• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why do we value diamonds?

Well, industrial diamonds are also increadibly useful. They ARE the hardest naturally occurring substance (at least, in quantities large enough for mass production), making them extremely important in things like weapons manufacturing.
 
Dinwar said:
Well, industrial diamonds are also increadibly useful. They ARE the hardest naturally occurring substance (at least, in quantities large enough for mass production), making them extremely important in things like weapons manufacturing.
Click to expand...

Does anybody have a nice comparison of the prices of synthetic diamonds vs. mined for industrial applications?

I suspect it's much easier, and thereby cheaper, to use an industrial process such as CVD to produce a diamond film on metals (in order to manufacture, say, a cutting tool from such a product) than to process mined diamonds.

One can also use such techniques to produce gemstone like crystals from scratch. Might be better than to sift through mined diamonds, say, for optical applications. But is it cheaper?
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
So Diamonds weren't valuable before the 1930s?

Cullinan Diamond? Koh-i-Noor Diamond?
Click to expand...

Things are considered valuable if the demand is high and the supply is low. Ultra-large gemstones have always had a tiny supply (they're rare) relative to the somewhat larger number of buyers (the ultrarich).

But regular diamonds---the sort that zillions of people have on rings---are basically not very rare, and prior to 1930 were likewise not particularly valuable---no more so than emeralds, rubies, etc. Production has increased since then, so today there are billions and billions of natural diamonds in circulation. Minus the de Beers advertising, there wouldn't be anything resembling a demand for that many small diamonds, so they would be pretty cheap.
 
Vorticity said:
What use is a newborn baby?


That's right, the same as the use of a diamond: It can be fired into the chest of an attacking Gorn.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/4514d64383db0875.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Mythbusters debunked that.


Sorry but your spoiler is wrong. The reason is in my spoiler.
 
Where I think debeers really scored is with the 3 months salary thing. Think about it, it will scale to every budget and also scales with inflation. What kind of crazy nutbar person spends 1/4 of a years wages on a friggin bauble? It doesn't make sense no matter what your income is. If you are poor wasting 3 months on that is insane. If you're rich wasting that much money is insane. Either way, it's insane.

Now keep in mind I like jewelry (and watches in particular). I have no problem with people spending their money on what they want and buying nice stuff. But seriously people priorities do have to be set...
 
Dinwar said:
Ivor the Engineer: From a minerological or industrial standpoint those are good arguments. From a jeweler's perspective, they aren't. The average person won't know any of that, nor will they care.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. The hardness thing is actually very important. Diamonds are virtually impossible to damage through normal wear and tear, since there are very few materials that can scratch them. That's a big reason for preferring them over other gems in jewellery that will be worn often, and one that the average person often cares about. Of course, whether it's actually enough of a reason to justify such high prices is a different matter.

rjh01 said:
Sorry but your spoiler is wrong. The reason is in my spoiler.
Click to expand...

Really? You think Mythbusters debunked the idea of using babies as projectile weapons?

NewtonTrino said:
If you're rich wasting that much money is insane. Either way, it's insane.
Click to expand...

Why? If you have enough money that spending that much doesn't affect your way of life, how is it insane to spend it? You could argue that it's selfish, but being selfish is hardly insane.
 
NewtonTrino said:
Where I think debeers really scored is with the 3 months salary thing. Think about it, it will scale to every budget and also scales with inflation. What kind of crazy nutbar person spends 1/4 of a years wages on a friggin bauble? It doesn't make sense no matter what your income is. If you are poor wasting 3 months on that is insane. If you're rich wasting that much money is insane. Either way, it's insane.
Click to expand...

Maybe de Beers started it, but society as a whole has latched onto it pretty uglily. When we were planning our wedding and looking for basic advice (to-do lists, lead times, etc.) on the web, I was shocked to find a whole industry's worth of spend-spend-spend messages. "You must plan on spending at least $50,000 on a wedding. Following our clever money-saving tips may get you down to $30,000. If you want a cheaper wedding---well, I suppose you can have an filthy freegan hobo 'wedding' at City Hall, but you don't want that for your special day, do you?." You should have seen the jewelry sales clerk when we told her we weren't getting a diamond.
 
