[HN Gopher] Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, an...
___________________________________________________________________
Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than
mined
Author : bswud
Score : 340 points
Date : 2024-09-09 13:30 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (worksinprogress.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (worksinprogress.co)
| pton_xd wrote:
| I mean, this has been true for the better part of a decade. The
| difference now is that jewelers caved and many offer a selection
| of lab diamonds. There's still a high markup on lab diamonds in
| most retailers though. Loose lab diamonds are incredibly cheap,
| only $600 per carat!
| renewiltord wrote:
| Where does one get these wholesale prices? And I assume that
| cutting happens at some cost over this?
| pton_xd wrote:
| Wholesale I'm not sure. Retail you can use sites like
| stonealgo.com to search inventory. And no that's the final
| cut and graded price.
| stoolio wrote:
| The trade uses a variety of sites for "wholesale" prices.
| Rapnet is the standard, and they publish the Rapaport Price
| List. However, it only covers natural diamonds, and rapnet
| only lists natural. Diamonds generally go for a % discount
| off the Rap Price List.
|
| Polygon (.net) is the other major listing platform. They
| include lab diamonds, and most everyone uses them. There
| are other platforms, but those are the two majors IMHO.
|
| You need to be a member of the trade to sign up AFAIK.
|
| However, I have seen one retail site, Ritani, actually post
| "wholesale" prices and they seemed to be pretty accurate.
| They seem to have good prices too. They list their
| wholesale/markup/etc. Of course, you should buy from a nice
| local jewelry store, but if you want to buy lab online they
| are at least great for checking prices.
| hadlock wrote:
| LMGTFY
|
| gemsny.com friendlydiamonds.com lightboxjewelry.com
|
| I found a wide variety of 2-3ct diamonds for $1200-1400 there
| (round, brillant cut, the "classic" type), which is what a
| 0.75-1.0ct used to cost
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| Go direct to the source and you can get 2ct colorless
| diamonds at less than $600 shipped. e.g.,
| https://detail.1688.com/offer/751071300271.html
|
| There are literally hundreds of suppliers like that in
| China/India. _Do not_ pay more than $1000 for a diamond of
| any size.
| hammock wrote:
| Link is not working, can you tell me what to search?
| Tepix wrote:
| Works for me.
| folmar wrote:
| I get infinite captcha hell.
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| Go to 1688.com and search "Shi Yan Shi Zuan Shi " -- "lab
| diamond"
|
| You may need to have an account. But there's a ton of
| interesting and esoteric stuff on 1688.com, so, if you
| can figure it out, it's worth it.
| mhuffman wrote:
| This looks too good to be true. I am interested in this
| (because of all the terrible stuff related to diamond
| mines), but how do you protect yourself from scams on
| this site? $500-$1,000 is a lot to "test the waters" and
| see if they are real or even if they will arrive. What is
| the chance the just swap it out with Moissanite or who
| knows what?
| hadlock wrote:
| I was surprised by this, but the top three results for lab
| grown diamonds, all of them had good cut, color clarity 3+
| carat (loose) diamonds for ~$1200-1400. That's very impressive
| given that's what a mid grade 0.75-1.0ct mined diamond cost 5-6
| years ago
| AStrangeMorrow wrote:
| I have seen lab grown diamond being quite a bit cheaper than
| mined ones for a while now. As in x2 to x3 times cheaper even.
|
| And yes, funnily it seems that the purer a diamond is (clear, few
| impurities etc) the higher its price/carat, until it is so pure
| that it means it is a lab grown diamond and not a natural one and
| the price drops
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Veblen good.
| _Microft wrote:
| The maybe overly terse parent comment is referring to this
| concept:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
| aidenn0 wrote:
| No, Veblen bad.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| Not really. The comment is talking about price increasing
| with the quality of the "good", which is perfectly
| conventional. The weird price cliff is especially out of
| place for a Veblen good.
| djtango wrote:
| Because synthetic diamonds are indistinguishable to the naked
| eye (IIRC a trained eye with a magnifying glass can spot
| faint nitrogen impurities which are characteristic of natural
| diamonds) the thing you're _really_ paying for is the piece
| of paper, the certificate. You 're not really paying for
| carbon allotrope.
|
| So it's less like gold which is fungible and a more natural
| form of money.
|
| Diamonds feel more like an NFT...
| justinparus wrote:
| Agreed. So much so I wonder if they engrave all lab-grown
| ones, so they don't get mixed up easily with mined and ruin
| their price.
| onlypassingthru wrote:
| If I'm not mistaken, diamonds get etched with a serial
| number when they get graded so you can look up the
| history later.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| In fact, De Beers have been agressively hiring for their
| osn blockchain-for-diamonds project.
| pharrington wrote:
| More importantly, you're paying for the human rights
| violations. Hopefully, synthetic diamonds eventually become
| popular enough to destroy the perverse incentives fueling
| the traditional diamond trade.
| BeetleB wrote:
| Mostly irrelevant when it comes to the value, sadly. Especially
| for engagements.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| This seems to be an American phenomenon. Americans--women in
| demanding it, and men in acquiescing to it--are keeping this
| commercially confected "tradition" alive through a vanity bred
| and reinforced by corporate greed and consumerism. It's not
| that a diamond ring is bad per se. It's the artificial and
| frankly socially destructive stipulations around them. It's
| almost as if the marriage and future spouse were an
| afterthought, secondary to the actual ring! It is utterly
| deranged.
|
| Similar things can be said about lavish weddings couples can't
| afford and go into debt for. It's a culture of spectacle and
| pretense. If you're not a rich aristocrat, don't pretend to be
| one. You're not "temporarily embarrassed millionaires".
| nathan_compton wrote:
| 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 it. But most of
| the women I know have no deep commitment to the practice.
| BeetleB wrote:
| > 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...
| xhevahir wrote:
| If you think lavish spending on weddings and engagements is
| an "American phenomenon," you're badly mistaken. Read up on
| weddings in India, Armenia, Cambodia, Afghanistan...
| rowanG077 wrote:
| There is a difference in going all out for an event vs
| spending all that money on essentially a useless rock.
| hammock wrote:
| When diamonds held their value they were a useful vehicle
| for dowry (and showing off your dowry). Now that they
| don't...an Instagram account with 100K followers might be
| a suitable modern replacement
| BeetleB wrote:
| While I agree with your point, I also agree with GP's
| point. The difference between you and him is what you
| consider "lavish".
