Hacker News Reader

Comment by rowanG077 | Hacker News Reader

Why? Natural diamonds are the inferior product in every way.

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.

It sounds like some people want to pay more money. Good for them. I'm happy to have a cheaper option.

Yes, this is a form of signaling in social psychology, an interesting phenomenon that happens with originals versus "replicas."

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.

Sylvester McMonkey McBean at work.

That's a really, really dim signal though, right? You literally need a microscope to see the signal.

A higher-end Rolex knockoff is indistinguishable from the real thing to the naked eye of a casual observer, and yet people still buy the real thing for 10 times the price.

Brands will make themselves known as the more expensive option. People don’t give cubic zirconia engagement rings as is because they’ll look cheap if they’re honest and be outed as a cheap fraud if it’s found out that it’s not a diamond when they pretended it was.

De Beers will find a way to make aspects of the jewellery other than the gem identifiably theirs. Then when you’re caught pretending a $100 lab diamond ring is a $6,000 natural diamond De fBeers ring you’ll be in just as much trouble as if you’ve given them a cubic zirconia.

But even that surely is less useful these days?

In the west we're no longer living in a time where most people get married and then start their lives together. People often cohabit for years before marriage, and with more women working and earning as well the "hey I've got money and I'm dedicating a chunk to you!" signal isn't so much of a thing.

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.

Except that with diamonds the authenticity is actual human suffering in virtually slave like conditions.

> 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.

But something else - authentic mid-modern furniture like Eames chairs - took its place. Old furniture is still in very high demand (and expensive), it's just that the specific pieces have changed.

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.

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.

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)

You omit functional value referred somewhat euphemistically as "portable wealth." See also: why doesn't the US circulate 1000 dollar bills?

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.

Having inherited a stupidly large rock that had been in my family since 1905,I moved immediately to divest, and it wasn't in any way hard to sell, just really costly. Even with step-up cost basis cancelling out huge capital gains, Sothebys bit off about 22% in commissions and fees for itself. I also explored selling through an individual jeweler, and was offered 6 figures cash in a briefcase, but the commission would have been about the same, just more camouflaged, and I had no reason to want to explain a six-figures-of-cash deposit to my bank I'd have had to make thereafter. Big high quality diamonds at least, are liquid these days. (Your link is from 1982!) Just expect considerable slippage when you sell, the inevitable middlemen have sharp teeth.

Was it ever that handy for it?

I mean, having something valuable as a safety net and then carrying it around day and night where it can get damaged or stolen doesn't really sound like the smartest thing.

Your use of "historically" in the context of diamonds only means the past 100 years. Prior to the marketing of diamonds, sapphire was most common.

Grab a shovel and dig down in your garden deep enough and you'll get hundreds of old rocks for free

Reply on news.ycombinator.com