Relevant for those who did not read "Have you ever tried to sell a diamond? (1982)": "The diamond invention—the creation of the idea that diamonds are rare and valuable, and are essential signs of esteem—is a relatively recent development in the history of the diamond trade"
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...
Some people seem to feel that there is something wrong with marketing that makes you want a product or service.
As many people with an expensive luxury brand can tell you (whether it's a handbag or a car) nice things are often nice way beyond what they really are or what they tangibly provide. (And there is nothing wrong about that..)
Let's call it "the mother test". In other words if you gave a luxury car to your mother and she didn't know it was a Porsche Panamera Turbo how much pleasure would she derive out of it over a Toyota Avalon or a Cadillac CTS (relative to the price differential)?
Put another way if a woman gets a kick out of a Coach handbag how would she feel if the handbag was a very good (licensed) replica of the Coach instead of the real thing?
How many people with expensive Chef's kitchens derive pleasure out of them and actually don't even cook that much? And would rather have a kick ass Chef's oven rather than a GE oven? Just because the marketing has convinced them of value?
My point is simply they are happy spending the money and getting what they are getting and there is nothing wrong or deceptive about that practice.
For most people though they're only ludicrously faster than the other cars up to 35 (ok 40) or 65 (ok 80) miles per hour. Otherwise the number of cup holders is a more important spec than the handling and horsepower.
That said, I own a sports car despite being aware of this because I love driving it. It's much more enjoyable than an econobox even if that guy beats me to work owing to lane choice.
The car example doesn't hold up, since both the Porsche Panamera and the diamond provide: Status and Luxury Design, but the car also provides many tangible benefits:
Followup article(2012), "In 2000, De Beers Consolidated Mining Ltd. decided to rename its mining and raw diamond production branch, Diamond Trading Co., and maintain the De Beers’ name “to sell an exclusive brand of diamonds in soon-to-be-launched trendy De Beers stores”
I work at a company that helps companies sell their rough diamonds, so I've seen the seismic shift in the rough diamond market over the last few years. There's a common belief amongst those in our area - "the diamond industry has changed more in the last 5 years than it did in the previous 100". That's probably an understatement.
The decline in market share can't be understated on its effect on the diamond industry - DeBeers market share has gone from 90% to 40% in the past 10 years, and as a result, their pricing power has disappeared.
Before, DeBeers had a take it or leave it price - sight holders essentially had a choice to accept the price DeBeers offered, or basically go out business. Now, any company who wants to buy rough diamonds has the ability. Whereas most people here have commented that the prices of diamonds should decrease, on the contrary, prices have increased. More people have access to the diamonds - demand has exploded.
The decline in market power of DeBeers has been an exciting time in the industry.
If be happy to answer any questions - it's a fascinating industry.
> Whereas most people here have commented that the prices of diamonds should decrease, on the contrary, prices have increased.
Could that just be an effect of an already conditioned market? If I were to sell diamonds from my own mine, and they were moving at the prices De Beers set on their product, why wouldn't I keep my price high?
Interestingly, it's been theorized that DeBeers actually sold their rough diamonds below their monopoly price - to keep participants happy and not "rock the boat".
You don't "keep your prices high". Your prices reflect the market price now (whereas they didn't before). Auctions ensure that the market price is found by inviting a significant number of participants.
My prices can be whatever I want, I can price them under or over the market as I wish. I might not stay in business, but there are valid reasons for doing either.
For example, I want to beat my competitor. So why I don't I dump diamonds on the market at some ridiculous price and eliminate De Beers virtually overnight? Once I've cornered the market and have a monopoly, I can start to jack up the price again saying whatever I feel like (there's a new diamond shortage) and charge whatever people are willing to pay, which would hopefully be eventually close to what the market was paying before or even higher.
Or I might sell my diamonds at a price higher than De Beers and make some marketing claim that my Diamonds are only of the highest and rarest quality for <insert reason> and if I do a good job and am lucky get people to move up to my price. Or I might certify my Diamonds with a 100% money back guarantee within 1 year of purchase or some nonsense (betting that most people won't sell back their Diamonds that soon after purchase, but using that guarantee to justify the higher price) or whatever.
I can keep my prices at De Beers' high price or do whatever I want. The Market merely informs me of what will sell, defining the envelope of how I can manage my business to stay in business.
A challenger can't undercut an incumbent and drive them out of business. Who would finance such a move? And why wouldn't that financier back the incumbent instead? In reality, it's this opposite case that occurs. This practice is generally considered anti-competitive and illegal.
To have the supply and resources to do this would take years. You can't just code up a diamond business overnight.
