5 ms·

Diamonds on Demand

14 points by prakash 18y ago

mynameishere 18y ago
Hopefully they will make the production as cheap as that of glass, thereby destroying the despicable diamond trade forever.
- rms 18y ago
  Right now the jewelery grade diamonds are about 1/4 the price of evil diamonds. They don't have much of an incentive to make the jewelry grade diamonds cheaper. I suspect that even if diamond production gets to be almost as cheap as glass the price of diamond jewelery will still be inflated.
  - marvin 18y ago
    Not a chance. Given diamonds the same price of glass, you can bet that in three months you could buy cheap (and tasteless) diamond jewelry in the same stores you can buy cheap (and tasteless) glass jewelry. Diamonds look better than glass, so why not use the real thing? There will always be markup for good design, but cheap design is cheap. Most diamond pieces would be much cheaper. The instinct of demonstrating class with expensive jewelry will not go away, however. Some other material will take the place of diamond - maybe some alloy of rare metals. Or maybe new luxury brands will arise, with a 30,000% markup on some quality, (well-)designed piece, maybe or maybe not containing diamonds. This is, of course, assuming that diamond reaches the price of glass, which I strongly doubt that it will. Last, in response to the OP, it is not the diamond trade which is the main problem. It is people doing evil things to one another. Just as crushing one monopoly will not end the practice of monopolies, crushing one evil empire will not end the practice of evil empires. Just wait 20 years and some evil trade will pop up in some other place. This focus on one particular phenomenon is counterproductive, because it blinds us to the general principles behind it.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  A manufactured diamond is not a mined diamond, and it never will be. A manufactured diamond cannot help but lack the authenticity of a mined diamond, even if the two cannot be told apart. It is where a luxury comes from -- not what it ends up being -- that is important in determining its value.
  - pchristensen 18y ago
    It is the story people believe -- not the truth of the situation -- that is important in determining value. If DeBeers can convince people that manufactured diamonds are inferior (and believe me, they will), then diamonds will become like wine or coffee, with connoisseurs who know where the diamonds came from, depth and geologic history, mining conditions, etc. People will brag about how much they paid to signal wealth, since a diamond will no longer be inherently expensive.
    - wallflower 18y ago
      An extended family member knows a diamond dealer in NYC. Everything they do is based on trust - million-dollar handshake deals. If man-made diamonds of this high quality were brought into this tight network, I believe you would be shunned and excluded. "The De Beers diamond advertising campaign is acknowledged as one of the most successful and innovative campaigns in history." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond#History
    - hugh 18y ago
      DeBeers marketing department are geniuses, but they can't perform miracles. Nobody, as far as I know, buys luxury goods which are absolutely indistinguishable from cheaper versions. A $300 bottle of wine tastes somewhat better than a $10 bottle. A $5000 watch is better crafted than a $50 watch. Paying big money for a luxury good only impresses people when they can tell it was expensive without you _actually_ telling them. Ideally the expense will be non-obvious unless you're in the know (which is why rich guys like wearing fancy watches instead of big heavy gold chains around their necks) but there has to be a nonzero difference.
agentbleu 18y ago
diamonds are common but the monopoly (De Beers) control the supply and nobble the compertition.
- eru 18y ago
  I heard that, too. Do you recall any sources?
StrawberryFrog 18y ago
The value of diamonds will eventually crash when the manufacturing process becomes widespread enough. The raw material, carbon, is cheaply available. The scarcity is an engineering problem, which is being solved.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  The scarcity is an engineering problem, which is being solved. But scarcity is what makes mined-diamonds valuable. http://www.google.com/search?q=exclusivity+luxury http://www.google.com/search?q=exclusivity+luxury How did you get the idea that diamond-scarcity is a problem?
  - StrawberryFrog 18y ago
    Diamonds being scare and high-priced is not a problem for DeBeers, no. But it is for most other people who would like cheaper diamond for jewellery or for industrial/consumer uses. Wouldn't you like a iPhone with a screen of solid clear diamond? It would be hard to scratch. IMHO, DeBeers and the perception of diamonds as scarce and valuable can only stand against engineering progress for a limited time.
jmackinn 18y ago
This article reminded me of a Wired article I read years ago. After a quick look I found this: The New Diamond Age - http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html Some lines in the Smithsonian article are almost word for word right out of the Wired one which seems slightly odd. Either way, a very interesting topic.

