As the price of diamond continues dropping, I wonder if people will find more interesting applications of the material and it'll eventually become as mundane as things like steel and aluminium. Besides its hardness, it also has very high thermal conductivity. Diamond is still too expensive to be a bulk material, but I look forward to when things like this become cheap and commonplace:
Neal Stephenson has a book that assumes such an advance -- it's not a key component of the story, but definitely features large in the title : The Diamond Age.
> De Beers fights fakes with technology as China’s lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems
From what I understand, these gems are actually better than natural ones, since they're 100% pure. Maybe it's time to call lab-grown diamonds "real" and mined ones "fake".
>> From what I understand, these gems are actually better than natural ones...
Yes, for decades they claimed clarity and purity to be indicators of the highest quality. Now that humans can manufacture them with better specs than nature, they're shifting to claim that "natural" is better. In the end it's a pretty carbon lattice.
They’re called fake because they’re artificial, not because they have more flaws. The diamond industry might have once thought it could rely on artificial diamonds being less perfect, but it’s under no such illusion now. I think it’s fair to acknowledge that, even if we don’t like it, many people prefer natural diamonds because they’re natural, not because they believe they’re somehow more “pure.”
In other words, I basically agree that diamond prices are subject to artificial scarcity, but give credit to the other side’s point. They have a reasonable and internally consistent argument, even if we find it disagreeable. If you interpret “real” to mean “natural”, their position is reasonable. This isn’t novel - we use “real” and “fake” to refer to “natural” and “artificial” for many other things.
I thought that De Beer had changed their approach to one of promoting the imperfections of real diamonds. And the news this week regarding "deeper" diamonds having exceedingly rare minerals embedded within could further this cause.
I'm not sure they always have the same color/clarity. I was looking around for diamonds at one point recently (friend's looking to propose) and the synthetic selection didn't seem to go all the way up to the highest end of the scale.
Also I was surprised that the price difference wasn't bigger, in the 1-2 carat range it seemed the difference was maybe 10-20% or so, which is not nothing but not massive.
Could be an artifact of where I was looking however.
Y'know, I think that the whole diamond hype is nonsense, but I do understand how a stone which was formed over millennia (or more?) and discovered by a miner has more of a story to it that a stone which was grown in a lab by a technician. I've no problem with considering a natural diamond real and a lab-grown one fake, even though they are the same 'stuff.'
The thing is that these diamonds aren't fakes - they are real diamonds. Also for many years there have been gluts of diamonds and the market has been rigged to keep them expensive. Eventually the flood gates will open and diamonds will get real cheap.
Price depends on grading factors such as cut, colour and clarity (inclusions). I was surprised to learn that lab grown diamonds also vary in colour, and may have inclusions, and as such are graded on the same scale as natural diamonds.
At most of the stores I visited, the price of lab-grown diamonds was about 30% cheaper compared to their natural counterparts at the same grade.
Most surprising though was that the sales people were really pushing hard to sell the lab grown diamonds over the natural ones.
I would imagine the markup and commission is much much higher.
It is only in the last half decade that technology has advanced to a level that scientists at De Beers, itself a pioneer in lab-grown diamond production [..]
Of course they have their own diamond growing lab and Deep Sea diamond mining rigs. I too hope are beaten by other market players.
>The arrival of lab-grown diamonds has challenged the widely-held assumption that diamond prices could only go up
I'll admit I don't know a lot about the diamond market and perhaps I'm misinformed, but how on earth was this a widely held assumption? In a world where people are increasingly aware that De Beers and other companies hold major stockpiles of diamonds solely to keep the price inflated, and when man made diamonds for industrial purposes have been a thing for a long time?
An assumption can be widely held even if most informed people would dispute it. For example the widely held belief that housing prices will only go up, despite historical and theoretical arguments to the contrary.
Good! ... The DeBeers cartel is monopolistic and exploitative. There's an interesting article that talks about how they initially created demand for diamonds as they weren't commonly associated with an engagement. I'm glad to hear there's a competitor that should at a minimum lead to a price correction.
