4 ms·

They’re called fake because they’re artificial, not because they have more flaws. The diamond industry might have once thought it could rely on artificial diamo

by dsacco 9y ago

They’re called fake because they’re artificial, not because they have more flaws. The diamond industry might have once thought it could rely on artificial diamonds being less perfect, but it’s under no such illusion now. I think it’s fair to acknowledge that, even if we don’t like it, many people prefer natural diamonds because they’re natural, not because they believe they’re somehow more “pure.” In other words, I basically agree that diamond prices are subject to artificial scarcity, but give credit to the other side’s point. They have a reasonable and internally consistent argument, even if we find it disagreeable. If you interpret “real” to mean “natural”, their position is reasonable. This isn’t novel - we use “real” and “fake” to refer to “natural” and “artificial” for many other things.

pluma 9y ago
Sure but even "natural" diamonds aren't as rare as they're made out to be. There's an artificial scarcity because De Beers wants to keep the prices up: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070203990.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07...
- dsacco 9y ago
  I’m well aware of all of that, I was just commenting on the legitimacy of peoples’ preferences with regard to natural versus artificial items.
- rhino369 9y ago
  The De Beers cartel fell apart when mines in other locations were established. It was only valued at 13 billion in 2011. De Beers definitely mined cornered the market for a long time. But its over. The meme that diamonds are falling off frees if not for De Beers is not accurate. But with these artificals, it may very well come true.
vanderZwan 9y ago
> They’re called fake because they’re artificial, not because they have more flaws (...) give credit to the other side’s point: they have a reasonable and internally consistent argument The only thing I credit them for is being ruthlessly manipulative. "Fakes" is not a neutral word. It was very specifically chosen for its emotional baggage, similar to "pro-lifer" or "franken-foods". It is an emotional distracting piece of doublespeak and should not be condoned at all as being "reasonable".
- dsacco 9y ago
  You’re taking away a lot of agency from people who prefer natural diamonds. Yes, of course their marketing campaign set off the industry, but the reason it worked is because many people are already predisposed to prefer natural things over artificial things. What you’re calling “emotional baggage” is a subjective preference for some things over other things. It’s only doublespeak if you subscribe to a literalist form of communication that most people do not use. “Fake” isn’t a neutral word because it’s not intended to be - some people actually do prefer natural diamonds, just as some people really do prefer non-GMO food. It doesn’t matter if the reason they have that preference is due to artificial scarcity or a marketing campaign, the point is that they have that preference and many will keep it even if they are very informed on the matter. People are not hyperrational in the development of their preferences. The point I’m trying to make here is that while I agree people shouldn’t spend ostentatious amounts of money on items with artificial scarcity, I think litigating the use of the word “fake” is effectively a strawman and a sideshow when we’re discussing De Beers. In my opinion, while lab-made diamonds are more fiscally responsible, they’re not less silly as a purchase than natural diamonds if you dislike the capitalist insertion of a jewelry preference. It’s just local maxima: if you buy a lab-grown diamond you’re still buying a diamond. You’re still buying into that “emotional baggage”, as you put it, you’re just being a bit more fiscally savvy about it. If we assume people are not born with a desire for diamonds, then there is a credible argument buying synethic ones is still feeding a desire you (and I!) find fundamentally disagreeable.
  - vanderZwan 9y ago
    > You’re taking away a lot of agency from people who prefer natural diamonds. No, I'm not. I'm stating the fact that the language used by De Beers is manipulative. Whether or not people fall for that manipulation is a separate argument. I did not bring consumers into the equation, you did. And speaking of manipulative language, I would appreciate it if you didn't try to spin it as if I'm the one talking down to them.
    - dsacco 9y ago
