6 ms·

The psychology of diamonds only works if you pay a lot for the stone. I would posit that synthetic diamonds fail for the same reasons that knock-offs like cubic

The psychology of diamonds only works if you pay a lot for the stone. I would posit that synthetic diamonds fail for the same reasons that knock-offs like cubic zirconiums fail. They don't deliver on the promise of the advertising. The advertising promises that your love can only be shown by spending a lot of money on this specific thing with these specific set of arbitrary selected attributes. E.g., it must come from the ground, and it must cost a lot of money, even if your only reward is that you can tell people you spent a lot on it and that it came from the ground. It's not rational; it's an emotional. Society has a tremendous emotional investment in the concept of the diamond engagement ring.

tsotha 14y ago
Yes, like gifts in many situations it's not what you buy that's important. It's what you spend.
eli 14y ago
Sure, but part of the point of the article was that the "created" diamonds could be made that are literally indistinguishable from those found in the ground. Seems like that has the potential to disrupt the diamond cartel's stranglehold on supply.
- bradleyland 14y ago
  In a practical sense, cubic zirconium stones are indistinguishable from diamonds as well. Unless someone breaks out a diamond tester, no one will be able to see the difference. Yet consumers continue to purchase real diamonds. If a much less expensive synthetic diamond were to enter the marketplace, it would have the same problem as a CZ. Anyone who purchases one would either have to be honest about their purchase, and therein lose the social status benefit, or lie about their purchase, in which case they might as well have bought a CZ.
  - eli 14y ago
    Perhaps you're right. But I bet a lot more people would be willing to lie about how "real" their diamond is if there was no way anyone could prove otherwise.
charlieflowers 14y ago
It's like believing in the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny, but for adults. What other manufactured fairy tales have huge quantities of humans swallowed hook line and sinker?
- salgernon 14y ago
  Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism etc.
- blaireaug 14y ago
  Gilette. During WW2, they didn't have anyone to sell their products to, so they started marketing shaving to women. Before this, a woman shaving was akin to claiming yourself to be a prostitute. Now, it's a cultural norm for women to shave...all because of manufactured desire.
  - eli 14y ago
    This sounds apocryphal. Women were shaving their armpits in the 1920s.
    - blaireaug 14y ago
      Sorry, WW1. I get those two mixed up all the time. And yeah, actually, it may be apocryphal, but here's why I believe it to be true. [1]http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/625/who-decided-women-should-shave-their-legs-and-underarms http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/625/who-decided-wom... "The gist of the article is that U.S. women were browbeaten into shaving underarm hair by a sustained marketing assault that began in 1915. (Leg hair came later.) The aim of what Hope calls the Great Underarm Campaign was to inform American womanhood of a problem that till then it didn't know it had, namely unsightly underarm hair." [2]http://history.barnard.edu/sites/default/files/inline/kirstenhansenthesis.pdf http://history.barnard.edu/sites/default/files/inline/kirste... "In July of 1915, the first Gillette razor for women came on the market. But where Gillette had responded to a clear void in the men’s hair removal market, he now faced the dilemma of promoting to a market that did not yet exist. Hence Gillette was responsible for introducing to American women the revolutionary concept of shaving." [3]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1542-734X.1982.0501_93.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1542-734X.1982....
juan_juarez 14y ago
If they were cheap, people would still buy them because they are incredibly pretty stones. The social aspect of diamond engagement rings would fall apart but they wouldn't go away. Come on - even if you're against the industry and everything they stand for, a large, well cut, diamond under the extreme lighting of a jewelry store counter is a beautiful thing.

tsotha 14y ago

Yes, like gifts in many situations it's not what you buy that's important. It's what you spend.

eli 14y ago

Sure, but part of the point of the article was that the "created" diamonds could be made that are literally indistinguishable from those found in the ground. Seems like that has the potential to disrupt the diamond cartel's stranglehold on supply.

bradleyland 14y ago
In a practical sense, cubic zirconium stones are indistinguishable from diamonds as well. Unless someone breaks out a diamond tester, no one will be able to see the difference. Yet consumers continue to purchase real diamonds. If a much less expensive synthetic diamond were to enter the marketplace, it would have the same problem as a CZ. Anyone who purchases one would either have to be honest about their purchase, and therein lose the social status benefit, or lie about their purchase, in which case they might as well have bought a CZ.
- eli 14y ago
  Perhaps you're right. But I bet a lot more people would be willing to lie about how "real" their diamond is if there was no way anyone could prove otherwise.

charlieflowers 14y ago

It's like believing in the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny, but for adults. What other manufactured fairy tales have huge quantities of humans swallowed hook line and sinker?

salgernon 14y ago
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism etc.
blaireaug 14y ago
Gilette. During WW2, they didn't have anyone to sell their products to, so they started marketing shaving to women. Before this, a woman shaving was akin to claiming yourself to be a prostitute. Now, it's a cultural norm for women to shave...all because of manufactured desire.
- eli 14y ago
  This sounds apocryphal. Women were shaving their armpits in the 1920s.
  - blaireaug 14y ago
    Sorry, WW1. I get those two mixed up all the time. And yeah, actually, it may be apocryphal, but here's why I believe it to be true. [1]http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/625/who-decided-women-should-shave-their-legs-and-underarms http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/625/who-decided-wom... "The gist of the article is that U.S. women were browbeaten into shaving underarm hair by a sustained marketing assault that began in 1915. (Leg hair came later.) The aim of what Hope calls the Great Underarm Campaign was to inform American womanhood of a problem that till then it didn't know it had, namely unsightly underarm hair." [2]http://history.barnard.edu/sites/default/files/inline/kirstenhansenthesis.pdf http://history.barnard.edu/sites/default/files/inline/kirste... "In July of 1915, the first Gillette razor for women came on the market. But where Gillette had responded to a clear void in the men’s hair removal market, he now faced the dilemma of promoting to a market that did not yet exist. Hence Gillette was responsible for introducing to American women the revolutionary concept of shaving." [3]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1542-734X.1982.0501_93.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1542-734X.1982....

juan_juarez 14y ago

If they were cheap, people would still buy them because they are incredibly pretty stones. The social aspect of diamond engagement rings would fall apart but they wouldn't go away. Come on - even if you're against the industry and everything they stand for, a large, well cut, diamond under the extreme lighting of a jewelry store counter is a beautiful thing.