[HN Gopher] The natural diamond industry is getting rocked. Than...
___________________________________________________________________
The natural diamond industry is getting rocked. Thank the lab-grown
variety
Author : geox
Score : 83 points
Date : 2025-07-26 12:20 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cbc.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cbc.ca)
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| It's all just a crystalline form of carbon.
|
| Regardless of how it was made, one is just as much "forever" as
| the other. The real major difference is in the labor practices
| being used.
|
| De Beers had a good run as a cartel but as they say, "the jig is
| up"
| close04 wrote:
| I'm not sure diamonds are popular because of what they _are_
| but what they _represent_.
|
| Every gem out there is "the crystalline form" of something.
| Diamonds are (were?) the expensive crystalline form. And plenty
| of people equate "expensive" with love, or care, or respect.
| Even if the same people would never be able to tell the
| difference between diamond and cubic zirconium, knowing it's
| the cheap one makes it less valuable in other ways. This
| depends on the person, of course.
|
| If it's not diamonds it will have to be something else that
| shows "I put my money where my mouth is". A simple metal
| wedding band is the same wherever it's made but a famous
| jeweler will charge an arm and a leg more than your local shop
| for the same amount of precious metal, same effort, and same
| result. And yet Tiffany's isn't going out of business for the
| same reason. It's what it represents.
|
| I am curious to see if tastes or fashion shift towards other
| rarer or more expensive gems not yet manufactured cheaply en
| masse.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I could see thinking about this differently.
|
| As people quit believing in God, they stop thinking in terms
| of "God brought us together/we were made for each other"
| (though they stop thinking that a generation or two later
| than they stop believing in God).
|
| If you think that _we_ made this relationship, then maybe a
| lab-grown (human made) diamond fits? (Though it may take an
| advertising campaign before people see it that way.)
|
| Disclaimer: I'm not a sociologist. This is just my
| speculation about how the dynamic could change.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| I'd argue that a person obsessed with cost really isn't
| focused on what it represents.
|
| For those obsessed with materialism, real satisfaction is out
| of reach. There is always bigger, better and more expensive.
|
| Personally, I would tend to reconsider any long term
| relationship with such a person.
| close04 wrote:
| For anyone appreciating expensive things, giving diamonds
| represent the willingness to fulfill that desire. It's easy
| to conflate that with love, at least for a while, even when
| you aren't a materialistic person.
|
| Jewelry is the pinnacle of "just monetary value". Unlike
| almost any other possession, a car, a house, clothes, etc.
| jewelry serves no practical purpose, only shows the
| willingness or ability to spend for it. The more you spend,
| the more valuable the gesture, the more you cared to please
| the recipient.
|
| Materialistic people have the same feelings you have. Those
| just happened to be triggered by different values than
| yours.
| Muromec wrote:
| The other purpose of jewerly is looking nice. That's
| difficult to comprehend, but it's the actual important
| thing for people who's most expensive piece of everyday
| wear isn't their phone.
| atmavatar wrote:
| The cost is _exactly_ what it represents.
|
| The entire point of using diamonds in wedding rings is for
| the male to signal how committed he is to the marriage by
| expending a large amount of money on both the ring and the
| wedding itself. It then acts as a way for the wife to
| signal her status to other women by showing off how much
| her husband was willing and able to spend on the ring.
|
| It is a hold-out from the tradition that the male is a
| provider and the female is a caregiver. If you reject
| traditional gender roles, you should also reject expensive
| diamond rings regardless whether they are mined or grown.
| Otherwise, embrace the shiny, but make no mistake: the cost
| is _entirely_ the point.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| _the cost is entirely the point._
|
| Assume you have 2 diamonds that cost the same.
|
| One is natural, the other is larger and man made.
|
| Which one is more likely to convey your point to the
| average person?
| WorkerBee28474 wrote:
| The larger one, because people will think it costs more.
| grues-dinner wrote:
| The more rational decision, IMO, assuming you still want
| to signal wealth, is to buy neither, collude with your
| supposed life partner, buy a gigantic, flawless
| moissanite that you both agree to say is a natural
| diamond that cost 50k. Then secretly put the money you
| didn't spend on sparkling carbon into some appreciating
| asset. Rivals are still sick with envy, you have a fun
| joint venture bamboozle to laugh about, and the mortgage
| gets paid off a few years early.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| One nit: In the US at least, the man pays for the diamond
| ring, but traditionally it is the woman's family that
| pays for the wedding.
| Muromec wrote:
| >The entire point of using diamonds in wedding rings is
| for the male to signal how committed he is to the
| marriage by expending a large amount of money on both the
| ring and the wedding itself. It then acts as a way for
| the wife to signal her status to other women by showing
| off how much her husband was willing and able to spend on
| the ring.
|
| That's some nice historical background (which could be
| post-hoc contextualization that fits certain agenda), but
| traditions have this weird habit of outliving their
| actual purpose and still having the form without the
| role.