Since the fixed costs and barriers to entry are so high, you would take on a ton of debt or issue shares just to get to this point. Your creditors and investors would demand that you start turning a profit. So you would have to sell at market price or higher.
Then you need to look at other barriers to dumping your product: Do any of the buyers have contracts with DeBeers that lock them in for the near term? Are there legal restrictions or trade agreements to prohibit you from dumping? Does DeBeers offer additional services or terms that keep merchants locked in beyond the price? etc...
Then, of course, you need to sustain the low prices long enough to drive DeBeers out of business, all while assuming DeBeers doesn't just match your prices and drive you out first.
Things like this are not done on the front page of HN very often, if ever.
The point is that there are significant barriers that prevent someone from just coming in and executing a "undercut the leader" pricing strategy. Especially if you are trying to "eliminate De Beers overnight", like you said in your previous post.
There's a barrier to entry in just about everything. If I wanted to start an electric car company, or a rocket ship business I'd be facing the same.
Overcome that barrier to execute on your chosen business strategy is how the world works. If you can't overcome the barrier then you can't execute. Simple as that.
Either you can raise capital and build up an inventory of diamonds or not. This isn't rocket surgery.
You asked: "Why didn't anyone just enter the market and undercut De Beers?". The answer for a long time was: "Barriers to entry, and low probability of success given the risks involved".
This has nothing to do with not understanding pricing strategy. I don't know what you are arguing about anymore.
It's done by companies with small barriers to entry - if you wanted to be a startup in the rough diamond world, you'd need billions of dollars in start up capital, and access to a mine that's producing diamonds, which aren't just lying around. Figure billions more to buy a mine. Even then, you might get 3% market share, not enough to meet demand or alter prices in any way.
> you'd need billions of dollars in start up capital
Two more points:
a) Considering a chat app pulled in billions of capital, it's not like there isn't billions of capital available. Now that I have such capital in hand, it sounds like I'm pretty well situated to make this a practical idea.
b) Why mine? Why not just grow? The diamonds are of better quality. Why can't I be the SpaceX of diamonds, start from first principles and build my own diamond growing tools, start mass producing 1-2 carat diamonds and dump them on the market. Set up regional diamond growing facilities each turning out thousands of diamonds a day, 24 hours a day. They'll be virtually indistinguishable from data centers, just huge warehouse like buildings next to readily available power substations. Since I have billions of startup capital, this is pretty feasible. Not only will I be mass producing diamonds, I'll be mass producing the diamond growing equipment, driving my per unit price down significantly.
Better yet, my diamonds will be of a higher quality than anything De Beers can dig out of the ground.
There's also plenty of companies outside of the internet app space that raise staggering amounts of money comparatively.
Mining is no different. Unless I'm independently wealthy, I'll likely need investors to execute on just about any business idea.
Ultimately any real goods business requires capital to get off the ground. I'm not going to just start digging a hole in my garage and bootstrap a diamond mine that will disrupt De Beers.
I don't really see how your first point follows at all. The capital required to fund the first 1.5 years of WhatsApp's existence was a mere 250K. Getting it to a $14B company took only $58M in outside investment. Do you really think investing in a diamond mining company would resemble that profile at all?
If you really can't see the difference between the investment risk in a mining operation to challenge a 90% marketshare conglomerate, vs an investment risk in a 50 person internet startup, I don't think there's a point in debating any further.
> Do you really think investing in a diamond mining company would resemble that profile at all?
So by this logic, anything that's not a high risk, high gain investment vehicle isn't worth the time? Better not tell the entire non-VC investment market that.
> If you really can't see the difference between the investment risk in a mining operation to challenge a 90% marketshare conglomerate, vs an investment risk in a 50 person internet startup, I don't think there's a point in debating any further.
De Beer's doesn't own 90% of the market anymore. They're vulnerable on two fronts, manufactured diamonds and diamond mines they don't own, both providing product at a lower price than they've traditionally commanded as a market monopoly.
More importantly, how exactly do you think new mines and new mining companies (of virtually any kind) form exactly? According to you, they're virtually impossible and we shouldn't ever see them. But we see them all the time. Mines are investments just like anything else.
But look, if you're going to just keep inflating perfectly normal business barriers that affect any kind of business into reasons why somebody shouldn't get specifically into the diamond business, then it's you who probably shouldn't get into the diamond business.
Somebody else with investment capital to burn sourcing product and building a market, like every other business in history, shouldn't let you get in the way.
I didn't say new mines and mining companies are impossible. I said new diamond mining companies are probably a very tough sell, for the reasons I gave. A new mineral without a highly concentrated competitive landscape, or which is extremely plentiful in multiple countries, is probably a much better investment.