|
| For many, spending $20K on a wedding is "lavish".
| acchow wrote:
| Measuring across countries in a $ figure doesn't quite
| capture it. I'd use something like percentage of annual
| disposable income
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| 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 and sometimes much less:
| https://detail.1688.com/offer/751071300271.html
|
| Moissanites are now less than $5/carat at retail:
| https://detail.1688.com/offer/586468555080.html
|
| These are legit. I've bought some.
|
| Within 10 years of today, I expect diamonds to lose almost all of
| their value. Moissanites have already become as near-worthless as
| synthetic rubies. This is going to open up new industrial uses
| for those gemstones.
| jajko wrote:
| They never had any value, apart from specialized ie glass
| cutting tool. Only when DeBeers realized they could push some
| fictious heavy marketing 'to prove your worth to woman you are
| asking to marry' for those shiny stones nobody wanted to buy,
| people who didn't know better got manipulated into buying them.
| They are supposedly very common in universe, and probably in
| deeper Earth too.
|
| Correction is healthy and benefits mankind long term, there was
| nothing good coming from ie impact on Africa. Nobody cared
| about that, so things are fixed from another direction.
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Diamonds where valued before DeBeers even existed, but
| diamonds in engagement rings (especially in the US) are (at
| least partially) from a heavy marketing push by them in the
| 20th century. Previously engagement rings tended to be
| colored gemstones.
| euroderf wrote:
| Yes, I've read that in the early 20th century, other
| precious gemstones (like rubies & emeralds) had more than a
| third of the market for engagement rings.
| tonetegeatinst wrote:
| I think diamonds are used in some lathes as cutting tools. So
| suprising thats not more common. I though diamonds strength
| and iirc its heat tolerance would be attractive to the folks
| who cut stuff.
| folmar wrote:
| The hardness is attractive but the poor heat resistance is
| a major problem for many uses. For a normal angle grinder
| you can use normal abrasive disc without paying much
| attention, but with a diamond-grit one you can easily burn
| the diamonds.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Diamonds are excellent for cutting some materials, e.g.
| ceramics or some non-ferrous alloys, but they are bad for
| cutting metals that are good at dissolving carbon, e.g.
| iron, cobalt and nickel alloys.
|
| So for the iron alloys, which are the material most
| frequently processed by machining, diamond is not suitable.
| Other hard crystals, like alumina a.k.a. corundum, are much
| better for this purpose, even if they are less hard than
| diamond.
| pfdietz wrote:
| For those metals, cubic boron nitride works and has about
| half the Knoop hardness of diamond (and more than twice
| the hardness of aluminum oxide.)
|
| c-BN is isoelectronic with diamond; h-BN is isoelectronic
| with graphite (but is an insulator).
| avhon1 wrote:
| Diamond turning is used to produce optical surfaces with
| lathes. Here's a recent example on youtube:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPTFFPLOzCw
| grues-dinner wrote:
| They're not that heat tolerant. They're fantastic heat
| conductors, but they'll burn away into carbon dioxide (via
| carbon monoxide). The temperatures needed to do that are
| high, around 900C, but that's not _that_ high. Angle
| grinder sparks can be hotter than 1000C, as can the edges
| of carbide tools.
| darby_nine wrote:
| There's no market for e.g. diamond lenses? Sure it's going to
| be on the expensive end of the market but the same forces are
| pushing those prices down.
| thehappypm wrote:
| Diamonds certainly have value as a material for jewelry --
| essentially unscratchable jewelry is pretty awesome. They
| also don't get cloudy over time or anything. That's the cool
| part.
| cma wrote:
| They can be burned up in a house fire though.
| ipsento606 wrote:
| > Who does not love diamonds? Where is there a mind in
| > which the bare mention of them does not excite a >
| pleasant emotion? Is there any one of rank too exalted
| > to care for such baubles? The highest potentates of the
| > earth esteem them as their choicest treasures, and >
| kingdoms have been at war for their possession
|
| From "Diamonds" by William Pole, published in 1861 [1] (27
| years before the formation of the De Beers company)
|
| [1] https://www.google.com/books/edition/Diamonds/ENwOAAAAYAA
| J?h...
| adrian_b wrote:
| The Europeans have encountered for the first time what are
| now called diamonds during the expedition of Alexander the
| Great in India, where they had been appreciated for jewelry
| for a long time.
|
| This is why the Romans, e.g. Pliny the Elder, used for
| diamonds the name "Indian adamant". The name "adamant"
| without the "Indian" specifier had already been used for
| many hundreds of years (the oldest attestation is in
| Hesiod), but it had not been applied to a gem, but to
| nuggets of native osmium-iridium alloy, which can be found
| mixed with the nuggets of native gold in the alluvial
| deposits of gold (and which, unlike the gold with which
| they were mixed, could be neither melted nor forged, hence
| their name, "untameable"; "unconquerable", which is used in
| the article is a bad translation for "adamant").
|
| Pliny the Elder described the "Indian adamant" as
| consisting of octahedral crystals, which is the most
| frequent form of the natural diamonds. It appears that at
| that time it was impossible to cut the diamonds, at most
| they might have been polished a little, so the crystals
| used in jewelry retained their native shape.
|
| By the time of Pliny the Elder, the "Indian adamant" was
| the most expensive gem, surpassing even the noble opals,
| the pearls, the emeralds and the beryls, which were the
| next most expensive gems at that time. The Romans did not
| care much for transparent crystals, they appreciated much
| more the higher quality exemplars of noble opals or pearls,
| if those exhibited a nice play of colors.
| khazhoux wrote:
| > They never had any value
|
| The Crown Jewels disagree with you
|
| https://www.hrp.org.uk/tower-of-london/history-and-
| stories/t...
| murukesh_s wrote:
| >They never had any value
|
| They had immense value in ancient world. They were valued
| much more than gold - due to their rarity. Southern India was
| the only known source for mining diamonds in ancient world
| [1]. They were used as currency and was valued higher than
| gold. In fact there were wars fought for diamonds.
|
| There is a saying about Koh-i-Noor, one of the most famous
| Diamond - "If a strong man were to throw four stones - one
| north, one south, one east, one west, and a fifth stone up
| into the air - and if the space between them were to be
| filled with gold, all would not equal the value of the Koh-i-
| Noor" [2].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golconda_diamonds
|
| [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/16/koh
| -i-...
| Ekaros wrote:
| Anything rare does have value. So why not big enough
| diamonds. With big being critical part. The tiny stuff really
| is very stuff. The big is rare and thus rarity along
| reasonably brings some value.
| Vox_Leone wrote:
| >>They never had any value
|
| As they say, "If you want to know a diamond's worth, try
| selling one"
| fortran77 wrote:
| I need diamonds to play my records! What do you think a record
| stylus ("needle") is made from?
| jalk wrote:
| Worthless (as in low monetary value) doesn't mean useless.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Funnily enough this concept is literally called the
| "diamond-water paradox".
