• 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?

Sharpening knives?

ETA: Okay. That's more "diamonds" than diamond, but...

If they were cheap, it would also be great fun to set them on fire.
 
Last edited:
Ivor the Engineer said:
What use is a diamond to the average person beyond what could be achieved with glass?
Click to expand...

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.

4514d64383db0875.jpg

 
Modified said:
Let us consider ccz instead of glass then.
Click to expand...

Herd mentality. CZ has the reputation of being a cheap alternative to diamond (which it is), which in turn means that if you consider "expensive" to be a good thing, then diamonds are better.

Of course, this is circular : diamonds are valuable because they're valuable. But such is the power of advertising; I could make the same statement about Beanie Babies or whatever the collectable fad of the week is.
 
Modified said:
Let us consider ccz instead of glass then.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_zirconia

According to Wiki:

Cubic zirconia versus diamond

There are a few key features of cubic zirconia which distinguish it from diamond:

  • Dispersion: With a dispersive power greater than diamond (0.060 vs. 0.044) the fire of cubic zirconia is more prismatic.
  • Hardness: Cubic zirconia has a rating of approximately 8 on Mohs hardness scale vs. a rating of 10 for diamonds.[3]
  • Specific gravity: a cubic zirconia will weigh about 1.7 times more than a diamond of the same size.
  • Flaws: Contemporary production of cubic zirconia is virtually flawless, whereas most diamonds have some sort of defect, be it a feather, included crystal, or perhaps a remnant of an original crystal face (e.g. trigons).
  • Refractive index: Cubic zirconia has a refractive index of 2.176, compared to a diamond's 2.417.
  • Cut: Some cubic zirconia gemstones are cut with facet shapes that differ from those typically used for diamonds. This difference would be visible under close inspection with a loupe.
  • Color (or more precisely, the lack thereof): Only the rarest of diamonds are truly colorless, most having a tinge of yellow or brown to some extent. By comparison, cubic zirconia can be made in most cases entirely colorless: equivalent to a perfect "D" on diamond's color grading scale.
  • Thermal conductivity: Cubic zirconias are thermal insulators while diamonds are among the most efficient thermal conductors, exceeding copper. This makes telling the difference between diamond and cubic zirconia quite easy for those with the right instruments.
Click to expand...
 
Because women will do stuff if you give them diamonds.
I don't really care why they like 'em.
 
ben m said:
Because de Beers ran an ad campaign in the 1930s and 1940s to plant the idea that diamonds are rare, valuable, and glamorous.
Click to expand...
And because De Beers has a vertical monopoly in the market, it can keep the prices artificially high. Unless, of course, you prefer blood diamonds. :p
 
Read "Scarlett Letter". Hester names her daughter Pearl, because she cost everything Hester had. So no, diamonds weren't as valuable as gems earlier.

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.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So Diamonds weren't valuable before the 1930s?
Click to expand...
For the most part: Not as valuable. For a while, they were quite rare.

But then: There was a huge boom in diamond discovery and recovery, which would have devalued them all quite a lot, if not for the marketing campaign.

Captain_Swoop said:
Cullinan Diamond? Koh-i-Noor Diamond?
Click to expand...
There are some specific diamonds that might be worth a fortune. Even when most of the others were not.

It's similar to stamps: Almost all of them are completely worthless, today. But, that doesn't mean there aren't a few specific ones, out there, that are worth a fortune.

Though, I don't think diamonds were ever completely worthless. It's just that their value is greatly inflated, these days.
 
Wowbagger said:
Though, I don't think diamonds were ever completely worthless. It's just that their value is greatly inflated, these days.
Click to expand...
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. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom