Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems • Hacker News Board

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#51

Post by kbutler » Fri, Mar 09, 2018, 1:05 PM UTC

dsacco wrote: post #30

saagarjha wrote: post #3

> De Beers fights fakes with technology as China’s lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems From what I understand, these gems are actually better than natural ones, since they're 100% pure. Maybe it's time to call lab-grown diamonds "real" and mined ones "fake".

They’re called fake because they’re artificial, not because they have more flaws. The diamond industry might have once thought it could rely on artificial diamonds being less perfect, but it’s under no such illusion now. I think it’s fair to acknowledge that, even if we don’t like it, many people prefer natural diamonds because they’re natural, not because they believe they’re somehow more “pure.” In other words, I b…

What exactly is that internally consistent argument?

They now basically say, "the more pure they are, the more valuable, because they are incredibly rare (because we artificially limit supply) unless they are really, really pure, because we can't limit supply of those."

Remember, lots of things are natural, but only the rare ones are valuable.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#52

Post by rini17 » Fri, Mar 09, 2018, 1:09 PM UTC

userbinator wrote: post #15

As the price of diamond continues dropping, I wonder if people will find more interesting applications of the material and it'll eventually become as mundane as things like steel and aluminium. Besides its hardness, it also has very high thermal conductivity. Diamond is still too expensive to be a bulk material, but I look forward to when things like this become cheap and commonplace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi…

Yay, diamond coolers for CPUs and GPUs!

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#53

Post by Jedd » Fri, Mar 09, 2018, 1:11 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #29

Jedd wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neal Stephenson has a book that assumes such an advance -- it's not a key component of the story, but definitely features large in the title : The Diamond Age.

That’s my favourite book of his, but I’ve stopped recommending it to non-programmers because I think much of it’s magic is knowing how much of it is actually possible in the future.

Possibly a key indicator of a quality SF idea / author -- how much closer we are to their universe a decade or two later.

I've loved everything Neal's written, though I may begrudgingly agree with various critics that suggest he really doesn't do endings very well (REAMDE and Anathem are much, much better on this front).

I've tried recommending various books of his to different friends, and I've concluded that I have basically zero predictive capability in terms of working out who would like which of his books. Maybe I've simply failed to grade them properly on the geek scale, but it feels like some of his more technical books appeal to people who don't normally like deep tech, and his deeply social commentary style novels appeal to people who normally push back against strong societal allegory. Which just makes me love his stuff even more.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#54

Post by ce4 » Fri, Mar 09, 2018, 1:13 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #46

>Indeed, even the most experienced diamantaire’s in the world can’t tell the fakes from those extracted from mines when using their naked eye, which is where technology comes in if they look identical to the naked eye, how can jewelers and debeers justify buying the naturals? are you now buying the diamond for its "history" or "story"? is it like buying "organic" food? or is it purely because it was never about the d…

They have control over the natural diamond production, much less so over the (man-made) diamonds industry. If they want the "diamonds are forever" adage to survive, they need the public to get the opinion that natural is the real thing.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#55

Post by petre » Fri, Mar 09, 2018, 1:14 PM UTC

Jedd wrote: post #2

> De Beers is fighting Chinese lab-grown diamonds And I hope they lose. https://priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bulls... (and HN comments on original posting 2013-03-19 -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5403988 )

It is only in the last half decade that technology has advanced to a level that scientists at De Beers, itself a pioneer in lab-grown diamond production [..]

Of course they have their own diamond growing lab and Deep Sea diamond mining rigs. I too hope are beaten by other market players.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/a-new-frontier-f...

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#56

Post by fsloth » Fri, Mar 09, 2018, 1:14 PM UTC

kbutler wrote: post #39

notahacker wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that respect it's the same as any other collectible or antique that can be reliably replicated in slightly better condition and with slightly less irregularity than the highly prized "mint condition" originals made by the most skilled artisans... (Less so for industrial uses, or for inserts into the average person's engagement rings where it's the thought and style rather than the provenance that counts)

Photorealism was the ultimate goal of artists, until that became easy.

