[rayiner]

The punchline is the second to last paragraph:

> Today, De Beers hold on the industry supply chain is less strong. And yet, price continue to rise as new deposits haven’t been found recently and demand for diamonds is increasing in India and China. For now, it’s less necessary that the company monopolize the supply chain because its lie that a diamond is a proxy for a man’s worth in life has infected the rest of the world.

So the monopoly is gone, prices are rising because of fixed supply in the face of increasing demand, but diamonds are still bullshit because their value is based on a consumer irrationality.

I hate to break it to the guy, but half of the consumer economy is built on irrationality (and half of silicon valley is built on advertising that irrationality to consumers). Pretty much every luxury good is purchased for signaling reasons. Paying more for a diamond with a particular clarity grade or color isn't any less irrational than paying more for a top-end BMW, even though you'll never take it over 60 because of all the traffic.

[samjordan2]

There are very real and noticeable differences between a $30k and $90k BMW other than top speed.

There are NOT noticeable differences between a $30k diamond and a $3k moissanite stone. A better analogy would be $100 "professional HDMI cable" and a $10 standard HDMI cable.

[city41]

> There are NOT noticeable differences between a $30k diamond and a $3k moissanite stone

My wife and I felt the same way too, until we actually compared them. The sparkle and brilliance in the diamond was dramatically better than any other stone we compared it to. We went into ring shopping pretty determined to not get a diamond, and yet still bought one.

[pen2l]

Which stones did you compare it to? The stones available in the shop? That's the problem -- there are cheaper alternatives that have a shine comparable to diamonds, but not very widely available in brick and mortar stores. You were kind of had by salesman gimmicks.

[delg]

This is rich. The whitest moissanite is still going to be obviously doubly refractive, pretty limited in cut options (make terrible step cuts for example) and is generally an inferior substitute to the vastly cheaper common CZ. If you are upset that the value of diamond is all in branding, then run to moissanite, which actually IS sold exclusively by a monopoly until this August...

[samjordan2]

Do you know what double refractive is? How can it be "generally inferior" and also have more sparkle?

[delg]

What's the end goal for a diamond simulant? To be sparkly, or to resemble naturally-mined diamond?

[pekk]

My compliments to the salesperson.

[samjordan2]

That is great that you like the product that you bought.

[oppositelock]

However, to many women who grew up in the US, there are huge differences between the two stones. One is a diamond, the other isn't. There's a cultural expectation here about diamonds that's pervasive, and women who say that diamonds don't matter and actually believe it are rare. My now wife was actually willing to go along with a no-diamond ring, but she was clearly bummed, so I ended up finding a diamond that never went through DeBeers hands (but still cost a lot due to their influence)

[hueving]

No there aren't. The majority of the people can't tell the difference between a man made diamond and a natural one. Most people can tell when they are in a super car instead of a Honda civic.

[rhino369]

Moissanite has a slightly yellow color. Many diamonds do, but they are cheaper for it. It's essentially a K on the color scale of diamonds. It "shines" better but suspiciously so. I probably couldn't tell between a moissanite and a cheap diamond, but I could tell it's not a good diamond.

Lab diamonds aren't really cheaper than natural unless you are talking about pure shit quality or really tiny ones.

[silencio]

Moissanite doesn't even get that expensive. My 1ct stone was $400, and I compared it to $300 low quality white sapphire all the way to $15k loose diamonds of a similar size when shopping.

I think the biggest problem is that most people have not seen moissanite in person, and don't realize that it can compare very favorably (if not more so) to a diamond. Glad to say I've managed to sway a couple of my friends so far on that front ;) Here's some pics: https://www.flickr.com/photos/chix0r/sets/72157637715040063

[delg]

It certainly is sparklier, but it looks "off." Which is fine. It's not a good diamond substitute. It has its own charm.

[jobu]

Even worse is what De Beers has done to try making synthetic diamonds inferior to "natural diamonds" - https://news.internetstones.com/de-beers-iidgr-holds-synthet... (They designed a special machine to make the synthetic diamonds fluoresce under certain wavelengths of UV light.)

Personally I think a synthetic diamond is better than a natural one, but IFLS.

[delg]

I don't think it's better yet, but it's getting there. The cost is still super high, what's available on the market hasn't been great cuts so far, etc. Soon though.

[bduerst]

Not really. There isn't a cultural significance to owning a $100 Monster cable (other than signalling you are probably not tech savvy).

[delg]

Honestly I am not sure how you can't tell the difference between moissanite and diamond. It's pretty obvious. It's much harder to distinguish diamond and CZ.

[superuser2]

Top-end BMW is more fun. Better-sounding speakers, more comfortable seats, snappier response (not unlike SSD vs HDD seek time), etc. You might not get above 60 in the city but if you want to have fun you can take it out to the country and hope you don't get a ticket

[jklinger410]

Thank you for illuminating this for everyone.

[superuser2]

Expensive cars have benefits to the driver which are not related to other people's perception. The same cannot be said of diamonds.

[delg]

That's a pretty narrow definition of "benefit."

[nosuchthing]

Irrational luxury goods, particularly expensive shiny objects are a great way to signal a person who's money exceeds their pursuits past simple consumption and hording.