7 ms·

Diamonds Are Bullshit

149 points by joering2 8y ago

tristanj 8y ago
This article always rubbed me the wrong way as it's practically a condensed rewrite of Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond?, published in The Atlantic in 1982. Much of this article is just quotes from the original. It bothers that the priceonomics.com author took someone else's work, repackaged it, and now people prefer reading & sharing the 'new' version rather than the long-form original.
- scktt 8y ago
  a link[0] to the original is helpful in your cause. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-yo...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- ianai 8y ago
  You’re not wrong. But this is somewhat how the modern era operates. An idea will simply not penetrate as far in an older, long form, printed media as it will in an online compressed format.
- lquist 8y ago
  Priceonomics is a YC company and I believe that posts by YC companies are highlighted to other YC founders, so that might be what leads to this article being upvoted on HN. I agree that it doesn’t make much sense when this is essentially content marketing that repackages a single, superior, primary source. Edit/Update: I was incorrect here. Please see children comments
  - giancarlostoro 8y ago
    That's fascinating, I had no idea HN did this to specific users. I'm still wondering what the site looks like for a moderator / admin compared to a regular user and what kind of pages they've got etc.
    - wheels 8y ago
      All that's highlighted for YC founders are the nicknames of other founders. So we can see which posts and comments are from other YC founders, but there's no special annotation just for posts at YC-funded domains (in this case, there's nothing highlighted).
      - giancarlostoro 8y ago
        Fair and insightful I would say, when the parent comment mentioned it I figured it checked for the domain of a YC company or something, but this makes sense, as filtering for YC companies might just be a bit more work than it's worth considering you wont always be able to accurately mark every submission as relevant.
        wheels 8y ago
        I believe the goal is explicitly not to skew things towards YC companies. The one special bonus that YC companies get is the ability to post job openings. The two posts from YC founders on the front page now aren't about startups at all.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kbenson 8y ago
  To be fair, I believe this is being posted here again because the current top article is about De Beers, and there's reference to both this and the Atlantic piece throughout the comments of that. I would hope that pricenomics at least verified the portions they quoted as still accurate, which would make it more immediately useful, as the original is now some thirty-plus years old and things might have changed in small or large ways.
shmerl 8y ago
Just don't buy them, that's all.
tdiggity 8y ago
Has there been any retaliation against lab grown diamonds? Seems like they're starting to become a popular alternative.
- tdiggity 8y ago
  hah, missed the #1 link...https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17183603 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17183603
- hndamien 8y ago
  Yes, DeBeers built expensive machines to tell the difference and preserve their market. Oddly, the differences are that the synthetic ones are more pure. They also mark registration at the GIA and hide the records.
newnewpdro 8y ago
Doug Stanhope said it well here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCP40OfIi20&t=25m13s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCP40OfIi20&t=25m13s
wxuan 8y ago
This is an article from 2013
konceptz 8y ago
I agree wholeheartedly with this and the original article. I sold diamonds in college and really dislike the blood that goes into each and every one of them. Knowing a few of the arguments that fine jewelers might make, could you help me address? 1. You may pass the diamond to subsequent generation. 2. You may insure the stone at a high value, similar to artwork. 3. What other precious metals or otherwise might be considered to be used in a similar fashion? Gold/platinum is too heavy to adorn commonly as representative of wealth to our SOs. 4. Would removing the “value” of diamonds make them appropriately used for their hardness? Watch faces, etc.
- ianai 8y ago
  Platinum meets or exceeds all of those expectations. It’s even prettier, as it rarely reacts.
  - dbasedweeb 8y ago
    As a bonus what reactions it does catalyze are valuable, making platinum of practical value as well!
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mitchty 8y ago
  1. Manmade compressed and heated carbon is as passable to the next generation as the geologic kind. What is the issue here exactly? If anything its more awesome we can make our own and not rely on geological processes. 2. Why do I need to insure carbon? Its... carbon, super abundant, element 6. Present after the first generation of stars exploded in the universe. Are you investing in diamonds? They almost never go up in price, try reselling one or look at resale value before you worry about insurance. 3. What is the goal of this question? To show the Jones' that you have too much money and can pay the danegeld for authenticity? Before the 1940's diamonds weren't even a thing in marriage. If you could reproduce the Mona Lisa perfectly, would you pay N times as much for the original? Even if it was impossible to tell? Why is that so important? 4. Diamonds are already used for industrial uses, their "rarity" (they're not rare) is all due to a cartel named de beers controlling supply. They're common as hell, as noted, they're just compressed and heated carbon. These industrial uses are why we have these manmade diamonds in the first place. They're better than the originals as they're more consistent without imperfections. Just like modern steel would produce a katana infinitely better than folded crappy steel that the originals were trying to overcome.
babak_ap 8y ago
For those looking for a shiny gem that doesn't break the bank, check out Moissanite[1] jewelry. It's significantly cheaper, with a higher refractive index (Brilliance) [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moissanite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moissanite [2] http://diamondssuck.com/ http://diamondssuck.com/
- gwbas1c 8y ago
