I pitched this to my wife a few years back. She insisted she’d rather have a smaller natural diamond. It makes no sense to me. Shiny carbon is shiny carbon to me. There’s no real logic in it. But given it’s a status symbol that derives its value from its rareness, I suppose it’s no different than a Luis Vutton or a Rolex. It’s not about the function, it’s about the fact that you can afford one. I hate that mentality, I refuse to buy anything like that for myself.
You're only considering intrinsic value. That's helpful for raw commodities.
For nearly everything else, value is tied to perception, history, etc.
If I have two identical baseballs, they're both "just" baseballs. But one of them could have much more value due to its history: maybe it was a homerun ball by a famous player, or a ball that I or a family member hit/caught. Same function. Could be otherwise identical, but could also be worth very different amounts.
The stories we tell is where the primary value is.
In this case, your wife values the story of a natural diamond that was formed through long, natural processes and required the effort of finding, excavating, cutting and so on.
Now you could disagree with that story, or you could dislike the tellers and amplifiers of that story, but the fact remains that your wife and many others value that story, making it more precious than merely "shiny carbon."
This is branding and marketing 101. Humans are storytelling machines and they understand value largely via stories and relationships. Misunderstanding that is a failure to understand essential human characteristics.
> In this case, your wife values the story of a natural diamond that was formed through long, natural processes and required the effort of finding, excavating, cutting and so on.
I see this come up a lot, but I doubt very much that this story forms a large part of many people's thinking.
People want the status symbol and they want what they perceive as the ‘real’ thing, not what they rightly or wrongly perceive as an imitation.
As such ‘natural’ diamonds currently have successful marketing around them. I really don’t think the geology figures in many peoples minds. Geologists excepted of course.
Humans are indeed story telling machines, but you know what else they are? Hierarchy-driven apes who love showing off shiny, expensive shit to make themselves appear high status. The emergence of chemically, physically identical synthetic diamonds has triggered this in really very predictable ways - rationalisations of prior behaviour and desperate searching for ways to utilise this new phenomenon to maintain or elevate status.
The story here is a prime example. When both 'prettier' and 'not real' can no longer be defended, a new rationalisation for the large outlay of cash, and new explanation of how this makes the outlayer special, must be found. It doesn't have to be true (please don't try to tell me that all women have some sort of innate appreciation of carbon geology, I'm sorry but I don't believe it) it just has to sound right and allow the teller of the tale to continue to claim the high ground.
Because otherwise we have to face up to questions like "Did I spend all that and not prove I'm better than Bob who spent half as much?" and "Was I just doing this because of peer pressure and societal expectations? What does that say about me?"
For simplicity, I was considering "story" as part of the "status" side too (i.e.- there's a story here that I'm better than you for these reasons).
I know it's Hacker News, but come on folks, it's not that hard to understand that marketing, branding, storytelling and whatnot are real, meaningful forces in human dynamics.
Yeah this is very true. You have a painting, the artist may be Picasso, but uncertain. Suddenly it is confirmed it was Picasso. Same painting, different price.
That seems supremely othering. Do you have people in your life that you value over humans you don't know? What are the people you know, over the people that you don't, other than them being a meat bag that you know stories about, vs a meat bag that you don't?
At least people can tell their story I suppose, while a diamond cannot really once mounted on a ring (I guess you can get some certificate that tells a story, but it is not something obvious when looking at the ring).
but it does not seem visible to the naked eye when looking at jewelry... I guess with more lab made diamonds we will come to appreciate the geological beauty of it, and have bigger diamonds for the same price.
I personally find the decision to buy lab grown diamonds to be weirder, because if you are already thinking logically rather than emotionally and can resist the social pressure then why waste money on a diamond at all? There are plenty of gems or metals out there that are cheaper, prettier, more rare and hold their value better than diamonds (whether natural or lab grown).
If you like the shininess of diamonds, they're really hard to beat on the "pretty" front. Diamonds have a crazy internal refractive index, which, once exemplified by an appropriate cut, gives them a pretty unique shininess. The only gems that come close are substantially softer, meaning they lose they lose the precise cuts that give them the extra shimmer relatively quickly.
Don't enrich Russia by buying mined diamonds, but there's definitely a compelling argument for lab-grown ones.
But Moissanite are shinier than diamonds, very nearly as hard, but at a fraction of the price. And nobody can tell the difference without training and possibly a microscope.