|
| So no, you don't have to commit to traditional gender
| roles to have diamond rings and don't have to make them
| expensive as otherwise it's not doing the thing it's
| supposed to do. The could just not do the thing at all
| and you can still have them.
| Incipient wrote:
| I'd disagree with that. The prospect of a natural diamond is
| that it's unique (I mean, not visibly I suppose) and millions
| of years old.
|
| I'd say it's like AI music or art - something made by a
| machine, for some reason, just doesn't have any "soul" to it.
|
| I'm not actually entirely convinced in my argument, but there
| _is_ something there...
| whatevaa wrote:
| There is no "soul" in either pieces of rock.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| If you can't tell the difference by either looking or
| listening, I'd argue they both have a similar amount of
| "soul".
|
| And thus, any distinction between them exists mainly in your
| head.
| lightedman wrote:
| The difference is instantly apparent under UV - most lab
| grown diamonds will not fluoresce unless they have a bad
| growth process that leaves flux and other impurities in the
| crystal.
|
| Natural diamonds won't always fluoresce but the ones that
| do will do so in a variety of colors, and sometimes change
| depending on what wavelength is irradiating them.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| Upside down and backwards.
|
| The difference is not instantly apparent under UV.
|
| Only about 30% of natural diamonds have fluorescence ---
| which is *caused* by impurities and imperfections in the
| material.
|
| Manmade diamonds tend to lack this because they have
| fewer impurities and imperfections. Equating increased
| perfection and purity with inferiority is highly
| debatable and smacks of marketing BS.
| 9dev wrote:
| Reminds me of the "vinyl is superior for its warmer
| sound" discussion, with a similar argument...
| tehlike wrote:
| No one in the target audience cared about the age or the
| uniqueness as much as the size and the status it supposedly
| signals.
| mc32 wrote:
| I agree. Kind of like factory vases vs hand thrown or glass
| blown vases. They're practically the same but some people
| will pay lots more for certain hand made ones.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| The atoms in the synthetic diamond are billions of years old
| as well.
| CommieBobDole wrote:
| Every piece of gravel is unique and millions of years old,
| too.
| spwa4 wrote:
| Indeed. The oldest things on earth are the hydrogen atoms.
| Literally all of them were formed in the first 3 minutes
| after the big bang. So all of them have the same age,
| billions of years old, down to a few seconds difference at
| most.
| rimunroe wrote:
| > The oldest things on earth are the hydrogen atoms.
| Literally all of them were formed in the first 3 minutes
| after the big bang.
|
| Stable hydrogen wasn't able to form until several
| hundreds of thousands of years after the Big Bang when
| the universe cooled sufficiently for electrons to bind to
| protons.
|
| Even assuming you're counting lone protons as hydrogen
| atoms, it's still absolutely false. I don't know if
| that's true for the majority of protons in the universe,
| but there are mechanisms by which new protons are made
| all the time. Neutrons can turn into protons through beta
| decay, and high energy particle interactions like those
| involving cosmic rays can produce brand new protons.
| These processes can and do happen terrestrially.
| spwa4 wrote:
| > These processes can and do happen terrestrially.
|
| ... and at rates that mean that the amount of non-big-
| bang hydrogen is not even a trillionth of a trillionth of
| the total.
| rimunroe wrote:
| > the amount of non-big-bang hydrogen is not even a
| trillionth of a trillionth of the total.
|
| I didn't say it was a huge fraction of the total. You
| said "literally all of them" were from the Big Bang,
| which is just wrong. Plenty of other processes produce
| protons/hydrogen
| nwienert wrote:
| But not rare.
| nradov wrote:
| There's no such thing as "soul".
| gooseus wrote:
| https://ia801604.us.archive.org/27/items/everything-is-
| bulls...
|
| > We exchange diamond rings as part of the engagement process
| because the diamond company De Beers decided in 1938 that it
| would like us to. Prior to a stunningly successful marketing
| campaign, Americans occasionally exchanged engagement rings,
| but it wasn't pervasive. Not only is the demand for diamonds
| a marketing invention, but diamonds aren't actually that
| rare. Only by carefully restricting the supply has De Beers
| kept the price of a diamond high.
|
| Imho, that "soul" you describe is an artifact of human
| sentimentality and a very successful marketing campaign by a
| bunch of Afrikaner colonialists.
| rollcat wrote:
| > I'd say it's like AI music or art - something made by a
| machine, for some reason, just doesn't have any "soul" to it.
|
| Diamonds are a product of natural geological processes. (Or,
| are grown in a lab, by recreating similar conditions.)
|
| Music and art are products of human talent, skill, and labor
| - that ML companies have used (without a license, permission,
| or even credit) to build datasets that are now being used to
| make money, at the expense of these artists.
|
| These are not the same things.
| pyman wrote:
| Agree, though I think he meant one is real and the other's
| fake.
| kstrauser wrote:
| The difference is that there's a detectable difference
| between AI and human made art, at least today. The only
| detectable difference between a correctly-made lab diamond
| and one clawed out of the ground by children is that the
| latter will have flaws. I'm sure you could engineer similar
| flaws into the lab version if became fashionable.