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| Sure, but those aren't gem-grade. They're usually black and
| opaque (polycrystalline) or yellow. And in any case they're
| very small.
|
| When I say new industrial uses, I'm thinking of things that
| haven't been done before and hinge on large bulk volumes of
| material: Windows, very large diamond anvil cells, high-
| performance heatsinks, and stuff like that. Lots of cool
| things are going to be developed.
| euroderf wrote:
| Shibata needles always commanded a premium. Can they now be
| manufactured in that shape ? Can all vinyl lovers now get
| Shibata needles ? The great thing about them is that they go
| deeper in the record grooves, so even if your record has been
| played a lot using cheaper needles, a Shibata might find
| virgin vinyl. Which also means that on the first play with
| the Shibata, it will excavate a lot of gunk.
| anjel wrote:
| The moon-rock tipped styluses are vastly superior. /Zappa
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Moissanites have already become as near-worthless as
| synthetic rubies.
|
| I've noticed that synthetic sapphires are (or were?) much more
| expensive than synthetic rubies. Do you know why?
| spondylosaurus wrote:
| I'm also curious about this. Especially since natural rubies
| and natural sapphires are the same type of gemstone, just in
| different colors. It sounds like the synthetic equivalents
| might not be similar at all!
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| The synthetic equivalents have to be similar, because
| they're the same thing as the natural stones, and the
| natural stones are similar.
|
| A ruby is corundum with chromium coloring it; a sapphire is
| corundum with (most typically) iron coloring it.
|
| Iron isn't rare, so either it affects the process used to
| make rubies, or there's no real reason for the price gap.
| spondylosaurus wrote:
| "No real" reason wouldn't shock me. Not a gemstone expert
| so I can't say, but if natural sapphires are more
| expensive/in higher demand than natural rubies (despite
| both being corundum) then it makes sense for that demand
| to map onto their synthetic counterparts. But with the
| synthetic stones, it's more obvious how arbitrary that
| demand/price difference is.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Iron is not enough for sapphires, it must be combined
| with titanium.
|
| I do not know how this is done, but while the doping with
| chromium for rubies is simple, chromium will just
| substitute aluminum in the crystal lattice and it will
| provide a color determined by its concentration, for
| sapphires there may be necessary a more complex thermal
| treatment, so that the iron and titanium will form the
| right type of coupled defects in the crystal, in order to
| have the desired color.
| tiagod wrote:
| This is just speculation, but assuming you're talking about
| gem-grade rubies and sapphires, perhaps there's more
| industrial uses for similar rubies and the gem industry
| sees the benefit.
| zettabomb wrote:
| I'm going to take a guess and say it's because of ruby
| lasers. They make _massive_ synthetic ruby rods for lasers,
| but it needs to be one solid piece with very low impurities.
| A small defect will cause the rod to be entirely unusable for
| a laser, but there can still be large portions usable for
| other purposes with less stringent requirements. An example
| is ruby tipped 3D printer nozzles, used for abrasive
| filaments, which can be had for around $50.
| avhon1 wrote:
| Other mass-market uses for small rubies are for bearings in
| precision gear trains, and wear-resistant tips for
| precision measuring devices.
| Joker_vD wrote:
| > I expect diamonds to lose almost all of their value.
|
| _Artificial_ diamonds, you mean. The natural ones will keep
| their price, just as "hand-crafted" goods did (and, I suspect,
| as "human-produced" content in the future will); it's a matter
| of status and signalling that you can afford to buy an
| inferior, more expensive product.
| striking wrote:
| I'd expect this to be true if you could tell at a glance. But
| the new stuff looks like the old stuff, but bigger and
| better.
| batch12 wrote:
| Now we just need artificial diamonds that are flawed enough
| to be indistinguishable from real diamonds.
| Joker_vD wrote:
| There is a whole sub-industry of putting fake mosquitoes
| into fake amber.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| As long as the mosquitos contain real dinosaur blood,
| it's all good.
| schmidtleonard wrote:
| "We spared no expense!"
| pfdietz wrote:
| From chickens, right?
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| They already do this with emeralds -- fake inclusions and
| flaws to make them look more like natural stones. If a
| natural emerald and a good synthetic emerald are
| distinguishable, it's often only because the synthetic one
| still looks too much better -- its color and overall
| clarity are still a little bit _too_ good.
| vlachen wrote:
| Just like the "distressed wood" trend caused a booming
| business of making products that all have the exact same
| "distressed" pattern. History doesn't repeat, but it
| certainly rhymes.
| iteratethis wrote:
| I know somebody that works in a wooden floor business.
| They take perfect new wood and move it through a cylinder
| that drops pebbles on it. They sell it for 2-3 times the
| price of undamaged wood.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| It's based on supply and demand.
|
| In 2012, when I was shopping for an engagement ring, a
| natural 2ct diamond cost $250,000. (I bought a 2ct moissanite
| for much, much less, and my wife is very happy with it.)
|
| When I looked in fall 2023, a natural 2ct diamond cost
| $20,000. That's a loss of over 90% of value, not counting
| inflation! (Now the supply of diamonds is much higher, and
| the demand for _natural_ diamonds is much lower.)
|
| I suspect that natural diamonds will be sold for a 40-300%
| premium over manufactured. I also wonder if impurities will
| become fashionable, just to show that a specific diamond is
| actually natural and can't be made in a lab.
|
| > Artificial diamonds
|
| BTW, there is no such thing as an artificial diamond. A
| _manufactured_ diamond is 100% diamond, for all intents and
| purposes.
| tikhonj wrote:
| > _I also wonder if impurities will become fashionable,
| just to show that a specific diamond is actually natural
| and can 't be made in a lab._
|
| I hope that happens for purely aesthetic reasons too:
| natural "imperfections" add a lot of visual variety and
| interest that's otherwise missing in a lot of diamond
| jewellery--at least the sort that I've seen.
