Would You Pay $32,709 for a Lab-Grown Diamond? | Hacker News Reader

Would You Pay $32,709 for a Lab-Grown Diamond?

wsj.com

8 pointsjseliger34 comments

Lab grown diamond... brand new Tesla... lab grown diamond... brand new Tesla...

I'd go with the car, personally.

I don't think the next application of lab grown diamonds will be rings and necklaces:

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/212422-this-new-high-pow...

It's weird. The most popular shape of diamond is about to become a ~10 to 50cm long rod, not even polished (not very shiny at all, it's somewhere between white and light grey and looks like it's covered in fine dust, like a natural diamond in a regular shape). It's already that way for Rubies:

https://youtu.be/KzI3vaIb0aI?t=78

The positive is: those rods aren't very expensive. You want to score this Valentine's day ? May I advise:

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/3-0-12mm-AAAAA-Quality-Loose...

(this is likely made by buying such laser rods and cutting them up) (corundum is the name of the material, Rubies and Sapphires are the forms of it. These will be cut rubies. They're quite spectacular looking)

Well the Tesla will definitely get you a lot more utility. In fact any car is probably a better purchase than any diamond. Probably depreciates less quickly too...

I'm not sure that's true. Teslas still depreciate at a rapid clip. Many cars will depreciate at 40% once you drive 50k miles on them. Tesla may get a break on that because of their brand, but as long as Tesla keeps punching out cars, they will depreciate.

The issue with diamonds is that once they're cut and given to someone else as part of a ring, they immediately depreciate. Because, as the diamond marketing agencies point out: "Who wants a second hand engagement ring?"

That said, raw diamonds (cut or uncut) hold their value. While DeBeer's has a stockpile of diamonds, they only let a fraction of their holdings out into the market every year to keep the prices artificially high. Which get turned into rings, which then depreciate immediately.

In my opinion, there's a significant marketing opportunity for lab grown diamonds - a not for profit that makes beautiful artificial pieces that cost just as much as one that's mined, and with the cost difference pays for a significant amount of charity.

Rather than a shameful knockoff, it should aim to draw attention to the fact that it is what it is.

While not universal, I think a $5k artificial ring that looks great and also comes with a story of saving a life on Watsi or building a well in a village would be a compelling product to a substantial number of people.

Of course not. I’d rather it be used for some useful scientific purpose rather than a gaudy jewel. Young couples have way better things to save their money for, like a down payment on a house, or child care, or a college fund. My wife and I got matching tungsten carbide rings that look way cooler than any diamond, and we spent less than $600 on the pair.

The diamond I purchased for my wife's engagement ring costed about the headline price, and it wasn't lab-grown. If the lab-grown diamond was significantly better in specification for the same price, I'd probably have no issue buying it. If no one can tell without specialized equipment and your spouse doesn't care, why not?

But if there wasn't a significant improvement in the diamond across several dimensions, I'd stick with the "real" one. When I purchased one I used diamond screener[1] to find as efficient a price as possible for what I was willing to spend. My research at that time showed that there wasn't a significant price improvement in lab-grown diamonds compared "real" diamonds at the most efficient prices for similar quality. But maybe that's changed now.

In any case, I think it would be great if the price of diamonds came down overall. Lab-grown diamonds are hopefully a good step in that direction. Though I'm concerned they'll evolve to be just as expensive, but marketed to a different set of values.

EDIT: Am I being offtopic? Why am I being downvoted?

__________________

1. No affiliation, but I highly recommend.

you need to catch up on lab-grown stones. Basically, they look better, keep their shine longer (i.e. no need to polish that often) and cost 10% of the "real one".

Just realize that intrinsic cost of diamonds is basically 0. Supply is artifically limited by De Beers and Co, demand is pushed up by shiny catalogues and stereotypes etc.

Now that many more labs are going to create moissanites and likes due to expiring patents, diamonds are going down the same path as pearls went ages ago (when people started growing them on mass scale).

So, my prediction is diamonds will lose at least 90% value in coming years, and lab-grown stones take over by storm, pushing overall bling-bling value even further down, making it as common as zirconia or stuff like that.

p.s. 2 of my first engagement rings were real diamonds, north of $5k value each. The most recent one is a custom made moissanite of better clarity and bigger size at < $1k. All girls were happy with their rings ;)

When you say they cost 10% of the real one, do you mean 10% at the same metrics? That wasn't the case when I looked; do you have some reading material on this?

When I looked, I found the best I could get for the same specification was about 70% of the price. Also, I'm glad you've been successful with your ring purchases but I don't think how much you spend will have anything to do with how happy the recipient is. At least for me it's more of a point of pride.

You’re probably being downvoted because you chose to spend the price of a decent new car on a shiny rock.

Well obviously I'm biased here but seems like a crappy reason to downvote someone...the comment is substantive and on-topic. What's the point of engaging in discussion online if you don't talk to anyone different from yourself?

Thank you for responding though.

For the record, I personally think that it’s absurd to spend $30,000 on a diamond ring, but I didn’t downvote your comment.

Sure, I can respect that opinion. Spending $30,000 on a shiny rock is irrational, I fully admit it :)

I wouldn’t buy any diamond.

It is very important and dear to me that any diamond I buy caused sufficient pain, death and bloodshed.

If you really want the silliness of the traditional* diamond engagement ring, just remember those three magic words: created white sapphire.

* Created by DeBeers marketers

I wouldn't pay $32 for a lab-grown diamond... or any diamond

Don't see any reason whatsoever to pay more than a fiver for a shiny rock. As in $5, not 5K.

You’ll pay more than that for semiprecious gems. Heck I don’t think I could get more than a chip of amethyst for $5 as a kid.

No _I_ won't. I don't need shiny rocks. :-)

I stopped reading at `“conscious shopping” has become almost unbearably trendy`

I have been seeing these links for CVD diamond for almost 10 years now, and yet I still can't buy a CVD diamond in any store.

I wonder why that is?

My history is probably a little off, but the first time I heard of lab grown diamonds in the press was right around the time a couple people were testing a theory that they could identify diamond bearing rock from aerial surveys.

They bought a chunk of land in Canada and turned it into a big ol’ diamond mine. Another source of conflict free diamonds (other than the poor bastards who sold their mineral rights) and at a comparable price.

Like many I always thought I wouldn't buy a diamond, I saw no reason to buy what was basically just a rock (to me), but when I proposed to my girlfriend, since the ring didn't have a diamond, she said no.

Damn seriously? I know you're not looking for unsolicited relationship advice, but that's a bit of a red flag...

I’d say buying that non-diamond engagement ring was an even better investment than my dude realized.

Bullet dodged?

We're happily married now.

We should stop posting links to article posts that block and require payment. I have no idea why no one else has mentioned this.

> "I have no idea why no one else has mentioned this."

It certainly has been mentioned before. It's a FAQ:

> "Are paywalls ok?"

> "It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds."

> "In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

Im away from a desktop, but on mobile WSJ has no workaround, as far as I know. I signed in with Google and still had to register a payed subscription.

I've been flagging those. It doesn't seem to have any effect though.

I’ve wondered that, too. It pisses me off to no end. WSJ is the worst, but the Washington Post, Economist, and Bloomberg are hot on their heels.

Just got our wedding rings in the mail: matching meteorite, dinosaur femur, and titanium rings. $600 for the pair. So god no, I wouldn't pay that much. I could have a pretty dope hobbiest genetic engineering lab for that money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com