14 points by prakash 18y ago

Hopefully they will make the production as cheap as that of glass, thereby destroying the despicable diamond trade forever.

rms 18y ago
Right now the jewelery grade diamonds are about 1/4 the price of evil diamonds. They don't have much of an incentive to make the jewelry grade diamonds cheaper. I suspect that even if diamond production gets to be almost as cheap as glass the price of diamond jewelery will still be inflated.
- marvin 18y ago
  Not a chance. Given diamonds the same price of glass, you can bet that in three months you could buy cheap (and tasteless) diamond jewelry in the same stores you can buy cheap (and tasteless) glass jewelry. Diamonds look better than glass, so why not use the real thing? There will always be markup for good design, but cheap design is cheap. Most diamond pieces would be much cheaper. The instinct of demonstrating class with expensive jewelry will not go away, however. Some other material will take the place of diamond - maybe some alloy of rare metals. Or maybe new luxury brands will arise, with a 30,000% markup on some quality, (well-)designed piece, maybe or maybe not containing diamonds. This is, of course, assuming that diamond reaches the price of glass, which I strongly doubt that it will. Last, in response to the OP, it is not the diamond trade which is the main problem. It is people doing evil things to one another. Just as crushing one monopoly will not end the practice of monopolies, crushing one evil empire will not end the practice of evil empires. Just wait 20 years and some evil trade will pop up in some other place. This focus on one particular phenomenon is counterproductive, because it blinds us to the general principles behind it.
DabAsteroid 18y ago
A manufactured diamond is not a mined diamond, and it never will be. A manufactured diamond cannot help but lack the authenticity of a mined diamond, even if the two cannot be told apart. It is where a luxury comes from -- not what it ends up being -- that is important in determining its value.
- pchristensen 18y ago
  It is the story people believe -- not the truth of the situation -- that is important in determining value. If DeBeers can convince people that manufactured diamonds are inferior (and believe me, they will), then diamonds will become like wine or coffee, with connoisseurs who know where the diamonds came from, depth and geologic history, mining conditions, etc. People will brag about how much they paid to signal wealth, since a diamond will no longer be inherently expensive.
  - wallflower 18y ago
    An extended family member knows a diamond dealer in NYC. Everything they do is based on trust - million-dollar handshake deals. If man-made diamonds of this high quality were brought into this tight network, I believe you would be shunned and excluded. "The De Beers diamond advertising campaign is acknowledged as one of the most successful and innovative campaigns in history." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond#History
  - hugh 18y ago
    DeBeers marketing department are geniuses, but they can't perform miracles. Nobody, as far as I know, buys luxury goods which are absolutely indistinguishable from cheaper versions. A $300 bottle of wine tastes somewhat better than a $10 bottle. A $5000 watch is better crafted than a $50 watch. Paying big money for a luxury good only impresses people when they can tell it was expensive without you _actually_ telling them. Ideally the expense will be non-obvious unless you're in the know (which is why rich guys like wearing fancy watches instead of big heavy gold chains around their necks) but there has to be a nonzero difference.

agentbleu 18y ago

diamonds are common but the monopoly (De Beers) control the supply and nobble the compertition.

eru 18y ago
I heard that, too. Do you recall any sources?

StrawberryFrog 18y ago

The value of diamonds will eventually crash when the manufacturing process becomes widespread enough. The raw material, carbon, is cheaply available. The scarcity is an engineering problem, which is being solved.

DabAsteroid 18y ago
The scarcity is an engineering problem, which is being solved. But scarcity is what makes mined-diamonds valuable. http://www.google.com/search?q=exclusivity+luxury http://www.google.com/search?q=exclusivity+luxury How did you get the idea that diamond-scarcity is a problem?
- StrawberryFrog 18y ago
  Diamonds being scare and high-priced is not a problem for DeBeers, no. But it is for most other people who would like cheaper diamond for jewellery or for industrial/consumer uses. Wouldn't you like a iPhone with a screen of solid clear diamond? It would be hard to scratch. IMHO, DeBeers and the perception of diamonds as scarce and valuable can only stand against engineering progress for a limited time.

jmackinn 18y ago

This article reminded me of a Wired article I read years ago. After a quick look I found this: The New Diamond Age - http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html Some lines in the Smithsonian article are almost word for word right out of the Wired one which seems slightly odd. Either way, a very interesting topic.