      It’s only manipulative to take advantage of people’s desires for “real” diamonds insofar as it is manipulative to take advantage of people’s desires for “real” luxury items of any sort that can be faked. In other words: calling it manipulative isn’t productive, because that is essentially how the entire luxury industry works. We can make hyperrealistic imitation handbags and watches, but people still prefer the real items over the “fake” ones, regardless of how close they are in literal quality. More abstractly, to call a marketing campaign emphasizing the “realness” of a luxury item manipulative is to say that people could be manipulated by it. I disagree that people are manipulated into their desires for these items, even if their desires are not financially rational.
zaarn 9y ago
What makes a diamond "natural"? IMO it's not much different than deciding to drink "natural water" over simple tap water (though I'm basing this off living near a spring well that supplies my tap water, experiences may vary).
- dsacco 9y ago
  That’s an interesting analogy, I’m not really sure how to answer that. I suppose I would respond by saying that water isn’t exactly analogous because it’s not a luxury good. A better example might be a “fake” Rolex or a “fake” Hermes handbag. Both such items can be convincingly faked (at least up to very close review, even if not by a qualified inspection team with knowledge of trade secrets). But people still prefer the “real” luxury items. Preferring the “real” over the “fake” is only irrational insofar as preferring either is irrational. You either buy these items because you want the status signalling effect, or yoy buy them because you actually have an innate appreciation for them.
  - sah2ed 9y ago
    I think the gp's analogy of natural water is better than the luxury good you suggested because the underlying distinction is a choice between something naturally occuring vs man-made.
    - dsacco 9y ago
      I disagree. Gold is clearly a luxury item despite being natural. More importantly, diamonds are luxury goods, for better or worse, which means they wouldn’t adhere to the price dynamics of water.
      - sah2ed 9y ago
        Not sure what the source of disagreement is, particulary when my comment was merely to agree with the gp's water analogy when s/he asked: "What makes a diamond "natural"?" Diamonds are perceived as luxury goods because of the elaborate fiction of artificial scarcity woven around it by De Beers, which you have acknowledged upthread. Mentioning gold wasn't necessary because alchemy never delivered on a man-made substitute for gold. And it distracts from the core issue, we are here debating the consequences of the Chinese lab's feat for diamond after all. EDIT: To summarize, I'm not clear on why you think applying a "luxury goods" lens will lead to better insights as to why people prefer "natural/real" over "man-made/fake" substitutes, when the underlying issue is one of perception, which can be shaped by anyone with an agenda and a marketing budget.
kbutler 9y ago
What exactly is that internally consistent argument? They now basically say, "the more pure they are, the more valuable, because they are incredibly rare (because we artificially limit supply) unless they are really, really pure, because we can't limit supply of those." Remember, lots of things are natural, but only the rare ones are valuable.
- dsacco 9y ago
  The internally consistent argument is that these items are, like many other luxury goods, designed to signal status (or, more rarely, to elicit a response of much more fundamental appreciation, the sort a fellow watchmaker might have for a Patek Philippe). Diamonds are not unique in this regard, because many people prefer natural/real over artificial/synthetic/fake when it comes to art, antiques, luxury items, etc. If you approach this from the perspective that you’re spending more money for imperceptible characteristics encouraged by a massive conglomerate, then sure, it’s obviously irrational. But if you look at it from the perspective of signaling or status seeking, it makes sense to pursue the “real” item over the “fake” one. If you buy a synthetic diamond, the only people you’re signaling favorably to are those in your particular ingroup with respect to opinions on De Beers. If you buy a real diamond, you are signaling to a much wider set of people. It’s not fiscally rational, but it’s not supposed to be.
  - kbutler 9y ago
    How does this hypothetical wider set of people know your diamond is de beers approved? Do you keep the price tag on it? Or do you just talk about how, obviously, you'd never stoop to buying man-made diamonds?
    - dsacco 9y ago
      Assuming they talk about how they prefer “real” diamonds, the latter. Similarly, people on the other side signal their association by talking about how they’d never buy “real” diamonds.
      - 9y ago
nradov 9y ago
One local jeweler advertises using the terms "geologic" and "artisanal" diamonds, and those seem like reasonable terms. They sell both kinds.