| kaashif wrote:
| > BTW, there is no such thing as an artificial diamond. A
| manufactured diamond is 100% diamond
|
| What do you believe the distinction between artificial and
| manufactured is? As far as I'm aware, they're almost
| synonyms.
|
| Dictionaries literally list "man made" as one of the
| definitions of artificial.
| pessimizer wrote:
| A man-made television isn't an artificial television; a
| man-made taco isn't an artificial taco.
|
| Man-made beef and artificial beef are both the same
| thing: a not-beef beef substitute. Beef is by definition
| cow-made.
|
| Man-made diamonds are just diamonds.
| Nevermark wrote:
| Last I heard from the forefront of geology and ecology,
| "natural" televisions and tacos have yet to be found.
|
| So I don't think the distinction is best analyzed with
| examples like that.
|
| If something is normally created and nature, and humans
| find a way to reproduce it, it is common to call the
| human produced versions artificial even if the result is
| identical in principle.
|
| Humans make lots of distinctions that fall apart if we
| get too pedantic, but have useful casual, cultural, or
| practical associations and meanings.
| LanceH wrote:
| Burn hydrogen to make water. Is that artificial water? Or
| is it forever artificial water? Is all water that mixes
| with it artificial water? Is all water now artificial
| since it has mixed with human made water?
|
| While the basic definition seems to be merely "man-made",
| I would say it holds there is some underlying distinction
| between the natural and artificial. Natural light vs
| artificial light -- the two are distinctly different. But
| are the photons produced by a light bulb artificial, or
| are they natural photons?
|
| Artificial diamonds are more diamond than diamonds. The
| diamond portions are identical, regardless of origin.
|
| Or maybe there are trapped gasses or other identifiers
| left in them that make them distinct. I don't really know
| about this point.
|
| Anyhow, the natural vs artificial distinction really
| seems to break down when things are (literally)
| physically and chemically identical.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| > "natural" televisions and tacos have yet to be found.
|
| I refuse to give up hope!
| SamBam wrote:
| Indeed, "artificial diamond" is one of the top examples
| of the first definition of "artificial" at Merriam-
| Webster, which is "man-made." [1]
|
| Etymologically it means "made by skill."
|
| But I understand the hesitation to use the word, as it
| gives an impression of "fake."
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial
| acchow wrote:
| > also wonder if impurities will become fashionable, just
| to show that a specific diamond is actually natural and
| can't be made in a lab.
|
| Why can't you add impurities when manufacturing a diamond?
| "Doping"
| db48x wrote:
| You can, but a flaw in a gem is usually an inclusion of
| some other mineral, a crack, or a hollow space.
| grues-dinner wrote:
| This is Gary: his job is to give the machine a solid kick
| once a day and crack the vacuum seal on Fridays. Gary
| made us 120 million in imperfections last quarter.
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| You get them whether you want it or not, at least some of
| the time. Entropy and so forth. The synthetic ones with
| worse imperfections are cheaper.
|
| It's probably possible to guess by inspection whether the
| imperfection properties imply mined vs lab grown, with
| some level of accuracy.
|
| Source for the existence of imperfections is reading
| through lists of specific diamonds a few years ago. The
| synthetic ones didn't vary much in colour but did vary in
| number and distribution of inclusions.
| asdff wrote:
| The realities of this market have not hit the consumers.
| Even young people are still out there spending 5-6 figures
| on a rock and ascribing real value and aspirations towards
| eventually "upgrading" into said rocks from perhaps an
| existing synthetic alternative already set in the ring.
| Even if the supply side price argument is so perverted now,
| we still have a culture that wants to put a high value on
| this object for sentimental reasons. No one wants to hear
| that diamond rings are worthless. They want to spend money
| on it. Spending an appreciable amount of your savings on it
| is the entire significance of it, not really the value
| prospect.
| pyrolistical wrote:
| A good example of how marketing can produce cultural
| values
| gwbas1c wrote:
| > No one wants to hear that diamond rings are worthless.
|
| You might convince them that their diamonds are
| worthless, and that a better investment is
| cryptocurrency!
| slt2021 wrote:
| >> They want to spend money on it.
|
| no guy ever wants to shell out $$$ for a useless rock
| takinola wrote:
| I am curious to know if there is precedent for goods
| losing their veblen status.
| dboreham wrote:
| Quick note that a very nice 2ct stone has never cost
| $200,000. Not sure who was trying to charge you that much
| in 2012 or why, but gem diamond prices haven't changed much
| in the past 30 years, although there was an uptick in the
| covid/inflationary years, and a reversion to trend more
| recently.
|
| https://www.pricescope.com/diamond-prices/diamond-prices-
| cha...
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Jewelry store wanted to anchor the price?
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Why? Natural diamonds are the inferior product in every way.
| crazygringo wrote:
| For the same reason you can make a print of a classic
| painting, and digitally brighten and re-saturate the colors
| to counteract the darkening and yellowing of the original
| with age. Remove all of the cracking too.
|
| And you'll still only be able to sell the print for tens of
| dollars, while the original is worth millions.
|
| People attach value to authenticity and originals and
| tradition, however they define that.
| notfed wrote:
| It sounds like some people _want_ to pay more money. Good
| for them. I 'm happy to have a cheaper option.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Yes, this is a form of signaling in social psychology, an
| interesting phenomenon that happens with originals versus
| "replicas."
| fidotron wrote:
| The whole point is to spend money and to be an honest
| signal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory
|
| In the event artificial diamonds are genuinely
| indistinguishable from natural ones they will all,
| natural and artificial, become worthless aside from
| practical applications.
| freen wrote:
| Sylvester McMonkey McBean at work.
| notfed wrote:
| That's a really, really dim signal though, right? You
| literally need a microscope to see the signal.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| The prints most certainly aren't better. Hand painted is
| not something that can't be defeated with a printer
| currently. Besides you pay for the history of the
| original not the paint. A natural diamond has essentially
| the same history as any other rock you can pick up
| anywhere for free. People pay for the feeling. That
| doesn't mean a synthetic diamond is physically superior
| in every way.
| TylerE wrote:
| Except that with diamonds the authenticity is actual
| human suffering in virtually slave like conditions.
| derriz wrote:
| > People attach value to authenticity and originals and
| tradition, however they define that.
|
| That (some) people might attach (some) value to those
| attributes does not guarantee that the monetary value
| will be preserved. Pre-20th century antique "brown"
| furniture is a notorious example - where market value has
| collapsed in the last few decades as fashion has shifted.