| decimalenough wrote:
| You sure about that?
|
| https://ai-art-turing-test.com/
| shvdle wrote:
| The entire point of a diamond is that it's expensive. People
| buy them for status. Otherwise there are lots of gems that are
| much more prettier, but they are not as expensive. It's like
| saying people will stop buying branded clothes because
| unbranded clothes have the same or even a higher quality for a
| fraction of the price. Kinda misses the point.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| _It's like saying people will stop buying branded clothes
| because unbranded clothes have the same or even a higher
| quality for a fraction of the price._
|
| People buy inferior, counterfeit merchandise all the time
| because they can't tell the difference.
|
| But there is nothing inferior or counterfeit about a manmade
| diamond. It is *exactly* the same material as a natural one.
| shvdle wrote:
| You miss the point. The only reason to buy a diamond is
| that it is _expensive_. It doesn't matter if you could buy
| the same thing cheaper. It doesn't matter that there are
| better gems that are cheaper. You buy the diamond to show
| that you can afford it. You buy someone a diamond to prove
| how much they are worth to you.
|
| Yes, you can buy a man-made diamond the same you can buy
| counterfeit branded clothes. That only shows that you're
| tasteless and that you can't afford the real thing.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| You miss the point.
|
| If it is strictly about the money, a larger man made
| diamond can easily cost just as much as a smaller natural
| one --- while instantly conveying to the untrained eye
| the appearance of being more expensive.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| If you like, I will sell you a personally autographed
| photo of me. All for $1m cash. That's much more expensive
| than a diamond. Anyone who buys this for their new wife
| will prove that he REALLY loves her. $1m>>$35000.
| mathiaspoint wrote:
| It was never about the rocks. Like nearly everything else in
| the economy it's really about attention.
| jqpabc123 wrote:
| The attention from a man made diamond is indistinguishable
| from a natural one to most people.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| I've bought some lab created diamonds made with CVD. THey're
| great. If anything, they're too clear.
|
| I recommend to all newly engaged couples to buy them and save
| the money for more important things like raising children or
| buying a home.
|
| And if you look on eBay, you can get CVD diamonds for even
| less. (At a bit of a risk, of course.)
| ooterness wrote:
| Like all other forms of carbon, diamonds will combust in the
| presence of oxygen.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfa-cKDzYSg
| jxntb73 wrote:
| I'm still conflicted about this. I understand the cost and blood
| diamond debate and largely agree. But there is something about
| diamonds that makes them divine: carbon atoms crystallizing and
| bonding over millions to billions of years to form structures,
| rated on a scale of color, clarity, cut, and weight. It's like
| gold, primarily forged in cosmic events like supernova
| explosions. Naaaaah let's just make it in a lab it looks the
| same.
|
| People are being priced out of art and beauty and it's a shame
| economics and corruption make real diamonds dirty.
| chasil wrote:
| Unfortunately, De Beers controls the natural diamond supply,
| and they leave much to be desired in corporate ethics.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers#Legal_issues
| jxntb73 wrote:
| And the US holds 50-70% of the total world market
| capitalization, and yet here we are.
|
| Believe 15A and 19A as much as you can believe De Beers'
| 'Building Forever 2030 Goal's
| K0balt wrote:
| It's not just that, the economics of diamonds is completely
| fabricated. Idk about these days, but debeers used to buy up
| the vast majority of mined diamond, not to sell but to hoard or
| destroy them to maintain scarcity.
|
| I'm not even sure that all of these recent stories about lab
| created diamonds to come out aren't actually a PR pitch to
| advertise "natural" diamonds, an effort to emphasise the
| difference in the public psyche.
|
| Anything public facing that positions diamonds as expensive,
| desirable, or valuable can usually be traced back to the
| cartel. It's super common in movies and other media.
| jxntb73 wrote:
| I'm not excusing nor rationalizing prices and the economics,
| obviously they hoard and manupulate the rates. Can't argue
| with how dark that crap must be. All I'm saying is real
| diamonds are 'better' and everyone knows it. Humans are
| emotional and that's a good thing. The manipulation of it is
| the bad thing. Trying to deny yourself of your emotions like
| a monk and yet still wishing for the iconic symbolic
| significance having 3month salary storybook ring, what are we
| doing here. Pay more for the real thing because life is real.
| cmsj wrote:
| I wear a PS20 titanium wedding ring from Amazon. The
| symbolic significance is what we imbue in it, not what it
| itself is.
| K0balt wrote:
| 100percent on board. A marriage is only as meaningful as
| the vows and the integrity of the people that made them.
| The guests are there to witness and to celebrate. Trying
| to make it about anything else only cheapens it.
|
| If you can, put enough gold on her to get her out of a
| jam and have some runway. Other than that it's just the
| promises you keep.
| kergonath wrote:
| Titanium is cool, nothing wrong with it. It's not as
| shiny as the noble metals but it's just as interesting.
| pimeys wrote:
| We did not even get anything. For what is a ring even
| meant to be? To mark your partner, that he is yours?