When I last researched the topic, Moissanites almost exclusively came with a kinda ugly yellow tinge, but apparently that's not an issue anymore. Definitely a great choice. (Though I disagree that laypeople can't tell the difference between doubly-refractive and singly refractive gems)
When considering getting a Moissanite ring, I spent a significant amount of time researching the differences between diamonds and Moissanite, but I couldn’t explain or recognize the difference between doubly-refractive and singly refractive gems. We’ve even had jewelers who have looked at my wife’s ring and thought it was diamond. Admittedly that was a casual look and not a thorough appraisal, nevertheless, I doubt even a tiny percentage of the population could spot the difference.
Oh, looking at one or the other, almost certainly not. I mean that if you lined up 2 diamonds and a moissanite, I'd bet the average person would be able to pick out the odd one out.
Lie to them and say there's one diamond and they'd still pick the moissanite. Just being able to differentiate relatively with a biased test doesn't mean you can tell the difference one way or the other in absolute terms.
Logically, it's literally the hardest gemstone around and it also happens to look very pretty. I personally love the look of Emeralds and Opals, but they are so delicate that they would not stand up to daily wear and tear. Diamonds? You can abuse the hell out of it and it will look as nice as the day you bought it.
Naturally made, yes. the specific process called "grown" would better apply if there was, say, a plastic bottle-fruiting plant, but whether that plant was designed by humans or simply found by them in the environment does not change whether it is natural.
There is no such thing as natural versus unnatural, this dichotomy is a holdover from the time when we believed there was another plane of reality outside or distinct from the "natural" universe, which was somehow tainted by flaws unique to humans, being creatures with one foot in both realities.
I realize it sounds like a technically correct Internet argument of the nitpick variety, but I think that the norm of asseting an unchallenged bias toward "natural," and against "artificial," could use a general reassessment as it is constantly exploited by people using this ultimately baseless distinction as a way to bias opinion uncritically toward one kind of behavior or another.
The difference would be, that one was made artificial in a human machine in a lab - and the other by raw natural forces in the wild.
There is no practical value in jewelry anyway, it is a status symbol and the context of coming from the wild extracted under wild conditions (and maybe violently, ooh, blood diamonds, how exiting, erm shocking) has of course a higher symbolic value. So a artificial made one would be considered "fake".
Romanticism is not attached to logic. But it is still a real factor in human decision making. And to be honest, if I would be into jewelry, I probably would prefer the "real" one, too. But I am rather into extreme sports and any rings or alike are just dangerous baggage there (a friend of mine allmost lost a finger, while climbing over a fence and his ring got stuck on some metal piece).
But if your wife happens to be into it - applying logic here will be probably seen as a cheap way to save money.
> artificial in a human machine in a lab - and the other by raw natural forces in the wild
What do you suppose is the value that distinguishes these two processes? The story? Or is it the persistence of the naturalistic fallacy, surfacing in all sorts of places and in all kinds of minds including those one would expect are habitually vigilant against what is essentially a generalized form of superstition.
> What do you suppose is the value that distinguishes these two processes? The story?
Of course it is the story. The value in everything is the meaning we attach to it, not the thing itself.
With a natural diamond, it's the idea that you have a unique artifact formed over millions of years, an irreplaceable corner of the Earth and its history owned by you and you alone, which then suggests that you yourself have a certain uniqueness and irreplaceability.
You can argue that people should not choose that particular story and that particular meaning, but that's a moral argument, and not an argument about the object itself. (And if you choose to make that argument, I would first suggest introspecting over how much of your own stories and meaning are as arbitrary as that one.)
I don't care a bit for natural diamonds, but I have infinite respect for the stories and meaning people choose to embue their lives with. Ultimately, it's all we have.
>it's the idea that you have a unique artifact formed over millions of years
No it isn't. There are plenty of ugly diamonds — they are also formed over millions of years and are never sold to consumers. This is an ad hoc justification. People only cared about the beauty of the diamond until lab made ones came along. They are cut to increase the beauty. That already makes it processed. Nobody buys uncut diamonds. And I'm sure there are other stones formed over millions of years that are just black and nobody cares for. Raw olivine for example is priced by the ton. I'm sure there are even cheaper minerals at these depths that nobody cares about at all.
Only if you define them such that you exclude lab-made diamonds. But I agree that we can like things for multiple reasons and that rarity is a part of the demand for diamonds.
In any case, I believe people will eventually forget about "unnatural" diamonds. People will be more creative with thier works if a failure does not cost so much, and the average size will be larger. Consider that modern farmed perls were once considered unnatural. But they are not only cheaper but more uniform than wild ones and now nobody buys those.
I don't argue that stories are very important, and they are in fact the only thing we have. But that does not make themselves Justified categorically.
In fact my username, chain of fools, is the title of a song whose lyrics, although very brief, are very much about believing stories told with the motivation to do harm - or at very least to deprive others of something valuable so that the teller can have that same something cheaply.
"But that does not make themselves Justified categorically"
Diamonds are the hardest objects found naturaly. While everything around them was crushed and changed ober the eons - they persisted. And if polished they shined. And can cut any other known material.
It makes for a good story, which is why humans are after them, since a long time. Kings and queens wore them. Pirates stole and buried them.
Is the story justified categorically? I don't know, but it is an old story.
But personally I rather would like to have the sci-fi story, where diamonds are cheaply avaiable, as a very strong building material..
“Artificial” usually isn’t a positive thing when the word comes up. We’re often told to avoid artificial sweeteners, artificially hydrogenated oils, artificially enhanced flavors, artificial dyes and colorants… and that’s just in food and beverage, and totally ignoring the luxury image of natural hardwood instead of wood veneer, natural glass/crystal instead of plastic.
Diamonds are just about the only thing I can think of where artificial and natural are encouraged to be seen as equals. I’m sure some people have a naturalist/spiritual angle, but I’d bet most are simply applying the wisdom of so many other shopping areas to this one.
> that one was made artificial in a human machine in a lab - and the other by raw natural forces in the wild.
> ... has of course a higher symbolic value.
To some people, others of us think that it's frickin amazing what can be done with machines in a lab, and that the sheer ingenuity and advanced tech used to make that lab-created gem is awesome.
A good Rolex at least has a thriving resale market, and can actually increase in value over time. Same for a lot of other luxury goods as well as other stores of value (like gold or Bitcoin). Diamonds on the other hand are effectively worthless the moment they leave the store. Their high prices are a product of marketing and social pressure, nothing more.
> Diamonds are effectively worthless the moment they leave the store
That's not the case! You can have the stone removed from the ring and, in case you don't have the original certificate, sent to a certification authority (like GIA) to have it graded. I think it also, once graded, gets automatically laser-engraved (above a certain carat) but I'm not sure about that: maybe you need to pay for the laser engraving too. And it's then got a value on the market: there's a worldwide market (or several) and every single jeweler in the world can see which stones are available at which price depending on their specs and book any stone and have it shipped in a few clicks.
Source: I've got a good friend who's a jeweler and he showed that to me.
Now: fancy shops (with famous names) may make fun of people by selling them stones at 3x their values or more (I don't doubt that) but you can also go to an independent jeweler and have him model/build the ring (or he'll outsource the 3D modelling) then put the stone on it and you'll pay a price much closer to actual price of the stone (the jeweler doesn't really work harder for a 0.5 carat stone vs a 2 carat one, so the bigger the stone, the less is "wasted" on the ring).
Regarding the differing values: I think it's mandatory that every lab-grown diamond above a certain carat are laser-engraved so unless labs growing these diamonds are cheating, it's extremely hard to make a lab-grown one pass for a billion years old one.
Because the GEM Society is a business that wants to 1) continue grading diamonds and 2) begin cataloging lab diamonds. Both of which are revenue sources.
> I think it's mandatory that every lab-grown diamond above a certain carat are laser-engraved
That’s not “diamonds that are lab-grown by GEM Society members”.
Why would it be reasonable to require anybody who’s not the GEM Society to engrave their products, so that the GEM Society can protect its source of revenues?
I think you also mentioned “reasonable” and I’m pointing to the reason. You have to remember who makes the rules and also that this is an old business that’s rich with protected interests.
But there’s also a lot of concern about stolen jewelry and even diamond swapping for seemingly legitimate businesses. So, not too hard to make it also sound like it’s for the consumers best interest.
It is in Danish, but it is bankruptcy auctions, the high price is the valuation (typically the retail price before bankruptcy), the low price is the final highest bid, all in DKK.
These are mostly very small and not the colors you'd want, are there other places? Otherwise don't really consider this as proof you can source diamonds cheap (would love to know if so where).
Edit: searched and found about 25 places, none of them have much inventory, most are lower quality (or incredibly expensive), many are in-person only with no real pictures you can see, closest I can find is https://www.catawiki.com but still for the type/size I've been looking for there's really only two options and both are lower grade.