Read the article. De Beers didn't lose market share to a new mining start up, they lost it because political issues caused certain partners to leave the cartel (especially the Russian and Australian mines).
It was only when the cartel was severely weakened that the newer Canadian mines were able to opt to sell their diamonds independently, at which point De Beers had already fallen to 50%. Even these mines are not startups: the Diavik mine is majority owned by Rio Tinto.
>>> But look, if you're going to just keep inflating perfectly normal business barriers that affect any kind of business into reasons why somebody shouldn't get specifically into the diamond business, then it's you who probably shouldn't get into the diamond business.
My point is that the barriers are harder for diamond mining than for other businesses, like chat apps in 2011. Dismissing the barriers for a highly capital intensive and risky industry with a small number of major players seems reckless and makes it hard to take your points seriously.
>>> Somebody else with investment capital to burn sourcing product and building a market, like every other business in history, shouldn't let you get in the way.
Nobody is standing in your way. Go build your diamond company. You don't need the permission of Hacker News.
A high quality diamond with GIA paperwork intact won't lose much value second hand. The problem with most retail rings is that they use low quality diamonds and sell at a large markup based in branding. Its like buying generic PC's at Best Buy. You'll lose a ton on resale even on a lightly used item. Not just because of the retail markup, but because there are thousands of SKU's which makes price discovery inefficient.
Because the person buying it new bought it overpriced. Real quality gemstones do not have a new/used stigma as long as they have the proper paperwork. There is some loss in price if they are set because the market shrinks as people see the new setting, they may have a different setting in mind. But people buy overpriced jewelry for the design or name or because they don't know the industry standards which is simply a GIA or similar certificate.
Ask your significant other if she wants a diamond that was owned by someone else before her.
In all seriousness, do not confuse the price of a rough diamond with the price of a polished diamond at a retail store - there's likely a 100% markup. If you were to trade in used rough diamonds, you'd find the price close to freshly mined rough diamonds (though the profit margin for the cutters/polishers is tiny).
The whole diamond industry is rotten to the core. Even the process of tearing up the ground to get at diamonds is a total waste of time, effort and the planet. Do a google search for "largest hole in the ground" and you'll see what a large diamond mine looks like. That's before we even start to consider blood diamonds.
Do everyone a favor and if you are considering buying a diamond as an engagement ring, have a chat with your significant other and see how they feel about lab created diamonds. They are cheaper and much higher quality and leave everyone happier all round.
Sadly there are too many otherwise wonderful women who suffer from the "diamond dogma" just many suffer from the other great marketing campaigns, such as Christianity.
If she suffers from this affliction, you could offer to donate the money to a well-researched charity as it would do more good there than as a status symbol on her finger. Her response may be illuminating.
Yea, exactly. I'm not suggesting you do it to be cheap and to save money. In fact I'm pretty sure most girls could think of something to do with the couple of grand you save, so why spend it on making people unhappy.
Hang on, De-Beers loses control of the diamond market and then the price goes up? This doesn't look like the market has started being rationally driven by supply and demand, this looks like someone even more nutty than De-Beers has successfully staged a coup.
It isn't always the cartel's goal to drive prices up. In the case of de Beers, they wanted price stability. They went out of their way to avoid increasing prices more than the desired amount at many points in the history of consumer diamonds.
There is no reason to believe that the price of diamonds at the time De Beers lost control was not at approximately what the market could bear, especially now that they have liquidated their supply-controlling stockpile. Growing demand from developing countries and speculative pressures that would not have existed before could certainly account for increasing diamond prices.
Demand has increased for many reasons - more companies have access to rough diamonds, Asian consumers (especially Chinese middle class) are becoming believers in the "a ring means engagement" marketing campaign, and the general improvement in the world economy has led to an increase.
The article attributes the increase in demand to Asia:
"De Beers liquidated their stock pile from 2000 to 2004, resulting in a modest decline in diamond prices as the liquidation supply more than offset new demand coming out of Asia"
Some of those high prices seem like the result of speculation, or people pouring their money into 'something physical' the same way that market volatility sometimes ends up with a rise in gold prices.
How can a diamond be "used"? I think it's only the person offering to buy it trying to convince you of this.
Diamonds are cheap and easy to appraise, and with laser etching easy to identify. I buy all my ice with AGL certs off eBay.
There are more degrees of freedom than with something like gold coins, so diamonds aren't fungible. It adds complexity but I don't think it hurts resale that badly.
If the resale market were so much cheaper, that's where everyone would buy their stones, right?
It's unclear if the graph is adjusted for inflation. If you consider currency inflation since 1987, and that graph hasn't adjusted for it, diamond prices may have gone down significantly.