| K0balt wrote:
| No, that's what the subcutaneous tracking chip is for.
| lol.
|
| But seriously, for us it matters, since she is much
| younger than I am. We make an effort to signal that we
| are a committed couple so that people don't make crass
| assumptions.
|
| Still, my ring is tungsten carbide and hers is a family
| wedding band handed down in my family for generations.
| Our engagement ring was also a family heirloom. In that
| way the rings have meaning.
|
| She likes to wear her ring because she feels like it is a
| symbol of belonging, and I wear mine to honor our
| relationship.
|
| To us, the rings are symbolic of our vows, a gentle
| reminder that our lives are in service of one another.
| nicoburns wrote:
| It can also be a reminder of that person, when they are
| not physically present. Similar to keeping a photograph
| of a loved one in your wallet.
| K0balt wrote:
| Yeah, idk. I'm not against the idea of a 3 month value
| reserve as a financial security token to de-risk a marriage
| proposal, but it should be something that can be liquidated
| for a similar value. Just setting 3 months of your work on
| fire is a really stupid and irresponsible move for most
| people, and their kids are ultimately the ones that suffer.
|
| Not only that, imagine this scenario: something terrible
| happens. Your wife has to sell her jewelry to take care of
| herself and your child. Would you rather have bought her a
| $20000 ring that can maybe be sold for $3000? Or a ring
| with actual intrinsic value that might actually be worth
| more than what you paid, but at least fetch 80%.
|
| When I think of how that would feel for her to know that I
| paid a foolish amount for something of inflated symbolic
| bling rather than a something of value, I get embarrassed
| just imagining it. To me that is an abdication of duty.
|
| That's the difference between diamonds and actual precious
| stones, or at lower price points a nice heavy gold ring
| with an inexpensive, lab grown gem.
|
| For beauty, silicon carbide beats diamond hands down. If
| you want value and natural origins, a quality ruby or
| emerald is spectacular and actually rare and rationally
| market-priced. Gold is nice.
|
| Until you get into very large and actually rare stones,
| diamonds are a scam, pure and simple. The value of a near
| flawless 1 carat stone at the mine is about two hundred
| dollars. Cutting costs about half that. To buy it, that
| stone might fetch $7000. To sell it, you might get $1000 if
| you're lucky. That is not a store of value. It's a symbol
| of gullibility or a boast that I have so much money that I
| can burn it without being irresponsible. The kind of boast
| that if you can't back it up IRl makes you impossible to
| take seriously.
|
| If you just really, really like diamonds, knock yourself
| out. But don't delude yourself into believing they are
| valuable. Better yet, go get one yourself, smuggled out of
| a mine or otherwise at the source. Get it cut and polished,
| or better yet do it yourself. That I totally respect and
| has character, integrity, and value baked in.
|
| As for status or something like that, I suppose there is a
| case to be made that it symbolizes a burnt offering. So
| that makes sense, but only against a backdrop of
| demonstrative excess. If you have a diamond ring and a loan
| of any kind that is anything other than strategic tax
| planning, that means your kids are worse off for your
| vanity. If you've got more money than god and you want to
| show that you can waste cash and it doesn't matter, wear
| that ring studded with sub-museum grade diamonds a all day
| long, you're making your point. It's vulgar, but you're
| making your point. I can see it. It's like the track suit.
|
| Otherwise, you may as well lace up your clown shoes.
|
| But, that's just my opinion. In all reality it's a useful
| social signal, like certain religious expression.
| fallinghawks wrote:
| > real diamonds are 'better' and everyone knows it.
|
| Personally disagree. That whole "3 months' salary that will
| last forever" thing? A lab diamond will last just as
| forever as a mined one. I'd personally rather have one from
| a lab than one dug out of the earth by some African dude
| who spends his days sweating underground.
| probably_wrong wrote:
| I'm all in for finding beauty in our daily lives, but I'm not
| sure diamonds are more special than other things we take for
| granted. Oil and helium have also taken millions of years to
| form, and yet no one spends a second before buying a plastic
| duck or inflating a balloon. And if the point is that diamonds
| are shiny and pretty (which is a fair reason for liking them)
| there are other types of stones around just as good.
| bloqs wrote:
| there are many naturally occuring objects that have a similarly
| dramatic timeline
|
| the point is that westerners are completely drunk on the
| marketing from de beers and its cost lives, not to mention the
| disgusting machiavellian exploitation of what was once an
| innocent courtship gesture into an aggressive commercial
| enterprise, chiefly profiteering the hopelessly young and
| naive.
| dumbmrblah wrote:
| I'm curious, how old are you? Age range works.
|
| The article emphasizes that this is a generational thing and
| I'm wondering which generation you fall into.
