Russia reveals secret diamond field containing "trillions of carats"
csmonitor.com
csmonitor.com
"According to the official news agency, ITAR-Tass, the diamonds at Popigai are "twice as hard" as the usual gemstones, making them ideal for industrial and scientific uses."
Oh really? I'm familiar with different crystal structure or impurities that can make some diamonds 10 - 25% harder than gemstone class diamonds but 100% harder? That is a new one for me.
And I agree with others a trillion carets of diamond where the largest crystal is .1 caret is not as big a deal where you get 1 - 10 caret diamonds in there as well.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl...
"It is not a diamond. Hardness of this phase (lonsdaleite) 1.54 times higher than that of diamond, and since we have here a nanosized crystallites of cubic diamond and lonsdaleite - it is very sticky matrix that defines high performance Popigai impactites. Lonsdaleite share in some specimens can reach 70%, "- said the official.
EDIT: Actually, looks like they went out of business. I'm betting execution didn't match promises.
Artificial gems that try to pass as "real" diamonds have to commit a lot of forgery, not just at the molecular level. Forging the mining certificates, the registration (with GIA, IGS, or other certification services) which actually look at when and where this diamond was mined, etc.
Even if you could perfectly recreate diamonds, you'd find very quickly that selling them for anything other than industrial purposes would be a huge challenge. Jewelers and distributors don't want to piss off DeBeers. Anyone showing up with any kind of volume and quality product that has gone "around" DeBeers somehow would raise far more suspicion than it's worth.
Source: I worked in the jewelry industry for 2 years, and we occasionally had people try and sell us unmarked/unrated diamonds. Totally not worth the trouble.
*I knew that some people tried to pass them off as diamonds, but after a quick wiki I guess Moissanite always had distinct features from a diamond.
I thought they made and sold "fake diamonds" that were molecularly indistinguishable from real diamonds nowadays, is that not the case?
>Russian scientists say the news is likely to change the shape of global diamond markets //
Now colour me skeptical but they admit to keeping it a secret to manipulate the diamond prices; what are the chances that they are overplaying the find for the same reason?
If I was going to get angry about diamonds, it'd be about the poor labor conditions of some mining operations, not the artificial value we attach to precious gems. If suppliers allowed diamonds to become worthless, we'd just find some other gift to symbolize what the cost of diamonds symbolize now.
It is these properties that make them ideal in the context of a marriage proposal. From a game theoretic position, it demonstrates serious intent on the part of the proposer, in that they can't afford to propose to many partners, while, at the same time, protecting (mostly) the proposer from gold diggers, as the person being proposed to will not be able to resell that ring to others.
People who buy diamond rings, therefore, are actually rational actors.
Don't they stop being so once they are aware of the diamond market. Isn't it more rational at that point to pay off student loans or put a down-payment on a house?
If something that can be A) expensive to purchase and B) has little resale value is needed why not an expensive trip to Bora Bora? It fact it has 0 resale value because you only come back with pictures and a tan from it.
But, if your goal is to demonstrate commitment to the betrothal - the Diamond ring does the job.
The Diamond has the additional (and important) aspect of being a demonstrable and physical artifact of the proposers intent. Plus, it's sparkly.
The vacation doesn't serve our purpose as well, because the proposer will get significant utility value out of the trip. But you are on the right track.
Indeed - a lot of diamond knockers haven't really looked at a nice diamond in the sunlight. They are true wonders of light refraction.
In your vacation example - it's impossible for the casual onlooker to know that the tan and relaxed demeanour came from a trip to Bora Bora, rather than a golfing trip to Arizona. The important point for the diamond wearer is the the long-term appearance of having found someone willing to waste money on a useless item.
A large part of the use of the diamond is the social proof - any casual observance of the behaviour of females comparing engagement rings. Yes, it is totally irrational. Yes, it is manipulated by marketing. Yes, it is what it is. If you go mental at every irrational (as far as the purchase goes) act caused by marketing controlling social norms, well, you'll go insane. Human nature is obsessed with status symbols - always has and always will - these impulses are there for marketers to interpret and direct. Always have and always will.
+1 ... HN is full of engineers who like to think that we are superior because we are not susceptible (ha!) to this irrationality. But of course we live in the human, social world, and it's good to understand these things, even if we seek to push back against them.
1. Provides a physical, wearable symbol of commitment.
2. Is impossible to resell.
3. Represents a significant economic expenditure.
Mutual tattoos, for instance, satisfy 1 and 2 much better than diamonds, while compromising significantly on 3. But what 3 is really getting at is a demonstration of commitment, and on that count tattoos are even better. You might be able to scrape up more money to buy a ring and propose to another partner later, but unlike diamonds, tattoos really are forever.
The problem with diamonds is that, especially if you follow the old guideline that an engagement ring should cost two months' salary (!), they only demonstrate to a gold digger how much wealth she will be able to extort in the future. Besides, gold diggers will generally enjoy diamonds purely as a status symbol and will generally waste your money on dumb shit that's more similar to diamonds than, say, mutual funds. Her inability to resell the diamond doesn't really factor much into her consideration; the diamond already is what she wants, not the sentiment behind it or the economic power to spend your wealth any more sensibly than that.
With regards to the problems with diamonds. Totally agree, I think they are absolutely stupid. In a reasonable/responsible world, the proposer would have to demonstrate the ability to provide material food/water/energy/shelter security. Now that, has "real" value to me.
But, I'm clearly not the target for an engagement ring.
TLDR: There are so called "technical diamonds", they are not good enough for jewelry, bat can be used for making tools, such as drills, etc.
Not a surprise they're not keeping it a secret, otherwise they would only be hurting themselves by driving prices down.
This should be fun.
Citation needed. Any appraiser with half a brain knows that diamonds' resale value is almost none. I'd be surprised to find a bank putting their money in diamonds. With toxic assets you'd have at least a chance of resale before the inevitable bust.
from the article about trying to sell diamonds - http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...