5 ms·

The value of a diamond is in its ability to display the wealth of the wearer. If a diamond no longer indicates status, it is "fake". That's the truth they're al

The value of a diamond is in its ability to display the wealth of the wearer. If a diamond no longer indicates status, it is "fake". That's the truth they're all beating around the bush of. It's pathetic, but there it is.

tempestn 10y ago
They're not fake by that metric either though. No one can tell the difference between a synthetic and a high quality natural diamond - certainly not with the naked eye. So you're free to pretend your diamond came out of the dirt if you so desire.
- niftich 10y ago
  Eh, splitting hairs, but it's 'fake' only in the sense of art forgery -- one of the paintings is in fact painted by the big-name artist, while the other one, no less marvellous in its execution and visually indistinguishable, isn't. Since only the two painters know for sure, the rest of the world relies on other people's word.
  - 1propionyl 10y ago
    I'm reminded of the Orson Welles "documentary" F is for Fake. I might have to rewatch it tonight.
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    And not always even that; artists have been fooled by forgeries of their own works before.
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  You missed my point. If a "genuine" character of a diamond is its ability to display wealth, then a synthetic diamond is "fake" by that measure, or "ersatz" or whatever you prefer. The point is that actually expressing that would make diamonds tacky and pathetic, so it's all done with implications, lobbying, and advertising.
- superuser2 10y ago
  Diamonds are a representation of money. No one can tell the difference between a legitimate $100 bill and one printed using identical equipment and processes by some organization other than the Federal Reserve. Still, a sufficiently large counterfeiting operation would diminish the value of all USD.
  - tempestn 10y ago
    I expect De Beers sees it very much like this.
- mannykannot 10y ago
  Diamond valuation, like that of art, is not an objective metric, and reason will only get you so far.

tempestn 10y ago

They're not fake by that metric either though. No one can tell the difference between a synthetic and a high quality natural diamond - certainly not with the naked eye. So you're free to pretend your diamond came out of the dirt if you so desire.

niftich 10y ago
Eh, splitting hairs, but it's 'fake' only in the sense of art forgery -- one of the paintings is in fact painted by the big-name artist, while the other one, no less marvellous in its execution and visually indistinguishable, isn't. Since only the two painters know for sure, the rest of the world relies on other people's word.
- 1propionyl 10y ago
  I'm reminded of the Orson Welles "documentary" F is for Fake. I might have to rewatch it tonight.
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  And not always even that; artists have been fooled by forgeries of their own works before.
Aelinsaar 10y ago
You missed my point. If a "genuine" character of a diamond is its ability to display wealth, then a synthetic diamond is "fake" by that measure, or "ersatz" or whatever you prefer. The point is that actually expressing that would make diamonds tacky and pathetic, so it's all done with implications, lobbying, and advertising.
superuser2 10y ago
Diamonds are a representation of money. No one can tell the difference between a legitimate $100 bill and one printed using identical equipment and processes by some organization other than the Federal Reserve. Still, a sufficiently large counterfeiting operation would diminish the value of all USD.
- tempestn 10y ago
  I expect De Beers sees it very much like this.
mannykannot 10y ago
Diamond valuation, like that of art, is not an objective metric, and reason will only get you so far.