| jxntb73 wrote:
| The article emphasizes financial pressures on new couples due
| to rising living costs making lab-grown diamonds more
| appealing, and that's sad in my mind, it's sad that the cost
| of living prices people out from nice things, it's sad that
| people here are coping saying lab made are the same, which to
| me is like saying a veggie patty is the same as a beef and
| I'm a bad person for eating meat, that a knockoff purse is
| the same as the brand name because they are both leather;
| dematerialize and dissasociate from the world more why dont
| you, oh are you above consumerism and so romantic you could
| wear a string as a wedding band because its more about
| meaning. What's the point of any fashion then. Of any art if
| any paint will do. Gold is just metal too then.
|
| [Born during Clinton's first term]
| kergonath wrote:
| > But there is something about diamonds that makes them divine:
| carbon atoms crystallizing and bonding over millions to
| billions of years to form structures
|
| It does not take millions of years to form a diamond. It takes
| hours. The million years are atoms sitting around doing nothing
| before that, and then diamonds sitting around doing nothing
| while some of them are eventually pushed to the surface.
|
| You can say the same thing about any mineral. There is nothing
| special about carbon or the diamond structure. If anything,
| zircons are much more significant, being the oldest minerals we
| can find.
|
| > rated on a scale of color, clarity, cut, and weight.
|
| This is nothing special. The colour of lab-grown stones can be
| varied almost at will, and the rest is still an issue with
| synthetic stones.
|
| > Naaaaah let's just make it in a lab it looks the same.
|
| That's the thing, though: it does (yes, some synthetic stones
| have specific defects related to how they were made and they
| tent to be too perfect if anything, but they still have the
| exact same property). It's like complaining that the meat you
| are eating comes from a farm instead of being hunted.
|
| > People are being priced out of art and beauty and it's a
| shame economics and corruption make real diamonds dirty.
|
| Quite the contrary. Gemstones become more accessible to more
| people. The diamond industry made its bed, being completely
| corrupted from extraction to distribution. When stones are
| cheap we can have discussion about their beauty instead of
| their prices.
| Ekaros wrote:
| If the value is in perfection. Why would I not pick one that is
| bigger, has less flaws and less impurities. It is like would I
| prefer natural rain water or artificially purified water
| without microplastics and pfas and so on... My pick should be
| clear.
| Jedd wrote:
| This story - Diamonds are Bullshit - comes up regularly, and I
| bookmarked it back in 2013 because it's _so good_.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5403988
|
| There is nothing to miss about the impending death of the
| 'diamond industry'.
|
| (Oh, the link is broken on the HN 2013 story -- try this one:
| https://priceonomics.com/diamonds-are-bullshit/ )
| scoofy wrote:
| When I saw the headline I immediately thought: "couldn't have
| happened to nicer guys /s"
|
| Why is it that everyone seems to have a soft spot for
| industries that have some kind of monopoly, suddenly losing
| that monopoly.
| sorenjan wrote:
| Apparently there's a big issue in Antwerp now that they're not
| allowed to import diamonds from Russia. Maybe they should stop
| fighting the synthetic diamonds and embrace them instead, as
| something guaranteed free of human suffering and war
| profiteering. But the whole industry hinges on manufactured
| demand, so they'd rather see the trade move to other countries I
| guess.
|
| https://eutoday.net/antwerps-diamond-industry-facing-an-exis...
| cut3 wrote:
| Ive been seeing this same type of article for decades now. I
| bought a 2 karrat flawless lab grown diamond in 2005 for around
| $2k, and according to this article that size sells for $3,500.
| Prices have increased it seems. I assumed they would drop as more
| were made.
| jxntb73 wrote:
| A price appreciation of about 75% over roughly 20 years.
| Jedd wrote:
| The _new_ price has doubtless gone up, as inflationary
| valuation benefits to the manufacturer / vendors.
|
| The resale value of _your_ item has gone down.
| aetherson wrote:
| You shouldn't have gotten a 2 carat diamond that cheap at that
| time. Either you got a really great deal for some idiosyncratic
| reason or your recollection is off.
|
| Here's an example article from the era:
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2004/02/14/y...
| Aurornis wrote:
| I second this. There was no way to get a real, flawless, 2
| carat lab grown diamond at the time for $2K.
|
| I hope the parent commenter wasn't duped by someone selling
| fake diamonds.
| hackingonempty wrote:
| According to the inflation calculator at bls.gov, $2000 in June
| 2005 has the same buying power as $3,317 in June 2025. So in
| real terms the price is about the same.
| fallinghawks wrote:
| Inflation is probably why the number is higher now.
|
| A year ago I picked up a 1ct hearts and arrows (D/E. VVS1/2,
| IGI certificate) from AliExpress for $360. I can see the hearts
| and arrows and it tests as diamond. A few months later an
| article came out about how lab diamonds stack up against mined,
| and the author had also bought one with similar characteristics
| from AliExpress for even less.
|
| I just checked the same store and they're (not H&A but same
| other stats) running around $125 plus a $14 tariff.
| ginko wrote:
| Diamonds need to become even cheaper. I want phone screens and
| glasses made out of single sheets of diamond. I want heatsinks
| and kitchen knives made out of the stuff.
| js8 wrote:
| Isn't diamond too brittle for all these applications?