| Xenoamorphous wrote:
| I never bought a diamond in my life and have zero intention
| of doing so, but I can see how to some people there would
| be the appeal of knowing that a diamond came from some rock
| where it had stayed untouched for millions of years vs. an
| artificial one made in some China lab last month.
| consteval wrote:
| I think the value of diamonds has always been their
| rarity and cost. Historically, for married women this
| allowed them some financial strength and safety net. Of
| course as time goes on that function becomes less useful,
| but the idea has still stuck around a bit.
|
| I predict people will turn to other gemstones, or will
| stick to "natural" diamonds and maybe even get them
| certified and stuff, producing another artificial market
| to inflate their value.
| mNovak wrote:
| Diamonds are already certified by GIA, so that you prove
| their clarity and quality and such (which no untrained
| observer would be able to differentiate)
| anjel wrote:
| You omit functional value referred somewhat
| euphemistically as "portable wealth." See also: why
| doesn't the US circulate 1000 dollar bills?
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| It's not, though. This is old, but it's a classic:
| https://archive.ph/VdR8C
|
| The short version is that it's very tough to sell
| diamonds. You're much more likely to get fleeced or get
| arrested than you are to get a fair deal.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| > The natural ones will keep their price
|
| But they haven't.
| bluGill wrote:
| Given the moral conditions around natural diamonds it is
| artificial diamonds that should command a premium.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| > Within 10 years of today, I expect diamonds to lose almost
| all of their value. Moissanites have already become as near-
| worthless as synthetic rubies. This is going to open up new
| industrial uses for those gemstones.
|
| And for jewelry too. I bought my wife a 2ct moissanite in 2012.
| There was no way we could have done that ring with a real
| diamond back then.
|
| When I was shopping, I happened to see a girl at a conference
| who had many large moissanites on her ring. It was gorgeous,
| and well within the price range of upper-middle-class.
| hintymad wrote:
| And I'd be very happy to see the demise of De Beers. It's
| amazing that De Beers can thrive for more than 100 years, but
| still, using clever marketing and tight control of supply to
| artificially jack up the price of diamond is counter-
| productive.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I have heard that they are the ones that made diamonds the
| engagement stone, and that was relatively recently.
|
| My mother and grandmother had sapphire engagement rings.
| dboreham wrote:
| So did Princess Diana. Some of this is regional -- the US
| is the epicenter of marketing diamonds while other places
| don't value them so much.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Both me mum and grandmum were British.
| godelski wrote:
| Diamonds have lots of uses beyond being pretty.
|
| I have to bring this up because a lot of people are talking as
| if this is the entirety of the reason for their decrease. But
| there's diamond files, diamond cutting blades/wheels/drills,
| you can make glass from it (really only used in labs that
| absolutely need them because the price), and many more uses.
| Many of these don't care about size, quality, or clarity. So
| instead of pulling from scrap material from jewelry making or
| rejected diamonds you could just make your own and ensure your
| own supply.
|
| One of the things I've loved about synthetic diamond prices
| coming down is just how cheap and available diamond cutting
| wheels and filing tools have become. You can now get a set of
| diamond files on Amazon for under $10. That's crazy
| notfed wrote:
| > diamond files on Amazon for under $10
|
| Link? I'm skeptical. It seems more likely someone is abusing
| the term "diamond", no?
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Not the same thing, but you can get diamond tipped 3d
| printer nozzles for ~$100:
| https://www.amazon.com/Diamondback-Nozzles-Compatible-
| Polycr...
|
| Considering that these are a niche product requiring a
| precisely shaped diamond insert made by a relatively small
| operation in the US, I think it's believable that a Chinese
| company could produce diamond files for ~$10, considering
| that it only needs diamond powder and has more space for
| mass production.
| avhon1 wrote:
| Sets like this one
|
| https://www.amazon.com/dp/B092D4CV56
|
| are also sold in U.S. hardware stores
|
| https://www.harborfreight.com/needle-file-
| set-10-piece-69876...
|
| https://www.menards.com/main/tools/hand-tools/files/tool-
| sho...
|
| They are _very_ cheaply made, but as far as I can tell are
| actually diamond. They 're good for shaping glass and
| ceramics. For metal, you're better off using hardened steel
| files, but these ones will work, just slowly and with less
| precision.
| godelski wrote:
| I actually have that exact set. Yeah, they aren't high
| quality, but as far as I can tell they are diamond. They
| have that hardness and the filing is omnidirectional as
| one would expect.
|
| Of course you can get much better sets that will last
| longer and are much more expensive. But I remember as a
| kid that trying to buy a diamond bit was quite expensive
| but most Dremel kits come with one and a wheel now
| jdietrich wrote:
| Diamonds are just dirt cheap. You can buy a set of ten
| diamond needle files for $8 on Amazon, or less than $2 in
| wholesale quantities. I have hundreds of grams of diamond
| in my workshop in the form of lapping compound; if you're
| so inclined, you could buy half a kilo of loose diamonds
| for a couple of hundred bucks.
|
| A wide range of very ordinary cutting tools are now tipped
| with big chunks of polycrystalline diamond - cutting tools
| for machining aluminium, inserts for rock drills, saw
| blades for cutting fibre cement boards. Even woodworkers
| are starting to use diamond saw blades and router bits,
| because the improved wear life over tungsten carbide gives
| a rapid return on investment.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Yakamoz-10-Piece-Diamond-Jewelers-
| Pre...
|
| https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/140mm-160mm-180mm-
| Dia...
|
| https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32719545477.html
|
| https://union-diamond.en.alibaba.com/index.html
|
| https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005003335883020.html
| godelski wrote:
| Same. I even have that set from Amazon and am happy with
| it. It's not the best, but there's always uses for cheap
| files.
|
| Also this is the first time I've tried to go to ali from
| my phone and holy hell are they aggressive in trying to
| get you to use the app. And express links require login?
| WTF. It crashed my browser
| grues-dinner wrote:
| I bought that exact set of red-dipped-handled cheapo
| rifflers 19 years ago (2005, I remember I was still at
| school, and I think they came from Maplins, possibly
| Rapid). They were cheap then too, probably about the same
| numerical price, perhaps PS10 with the Maplins tax, and
| AliExpress shipping was just a gleam in Jack Ma's eye.
| Industrial-grade diamond dust has been pretty cheap for a
| long time.