  My wife loves her moissanite ring. We looked at diamonds last year for some jewelry and she said that she wanted more moissanite jewelry instead!
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Cool! Check this out too (couldn't find the original link) https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/led-wedding-ring_n_3328292.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/led-wedding-ring_n...
jugg1es 8y ago
I am getting advertisements to buy a diamond ring in this article.
- mirimir 8y ago
  What are these "advertisements" of which you speak?
gesman 8y ago
It's not an investment - at least not the pieces bought from De Beers. Blue diamonds or rarity sold/bought at Sotheby's is. Stuff sold at retail after feeding long chain of middlemen at De Beers is not. Premium price is attached to the rarity occurring in nature + expensive post processing process, not to the intrinsic quality that is impossible to reproduce, because it is.
adventured 8y ago
It's interesting how De Beers successfully transitioned the cultural demand for diamonds over to China. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-18/diamonds-not-marriage-are-forever-for-china-s-millennials https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-18/diamonds-...
jakemor 8y ago
Full disclosure: my family is in the diamond business There are a few points I'd like to address: > Only by carefully restricting the supply has De Beers kept the price of a diamond high. This was the case a long time ago but not anymore. De beers seems to only have a 37% market share - not enough to control the market. [O] > Diamonds, however, are not an investment. The market for them is neither liquid nor are they fungible. Not entirely true. Diamond prices fluctuate and have appreciated in value over time, you just have to be savvy about it like any other investment. It's unfortunate that the markup on lower quality diamonds is so high but its largely due to a lack of knowledge on the consumer side. AKA do your homework and buy/sell from a wholesaler like abemor.com (wink, wink) > You might want one because it looks pretty or its status symbol to have a “massive rock”, but not because it will store value or appreciate in value. You can say the same thing about art. Diamonds are collectors items. To be continued... [0] = https://www.google.com/search?q=debeers+marketshare&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari https://www.google.com/search?q=debeers+marketshare&ie=UTF-8...
- joering2 8y ago
  37% is enough to control the market. > Not entirely true. Diamond prices fluctuate and have appreciated in value over time Which wife wants to wear a used diamond? You probably are in first-hand sale and you don't resale. Diamond are like new cars; the moment you take it off the lot, it loses 40% of the value. You coudl truly bring it next day to same seller and he will offer you 30-45% less simply because "I have to be honest and tell new buyer its been worn before". > You can say the same thing about art. Diamonds are collectors items. No you cannot say the same, as Diamonds are not art. While each diamond is unique, their uniqueness does not add enough to value in order to justify holding it as a collector items. Their uniqueness is equal to each $1 dollar bill being unique because each have unique serial number. Unless you keep very unique Diamond, majority of them will depreciate in value. Most art is unique from each other; I mean we just had few hundred millions bid on some popular paintings down at Rockefeller auctions; can you point me to any article when someone purchased diamond for X and sold it for Y, while Y > X ?
- intopieces 8y ago
  > largely due to a lack of knowledge on the consumer side. Every con in history is due to lack of knowledge on the side of the duped.
acou_nPlusOne_t 8y ago
I think one day - when we will have dimanond extruded from thick air by nano-robots, this craze over what will be "brick" for future generations will be incredibble alien to future generations. DeBeers and the likes of them will be the tulip traders of todays tulip-mania.
pascalxus 8y ago
I mean sure, you could buy something just as nice on ebay for 2$. but I imagine, your potential wife won't go for that. When I proposed to my wife, she specifically requested the diamond cost a minimum of X dollars. I was unprepared and I didn't negotiate. I would imagine most potential wives also have a minimum threshold. It's basically, your down payment on a marriage.
- joering2 8y ago
  And you didn't withdraw your marriage proposal when she requested that? Darn, good luck man and I truly mean that!
  - dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
    It's easy to say for us, but imagine a young man in love, dreaming about this wonderful future, with any things already arranged, and happy that the lady would accept his proposal. Maybe he planned to spend $1500 and he hears $2000. Breaking up at this point (frankly, you couldn't be together after withdrawing your proposal) might seem like petty ("Isn't your love fake then? Come on, it's just $500!") That said, I don't envy anyone being in such a situation. I see no easy way out.
    - joering2 8y ago
      So what you further saying, for $500 less, she wouldn't accept his proposition. Only $500 ? Good God!!
- Luc 8y ago
  Did she at least come with a dowry? I'm just continuously amazed this is happening in a modern, western society.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  I'm very sad to hear that. If she started asking for that even before you got married, I'm afraid her expectations will grow. This leads to unnecessary stress and is a cause of many problems, at home and at work, also health problems. I very much doubt she can change her character later on, even though I hope she does. As others, I wish you good luck in your life.
SAI_Peregrinus 8y ago
Diamonds are OK for jewelry. Moissanite is prettier (IMO) and cheaper. Diamonds are great for tools (single-point diamond turning is /awesome/[1], diamond is a great abrasive for non-ferric materials, etc). [1] http://www.nanotechsys.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Nanotech-HDL2000_HDL2000-HD-Specification-Rev-0914.pdf http://www.nanotechsys.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Nanote... (check out the feedback resolution on the X & Y axes. Then check out the maximum deviation from straightness: 0.75um/350mm X, 1.0um/500mm Y!!!) It's a lathe that can produce optical components like mirrors and lenses with no further grinding or polishing operations!