| holowoodman wrote:
| No. Less brittle than normal glass, but not as good as
| certain ceramics.
| cubefox wrote:
| Glass is very brittle, ceramics are also quite brittle. So
| the "no" isn't obvious.
| conductr wrote:
| My wife is in the retail side of this market and I've had a lot
| of second hand familiarity with the transition to lab grown.
|
| What I find most interesting is the weight put on the ethical
| side. I think it's overstated. When the issue became big, the
| Blood Diamond movie, sales of lab grown did not markedly
| increase. It took another decade or so to become more prevalent.
| What changed over that time is the price, IIRC the price was
| comparable to natural at the time the movie came out. Ethics were
| not compelling enough for most people at that price. When prices
| got about 50% of natural, it became much more compelling. Now
| that it's around 10%, it's practically so compelling that buying
| natural isn't even a real consideration for many people.
|
| Anyways, I think people use the Blood Diamond talking point as a
| socially acceptable reason- it's what they tell their parents and
| grandparents who might judge them- but in reality it's almost
| completely a financial decision. If the tables were turned and
| natural diamonds became 1/10th the cost of lab grown, the market
| would completely flip back practically overnight.
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| I actually predict in a few years it will become more
| fashionable to wear other jewels over diamonds given the rate
| the prices are crashing at. When diamonds are competitive with
| all the other gemstones, people start looking at those the same
| way too
| holowoodman wrote:
| But as soon as that happens, other gemstones will come in
| cheaper artificial varieties as well.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| The biggest diamond alternative today, moissanite, is
| always artificial - ironically because its natural form is
| _so_ rare that it 's not obtainable.
| spwa4 wrote:
| Diamonds are quite possibly the only stone that isn't yet
| essentially 100% artificial. Rubies, the next hardest stone,
| is trivial to make artificially:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybcdRQmQcHQ
| rowanG077 wrote:
| moissanite is harder than ruby afaik. Also more beautiful
| than diamond imo.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Years and years of "diamonds suck" make a mark. It's an
| evergreen topic online for a long time, and the people looking
| at engagement rings in 2025 have been aware of the shittiness
| of the diamond business for years.
|
| The mining, corrupt trade practices, etc are all well known and
| sometimes subject to enforcement action.
| spwa4 wrote:
| Seems to be the opposite ...
| kergonath wrote:
| > What I find most interesting is the weight put on the ethical
| side. I think it's overstated. When the issue became big, the
| Blood Diamond movie, sales of lab grown did not markedly
| increase.
|
| It was not a switch that was pushed the moment the movie went
| out. In the grand scheme of things, the movie was not even that
| popular. But there definitely was a realisation that diamond
| prices were completely artificially inflated by an oligopoly,
| and that there were many issues with how they were sourced.
|
| Just because demand did not follow a step function when the
| file was released does not imply that ethics are not relevant.
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Not necessarily.
|
| When prices are equal, I'd wager the decision is: "if prices
| are equal why wouldn't I buy the "real" thing? I'll just try
| and justify to myself that it's sourced correctly".
|
| When the price of the grown diamonds falls, the decision might
| be: "Ok, so grown diamonds are cheaper AND more ethical? Ok,
| I'm definitely buying grown".
|
| If the ethics factor didn't exist, "real" diamonds would still
| retain the kudos and still be valued highly over "nice but
| fake" diamonds.
|
| It's the ethics factor that pushes the decision over the line.
|
| As an n=1 economic animal, that's what my behaviour would have
| been anyway.
| jsbisviewtiful wrote:
| More people have caught on to the many terrible things about
| natural diamonds over time and now we are finally at the
| tipping point for lab grown to dismantle the unethical natural
| diamond trade. The idea of lab grown needed time to gestate
| with the public, which has been manipulated for decades about
| the "value" of natural diamonds. Even when lab grown became a
| thing, the natural diamond trade did its damnedest to
| manipulate the public on the quality of lab grown vs natural.
| Coincidentally, natural diamonds are overvalued due to decades
| of market manipulation by a monopoly.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| But one big reason lab-grown diamonds are so much less
| expensive now is economy of scale. Something had to start
| increasing the demand to enable that. Especially considering
| the large marketing investment against lab-grown gems by
| established players, trying to make them seem "tacky." The
| ethical issues have been a very capable counter-message to
| that.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _Something had to start increasing the demand to enable
| that._
|
| Diamonds are used in all kinds of things besides jewelry.
| Industry needs that economy of scale.
| acjacobson wrote:
| True but industrial grade natural diamonds are very
| inexpensive in comparison to jewelry quality ones.
| zahlman wrote:
| > Something had to start increasing the demand to enable
| that.
|
| Yes -- industry. From Wikipedia:
|
| > Eighty percent of mined diamonds (equal to about
| 135,000,000 carats (27,000 kg) annually) are unsuitable for
| use as gemstones and are used industrially.[131] In addition
| to mined diamonds, synthetic diamonds found industrial
| applications almost immediately after their invention in the
| 1950s; in 2014, 4,500,000,000 carats (900,000 kg) of
| synthetic diamonds were produced, 90% of which were produced
| in China. Approximately 90% of diamond grinding grit is
| currently of synthetic origin.[132]
|
| > ...