According to a friend of a friend an engagement fell apart once when the woman found out the diamond in her ring was synthetic and not mined out of the ground. Her fiance was able to do this because he had a friend that worked with synthetic diamonds so he had a jeweler put it in. He didn't lie about it either he just didn't say anything to see if she would notice. Then when he did break the news to her she freaked out and claimed he didn't actually love her.

Or so the story went.
 
ddt said:
Yes, but that's because De Beers and subsidiaries control the whole chain from mining up to (but excluding) the jewelers. A jeweler can't even buy the one or other individual diamond; De Beers' distributors offer them a lot consisting of diamonds of varying quality, so that in the end, they sell everything they have down the chain.

Historically, De Beers has also controlled a great majority of the mining. The great exception were the Soviets, but the played along - nice way to get hard currency. :)
Click to expand...

They don't control the worlds biggest mine though: The Argyle in Western Australia, owned by Rio Tinto.
 
NewtonTrino said:
Where I think debeers really scored is with the 3 months salary thing. Think about it, it will scale to every budget and also scales with inflation. What kind of crazy nutbar person spends 1/4 of a years wages on a friggin bauble? It doesn't make sense no matter what your income is. If you are poor wasting 3 months on that is insane. If you're rich wasting that much money is insane. Either way, it's insane.
Click to expand...

De Beers scored big with that, but also with the "A Diamond Is Forever" campaign: it wasn't just a slogan. Here are a few early ads from this series. As I point out in the posting, De Beers
Me said:
used this campaign to establish in the public consciousness that a diamond wasn't money: a diamond was emotion, was commitment. You'll notice this recurring element in all these ads: you're not just buying a diamond, this is your diamond. That's why your diamond has to be bought from a jeweler representing De Beers. It can't be an after-market diamond, a pawned diamond, a re-sold diamond, a used diamond. "A diamond is forever" -- and you don't want your marriage represented by someone else's used, pawned, re-sold "forever," do you?
Click to expand...

De Beers also, and quite inadvertently, invented the concept of getting "engaged to get engaged" by promoting the notion that an engagement wasn't simply an agreement to marry: the diamond was the engagement. No sparkly thing, no engagement -- only a promise to get engaged, someday, when he can afford the chunk of carbon.
 
Cuddles said:
I don't agree. The hardness thing is actually very important. Diamonds are virtually impossible to damage through normal wear and tear, since there are very few materials that can scratch them. That's a big reason for preferring them over other gems in jewellery that will be worn often, and one that the average person often cares about. Of course, whether it's actually enough of a reason to justify such high prices is a different matter.
Click to expand...

Whether that's true or not, it's still nonsense. At least, if you're buying a diamond set in, say, gold. The gold will damage very easily and will even lose you your diamond. How unscratchable the diamond is in comparison to, say, a ruby seems irrelevant in comparison.
 
The one point of diamonds, (apart from industrial and other practical uses): to be the McGuffin in heist movies.

It is a very practical plot device with something that carries great value even at a small volume/weight. (Personally, I prefer when the McGuffin is information of some sort. Or cake.) Other than that? I don't like them, or the possible implications they come with.

Just as I'm not too keen on Panda-fur or Orphan Tear Martinis either. Just not my scene. It's not as if I can tell one bling from another anyway. I kinda like amber, but I don't wear jewelery, so what do I know?
 
whatthebutlersaw said:
The one point of diamonds, (apart from industrial and other practical uses): to be the McGuffin in heist movies.

It is a very practical plot device with something that carries great value even at a small volume/weight. (Personally, I prefer when the McGuffin is information of some sort. Or cake.) Other than that? I don't like them, or the possible implications they come with.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the old Bond film remade as Gateaux are Forever.
 
Last Christmas, when I was at work, the women who sat around me asked me what I got my girlfriend for Christmas. I told them that I got her a pound of her favorite coffee, an in-game World of Warcraft pet (and a month-long game card) and I did a new magic trick I made up for her.
They were stunned that I didn't get her jewelry or diamonds for Christmas. One woman actually said "That's fine if that what she wants, but it's Christmas and she's your girlfriend, you have to get her some kind of jewelry or diamonds or something. You're lucky she's so nice because I'd be mad if I didn't get jewelry or at least a diamond pendant or something."

It was very upsetting to find out that to some people, your worth as boyfriend is measured not in how much you know your girlfriend and give her what she wants, but how shiny the rock is that you gave her.

Ivor, my friend, in answer to your question, I can only say "I don't know why, but it makes me sad."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom