd still continue to buy/want mined diamonds. She sees mined diamonds as more "real", and finds it difficult to believe that her diamonds in particular would be part of the problem - as if it somehow would…

More fundamentally: we're conditioned to privilege our ambitions (or maybe just grand ambitions in general) over things like concern for the horrific-yet-ultimately-banal suffering that enables them, or for building and maintaining a stable and sustainable "floor" for human existence. We pour funding into tech startups that promise to maybe change the world when we know that we can move the needle (often for a fraction of the cost) by spending on basic needs and not looking for a direct ROI. It doesn't matter that people are starving, homeless, wallowing in practical and spiritual squalor, because we're going to Mars, damn it.

In the end, we just can't seem to take our eyes and minds off the shiny things, even knowing that we're merely gazing at the glare of hubris.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#445

Post by logshipper »

webinvest wrote: post #394
cmod wrote: post #232

If you want to read about the insanity of manipulation in the diamond industry, this Atlantic article on de Beers from 1982 is a … gem. Of the many shocking moments, one that stood out to me was the way they went after post-war Japan to convert their "backwards" desires to ones of a more "forward-thinking" diamond friendly impulse: "J. Walter Thompson began its campaign by suggesting that diamonds were a visible sign…

This has for a long time now been the best article I’ve ever read from The Atlantic and I used to be a magazine subscriber. If you haven’t read it already, I highly recommend it! Anyone care to share their own favorite articles?

I am operating under the assumption here that said articles can pertain to any topic, and not just diamonds. If that is not the case, I do apologize.

I am a huge fan of William Langewiesche's work (some of which, incidentally, has been for The Atlantic). He writes crisp, longform articles on a variety of topics, including but not limited to aviation [1], shipping [2], nuclear proliferation [3], the dark net [4], and private military contractors [5].

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/mh370-m...

[2] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/04/inside-el-faro-the-w...

[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/12/how-to-...

[4] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/welcome-to-the-dark-...

[5] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/04/g4s-global-...

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#446

Post by literallycancer »

the_local_host wrote: post #430
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…

Equivalent is not as good when what matters is what other people think. Even if the person displaying a luxury artifact agrees that some other artifact is equivalent, if the people they're displaying it to don't also agree, then there is a difference that's relevant to the purpose of the artifact, which is to advertise your wealth. Though the topic at hand is diamonds, which are strongly associated with wedding propo…

You could just use an artificial stone and no one would know. If you just care about the signal, buy good replicas of things you could plausibly afford, how hard can it be.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#447

Post by lhorie »

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…

> That was the point where I realized the strength of diamonds product branding.

Here's another interesting twist that further shows how powerful branding and marketing really are: Spence Diamonds is a diamond retailer in Canada that advertises extremely aggressively via radio ads. A few years ago, it started a huge campaign for lab grown diamonds, portraying them with adjectives such as "artisan-made" (going as far as comparing them to Michelangelo art). And what do you know:

> While still offering mined diamonds, Spence has found that when its customers are given a choice, 80% of them choose lab-growns over mined diamonds[0]

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2019/05/12/spence-d...

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#448

Post by scottLobster »

akarma wrote: post #422
jliptzin wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sincerely wish you good luck in your marriage, you’re going to need it.

Many women won't directly tell their partner "I want you to spend a couple months' salary on a beautiful diamond" because it's tasteless to request and it removes all the meaning behind the man doing so, but they'd also be disappointed if the man didn't do so unprompted. People and their emotions are complex like that. I don't think there's any glaring issue with either party above, but it's like you expect all women…

Did you miss the part where she gas-lit him? She agreed with all the points about moissanite/etc and then got bent out of shape when he took her at her word. Clearly all that was a "test" that he was supposed to "pass". I rarely see happy marriages with that kind of behavior as a baseline. God forbid he get her Carnations and a nice dinner for Valentine's day, she'll likely ignore the dinner and focus on why he didn't get her roses instead.

It's also a weird interpretation. My response would have been something like "moissanite has better visual properties, is free of all slave/conflict concerns, and saves us money for the honeymoon, so our love shines brighter, is built on a pure foundation, and will give us experiences we'll never forget".

More over it's extremely materialistic. Someone who loves you is pledging their life to you. Assuming the ring in question is fundamentally tasteful, is it too much to ask to focus on the life pledge instead of the $$ value of the symbol?

But I guess I lucked out. My wife rarely takes off her vintage ring with syntehtic rubies and a couple of tiny real accent diamonds on yellow gold (because that's what it came with). I knew her aesthetic tastes and got her something that matched those tastes, and it's unique enough that it stands out amongst her sisters/friends. And it certainly wasn't two months' salary, which she well knows. We didn't have that amount in savings at the time.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#449

Post by depaya »

mattowen_uk wrote: post #187
whitepaint wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You posted your opinion, a very broad statement suggesting it was bad for certain people to believe something.

They countered your opinion with their own, stating your opinion was ignorant and offered an example as to why.

This is a discussion forum, but you sure seem to have a problem with sometime attempting to respond to you. Do you not see the irony?

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#450

Post by dec0dedab0de »

ipaddr wrote: post #295
offtop5 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also factors into how someone grew up. I'd rather toss 10k into a couple emergency fund then waste it on a ring. Most marriages collapse due to money. I recall in my younger days I was with a girl and she dragged me to Brooks Brothers. As a child of poverty and evictions I couldn't understand why anyone who need to spend this much money on a shirt. Even making well into the 6 figures I shop at Old Navy. Hell, my f…

People buy expensive clothes because it makes others think they have money. By wearing a brand she is mentally leaving the proviety behind. I don't think you have mentally left that state of mind. Thinking you need $10,000 in cash and telling everyone on the first date tells them this guy will never save more than 10,000 and he is cheap with his money. Might work for some but perhaps you are putting out a negative si…

That's a dangerous mindset. I know too many people who can't wait to get into more debt, then complain when they can't afford things. I'm thinking of specific people that have more expensive versions of everything I own, while making less money than me, then saying "it must be nice" when they see me go on vacation or go out to dinner without considering the cost.

Plus I think you're being a bit unfair about his first date comment. It seemed like it was more of a quip to explain his position, than an actual plan

Post reply on HN