| TuringNYC wrote:
| >> Link? I'm skeptical. It seems more likely someone is
| abusing the term "diamond", no?
|
| The carat-cost curve is not linear, so it seems plausible.
| As carats go down, there is a huge supply of diamonds,
| especially those without beauty attributes (color, cut)
| which can be used for non-jewelry purposes.
| Glyptodon wrote:
| 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.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| How big can you get?
|
| Do they make olive sized ones (1-2 cm diameter)? How much would
| such one cost?
| Modified3019 wrote:
| Yeah, these days when it comes to gems like diamond or
| moissanite meant for high quality beauty, the actual cost is in
| the time and skill it takes to properly cut one for optimal
| optical properties.
|
| Mind you most people won't be able to tell a difference unless
| you put the $5 cut next to a $500 cut.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| When TFA talks about semiconductors it really only directly
| compares it to silicon, when GaN is probably the nearest
| competitor to diamond, both in cost and performance. I believe
| diamond is "only" about 20x the cost of GaN; anyone know what the
| economics would be for substituting diamond for GaN in e.g. HVDC?
| Kaijo wrote:
| This is true with some qualifications. If you're interested in
| the kind of investment grade diamonds that a major auction house
| would deal with, then you're looking at heavy weights and/or
| fancy colors that synthetics can't reach yet. In the diamond
| trade the word "paragon" is sometimes reserved for flawless or
| near-flawless stones above 100 carats, of which there is a long
| list of famous examples, but the largest gem grade synthetic is
| still around 30 carats I believe. Vivid colors top out at much
| lighter than that. I guess we'll be able to outdo nature within a
| few decades though (as far as terrestrial diamonds go, anyway --
| I seem to recall reading somewhere about the discovery of moon-
| sized space diamonds).
| djtango wrote:
| A diamond the size of a moon? Does that mean it's a single
| molecule of pure carbon the size of the moon? I wonder what
| effects gravity has at that scale
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| I don't know about moon sized but there are solar systems out
| there where carbon is more common than silicon. In such a
| system if you had a terrestrial planet then you're likely get
| diamonds instead of quartz being the most common mineral in
| the crust. You also might possibly get diamonds in an
| octagonal crystalline form which are theorized to be far
| stronger than the diamonds we have here on Earth.
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| It's certainly polycrystalline rather than a giant single-
| crystal. It would contain lots of every other element that's
| soluble in it, to its limit of solubility, and whatever's
| insoluble or over that limit would have to form different
| mineral inclusions at grain boundaries.
| elihu wrote:
| The density of diamond is about 3.5 g/cm^3. The Earth's moon
| has a density of around 3.3 g/cm^3, so if you replaced it
| with a diamond of about the same size, it actually wouldn't
| be all that different in terms of gravity. Solar eclipses
| would be pretty wild though.
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| Vivid colors are a trivial engineering problem, and one the
| Chinese have already cracked. Screenshot:
| https://ibb.co/s6gWTy1
|
| Prices are dropping like a rock from a high tower, and colors
| and other options are becoming more available. Within 10 years
| you'll be able to buy virtually any diamond you like, in any
| common color, for less than a 2ct stone would have cost in
| 2014.
|
| Also, if you really like huge gems, you can buy a moissanite
| today at 1000ct. Even on Amazon.com there are examples at
| 100ct. https://www.amazon.com/Gemonite-15CT-100CT-Moissanite-
| Colorl...
|
| This would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. Things in the
| diamond and gemstone business are changing _fast_.
| bluGill wrote:
| Though if you are interested in investment grade diamods I'd
| say it is time to get out - diamonds have never been as rare as
| investors like to pretend, and things are going to get worse.
| FactKnower69 wrote:
| "Investment grade", hahaha! "Speculation grade" would be a much
| less pathetic way to articulate this absurd concept
| moralestapia wrote:
| (Not related to the content of the article)
|
| What a beautiful site.
|
| The subtle pink background, the choice of font, the minimal
| appearance (true to the spirit of being minimal, not just dead-
| ass simple), the way images are woven through, the footnotes, ...
|
| Excellent execution!
| Noumenon72 wrote:
| I didn't click through the headline, so until you called this
| out I thought I was skipping a price chart from the AP or
| something. I almost missed all that history and diagrams.
| Thanks!
| gruntledfangler wrote:
| " Lab diamonds are a testament to the principle that what nature
| can do, man is capable of doing better."
|
| Profound hubris in an otherwise interesting article.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| Would love to see us turn iron into gold as well as nature does
| with supernovas.
| para_parolu wrote:
| I thought this is possible and theory is well known. It just
| to expensive compared to mining
| cyberax wrote:
| You can do that in an accelerator. It's not going to be cost-
| effective for a long time, though.
|
| Once we get to asteroid mining, we'll be able to get gold
| cheaply enough to not care about it. On Earth, most of the
| gold sank into the planet's core because it dissolves well in
| molten iron. So the gold that we're mining comes mostly from
| meteorites.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| If you do the math on the theoretical maximum energy
| efficiency of turning iron into gold we'll _never_ be able
| to do it cost-effectively until energy becomes cheaper by
| like 10 orders of magnitude. That 's why heavy metals all
| come from the most energetic processes in the universe,
| like supernovae and neutron star collisions :)
| bell-cot wrote:
| Doing "better" isn't so hard...when you get to pick the metric.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| I'm planning on buying an engagement ring very soon and my own
| plan (as someone who has never done this before!) is to get a
| good lab grown diamond but spend more money on the metal in the
| ring. You can make a gem stone in a lab but until we become a
| Kardashev II civilization we won't be making any sufficient
| quantity of gold in a lab. If I buy a good loose lab grown
| diamond will I be able to find someone who will fit it into a
| high quality gold ring?
| DabbyDabberson wrote:
| most people taking this strategy that I know use platinum
| instead of gold. Most engagement rings only have ~~~$200 worth
| of gold on them.
| noname120 wrote:
| Gold is more expensive than platinum.
| andruby wrote:
| Indeed, since 2016. Before 2016 platinum was worth more
| than gold, even double for a brief period in 2008.
|
| Now gold is worth 2.5x what platinum is worth.
|
| https://www.macrotrends.net/2541/platinum-prices-vs-gold-
| pri...
