So I'd really like some explanation of this tidbit:
"According to the official news agency, ITAR-Tass, the diamonds at Popigai are "twice as hard" as the usual gemstones, making them ideal for industrial and scientific uses."
Oh really? I'm familiar with different crystal structure or impurities that can make some diamonds 10 - 25% harder than gemstone class diamonds but 100% harder? That is a new one for me.
And I agree with others a trillion carets of diamond where the largest crystal is .1 caret is not as big a deal where you get 1 - 10 caret diamonds in there as well.
"It is not a diamond. Hardness of this phase (lonsdaleite) 1.54 times higher than that of diamond,
and since we have here a nanosized crystallites of cubic diamond and lonsdaleite - it is very sticky matrix
that defines high performance Popigai impactites. Lonsdaleite share in some specimens can reach 70%, "- said the official.
Like most of the people in the artificial diamond industry, they either were bought out, threatened and changed their process, or were killed.
EDIT: Actually, looks like they went out of business. I'm betting execution didn't match promises.
Artificial gems that try to pass as "real" diamonds have to commit a lot of forgery, not just at the molecular level. Forging the mining certificates, the registration (with GIA, IGS, or other certification services) which actually look at when and where this diamond was mined, etc.
Even if you could perfectly recreate diamonds, you'd find very quickly that selling them for anything other than industrial purposes would be a huge challenge. Jewelers and distributors don't want to piss off DeBeers. Anyone showing up with any kind of volume and quality product that has gone "around" DeBeers somehow would raise far more suspicion than it's worth.
Source: I worked in the jewelry industry for 2 years, and we occasionally had people try and sell us unmarked/unrated diamonds. Totally not worth the trouble.
Gemesis is the company mentioned in the article and they still exist. You can buy lab diamonds from their website, even. Of course, they haven't transformed the industry because they are profit motivated, so they just sell their diamonds at 20-30% off rather than at their marginal cost to produce or something.
DeBeers only controls about 35% of the diamond market today, a far cry from the 80% of sales they controlled in the 1990s [1]. There are good reasons to avoid unmarked diamonds but posting of DeBeers isn't one of them.
>Russian scientists say the news is likely to change the shape of global diamond markets //
Now colour me skeptical but they admit to keeping it a secret to manipulate the diamond prices; what are the chances that they are overplaying the find for the same reason?
If you want to talk about manipulating diamond prices, just read about DeBeers - you would be hard pressed to manipulate any market more than diamonds.
I wouldn't buy a diamond if you paid me. Want to know the real value of a diamond? Try to sell it. Then I PROMISE you will know the value of a diamond.
As it turns out, diamonds fall into a particularly important category of objects which are both (A) Expensive to purchase, but simultaneously (B) Have little resale value.
It is these properties that make them ideal in the context of a marriage proposal. From a game theoretic position, it demonstrates serious intent on the part of the proposer, in that they can't afford to propose to many partners, while, at the same time, protecting (mostly) the proposer from gold diggers, as the person being proposed to will not be able to resell that ring to others.
People who buy diamond rings, therefore, are actually rational actors.
Let's discuss the requirements for an ideal marriage proposal gift:
1. Provides a physical, wearable symbol of commitment.
2. Is impossible to resell.
3. Represents a significant economic expenditure.
Mutual tattoos, for instance, satisfy 1 and 2 much better than diamonds, while compromising significantly on 3. But what 3 is really getting at is a demonstration of commitment, and on that count tattoos are even better. You might be able to scrape up more money to buy a ring and propose to another partner later, but unlike diamonds, tattoos really are forever.
The problem with diamonds is that, especially if you follow the old guideline that an engagement ring should cost two months' salary (!), they only demonstrate to a gold digger how much wealth she will be able to extort in the future. Besides, gold diggers will generally enjoy diamonds purely as a status symbol and will generally waste your money on dumb shit that's more similar to diamonds than, say, mutual funds. Her inability to resell the diamond doesn't really factor much into her consideration; the diamond already is what she wants, not the sentiment behind it or the economic power to spend your wealth any more sensibly than that.
Actually - I like the tattoo concept. In order for it to be effective, it's not that it has to "Represent a significant economic expenditure" - rather, it has to be something that makes it infeasible for the proposer to do many times. A large economic (for the proposer) commitment is one way of doing this - but tattoos (or better yet, branding/scarring) would be even better.