Look at it the other way. If you have a diamond in good condition, can you sell it anywhere for "market price" the same way you would gold or silver? No, because the rock is not rare, and there's basically no way to verify its origin outside of the store.
Look up Craigslist or Facebook Marketplace in your area and you'll find plenty of cheap listings for diamond jewelry. Will you really take a chance on any of them though?
Diamonds are not that rare. They're durable, so it's not like an old diamond is going to break or something. So, there should be plenty of diamonds for everyone who wants one. Rings made in the 1920s and up probably have some sort of diamond in it, and if you don't like the ring, keep the gem and craft a new ring around it. I prefer more rare stones, such as a padparadscha sapphire, or Alexandrite. I prefer to give my woman a gemstone as rare as she is, and as colorful as she is, not something which has virtually no color, and is definitely not rare.
You obviously haven’t seen the video of a diamond being hit by a hammer against a steel anvil…and it was fine, even putting a dent into the anvil. You have to cleave it in just the right spot to split it - blunt force isn’t going to do it.
Mild steel like that in an anvil is far from the hardest material you'll encounter in daily life. If you hit a diamond between two hammers, which are made of far harder and tougher tool steel, it will easily shatter and pulverize, no finesse required. See : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0EXgYA7ve8 for an example.
The reason why on an anvil you need to orient the diamond carefully to break is just because the tip needs to be facing some kind of reasonably hard material like tool steel, if it's being driven into mild steel, that will basically just act as a pillow for the diamond and allow the flat face to align parallel to the surface of hammer, minimizing the impact.
The big issue with choosing a smaller, natural stone is you can't really be sure it's actually natural. The industry has so many unethical practices I wouldn't be confident in any "certification" that comes with a stone's origin. Even lower-grade stones might just be from lab rejects, or labs intentionally growing good, but not perfect stones.
Mined and lab grown diamonds have entirely different suppliers, supply chains and certifications. The person I replied to has problems with the latter, which is idiotic considering the alternative is 1000x worse.
The difference between a $200 and a $2000 bottle of wine is mostly how expensive the thing you are drinking is. Tons of industries and products work like this. Why would it surprise you that gems are any different?
Outside of a few household-name Champagne houses, most expensive wine is expensive because it is desirable and the vineyards used to produce it are tiny. Standard economics.
> The difference between a $200 and a $2000 bottle of wine is mostly how expensive the thing you are drinking is.
Yes, but the subset of people that can afford and would drink a $200 bottle of wine is hardly any bigger than the subset of people that can afford and would drink a $2000 bottle of wine.
It makes perfect sense to me why people would drink the $2000 bottle of wine. Why not? They've got the money.
If you balk at a $2000 bottle of wine, you're probably not casually drinking $200 bottles of wine either - and if you are - you're in a very small percentage of people where the price difference means something. It's maybe 2% of the population.
The other 97.75% isn't buying $200 bottles of wine. And the other 0.25% can buy $2000 bottles just fine.
but the subset of people that can afford and would drink a $200 bottle of wine is hardly any bigger than the subset of people that can afford and would drink a $2000 bottle of wine.
I don't think this is correct. Most wine nerds/enthusiasts I know (and I include myself) would consider dropping $200 on one of their 'dream bottles' in the right circumstance, especially if splitting the cost with a couple of friends. I don't know a single person who would ever drop $2000 on a bottle of wine under any circumstance.
And I have a friend of a friend whose entire business is helping people sell wine for 20K a bottle and up. Emphasis on "and up"
I also have a friendly relationship with a local wine shop, where I usually buy bottles for 10-15 bucks. They also carry (and sell) many bottles at 5K a pop and up.
And if you want to get all mathematical about it, assuming the right kind of power law distribution, it is more likely to see one person who would pay 2000 for a bottle than to find 2 people who would pay 200.
power law stats is weird. Once you are outside of the bell, the bell area has NO constraint on the observation. Unlike Gaussian and similar distributions, where probability falls off very rapidly as you move out of the bell.
The trick about gifts for most women seems to be that they are more valued the less inherent uses they have. Roses and diamonds are good gifts. A vacuum cleaner or an alarm clock: not so much.
Assuming you work 9-5 in an office, would you be happy getting a commuter pass or an alarm clock as a gift? I imagine some work-obsessed people would, but most would prefer something more personal.
