Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by cptskippy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

cptskippy

It's organic vs synthetic. Not real vs fake.

There was a similar problem with Rubies and they detected the fakes by virtue of the fact that they were flawless.

View on HN

All the carbon is ultimately from a star. And the pressure that makes the real/organic diamond is 0% organic.

Geo-sourced vs anthro-sourced?

I like mined diamond vs lab diamond.

Even if they succeed (edit: with that fake-vs-natural campaign), what if the next step introduced artificial flaws and impurities?

> what if the next step introduced artificial flaws and impurities?

Develop methods to distinguish "natural"/"organic" impurities from artificially introduced flaws.

Probably but I doubt they'll be successful. For decades they've talked about the flawlessness and purity of diamonds, now faced with a superior product they have to change everyone's minds.

They could go the granola from the earth natural route but unlike organic farming, which evokes images of the stoic farmer, their image is of conflict diamonds and exploited children in dangerous mines.

Couple that with the fact that many people no longer buy the diamonds or see the value that DeBeers put on them. And the fact that millennials are poor and they have a fading empire.

> Probably but I doubt they'll be successful. For decades they've talked about the flawlessness and purity of diamonds, now faced with a superior product they have to change everyone's minds.

I believe that with really good marketing (which De Beers can easily afford) this should not be a problem. For example the fact that Persian rug makers traditionally include deliberate small imperfections into their carpets

> https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/32361/did-persi...

might be a good starting point for how one might create such a campaign.

It wouldn't be the first time. The practice of giving diamond engagement rings was a result of a very clever marketing campaign by De Beers ("diamonds are forever").

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/diamond-de-beers-marketin...

I wouldn't be so quick to say that they won't succeed - their marketing has been managing the public opinion about diamonds for 7 decades. Neither blood diamonds, environmental issues nor the (false) perception of scarcity has brought them down yet.

Managing yes, but managing a decline. Their one lever to keeping prices up has been the (artificial) scarcity.

With that gone they have very little to play with. Fashion, possibly, but that’s strongly fickle & temporary.

It's only been in the last couple decades that those things have come into the public consciousness. It can take decades to change perception, especially with something like diamonds that aren't usually purchased by or for kids.

Those kids growing up in the 90s who heard about all the shit DeBeers did and continues to do are now of the age where they would be a customer and they aren't buying. The up and coming generations certainly don't value diamonds either.

I would bet that in 15-20 years the market will decline significantly further and the artificial diamonds are only going to hasten that decline.

> They could go the granola from the earth natural route but unlike organic farming, which evokes images of the stoic farmer, their image is of conflict diamonds and exploited children in dangerous mines.

I wonder whether they could go a fair trade route, focus only on communities which could be improved, and give them a small slice (which would make an enormous difference). It would require a change in approach, not just a marketing whitewash.

They're called conflict or blood diamonds for a reason. The controlling interests in the regions of Africa where most diamonds come from employ slave, child, and forced labor in mines.

If you want a fair trade diamond you need one that's certified to have come from somewhere like Canada.

It doesn't matter. If factory diamonds are cheap, the tacky hoi polloi will slap them on everything Swarovski-style, the appearance of diamond will no longer connote wealth, and the wealthy will drop them like a… rock.

This is on-point. Cultured gemstone-grade diamonds started becoming viable in the early '10s, and manufacturers were careful to provide better value than mined gemstones but not overly sell on it, instead stressing the ethical aspect of CVD/HPHT-treated stones. In addition, the process wasn't yet refined enough to undercut traditionally-mined diamonds by too much. If that changes, then the meaning of diamonds to the rich will as well.

Paleo and progressive diamonds?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com