[exitb]

To an engineer's eye this might make sense, but the significant cost of a diamond is actually the very point of buying it. And it's hardly an odd thing - the history of human civilisation is littered with examples of spending for the sole purpose of being able parade the purchase.

[kristiandupont]

I'm reminded of this tweet: "it's actually crazy we figured out how to grow real diamonds that are cheaper and better quality than the real thing and so many people are still like, no thanks the suffering is what makes it special."

https://twitter.com/missmayn/status/1612892354624786444?lang...

[ghayes]

I don’t love that tweet because it’s not the suffering, but the fact the diamonds were naturally grown in the Earth. Put another way: why would anyone buy sea salt when can we produce pure NaCl?

(This is not to say you can or should ignore the suffering caused by the diamond industry)

[shiroiuma]

Sea salt is NOT pure NaCl; that's the whole point of eating sea salt! It has significant quantities of other minerals, such as calcium chloride and potassium sulphate. That's why sea salt tastes so different from regular table salt.

The reason people buy sea salt (made by evaporating seawater) or table salt (made by mining deposits left from prehistoric seas), is because no one produces these things artificially. There's no good economic reason to do so when you can just dig it up or dry out some seawater: making it artificially would be more expensive.

The same economics don't work for diamonds, for various reasons.

[f1shy]

What about lux watches? A 3 dollars Quarz Casio can beat any hand made Rolex in precision… but still some buy it. And in between there are all kinds of possibilities.

[smcl]

The point of the tweet is slightly different from what you're making though. Your comparison would be valid if the artificial diamonds were somehow cheaper-looking while otherwise performing as good if not better than natural diamonds for use-cases where aesthetics don't matter (drill bit tips, or what have you). But that's not the case, the artificial ones look exactly the same - maybe a jeweller could inspect them and say "ah this one is artificial, I think".

They also mention suffering, which seems kind of hard to measure but I think it's relatively well known that natural diamonds are saddled with a fair bit of baggage in that regard (slave labour, conflict diamonds, things of that nature).

You can't easily map this onto luxury watches, but it'd be like if you could buy a watch that was indisputably a Rolex, was "equal" in aesthetic appeal to its equivalent Rolex while being cheaper and didn't involve whipping the watchmaker who built it or something. And maybe a few watch afficionados with special knowledge of serial numbers could inspect it and go "ah this one was made without whipping the watchmaker"

Thing is, there are inexpensive watches that are well-regarded within the watch community though: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/a-seventy-five-dollar-watc...

[viciousvoxel]

A high quality mechanical watch, aside from being a beautiful object from an artistic and engineering perspective, tends to be a significantly better store of value than diamonds (vs natural diamonds especially)

[Retric]

The original purpose of such gifts was exchanging something of actual value like land not supporting a massive marketing campaign pushing a tradition as fake as Happy Honda Days.

Synthetic diamonds have already destroyed the big shiny rock as a display of wealth, but the marketing continues.

[omnicognate]

I don't think that's news to the author, but even on those terms it's not a great purchase to "parade" if its visually indistinguishable from something with a fraction of the price.

[exitb]

Some people buy expensive watches, even though there are visually indistinguishable clones on the market. I still don't think that a fake Rolex makes for a great gift.

I don't really want to advocate for diamonds here. I hate that it's mined at the expense of human welfare. I just want to point out that this article is 17 years old and not much has changed since it was written. Maybe it's not a compelling take?

[Mordisquitos]

> I still don't think that a fake Rolex makes for a great gift.

Arguably moissanite is not analogous to a fake Rolex. Rather, it is analogous to an elegant and good quality watch of a non-luxury brand. To that extent, I think that a good Swatch, Seiko or Casio wristwatch can make for a great gift.

[exitb]

I wear a Seiko watch. Never, ever was it mistaken by anyone for a Rolex or any other luxury brand. Meanwhile, the whole discussion around moissanite, including the linked article, is centred around how it makes a better diamond than an actual diamond.

[Mordisquitos]

In that case I think the root of the disagreement is our understanding of the role of a diamond as a gem on an engagement ring versus the role of a Rolex as an elegant and good quality wristwatch.

If the diamond's function is to be long-lasting, beautiful, and satisfy the expectations in certain cultures of a gemstone to symbolise one has committed to marry a certain person, then moissanite is a cheaper alternative to an actual diamond which is just as good (or arguably better, in terms of beauty). The same goes for a Rolex. If its function is to look good and be a dependable timekeeping instrument, then many other watchmakers can be a perfectly valid and less expensive option.