> At a trade fair in Hong Kong on Tuesday De Beers unveiled its latest diamond verification technology, the coffee-machine sized AMS2 that costs US$45,000 – already a substantial discount to the US$65,000 price tag of its predecessor. Within the first few hours of its release, over a dozen orders had flooded in, the company said.
All I can think when I read this is that of course they get orders -- all the companies producing synthetic diamonds want to get hold of this machine so that they can train their production process to produce synthetic diamonds that register as organic.
>Indeed, even the most experienced diamantaire’s in the world can’t tell the fakes from those extracted from mines when using their naked eye, which is where technology comes in
if they look identical to the naked eye, how can jewelers and debeers justify buying the naturals? are you now buying the diamond for its "history" or "story"? is it like buying "organic" food? or is it purely because it was never about the diamond itself; the diamond was just a representation of how money you sank into your spouse?
I bought a "real" diamond after protracted negotiations (with my SO, not the diamond seller), and I still don't really understand it. She cried more during the process than when her grandmother was dying, and she still wanted one particular diamond even though I'd explicitly given a significantly larger budget for either lab grown or moissanite.
And although she understood why there was no real difference outside of price, I think she was very worried she would be judged by other women for not having (or being worth) a "real" diamond. She also felt that she wanted something that showed (again, to whom?) I recognized her commitment to me and that I thought she deserved to have the things she wanted, whatever they might be. She got me something in return which I never expected, so it wasn't at all one sided.
And it really is amazing seeing all of the reactions and sidelong glances other women give to her ring. I've never noticed anyone's jewelry in any detail beyond that they were wearing some, but now it's like we're surrounded by car fanatics and she has a McLaren P1 strapped to her hand.
As somebody who recently had to buy a replacement wedding ring I can assure you price of jewellery has little to do with price of materials. Mark-up is huge, but knowing this doesn't help you much if everyone is on the racket (to some extent).
My SO is a geologist and likes the idea that Earth created the mineral over millions/billions of years through extreme processes. I'm a technologist, so I kinda like the idea that humans created something "better" using our tools and techniques.
I'm not sure if this article refers to cubic zirconia, moissanite or some new flavour of human-made diamonds but in either case, this is has been going on for 40 years.
The market for diamonds isn't rational, so how it will behave is not predictable.
First, the idea that diamonds maintain value is nonsense. This isn't gold or some other mineral "currency." You can sell gold anywhere for close to its spot price. Diamonds OTOH, have buy-sell "spreads" more like antiques or collectible shoes.
So, the subtitle is already on the wrong path. Diamonds have never been good stores of wealth, that's why the earlier dowry traditions use gold, cattle, secret recipes or some other reliable asset.
With cubic zirconia & moissanite, the diamond industry learned to recognise the "fakes." They've had machines for a while, but the industry also invested a lot in jeweler training. The reason for this is perception. If only machines know the difference...
For the average buyer, they're encouraged to note differences in "brilliance" & "fire" which is kind of visible in certain light. Ironically, zirconia & moissanite are different from diamonds in opposite ways, one more and the other less fiery.
This is a pure pr fight. If people use terms like "fake diamonds" then de beers wins. "Blood diamonds," then they lose.
Curious side note: the CCP has influence on Chinese consumer culture that doesn't exist elsewhere. If they say manufactured diamonds are real, then they are. China doesn't mine diamonds, but they do manufacture them....
At some point De Beers is going to do an elegant little flip and suddenly proclaim “engineered diamonds” to be far superior to anything that ever came out the ground... only just their particular brand of engineered diamonds.
Ten years ago I actually tried to buy a synthetic diamond engagement ring. My wife is a geek, I thought she would think it was cool. The jewelry store was offended when I asked.
I just don't get it. Who cares what the source of a diamond is?
Isn't the point of a diamond its beauty in the eye of the beholder? If I had a big diamond I would definitely want the cheapest one possible with a visual aesthetic I like. Fortunately, my wife and I don't like diamonds and we have purple sapphires in our wedding bands.