149 points by joering2 8y ago

This article always rubbed me the wrong way as it's practically a condensed rewrite of Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond?, published in The Atlantic in 1982. Much of this article is just quotes from the original. It bothers that the priceonomics.com author took someone else's work, repackaged it, and now people prefer reading & sharing the 'new' version rather than the long-form original.

scktt 8y ago
a link[0] to the original is helpful in your cause. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-yo...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ianai 8y ago
You’re not wrong. But this is somewhat how the modern era operates. An idea will simply not penetrate as far in an older, long form, printed media as it will in an online compressed format.
lquist 8y ago
Priceonomics is a YC company and I believe that posts by YC companies are highlighted to other YC founders, so that might be what leads to this article being upvoted on HN. I agree that it doesn’t make much sense when this is essentially content marketing that repackages a single, superior, primary source. Edit/Update: I was incorrect here. Please see children comments
- giancarlostoro 8y ago
  That's fascinating, I had no idea HN did this to specific users. I'm still wondering what the site looks like for a moderator / admin compared to a regular user and what kind of pages they've got etc.
  - wheels 8y ago
    All that's highlighted for YC founders are the nicknames of other founders. So we can see which posts and comments are from other YC founders, but there's no special annotation just for posts at YC-funded domains (in this case, there's nothing highlighted).
    - giancarlostoro 8y ago
      Fair and insightful I would say, when the parent comment mentioned it I figured it checked for the domain of a YC company or something, but this makes sense, as filtering for YC companies might just be a bit more work than it's worth considering you wont always be able to accurately mark every submission as relevant.
      - wheels 8y ago
        I believe the goal is explicitly not to skew things towards YC companies. The one special bonus that YC companies get is the ability to post job openings. The two posts from YC founders on the front page now aren't about startups at all.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kbenson 8y ago
To be fair, I believe this is being posted here again because the current top article is about De Beers, and there's reference to both this and the Atlantic piece throughout the comments of that. I would hope that pricenomics at least verified the portions they quoted as still accurate, which would make it more immediately useful, as the original is now some thirty-plus years old and things might have changed in small or large ways.