|
| > Industrial use of diamonds has historically been associated
| with their hardness, which makes diamond the ideal material
| for cutting and grinding tools. As the hardest known
| naturally occurring material, diamond can be used to polish,
| cut, or wear away any material, including other diamonds.
| Common industrial applications of this property include
| diamond-tipped drill bits and saws, and the use of diamond
| powder as an abrasive.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| The process to produce industrial diamonds (essentially,
| very hard dust) does not meaningfully help scale the
| process to produce first-quality synthetic diamond gems for
| jewelry.
|
| As your quote points out, synthetic industrial diamonds
| have been available for many decades. But it is only
| recently that synthetic diamond gems have achieved
| popularity and price advantage for jewelry.
| pengaru wrote:
| When I was a kid in the 80s my mother worked at a jewelry store
| and CZ diamonds were already considered cheap fakes at the
| time. The price was not comparable to the real deal because
| nobody was buying them at diamond prices.
|
| They were simply dismissed as more trash belonging in the gold-
| plated case. It's hard to appreciate how much less informed
| people were back then - we're talking pre-internet. The adults
| around me couldn't explain scientifically what the actual
| difference was between a CZ and natural diamond. Just one was a
| fake, held little value, and was a sure way to lose your
| fiance.
| thfuran wrote:
| Cubic zirconia isn't synthetic diamond at all.
| jterrys wrote:
| What you're seeing in the drop of value of diamonds also
| reflects the general shift in tastes of different generations
| with income. I'm a person that likes to go to flea markets and
| antique stores on the rare occasion and the value of the same
| items on the market has drastically shifted in the last 10
| years as boomers are no longer in the collectible age bracket.
| Younger people don't really care about Tiffany jewelry
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| i think you overlooked a general revulsion towards monopoly and
| therefore DeBeers, their laughable (though long effective)
| marketing, though agree it's mainly economic.
| Henchman21 wrote:
| Obligatory:
|
| "Have you ever tried to sell a diamond"
| https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/archives/1982/02/249-2/132...
| dang wrote:
| Diamond threads are forever!
|
| _Natural Diamonds Had a Rough Year_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42592424 - Jan 2025 (6
| comments)
|
| _See how a lab-grown diamond is made_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42257245 - Nov 2024 (49
| comments)
|
| _Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper
| than mined_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41488353 -
| Sept 2024 (490 comments)
|
| _Diamond industry 'in trouble' as lab-grown gemstones tank
| prices further_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40585594 -
| June 2024 (39 comments)
|
| _UK mining giant to offload De Beers diamond business_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40359867 - May 2024 (7
| comments)
|
| _Forget billions of years: Researchers have grown diamonds in
| just 150 minutes_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40172784
| - April 2024 (61 comments)
|
| _Lab Grown Diamonds Are Too Perfect for Their Own Good_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39298644 - Feb 2024 (1
| comment)
|
| _Diamonds Suck_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38247300
| - Nov 2023 (163 comments)
|
| _The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge_
| - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38245762 - Nov 2023 (588
| comments)
|
| _Diamonds are losing their allure_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37508058 - Sept 2023 (128
| comments)
|
| _Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? (1982)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37396372 - Sept 2023 (11
| comments)
|
| _What 's the case for naturally mined diamonds anymore?_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37275308 - Aug 2023 (49
| comments)
|
| _Man-made diamonds are falling in price and appealing to more
| people_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35748205 - April
| 2023 (9 comments)
|
| _Diamonds Suck (2006)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26698511 - April 2021 (53
| comments)
|
| _Diamonds aren't special and neither is love_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25978139 - Jan 2021 (90
| comments)
|
| _Artificial diamonds creation process generating lonsdaleite_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25158428 - Nov 2020 (61
| comments)
|
| _Diamonds Are Bullshit_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25059605 - Nov 2020 (27
| comments)
|
| _Billions of dollars of unsold diamonds are piling up around the
| world_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23502201 - June
| 2020 (104 comments)
|
| _Shaking Up the Diamond Industry_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209364 - Feb 2020 (120
| comments)
|
| _Diamonds Keep Getting Cheaper_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21522898 - Nov 2019 (389
| comments)
|
| _Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? (1982)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20818618 - Aug 2019 (237
| comments)
|
| _The Elite Club That Rules the Diamond World Is Starting to
| Crack_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20555503 - July
| 2019 (200 comments)
|
| _Would You Pay $32,709 for a Lab-Grown Diamond?_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19287565 - March 2019 (34
| comments)
|
| _Diamonds Suck (2006)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17186457 - May 2018 (215
| comments)
|
| _Diamonds Are Bullshit_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17184539 - May 2018 (45