However, if a diamond's only function in an engagement ring is to prove that one's partner has spent a large amount of money to commit to marriage, then of course moissanite would indeed be analogous to a "fake Rolex". But then the whole idea of finding an alternative to diamond engagement rings due to the disproportionate price of diamonds would be to beg the question — there cannot be an alternative, for the very purpose of an engagement ring would be to spend a stupid amount of money.

[jtbayly]

Not really. It’s that it’s a better hard, clear crystal gemstone.

It could easily be argued that your Seiko makes a better watch than a Rolex.

What people are looking for and value in the product will make the argument more or less compelling.

One of those things they might value is the similarity to some other well-known, valued product.

Moissanite apparently looks like a diamond but better. I could say the same about a number of watches in comparison to Rolex.

[pzs]

It took the diamond industry several decades (and huge investments) to build their carefully crafted public image that translates into diamond purchases nowadays. These efforts are still in progress today. I am not sure if there are similar powers and interests behind the moissanite industry to match that.

There appears to be some cultural change happening around smoking. It is very slow despite the proven causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer. The tobacco industry is working hard to ensure they can continue to operate and transition to products that are (at least perceived to be) less harmful to people. However, the speed of this change does not appear to be driven by the severity of lung cancer threat, but by the lobbying power of the tobacco industry that ensures they don't go out of business while the transition is happening.

[RandomLensman]

It is probably true as far as retail engagement rings and certain smaller jewelry etc. is concerned, but rich and powerful people liked and valued diamonds way before that long marketing campaign.

[tecleandor]

I think watches can be a bit different... At least expensive watches retain more of their value, or even go way up in the case of Rolex.

It's true that for some, a big appeal of a good watch is the "implementation" or the mechanics or electronics that go inside, or the craft on creating it. And others use watches more as jewellery.

But there's always somebody that use them to "show off": while some people will buy a "neat" Seiko, Tudor, or even Rolex, there's always one Cristiano Ronaldo that will buy the 2 million dollar gem covered version, or the tourbillon whatever.

BTW, today there is people commercializing fake Rolex (and others) of a quality so high that even experts have difficulty distinguishing them from the originals. Apparently they're sold under the excuse of protecting your assets: keep your very expensive Rolex on the bank, bring this replica to the party. And they're not cheap, I think I've seen them for around 2k or 3k euro.

[BlueTemplar]

I would love to buy one of the Ankythera watches, but since only 4+20 have ever been made, it's way out of my price range...

https://www.gphg.org/horlogerie/en/watches/antikythera-sunmo...

[johnnymorgan]

People using watches as a store ify value is more a commentary on the state of fiat financial networks.

A Rolex has scarcity value, and can act as a deflationary asset is what's at play there.

I do believe they are having a correction right now as the luxury market starts to bottom.

[hilbert42]

"I think watches can be a bit different... At least expensive watches retain more of their value, or even go way up in the case of Rolex."

Buying old Rolex watches is cult activity a bit like buying Elvis's shoes or such at auction for many thousands of dollars—although the latter is likely rarer and ultimately might be of historical interest in centuries to come. Same goes for other engineered products such as old Leicaflex cameras that have sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars when equally engineered high quality products from the same era are simply junked as these days they are perceived to have no value.

It mystifies me why people are so enamored with this stuff. There's nothing special about an old Rolex except they were likely near the best of breed when manufactured, but they have little intrinsic historical value nowadays in that they were very unlikely to contain new technology that altered the course of mechanical engineering at the time they were made. They have never had the historical or technical importance of Harrison's remarkable chronometers which did alter the course of history.

Let me illustrate with an example: I own two of the first cavity magnetron developed during WWII that went into production and is credited with giving the Allies a huge technological advantage over the Axis Powers. Moreover, they are band new in their original cartons and in better condition than the one in this display model: https://www.theiet.org/membership/library-archives/the-iet-a.... (Background info: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260521102_The_Cavit...)

This is truly an historical device that altered history and changed technology—it made centimeter RADAR possible when desperately needed in WWII and it's the forerunner of the device in every microwave oven around the world—yet they're not worth a pinch of shit when compared with an old Rolex—even though there are precious few used ones still in existence (let alone brand new ones in original packaging).