Why would you want a mined diamond with all the possible moral complications of child labour and third-world safety standards when you could get a lab-grown diamond of of objectively better quality?
So De Beers argument is that their shiny rocks dug out from the ground are worth far more than shiny rocks made in a machine. When no one really cares and people cant tell the difference apart from experts saying they are "fake" to keep their own industries assets from plummeting in value?
I chose a lab-grown diamond to have set in my fiancée's engagement ring. It looks stunning, is significantly larger than I would have been able to afford if sticking to "natural" stones, and nobody can tell the difference. It's certified by IGI, which most people will tell you is not a good thing (you would generally look for GIA certification, and GIA refuse to certify lab-grown diamonds), but if you find a stone that is graded highly across the board by an IGI lab (colour D or E, cut Ideal or Excellent and clarity >VS1) it seems unlikely you'll be disappointed once it's set in a ring.
[+] [-] userbinator|8 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Single-crystal_CVD_diamon...
[+] [-] kbutler|8 years ago|reply
Inexpensive mass production moved it from niche prestige uses to unlock its many utilitarian applications.
[+] [-] Jedd|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alchemism|8 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age
[+] [-] rini17|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Antimachides|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saagarjha|8 years ago|reply
From what I understand, these gems are actually better than natural ones, since they're 100% pure. Maybe it's time to call lab-grown diamonds "real" and mined ones "fake".
[+] [-] sharpneli|8 years ago|reply
It's funny what massive marketing campaign can do.
[+] [-] phkahler|8 years ago|reply
Yes, for decades they claimed clarity and purity to be indicators of the highest quality. Now that humans can manufacture them with better specs than nature, they're shifting to claim that "natural" is better. In the end it's a pretty carbon lattice.
[+] [-] cptskippy|8 years ago|reply
There was a similar problem with Rubies and they detected the fakes by virtue of the fact that they were flawless.
[+] [-] dsacco|8 years ago|reply
In other words, I basically agree that diamond prices are subject to artificial scarcity, but give credit to the other side’s point. They have a reasonable and internally consistent argument, even if we find it disagreeable. If you interpret “real” to mean “natural”, their position is reasonable. This isn’t novel - we use “real” and “fake” to refer to “natural” and “artificial” for many other things.
[+] [-] anon89356|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grecy|8 years ago|reply
The Diamond cartel has done a lot of PR spin to say these new ones "threaten viability..."
The world is literally run by PR and marketing.
[+] [-] intrasight|8 years ago|reply
https://www.sciencealert.com/super-deep-diamond-contains-cal...
"Rare" still has status and therefore a price premium.
[+] [-] amelius|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] entee|8 years ago|reply
Also I was surprised that the price difference wasn't bigger, in the 1-2 carat range it seemed the difference was maybe 10-20% or so, which is not nothing but not massive.
Could be an artifact of where I was looking however.
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|8 years ago|reply
If god herself could not tell the difference in a blind test, then there's no significant difference. Except price of course.
[+] [-] WingH|8 years ago|reply
Der Bers, take that! (I hope your social listening catches this)
[+] [-] eadmund|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgt101|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexandercrohde|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonsync|8 years ago|reply
Price depends on grading factors such as cut, colour and clarity (inclusions). I was surprised to learn that lab grown diamonds also vary in colour, and may have inclusions, and as such are graded on the same scale as natural diamonds.
At most of the stores I visited, the price of lab-grown diamonds was about 30% cheaper compared to their natural counterparts at the same grade.
Most surprising though was that the sales people were really pushing hard to sell the lab grown diamonds over the natural ones.
I would imagine the markup and commission is much much higher.
[+] [-] Jedd|8 years ago|reply
And I hope they lose.
https://priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bulls... (and HN comments on original posting 2013-03-19 -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5403988 )
[+] [-] hyper_reality|8 years ago|reply
One of the best pieces of long-form journalism ever published, without a doubt.