| comments)
|
| _De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17183603 - May 2018 (439
| comments)
|
| _Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16551147 - March 2018 (301
| comments)
|
| _Lab-Grown Diamonds Come into Their Own_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13085273 - Dec 2016 (103
| comments)
|
| _Diamonds Suck (2006)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12944464 - Nov 2016 (576
| comments)
|
| _A Lab-Grown Diamond Is Forever_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11903409 - June 2016 (106
| comments)
|
| _What the diamond industry is really selling_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11099809 - Feb 2016 (83
| comments)
|
| _Diamonds Suck (2006)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10834567 - Jan 2016 (2
| comments)
|
| _Diamonds are Bullshit (2013)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9251952 - March 2015 (75
| comments)
|
| _A Diamond Market No Longer Controlled By De Beers_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7793386 - May 2014 (111
| comments)
|
| _When Diamonds Are Dirt Cheap, Will They Still Dazzle?_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7615712 - April 2014 (70
| comments)
|
| _Diamonds Suck_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6868968 -
| Dec 2013 (3 comments)
|
| _Diamonds Are Bullshit_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6331565 - Sept 2013 (8
| comments)
|
| _Diamonds Are Bullshit_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5403988 - March 2013 (734
| comments)
|
| _Ask HN: How have HN readers bought diamond engagement rings?_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4971735 - Dec 2012 (25
| comments)
|
| _Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? (1982)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4535611 - Sept 2012 (225
| comments)
|
| _Have you ever tried to sell a diamond?_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1405698 - June 2010 (85
| comments)
|
| _Have you ever tried to sell a diamond?_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1110283 - Feb 2010 (76
| comments)
|
| _The Facts About Diamonds (and why I don't like De Beers)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1109318 - Feb 2010 (41
| comments)
|
| _De Beers profits fall 92%_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=722115 - July 2009 (25
| comments)
|
| _Diamonds on Demand_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=330749 - Oct 2008 (16
| comments)
| zahlman wrote:
| > But some experts stress there is still a difference.
|
| > Graham Pearson, professor with the University of Alberta's
| department of earth and atmospheric sciences, says that the
| natural formation of diamonds deep underground results in a
| "complexity" you can't get with the lab-grown variety.
|
| Okay; but why should I aesthetically prefer this?
| kstrauser wrote:
| Yep. In the context of what should be a very simple crystal
| structure, "complexity" is another word for "defect".
| OJFord wrote:
| Exactly, at the same price yes the natural stone will have
| more 'complexity' and be lower-graded than the lab one as a
| result.
| cubefox wrote:
| Better question: Why should you aesthetically prefer a diamond
| to cheap glass?
| masfuerte wrote:
| Because they don't look the same. Not even a little bit.
|
| Glass doesn't sparkle.
| throwmeaway222 wrote:
| If that's what makes real diamonds special, these shoes
| should we worth at least $100M
|
| https://www.walmart.com/ip/Miluxas-Women-s-Glitter-Tennis-
| Sn...
| function_seven wrote:
| Diamonds sparkle a lot more brilliantly due to their high
| refractive index.
|
| (Moissanite is even better, so it should be preferred over
| diamonds unless I'm overlooking some other difference in
| their attributes?)
|
| But plain glass gems look comparatively bland when used as
| jewelry.
| recipe19 wrote:
| You can make some plausible arguments against glass. It
| scratches more easily and doesn't shimmer as much. But
| synthetic sapphire is the same league and costs a lot less.
|
| The modern-day aesthetic of diamonds is _just_ that they are
| expensive. They 're not distinguished by utility, quality, or
| appearance from cheaper products. The ultimate status symbol,
| but also obviously a bit of an issue...
| philjohn wrote:
| Because the refractive index of diamond is higher than that
| of glass, which makes it look prettier and "sparkle".
| grues-dinner wrote:
| A chip of concrete has more "complexity" than any diamond. But
| somehow I bet Graham's wife isn't wearing a piece of Blue
| Circle's finest.
| deadbabe wrote:
| If you pulled a diamond from the diamond rains on Neptune and
| brought it to Earth, you're telling me it should be worth the
| same as a shitty lab grown?
| pkoird wrote:
| If the chemical composition is the same, yes.
| owenversteeg wrote:
| My company buys a lot of diamonds - for industrial use, not
| jewelry related :) The falling price of synthetic diamonds has
| been a huge boon. Several processes I do right now would be
| impractical without the use of "low-cost" diamonds - air quotes
| because they are still not exactly cheap. So it is obviously in
| my interest for consumers to switch to lab-grown diamonds and
| thus drive volume up and prices down.
|
| At the same time, I do understand the sentiment around wanting a
| mined diamond. The whole idea behind a diamond engagement ring is
| a marketing exercise backed up by a cartel, so if you're gonna
| participate in the ritual you might as well do it right. There
| are silly backstories buried in every part of human society
| today, from "some king did it and everyone copied him" to "this
| piece of land got special status a thousand years ago which
| accidentally let it become its own country" to "my grandmother
| was too poor to do XYZ the right way so we still do it her way."
| That's just part and parcel of being human.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-26 23:00 UTC)