shmerl 8y ago

Just don't buy them, that's all.

tdiggity 8y ago

Has there been any retaliation against lab grown diamonds? Seems like they're starting to become a popular alternative.

tdiggity 8y ago
hah, missed the #1 link...https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17183603 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17183603
hndamien 8y ago
Yes, DeBeers built expensive machines to tell the difference and preserve their market. Oddly, the differences are that the synthetic ones are more pure. They also mark registration at the GIA and hide the records.

newnewpdro 8y ago

Doug Stanhope said it well here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCP40OfIi20&t=25m13s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCP40OfIi20&t=25m13s

wxuan 8y ago

This is an article from 2013

konceptz 8y ago

I agree wholeheartedly with this and the original article. I sold diamonds in college and really dislike the blood that goes into each and every one of them. Knowing a few of the arguments that fine jewelers might make, could you help me address? 1. You may pass the diamond to subsequent generation. 2. You may insure the stone at a high value, similar to artwork. 3. What other precious metals or otherwise might be considered to be used in a similar fashion? Gold/platinum is too heavy to adorn commonly as representative of wealth to our SOs. 4. Would removing the “value” of diamonds make them appropriately used for their hardness? Watch faces, etc.

ianai 8y ago
Platinum meets or exceeds all of those expectations. It’s even prettier, as it rarely reacts.
- dbasedweeb 8y ago
  As a bonus what reactions it does catalyze are valuable, making platinum of practical value as well!
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mitchty 8y ago
1. Manmade compressed and heated carbon is as passable to the next generation as the geologic kind. What is the issue here exactly? If anything its more awesome we can make our own and not rely on geological processes. 2. Why do I need to insure carbon? Its... carbon, super abundant, element 6. Present after the first generation of stars exploded in the universe. Are you investing in diamonds? They almost never go up in price, try reselling one or look at resale value before you worry about insurance. 3. What is the goal of this question? To show the Jones' that you have too much money and can pay the danegeld for authenticity? Before the 1940's diamonds weren't even a thing in marriage. If you could reproduce the Mona Lisa perfectly, would you pay N times as much for the original? Even if it was impossible to tell? Why is that so important? 4. Diamonds are already used for industrial uses, their "rarity" (they're not rare) is all due to a cartel named de beers controlling supply. They're common as hell, as noted, they're just compressed and heated carbon. These industrial uses are why we have these manmade diamonds in the first place. They're better than the originals as they're more consistent without imperfections. Just like modern steel would produce a katana infinitely better than folded crappy steel that the originals were trying to overcome.

babak_ap 8y ago

For those looking for a shiny gem that doesn't break the bank, check out Moissanite[1] jewelry. It's significantly cheaper, with a higher refractive index (Brilliance) [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moissanite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moissanite [2] http://diamondssuck.com/ http://diamondssuck.com/

gwbas1c 8y ago
My wife loves her moissanite ring. We looked at diamonds last year for some jewelry and she said that she wanted more moissanite jewelry instead!
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Cool! Check this out too (couldn't find the original link) https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/led-wedding-ring_n_3328292.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/led-wedding-ring_n...

jugg1es 8y ago

I am getting advertisements to buy a diamond ring in this article.

mirimir 8y ago
What are these "advertisements" of which you speak?

gesman 8y ago

It's not an investment - at least not the pieces bought from De Beers. Blue diamonds or rarity sold/bought at Sotheby's is. Stuff sold at retail after feeding long chain of middlemen at De Beers is not. Premium price is attached to the rarity occurring in nature + expensive post processing process, not to the intrinsic quality that is impossible to reproduce, because it is.

adventured 8y ago

It's interesting how De Beers successfully transitioned the cultural demand for diamonds over to China. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-18/diamonds-not-marriage-are-forever-for-china-s-millennials https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-18/diamonds-...