[+] [-] vanderZwan|8 years ago|reply
> The arrival of lab-grown diamonds has challenged the widely-held assumption that diamond prices could only go up
[+] [-] petre|8 years ago|reply
Of course they have their own diamond growing lab and Deep Sea diamond mining rigs. I too hope are beaten by other market players.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/a-new-frontier-f...
[+] [-] jseliger|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moccachino|8 years ago|reply
>The arrival of lab-grown diamonds has challenged the widely-held assumption that diamond prices could only go up
I'll admit I don't know a lot about the diamond market and perhaps I'm misinformed, but how on earth was this a widely held assumption? In a world where people are increasingly aware that De Beers and other companies hold major stockpiles of diamonds solely to keep the price inflated, and when man made diamonds for industrial purposes have been a thing for a long time?
[+] [-] tibbetts|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saagarjha|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dwaltrip|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smoyer|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewla|8 years ago|reply
All I can think when I read this is that of course they get orders -- all the companies producing synthetic diamonds want to get hold of this machine so that they can train their production process to produce synthetic diamonds that register as organic.
[+] [-] ocfnash|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gruez|8 years ago|reply
if they look identical to the naked eye, how can jewelers and debeers justify buying the naturals? are you now buying the diamond for its "history" or "story"? is it like buying "organic" food? or is it purely because it was never about the diamond itself; the diamond was just a representation of how money you sank into your spouse?
[+] [-] washadjeffmad|8 years ago|reply
And although she understood why there was no real difference outside of price, I think she was very worried she would be judged by other women for not having (or being worth) a "real" diamond. She also felt that she wanted something that showed (again, to whom?) I recognized her commitment to me and that I thought she deserved to have the things she wanted, whatever they might be. She got me something in return which I never expected, so it wasn't at all one sided.
And it really is amazing seeing all of the reactions and sidelong glances other women give to her ring. I've never noticed anyone's jewelry in any detail beyond that they were wearing some, but now it's like we're surrounded by car fanatics and she has a McLaren P1 strapped to her hand.
[+] [-] samastur|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|8 years ago|reply
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/ho...
[+] [-] danlash|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dalbasal|8 years ago|reply
The market for diamonds isn't rational, so how it will behave is not predictable.
First, the idea that diamonds maintain value is nonsense. This isn't gold or some other mineral "currency." You can sell gold anywhere for close to its spot price. Diamonds OTOH, have buy-sell "spreads" more like antiques or collectible shoes.
So, the subtitle is already on the wrong path. Diamonds have never been good stores of wealth, that's why the earlier dowry traditions use gold, cattle, secret recipes or some other reliable asset.
With cubic zirconia & moissanite, the diamond industry learned to recognise the "fakes." They've had machines for a while, but the industry also invested a lot in jeweler training. The reason for this is perception. If only machines know the difference...
For the average buyer, they're encouraged to note differences in "brilliance" & "fire" which is kind of visible in certain light. Ironically, zirconia & moissanite are different from diamonds in opposite ways, one more and the other less fiery.
This is a pure pr fight. If people use terms like "fake diamonds" then de beers wins. "Blood diamonds," then they lose.
Curious side note: the CCP has influence on Chinese consumer culture that doesn't exist elsewhere. If they say manufactured diamonds are real, then they are. China doesn't mine diamonds, but they do manufacture them....
[+] [-] tomtimtall|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foreigner|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antisthenes|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SomeHacker44|8 years ago|reply
Isn't the point of a diamond its beauty in the eye of the beholder? If I had a big diamond I would definitely want the cheapest one possible with a visual aesthetic I like. Fortunately, my wife and I don't like diamonds and we have purple sapphires in our wedding bands.
[+] [-] ForHackernews|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] astannard|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nailer|8 years ago|reply
> De Beers fights fake
No. De Beers is fighting man made diamonds. They are no less real than mined diamonds.
> De Beers to invest tens of millions of dollars on methods to identify the man-made stones that look exactly like the real thing.
Man made diamonds are the real thing.
[+] [-] jallardice|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wahlis|8 years ago|reply