Seems to me, like diamonds, the outrageous values of an old Rolex come from cleaver marketing to the gullible and to those with more money than sense.

Edit: years ago I bought a fake Rolex in Bangkok for about $20 as a joke, it actually kept reasonably good time and looked reasonably genuine—at least it did from a few feet away.

[tecleandor]

Oh, that of course. I'm not in the "showing off jewelry" nor the "speculating with Rolex" business. I was talking more to the "but diamonds are also an investment" side. I'm more into technique and curiosity and I'm more than delighted by my Casio, Seiko, Vostok... I even have a fake Omega too :)

I find devices as your magnetron quite interesting, BTW.

[hilbert42]

Re magnetrons, there's a bit of a story behind how I acquired them. Those devices would hardly ring a bell with many electronics people, even those who recognized them as such likely wouldn't think they were important from an historical stance.

When I was a kid I used to rat old WWII surplus radio/radar gear for parts and whilst I never came across any of that first generation of magnetrons I'd seen photos of them in books on radar.

Many decades later I was helping someone move an old aircraft engineering works of WWII vintage that manufactured parts to a new location. It was not only crammed full of machine tools, lathes, milling machines, metrology equipment etc. but just about everything under the sun. For example Singer sewing machines of about 1880s vintage, uranium glass wine glasses, Arts and Crafts Movement lamp shades, oil lamps, old glasses, tons of old magazines, old chemical lab equipment and bottles of partly-used reagents, half-used cans of aircraft paint, wooden aircraft propellers from 1930s etc., etc., including dead rats were among the many thousands of different items—all piled up to the gunnels. One could hardly move and it was dangerous as one could be injured on junk, sheet metal offcuts, piles of sharp swarf and such—if you've ever seen those TV programs on hoarders you'd get the picture.

Anyway, those magnetrons were amongst literally tons of junk destined for the tip and it's just a very lucky fluke that I spotted them. I'd never seen one for real before but I instantly recognized them for what they were. It was a most fortuitous find.

The owner of the factory couldn't have cared less about them and they'd almost certainly have ended up in landfill if I hadn't spotted them. How these magnetrons originally ended up there was that his father who originally owned the factory was a compulsive auction goer and bought huge loads of military disposals at auction after the War.

[RandomLensman]

Signalling value is real and not related to gullibility. (There is a lot of costly signalling by animals as well.)

[hilbert42]

I'd argue that signalling honed by eons of evolution is significantly different to signaling dictated by fashion, it has evolutionary purpose, and it may be costly.

Fashion is fickle and can change quickly. Diamonds weren't really fashionable until De Beers started its Diamonds are Forever campaign decades ago; same with jeans, they didn't become a fashion statement until the 1950s when James Dean, Marlon Brando et al appeared in them in movies.

That type of signalling is only effective after marketing and often—but not always—has little beneficial outcome other than to benefit those who started the fashion or craze, and it's usually the gullible and or susceptible who pick up and run with such signals. In, say, the 1950s, unless you were a manual laborer or a gang member, it wasn't respectable to wear jeans. Back then, those who wished to become gang members—a la the 1950s Rebel Without a Cause — would follow the jeans/leather jacket dress code of the gangs, others would consider those who did as 'greasers' and or possible criminal elements.

In many instances signalling can be missed altogether especially so those who are not its intended recipients, and when it's recognized its effects aren't always positive. Whenever I see someone wearing a Rolex I think 'pretentious bastard, clearly you aren't sophisticated enough to wear another classy watch that would equally signal your intent but not show you up to be a dork'.

[iteratethis]

Even the act of parading in general is questionable in its effectiveness. What is the intended goal? That somebody has a more favorable view of you? I don't think it does that, at all.

[lovepronmostly]

That's true. Just like people by Gucci, LV, D&G etc. I was in a Prada store once and they were selling an acrylic keychain for $800. There was nothing making the chain better than any other chain except you could show off your Prada chain and I guess hope other people would know you had money to blow.

[stared]

It makes sense to waste resources on purpose (e.g. buying overpriced gemstones), at least from the evolutionary perspective - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle.

Yet, the world would be better if the same amount could be burnt on something with better externalities. If jewelry, then hand-made one.

[quickthrower2]

Diamond were the original cryptocurrency

[quickthrower2]

A synthetic diamond for the price of a natural one and the rest goes to a good cause would be great. Some kind of certificate of authenticity to go with it.