With regards to the problems with diamonds. Totally agree, I think they are absolutely stupid. In a reasonable/responsible world, the proposer would have to demonstrate the ability to provide material food/water/energy/shelter security. Now that, has "real" value to me.
But, I'm clearly not the target for an engagement ring.
> People who buy diamond rings, therefore, are actually rational actors.
Don't they stop being so once they are aware of the diamond market. Isn't it more rational at that point to pay off student loans or put a down-payment on a house?
If something that can be A) expensive to purchase and B) has little resale value is needed why not an expensive trip to Bora Bora? It fact it has 0 resale value because you only come back with pictures and a tan from it.
Regarding whether it would be more responsible to pay down student loans/down payment/pretty much anything other than a diamond - absolutely.
But, if your goal is to demonstrate commitment to the betrothal - the Diamond ring does the job.
The Diamond has the additional (and important) aspect of being a demonstrable and physical artifact of the proposers intent. Plus, it's sparkly.
The vacation doesn't serve our purpose as well, because the proposer will get significant utility value out of the trip. But you are on the right track.
Indeed - a lot of diamond knockers haven't really looked at a nice diamond in the sunlight. They are true wonders of light refraction.
In your vacation example - it's impossible for the casual onlooker to know that the tan and relaxed demeanour came from a trip to Bora Bora, rather than a golfing trip to Arizona. The important point for the diamond wearer is the the long-term appearance of having found someone willing to waste money on a useless item.
A large part of the use of the diamond is the social proof - any casual observance of the behaviour of females comparing engagement rings. Yes, it is totally irrational. Yes, it is manipulated by marketing. Yes, it is what it is. If you go mental at every irrational (as far as the purchase goes) act caused by marketing controlling social norms, well, you'll go insane. Human nature is obsessed with status symbols - always has and always will - these impulses are there for marketers to interpret and direct. Always have and always will.
Yes, it is totally irrational. Yes, it is manipulated by marketing. Yes, it is what it is. If you go mental at every irrational (as far as the purchase goes) act caused by marketing controlling social norms, well, you'll go insane. Human nature is obsessed with status symbols - always has and always will - these impulses are there for marketers to interpret and direct.
+1 ... HN is full of engineers who like to think that we are superior because we are not susceptible (ha!) to this irrationality. But of course we live in the human, social world, and it's good to understand these things, even if we seek to push back against them.
The value of a diamond is not its retail value nor its resale value, it's what it means to the recipient. Don't lose sight of the fact that we're here discussing this on the web, where people pay hundreds of dollars for downloads with virtually no marginal cost at all, and markets for unique services consist of a single provider arbitrarily setting prices for something that cannot be resold at all.
If I was going to get angry about diamonds, it'd be about the poor labor conditions of some mining operations, not the artificial value we attach to precious gems. If suppliers allowed diamonds to become worthless, we'd just find some other gift to symbolize what the cost of diamonds symbolize now.
> So, banks like barclays have been treating diamonds like money
Citation needed. Any appraiser with half a brain knows that diamonds' resale value is almost none. I'd be surprised to find a bank putting their money in diamonds. With toxic assets you'd have at least a chance of resale before the inevitable bust.
"Last September, Israel's major banks quietly informed the Israeli government that they faced losses of disastrous proportions from defaulted accounts almost entirely collateralized with diamonds. Three of Israel's largest banks—the Union Bank of Israel, the Israel Discount Bank, and Barclays Discount Bank—had loans of some $660 million outstanding to diamond dealers, which constituted a significant portion of the bank debt in Israel. To be sure, not all of these loans were in jeopardy; but, according to bank estimates, defaults in diamond accounts rose to 20 percent of their loan portfolios. The crisis had to be resolved either by selling the diamonds that had been put up as collateral, which might precipitate a worldwide selling panic, or by some sort of outside assistance from the Israeli government or De Beers or both. The negotiations provided only stopgap assistance: De Beers would buy back a small proportion of the diamonds, and the Israeli government would not force the banks to conform to banking regulations that would result in the liquidation of the stockpile."
"According to the official news agency, ITAR-Tass, the diamonds at Popigai are "twice as hard" as the usual gemstones, making them ideal for industrial and scientific uses."
Oh really? I'm familiar with different crystal structure or impurities that can make some diamonds 10 - 25% harder than gemstone class diamonds but 100% harder? That is a new one for me.
And I agree with others a trillion carets of diamond where the largest crystal is .1 caret is not as big a deal where you get 1 - 10 caret diamonds in there as well.