| ▲ | hn_submit 3 hours ago |
| The market for natural diamonds will cease to exist when you can buy lab-grown versions for a couple bucks. They wanted to differentiate between natural and lab-grown versions with the former being much more expensive. But that train has left the station since there's little to no difference in quality between the two. In fact, I once predicted there'd be huge scams where lab-grown ones would be repackaged and sold as natural ones and that would ruin customers' trust in natural diamonds. But it now seems that isn't going to happen because customers are voting with their feet and leaving natural diamonds behind. |
|
| ▲ | willsmith72 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > there's little to no difference in quality between the two Lab grown can be way better quality. To me it was a no-brainer considering the ethical concerns, then add in the cost difference. The only argument I've heard for natural is "I like the imperfections". Sounds like brainwashing to me. They're chemically identical The mining industry should die |
| |
| ▲ | kstrauser 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I personally find lab grown much more beautiful, in that they’re an amazing accomplishment of mankind’s science and technology. So a tree got squeezed underground until it turned into a crystal? Cool, I guess, but big deal. Humans learned enough about how matter works to recreate those conditions at industrial scale? That’s amazing! I’d much rather wear a monument to our cleverness than a dinosaur mashed under a rock. | | |
| ▲ | msisk6 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I've never been that interested in gemstones of any sort, but my understanding (from geology classes decades ago) is that natural diamonds on the surface of the earth result from some rather exotic processes. First, they form deep down in the mantle around 100 miles down. The only way they get up here is through rare and violent high velocity eruption events that bring mantle material up to the surface. Most are very old, too; greater than a billion years old. I don't recall the source of the carbon they're made from, but it's certainly not any sort of organic material like coal or dinosaurs. ;) Or I could be totally wrong. I really have no interest in these things beyond the geology behind them and it's possible the science has uncovered new stuff since I last studied them. Likewise, I have no idea how these synthetic diamonds are being made nowadays, but I bet that's pretty cool, too. | |
| ▲ | andrewflnr 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is a more honest and realistic take than most on the thread. Note that either way it's the provenance behind the gem that you find attractive, much more than any instantaneous quality of it like chemistry, lack/presence of defects, etc. It's the story. | | |
| ▲ | kstrauser 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s not only that. Lab diamonds are superior in every way I’ve heard of. The emotional appeal of their provenance is the sole remaining reason I’ve heard people claim that slave diamonds are superior. I contend that they’re worse there, too. In fact, the only reason I can imagine someone preferring mined diamonds is that they genuinely value the human suffering that goes into them. | | |
| ▲ | Skunkleton an hour ago | parent [-] | | If you ignore the ethical issues, and you shouldn't (!!!), there is an appeal to mined diamonds, and it is exactly what you say above. The idea that some dinosaur or tree or whatever got mushed down is really interesting too. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | burnished an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Duder the tree thing is also pretty cool - but yeah also requiring a certain level of clarity after that just feels like gacha bullshit |
| |
| ▲ | eagerpace 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Which is absolutely hilarious given they spent decades "teaching" consumers about imperfections and how you can pay more to avoid them! | |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maybe the lab enshittifiers can add imperfections! Win, win! | | |
|
|
| ▲ | Loughla 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My spouse lost the main stone on their ring. We were able to get another that was twice the size and WAAAY better clarity and quality for about half of the price of the first one. It's astonishing that it has taken this long to have this kind of impact. |
|
| ▲ | mulderc an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I knew someone who was an economist for a major jewelry company and he said ~15 years ago that the writing was on the wall that lab grown diamonds were going to decimate their sales. He wanted them to start promoting them and be the more ethical and green alternative. He did not last long there. |
|
| ▲ | xyzelement an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I am sure the market will be smaller but I don't think it'll go away. I would segment the "diamond ring" market into two: those who "feel obligated" to give/receive a diamond ring because of peer pressure, and those who genuinely find some meaning in the idea of an expensive engagement token. Personally I thought I was in group 1 but turns out in my own life I am group two. So it never appealed to me to get a lab ring, and I know my wife would be put off by it. Meanwhile my best friend and his wife got the same size lab stone for somewhat cheaper and are happy with that. Group 1 and that's great. So yes I agree with you the market will shrink because those who were never inherently interested in a high value stone will all go for lab - but perhaps the diminished supply of natural stones (this story) will keep the value of them higher for those who care. |
|
| ▲ | newyankee an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If anything, much later than what I anticipated it would take. One place where one has to appreciate Chinese scale. |
|
| ▲ | bsoqk 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The market for natural diamonds will cease to exist when you can buy lab-grown versions for a couple bucks. Just like the luxury watches market ceased to exist when you could buy quartz watches for 10 bucks. |
| |
| ▲ | cjbgkagh 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well the privet to luxury was due to quartz watches taking their core business, and now Chinese superclones are in the early days of threatening their luxury business. At a certain point it’s hard to care about the residual difference. | | | |
| ▲ | Loughla 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Except in this case, the quartz watches would be better quality than the luxury watches I'm not sure your analogy has teeth. | | |
| ▲ | literalAardvark 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The quartz watches are (way) better at time keeping. And the rest is just a matter of paying for luxury. The main reason the analogy doesn't really help is that the mechanical watch market absolutely cratered, and it's only being propped up by enthusiasts of cool machines. Diamonds can't really have that. They've already scammed the general population into using slave diamonds at monopoly prices for 30 years longer than they needed to, but no one is _passionate_ about slave diamonds. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's a poor analogy because mechanical watches and quartz watches aren't perfect substitutes and aren't purchased for the same reasons. Everybody's phone keeps better time than a watch; absolute accuracy isn't the exclusive measure. Lab diamonds and mined diamonds are literally identical products. | | |
| ▲ | Der_Einzige 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Now a days the imperfections themselves in the rings are what are valued in natural diamonds. People from India, thailand, Myanmar etc have not and probably won’t for a very long time abandon a strong preference for natural diamonds, regardless of how much “better” the lab grown ones are. This is a textbook case of “worse is better”. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | x0x0 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| there goes their veblen goods... |
