
Diamonds Are Bullshit - joering2
https://priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bullshit
======
tristanj
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.

~~~
lquist
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
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
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
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
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.

------
babak_ap
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
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
Cool! Check this out too (couldn't find the original link)

[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/led-wedding-
ring_n...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/led-wedding-
ring_n_3328292.html)

------
jakemor
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...](https://www.google.com/search?q=debeers+marketshare&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-
us&client=safari)

~~~
joering2
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 ?

------
jugg1es
I am getting advertisements to buy a diamond ring in this article.

~~~
mirimir
What are these "advertisements" of which you speak?

------
SAI_Peregrinus
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/Nanote...](http://www.nanotechsys.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/08/Nanotech-HDL2000_HDL2000-HD-Specification-
Rev-0914.pdf) (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!

------
konceptz
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.

~~~
mitchty
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.

~~~
y4mi
I was with you until the last point...

> _Just like modern steel would produce a katana infinitely better than folded
> crappy steel that the originals were trying to overcome_

That's not an undisputed fact.

There has been a lot back and forth about the lost knowledge of previous
generations and the romans supposedly used a superior cement which we can no
longer replicate.

but to stay closer to your example: while the smelting of the metal has seen a
lot of study, that doesn't mean that we're able to produce a superior katana.

You also need the smithing -- and need to figure out how the metal should be.
That's of course possible, but hasn't really seen much study. So while we
could theoretically produce an infinitely better katana -- thats not practical
because of the money investment to figure out what that actually means.

Most enthusiast say that current katanas are at best on par with the old ones,
often sub-par.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
> the romans supposedly used a superior cement which we can no longer
> replicate.

Could you recommend a related source I could read more about it from? It seems
not that complicated to do a chemical analysis of the cement still existing in
many Roman constructions.

~~~
y4mi
it seems my information was outdated...

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17186124](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17186124)

------
pascalxus
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
And you didn't withdraw your marriage proposal when she requested that? Darn,
good luck man and I truly mean that!

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
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
So what you further saying, for $500 less, she wouldn't accept his
proposition. Only $500 ?

Good God!!

------
gesman
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
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-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-18/diamonds-
not-marriage-are-forever-for-china-s-millennials)

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

~~~
hndamien
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.

------
acou_nPlusOne_t
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.

------
newnewpdro
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
This is an article from 2013

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