jakemor 8y ago

Full disclosure: my family is in the diamond business There are a few points I'd like to address: > Only by carefully restricting the supply has De Beers kept the price of a diamond high. This was the case a long time ago but not anymore. De beers seems to only have a 37% market share - not enough to control the market. [O] > Diamonds, however, are not an investment. The market for them is neither liquid nor are they fungible. Not entirely true. Diamond prices fluctuate and have appreciated in value over time, you just have to be savvy about it like any other investment. It's unfortunate that the markup on lower quality diamonds is so high but its largely due to a lack of knowledge on the consumer side. AKA do your homework and buy/sell from a wholesaler like abemor.com (wink, wink) > You might want one because it looks pretty or its status symbol to have a “massive rock”, but not because it will store value or appreciate in value. You can say the same thing about art. Diamonds are collectors items. To be continued... [0] = https://www.google.com/search?q=debeers+marketshare&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari https://www.google.com/search?q=debeers+marketshare&ie=UTF-8...

joering2 8y ago
37% is enough to control the market. > Not entirely true. Diamond prices fluctuate and have appreciated in value over time Which wife wants to wear a used diamond? You probably are in first-hand sale and you don't resale. Diamond are like new cars; the moment you take it off the lot, it loses 40% of the value. You coudl truly bring it next day to same seller and he will offer you 30-45% less simply because "I have to be honest and tell new buyer its been worn before". > You can say the same thing about art. Diamonds are collectors items. No you cannot say the same, as Diamonds are not art. While each diamond is unique, their uniqueness does not add enough to value in order to justify holding it as a collector items. Their uniqueness is equal to each $1 dollar bill being unique because each have unique serial number. Unless you keep very unique Diamond, majority of them will depreciate in value. Most art is unique from each other; I mean we just had few hundred millions bid on some popular paintings down at Rockefeller auctions; can you point me to any article when someone purchased diamond for X and sold it for Y, while Y > X ?
intopieces 8y ago
> largely due to a lack of knowledge on the consumer side. Every con in history is due to lack of knowledge on the side of the duped.

acou_nPlusOne_t 8y ago

I think one day - when we will have dimanond extruded from thick air by nano-robots, this craze over what will be "brick" for future generations will be incredibble alien to future generations. DeBeers and the likes of them will be the tulip traders of todays tulip-mania.

pascalxus 8y ago

I mean sure, you could buy something just as nice on ebay for 2$. but I imagine, your potential wife won't go for that. When I proposed to my wife, she specifically requested the diamond cost a minimum of X dollars. I was unprepared and I didn't negotiate. I would imagine most potential wives also have a minimum threshold. It's basically, your down payment on a marriage.

joering2 8y ago
And you didn't withdraw your marriage proposal when she requested that? Darn, good luck man and I truly mean that!
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  It's easy to say for us, but imagine a young man in love, dreaming about this wonderful future, with any things already arranged, and happy that the lady would accept his proposal. Maybe he planned to spend $1500 and he hears $2000. Breaking up at this point (frankly, you couldn't be together after withdrawing your proposal) might seem like petty ("Isn't your love fake then? Come on, it's just $500!") That said, I don't envy anyone being in such a situation. I see no easy way out.
  - joering2 8y ago
    So what you further saying, for $500 less, she wouldn't accept his proposition. Only $500 ? Good God!!
Luc 8y ago
Did she at least come with a dowry? I'm just continuously amazed this is happening in a modern, western society.
dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
I'm very sad to hear that. If she started asking for that even before you got married, I'm afraid her expectations will grow. This leads to unnecessary stress and is a cause of many problems, at home and at work, also health problems. I very much doubt she can change her character later on, even though I hope she does. As others, I wish you good luck in your life.

SAI_Peregrinus 8y ago

Diamonds are OK for jewelry. Moissanite is prettier (IMO) and cheaper. Diamonds are great for tools (single-point diamond turning is /awesome/[1], diamond is a great abrasive for non-ferric materials, etc). [1] http://www.nanotechsys.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Nanotech-HDL2000_HDL2000-HD-Specification-Rev-0914.pdf http://www.nanotechsys.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Nanote... (check out the feedback resolution on the X & Y axes. Then check out the maximum deviation from straightness: 0.75um/350mm X, 1.0um/500mm Y!!!) It's a lathe that can produce optical components like mirrors and lenses with no further grinding or polishing operations!