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| Do ring vendors put a higher markup on gold than platinum?
| stoolio wrote:
| The price of gold is through the roof. Gold is ~$2500 per
| oz, while platinum is $950 per oz. However, most gold is
| 14kt (58%) or 18kt (75%) while Platinum is 90%+. That, and
| platinum is a heavier (technically denser is more correct?)
| metal, so there is more platinum in an equivalent ring, and
| it weighs more. The actual price on finished jewelry isn't
| as big as you would think.
|
| However, "retail" jewelry stores often price things using
| what they call Keystone (2x markup) or even triple keystone
| (3x). So, a $500 piece would sell for $1000-$1500.
| dboreham wrote:
| Jewelry stores will also come up with endless nonsense to
| justify high prices such as Platinum is so much harder to
| work with, etc.
| snark42 wrote:
| Did you mean rhodium?
| themaninthedark wrote:
| If you could find an independent jeweler(as opposed to chain
| jewelry store), I am sure they would.
| Glyptodon wrote:
| Lots of people are pretty into treating gems and rings as
| separate goods, or want grandma's diamond in a new ring. So I
| don't think getting them separately will be an issue. But I'd
| definitely consider looking up shiny precious gems on Reddit -
| for less money than a diamond you can really get some nicely
| cut and much more interesting Sapphires.
| andoando wrote:
| Yes pretty much any jeweler will be able to custom make a ring
| for you. I imagine its how the majority of engagement rings are
| sold, theres way too much variability in the stone and
| ring/setting people want for jewlers to only sell premade
| rings.
|
| Also theres not much to a high quality ring and not much for
| you to spend money on there.
| BrentOzar wrote:
| > If I buy a good loose lab grown diamond will I be able to
| find someone who will fit it into a high quality gold ring?
|
| Yes, and even better, don't design the ring by yourself. Get a
| nice jewelry box for the diamond, use it for the proposal, and
| when you open the box, say:
|
| "Our relationship is something we're going to build together. I
| want your opinion on everything for the rest of my life,
| because you're going to be my partner. I got the diamond, but
| let's design the ring together, you and I, because this is too
| important for me to do by myself. I need your help."
|
| They'll melt, and the ring will mean even more.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| > A perfectly cut, flawless lab diamond costs a fraction of the
| price of a mined diamond of lesser quality.
|
| When I shopped for an engagement ring in 2012, there was a clear
| cohort of women who significantly valued a diamond from the
| ground. Fortunately, my (now) wife and I saw through the
| marketing gimmick, and laughed all the way to the bank.
| slm_HN wrote:
| "Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and vastly
| cheaper than mined diamonds. Beating nature took decades of hard
| graft and millions of pounds of pressure."
|
| What does graft mean in this context? Is there a process where
| you graft diamonds, like plants? Does it refer to the diamond
| seed crystals mentioned in the article?
| ycombinete wrote:
| Hard graft is an idiom. It means hard work.
| jrgoff wrote:
| Seems to be UK slang meaning work/effort, see the third
| definition listed here:
| https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/graft
| physicsguy wrote:
| They're cheaper but they're not _cheap_ and that 's part of the
| issue...
|
| I remember looking at engagement rings about 5 years ago, my now
| wife is quite environmentally conscious. At the time it was like
| ~PS1200 for a diamond one and PS800 for a synthetic one.
| vundercind wrote:
| I looked a few years back after reading a bunch about how
| synthetics were cheaper in discussions like this. I did not
| find it to be notably true then. There was barely a discount
| for synthetic at all, the places I checked.
|
| Ended up with moissanite, which _was_ significantly cheaper
| than diamond, but still not, like, _cheap_ if you care about it
| looking as diamond-like as possible, though I probably could
| have done as well with diamond buying "used" if I'd had the
| patience for it and more knowledge to be more confident I
| wasn't getting scammed.
| timerol wrote:
| 5 years has made a large difference in prices, as shown in this
| graph quoted in TFA: https://www.paulzimnisky.com/Price-
| Evolution-of-Lab-grown-Di...
|
| Assuming you mean "late 2018" by "about 5 years ago" (because
| that's where the graph has a 1.5:1 ratio), that $1200/$800
| diamond was probably about 0.2 carat (obviously depends on the
| other Cs), and would likely be around $1200/$300 today.
| Zekio wrote:
| This must be why Ruby 3D printer nozzles are getting below 100
| bucks
| littleweep wrote:
| Tangentially related: Does anyone in the HN community have a
| recommendation for a reputable place for obtaining a lab-grown
| diamond for an engagement ring?
| henry2023 wrote:
| James Allen
| kevinventullo wrote:
| Brilliant Earth
| Animats wrote:
| 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
| applications. The technology is good enough to achieve flaw
| levels in the parts per billion range, and to make diamond
| windows for lasers 10cm across.[1] This is way above jewelry
| grade.
|
| Over on the natural diamond side, there's been a breakthrough.
| The industry used to break up some large diamonds during rock
| crushing. Now there's a industrial X-ray system which is used to
| examine rocks before crushing to find diamonds. It's working
| quite well. A 2500 carat diamond was found recently.[1][2] TOMRA,
| which makes high-volume sorters for everything from recyclables
| to rice, has a sorter for this job. This is working so well that
| there's now something of a glut of giant diamonds too big for
| jewelry.
|
| The finishing processes of cutting and polishing have been
| automated. The machinery for that comes mostly from China and
| India.
|
| Diamonds are now something you can buy by the kilo, in plastic
| bags.
|
| [1] https://e6-prd-
| cdn-01.azureedge.net/mediacontainer/medialibr...
|
| [2]
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/amandakooser/2024/08/23/monster...
|
| [3]
| https://ikcabstracts.com/index.php/ikc/article/download/4101...