I would rephrase this as that the market demand for photorealistic portraiture decreased due to the rise of photography.

The artistic merits and goals are another axis altogether from market demand, and a bit more difficult subject.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#57

Post by ansgri » Fri, Mar 09, 2018, 1:15 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #10

saagarjha wrote: post #3

> De Beers fights fakes with technology as China’s lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems From what I understand, these gems are actually better than natural ones, since they're 100% pure. Maybe it's time to call lab-grown diamonds "real" and mined ones "fake".

>> From what I understand, these gems are actually better than natural ones... Yes, for decades they claimed clarity and purity to be indicators of the highest quality. Now that humans can manufacture them with better specs than nature, they're shifting to claim that "natural" is better. In the end it's a pretty carbon lattice.

I'd expect a significant change in diamond pricing structure — De Beers and the jewelry industry sure can keep prices from dropping uncontrollably, but I'd guess some kinds of impurities will become markers of superior value ("true natural 10..100× more expensive") due to difficulty of artificial reproduction.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#58

Post by dsacco » Fri, Mar 09, 2018, 1:19 PM UTC

vanderZwan wrote: post #45

dsacco wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re called fake because they’re artificial, not because they have more flaws. The diamond industry might have once thought it could rely on artificial diamonds being less perfect, but it’s under no such illusion now. I think it’s fair to acknowledge that, even if we don’t like it, many people prefer natural diamonds because they’re natural, not because they believe they’re somehow more “pure.” In other words, I b…

> 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 of communication that most people do not use. “Fake” isn’t a neutral word because it’s not intended to be - some people actually do prefer natural diamonds, just as some people really do prefer non-GMO food. It doesn’t matter if the reason they have that preference is due to artificial scarcity or a marketing campaign, the point is that they have that preference and many will keep it even if they are very informed on the matter. People are not hyperrational in the development of their preferences.

The point I’m trying to make here is that while I agree people shouldn’t spend ostentatious amounts of money on items with artificial scarcity, I think litigating the use of the word “fake” is effectively a strawman and a sideshow when we’re discussing De Beers. In my opinion, while lab-made diamonds are more fiscally responsible, they’re not less silly as a purchase than natural diamonds if you dislike the capitalist insertion of a jewelry preference. It’s just local maxima: if you buy a lab-grown diamond you’re still buying a diamond. You’re still buying into that “emotional baggage”, as you put it, you’re just being a bit more fiscally savvy about it. If we assume people are not born with a desire for diamonds, then there is a credible argument buying synethic ones is still feeding a desire you (and I!) find fundamentally disagreeable.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#59

Post by lotsofpulp » Fri, Mar 09, 2018, 1:21 PM UTC

eadmund wrote: post #27

saagarjha wrote: post #3

> De Beers fights fakes with technology as China’s lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems From what I understand, these gems are actually better than natural ones, since they're 100% pure. Maybe it's time to call lab-grown diamonds "real" and mined ones "fake".

Y'know, I think that the whole diamond hype is nonsense, but I do understand how a stone which was formed over millennia (or more?) and discovered by a miner has more of a story to it that a stone which was grown in a lab by a technician. I've no problem with considering a natural diamond real and a lab-grown one fake, even though they are the same 'stuff.'

Is that story of how humans exploit others who are unfortunate enough to be born in environments with fewer resources (natural and social) such that they have to engage in activities which simply allow someone in richer areas to flaunt their wealth?

If that is the story, then it doesn’t need to be told.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#60

Post by tomtimtall » Fri, Mar 09, 2018, 1:22 PM UTC

At some point De Beers is going to do an elegant little flip and suddenly proclaim “engineered diamonds” to be far superior to anything that ever came out the ground... only just their particular brand of engineered diamonds.