by dsacco 9y ago

pluma 9y ago

Sure but even "natural" diamonds aren't as rare as they're made out to be. There's an artificial scarcity because De Beers wants to keep the prices up: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070203990.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07...

dsacco 9y ago
I’m well aware of all of that, I was just commenting on the legitimacy of peoples’ preferences with regard to natural versus artificial items.
rhino369 9y ago
The De Beers cartel fell apart when mines in other locations were established. It was only valued at 13 billion in 2011. De Beers definitely mined cornered the market for a long time. But its over. The meme that diamonds are falling off frees if not for De Beers is not accurate. But with these artificals, it may very well come true.

vanderZwan 9y ago

> They’re called fake because they’re artificial, not because they have more flaws (...) give credit to the other side’s point: they have a reasonable and internally consistent argument The only thing I credit them for is being ruthlessly manipulative. "Fakes" is not a neutral word. It was very specifically chosen for its emotional baggage, similar to "pro-lifer" or "franken-foods". It is an emotional distracting piece of doublespeak and should not be condoned at all as being "reasonable".

dsacco 9y ago
You’re taking away a lot of agency from people who prefer natural diamonds. Yes, of course their marketing campaign set off the industry, but the reason it worked is because many people are already predisposed to prefer natural things over artificial things. What you’re calling “emotional baggage” is a subjective preference for some things over other things. It’s only doublespeak if you subscribe to a literalist form of communication that most people do not use. “Fake” isn’t a neutral word because it’s not intended to be - some people actually do prefer natural diamonds, just as some people really do prefer non-GMO food. It doesn’t matter if the reason they have that preference is due to artificial scarcity or a marketing campaign, the point is that they have that preference and many will keep it even if they are very informed on the matter. People are not hyperrational in the development of their preferences. The point I’m trying to make here is that while I agree people shouldn’t spend ostentatious amounts of money on items with artificial scarcity, I think litigating the use of the word “fake” is effectively a strawman and a sideshow when we’re discussing De Beers. In my opinion, while lab-made diamonds are more fiscally responsible, they’re not less silly as a purchase than natural diamonds if you dislike the capitalist insertion of a jewelry preference. It’s just local maxima: if you buy a lab-grown diamond you’re still buying a diamond. You’re still buying into that “emotional baggage”, as you put it, you’re just being a bit more fiscally savvy about it. If we assume people are not born with a desire for diamonds, then there is a credible argument buying synethic ones is still feeding a desire you (and I!) find fundamentally disagreeable.
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  > You’re taking away a lot of agency from people who prefer natural diamonds. No, I'm not. I'm stating the fact that the language used by De Beers is manipulative. Whether or not people fall for that manipulation is a separate argument. I did not bring consumers into the equation, you did. And speaking of manipulative language, I would appreciate it if you didn't try to spin it as if I'm the one talking down to them.
  - dsacco 9y ago
    It’s only manipulative to take advantage of people’s desires for “real” diamonds insofar as it is manipulative to take advantage of people’s desires for “real” luxury items of any sort that can be faked. In other words: calling it manipulative isn’t productive, because that is essentially how the entire luxury industry works. We can make hyperrealistic imitation handbags and watches, but people still prefer the real items over the “fake” ones, regardless of how close they are in literal quality. More abstractly, to call a marketing campaign emphasizing the “realness” of a luxury item manipulative is to say that people could be manipulated by it. I disagree that people are manipulated into their desires for these items, even if their desires are not financially rational.

zaarn 9y ago

What makes a diamond "natural"? IMO it's not much different than deciding to drink "natural water" over simple tap water (though I'm basing this off living near a spring well that supplies my tap water, experiences may vary).

dsacco 9y ago
That’s an interesting analogy, I’m not really sure how to answer that. I suppose I would respond by saying that water isn’t exactly analogous because it’s not a luxury good. A better example might be a “fake” Rolex or a “fake” Hermes handbag. Both such items can be convincingly faked (at least up to very close review, even if not by a qualified inspection team with knowledge of trade secrets). But people still prefer the “real” luxury items. Preferring the “real” over the “fake” is only irrational insofar as preferring either is irrational. You either buy these items because you want the status signalling effect, or yoy buy them because you actually have an innate appreciation for them.
- sah2ed 9y ago
  I think the gp's analogy of natural water is better than the luxury good you suggested because the underlying distinction is a choice between something naturally occuring vs man-made.
  - dsacco 9y ago
    I disagree. Gold is clearly a luxury item despite being natural. More importantly, diamonds are luxury goods, for better or worse, which means they wouldn’t adhere to the price dynamics of water.
    - sah2ed 9y ago
      Not sure what the source of disagreement is, particulary when my comment was merely to agree with the gp's water analogy when s/he asked: "What makes a diamond "natural"?" Diamonds are perceived as luxury goods because of the elaborate fiction of artificial scarcity woven around it by De Beers, which you have acknowledged upthread. Mentioning gold wasn't necessary because alchemy never delivered on a man-made substitute for gold. And it distracts from the core issue, we are here debating the consequences of the Chinese lab's feat for diamond after all. EDIT: To summarize, I'm not clear on why you think applying a "luxury goods" lens will lead to better insights as to why people prefer "natural/real" over "man-made/fake" substitutes, when the underlying issue is one of perception, which can be shaped by anyone with an agenda and a marketing budget.

kbutler 9y ago

What exactly is that internally consistent argument? They now basically say, "the more pure they are, the more valuable, because they are incredibly rare (because we artificially limit supply) unless they are really, really pure, because we can't limit supply of those." Remember, lots of things are natural, but only the rare ones are valuable.

dsacco 9y ago
The internally consistent argument is that these items are, like many other luxury goods, designed to signal status (or, more rarely, to elicit a response of much more fundamental appreciation, the sort a fellow watchmaker might have for a Patek Philippe). Diamonds are not unique in this regard, because many people prefer natural/real over artificial/synthetic/fake when it comes to art, antiques, luxury items, etc. If you approach this from the perspective that you’re spending more money for imperceptible characteristics encouraged by a massive conglomerate, then sure, it’s obviously irrational. But if you look at it from the perspective of signaling or status seeking, it makes sense to pursue the “real” item over the “fake” one. If you buy a synthetic diamond, the only people you’re signaling favorably to are those in your particular ingroup with respect to opinions on De Beers. If you buy a real diamond, you are signaling to a much wider set of people. It’s not fiscally rational, but it’s not supposed to be.
- kbutler 9y ago
  How does this hypothetical wider set of people know your diamond is de beers approved? Do you keep the price tag on it? Or do you just talk about how, obviously, you'd never stoop to buying man-made diamonds?
  - dsacco 9y ago
    Assuming they talk about how they prefer “real” diamonds, the latter. Similarly, people on the other side signal their association by talking about how they’d never buy “real” diamonds.
    - 9y ago

nradov 9y ago

One local jeweler advertises using the terms "geologic" and "artisanal" diamonds, and those seem like reasonable terms. They sell both kinds.