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| This is certainly good news for lasers. Many people don't
| realize how good diamonds are for this. Transparent with a 65%
| higher refractive index than glass, and 8x the thermal
| conductivity of copper. And completely scratch-proof!
| Raydovsky wrote:
| No deeper groves at 8?
| biomcgary wrote:
| Diamond eyeglasses? The lenses would still be cheaper than
| the Luxottica frames.
| Balgair wrote:
| I know this is a bit of a throwaway comment, but I'd never
| thought of diamonds for eyeglasses.
|
| And, honestly, that would be really really cool.
|
| Yeah, there are other materials with better refractive
| indices and that are tougher and cheaper and dont shatter.
| Sure.
|
| But if we can get diamonds down to something that could be
| made into lenses for the (very high end) retail market,
| man, that would just be _so cool_!
| LtdJorge wrote:
| I'd rather use the diamonds to manufacture the laser
| machines that do eye surgery and remove glasses lol
| mathgeek wrote:
| You probably don't want more conductive lenses, though.
| _ph_ wrote:
| I am pretty sure, diamonds would make awful eyeglasses.
| While their index of refraction is high, which makes
| glasses thin, their chromatic dispersion is high. That is
| the very thing which makes their glitter so colorful. For
| good optical systems you want to try to reduce the
| dispersion, to 0, if possible.
|
| Another story is the scratch-resistance. For that it would
| be sufficient to coat the surface of the lens with a thin
| layer of diamond. Which is done in several applications.
| hammock wrote:
| Incredible, great info. We are now living in the Diamond Age.
| db48x wrote:
| Well, not quite. They were making diamond windows from
| atmospheric carbon dioxide at room temperature in household
| machines or machines you could rent at the post office. We're
| a ways off from that yet.
| Terr_ wrote:
| Also the whole aerostat thing where you make a diamond
| "balloon" full of vacuum that floats in air, using the
| strength of the rigid diamond to avoid it being crushed and
| popped.
|
| I'm no materials-scientist, but I did some napkin-math on
| that once and it came out to some ridiculously-thin-
| sounding layer of diamond.
| jayd16 wrote:
| so I guess it needs to be like 1/4th the thickness of the
| latex in a balloon (diamond is 4x the density). Vacuum
| gives you a bit more lift than helium but not that much.
| Yeah, seems pretty thin.
| failuser wrote:
| Not yet, not even diamond phone screens are here. And tax
| evasion has not killed the nation-states yet.
| fennecbutt wrote:
| Where's my magic book then. And my atomic fabbers! Lemme 3d
| print a phone.
| taneq wrote:
| "You wouldn't download some RAM"
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Magic book = iPad or Remarkable
|
| Atomic fabber = chip fabs making things on ~10 atom scales
|
| 3D printing homes is possible now, just a bit niche
| agumonkey wrote:
| How will they maintain their jewelry business ? It feels like
| Sony CD-R drives in the Playstation era.
| nimish wrote:
| The same way vinyl still sells.
| taneq wrote:
| Better to move into a new related business than to Kodak
| yourself.
| karunamurti wrote:
| Do it like here in Japan. They charged you 3x-4x the gold
| price and said "Oh it's not the gold price, but the
| craftsmanship".
| trhway wrote:
| >diamond windows for lasers 10cm across
|
| sounds like may be soon we'll see diamond wafers for the chips
| (especially as the price of processed wafer from a fab
| increases, the cost of the source wafer itself is becoming less
| important) Add to that X-ray lithography, and the Moore's Law
| will continue for quite a while.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Wired ran a great piece on the topic in 2003 ("The New Diamond
| Age" | Issue 11.09 September 2003).
|
| https://www.wired.com/2003/09/diamond/
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20151031203903/https://www.wired...
|
| https://archive.today/Dwa8o
| istrice wrote:
| I started looking into diamonds two years before I proposed to my
| now wife and went really down the rabbit hole of the chemistry,
| history, and marketing behind diamonds.
|
| Lab-made was a no brainer, I got a flawless and huge stone for
| the price I would have paid for a crappy 1ct from DeBeers. My
| only regret is that whatever I paid for the diamond will still be
| way over-market in a few years but well, had to get married at
| some point. I guess I'll get her a golf-ball-sized diamond for
| our 10th anniversary.
| poisonborz wrote:
| Why and how became diamonds a necessity of marriage in the US?
| Did your fiance really expect a diamond, and would have she be
| disappointed by something that has only worth to you?
| JellyBeanThief wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU has the high
| level overview.
| Spivak wrote:
| It's all kind of arbitrary, some things catch on. Rings as
| signs of commitment and everlasting love go as far back as
| ancient Rome. Precious metals like gold for the actual ring
| symbolize the same thing because they don't rust. And DaBeers
| had the right messaging at the right time to popularize
| diamond, a white stone that matches a wedding dress, is clean
| and pure meshing well with Christianity in the US, and was
| already mythologized as the hardest and unbreakable.
|
| It's the same symbolism for why it's popular for guys'
| wedding rings to be made out of super strong, super hard
| metals.
|
| People give DaBeers too much credit for what was an extremely
| natural extension to the engagement ring. Advertising only
| gets your foot in the door, it does have to be a reasonably
| good idea for it to take on a life of its own.
| dimgl wrote:
| Women expect it. It's that simple.
| sam_goody wrote:
| I would think Moissanite is a no-brainer.
|
| It has a much better shine, is cheaper, and (anecdotally, in my
| circles), is just as cool.
|
| Unless she wants a "real diamond", in which case lab-grown is
| no good either.
| mholt wrote:
| Howard Tracy Hall's descendant is my sister-in-law. They have
| lots of his stories in their family history, and she wrote a book
| for children about the process of inventing his process for the
| artificial diamond [0]. An uplifting and inspiring story that
| simplifies things for a child to understand.
|
| [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Diamond-Boy-Creation-Diamonds-
| Tracy/d...
| mentalgear wrote:
| Not even to mention much more ethical than the blood diamonds
| that are artificially kept on "short supply".
| failuser wrote:
| But does it have enough suffering embedded to be a worthy
| engagement gift?
| ckemere wrote:
| High end watches have had sapphire crystal faces for a while. Why
| not diamond??
| cortesoft wrote:
| How do you determine that the diamonds are 'more beautiful'?
| moab_desert1 wrote:
| A friend recently mentioned an online jewelry retailer called
| Frank Darling [1], which sells both natural and lab-grown
| diamonds.
|
| They have a pretty interesting business model: they're mostly
| online, but also offer in-person appointments with a designer and
| offer to 3D print pieces in resin before producing them.
|
| [1] https://frankdarling.com/
| danielodievich wrote:
| Synthetic diamonds from "cremains" (ash from cremation) have been
| a thing for a while. That ash is mostly carbon with other
| elements. "Wear your grandma" is thankfully not a slogan. My
| teenager children's recent answers to "would you want this" were
| "ewww gross absolutely not".
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Approaching the end of De Beer's awful diamond scam is wonderful.
| Too many injustices perpetuated in Africa, too many lies to
| Americans about what matters in relationships. I'll never forget
| a college acquaintance a decade ago who spent $10,000 on a ring
| to woo his rich girlfriend. The engagement failed just a few
| weeks later. Good riddance. Long live synthetic diamonds.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-09 23:00 UTC)