It could be because DeBeers had the capability (and motivation) to carefully control and stabilize mining operations to keep supplies relative constant. In the absence of that careful control and mediation, if the supply is prone to wild swings the price would swing. I could envision a scenario in which uncertainty in the market for a desired item (without an alternative product) could result in a higher than average price due to speculation and nervousness about the supply.
Heck, I expected, as I'm sure everyone else, that the chart would show prices going down, not UP!?!
As others commented, crazy times for something of such little value...
What is not mentioned in this story is the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme that started in 2003. This was as a result of concern about 'conflict diamonds'.
Essentially, if you bought through De Beers then you had a 'conflict free' diamond, with a diamond from anyone else then you were taking your chances. Although the KPCS had noble intentions it also was a means of controlling the market.
Maybe that is why we had concern about 'conflict diamonds' in the first place - De Beers needed a new way of controlling the market and it ties in with a lot of the narrative presented here.
> Although the KPCS had noble intentions it also was a means of controlling the market.
De Beers used the film Blood Diamond with DiCaprio as a positive marketing tool (they bought advertising with it -- 'De Beers presents...'). It popularized the notion of 'conflict diamonds' and then they calm the fears of their customers with the certification mechanism. More importantly, it creates legal opening for countries to ban the trade in non-certified diamonds.
Are there reliable independent audits of DeBeers conflict-free claims, or are they just lying about it-- another facet of their monopolistic jewel of a business?
Ah, found it: KPCS only covers diamonds traded for weapons, it doesn't cover slave/child labor, environmental abuse, or any other crimes committed during mining for DeBeers diamonds.
Wait, but most of the competing diamonds are from Canada, Russia, or Australia, right? Wouldn't those be conflict-free more or less automatically? If De Beers tried to set prices at which you could sell certified diamonds, couldn't those competitors make their own certification that the majority of the diamonds would use?
I assumed this would have a significant effect on the supply since they indicated that they got over 150 carats simply by dragging a bucket across the sea floor.
> But before that, as the First of April passed into the Second, and then to the Third, our delight turned from scientific wonder, to greed, and finally to suspicion concerning the amazingly prolific haul of gems from the abyss.
Interesting, I wonder if this will ultimately lead to a competitive environment where prices decline due to competition? I've read it elsewhere before, but I believe diamonds are only "rare" due to strict control of what comes to market. Will be interesting to see if this affects that strict control.
This is especially interesting considering Tiffiany's earning reports this week which showed a substantial part of their post recessions profits is now in the low end consumer goods.
I personally think that the price of the diamonds is almost exclusively determined by the marketing success.
One very interesting bit in the article somebody's mentioned about De Beers story is that artificial diamonds are already cheaper than natural ones, and virtually undistinguishable. De Beer's response has been to produce machines than can distinguish natural diamonds from artificial ones.
My conclusion is that people who wants diamonds want simply something expensive, as status symbol. They don't want a shiny rock at the most reasonable price, otherwise, it wouldn't be a status symbol anymore.
If prices would fell, the perception of diamonds would change drastically, and I don't think that the industry (cartel or not) is going to allow that.
I agree. Synthetic diamonds are available and generally run about 25% less per carat than an equivalent quality natural stone. This pricing is high in view of the relatively low production costs.
Gemesis and other companies were successful in driving down the cost of capital equipment for making diamonds by the older high pressure, high temperature process. Chemical vapor deposition of high quality diamonds is well established and doesn't cost much at all.
Market pricing for aesthetic applications of diamonds continues to be only loosely related to cost of production. I think this will continue until the Maker movement decides it would be cool to have diamond doorknobs, at which point the price will drop to something more closely related to the cost of arranging sp3 bonds between carbon atoms under metastable conditions - i.e., not much.
As a producer of synthetic diamonds (http://d.neadiamonds.com), I can say the production costs for jewelry-quality diamonds are not as low as people seem to think. It is one thing producing brown/yellow diamond powder/grit for cutting tools, but is orders of magnitude more difficult growing a large single-crystal diamond colorless and clean enough to set into jewelry.
The capital equipment for HPHT and CVD are both still quite expensive. It is possible to find some used BARS presses for reasonable prices, but you will be hard-pressed to make a large colorless diamond with one of those machines, even if you know the right "recipe" to use. Gemesis has many of these BARS presses and they have only been able to produce orange yellows and to treat CVD material with them.
CVD does grow more crystals per machine cycle, but also has much higher labor, power and support costs than the latest generation of HPHT machines. CVD diamonds also typically grow as a brownish or grayish color and have to be HPHT-treated (different process than HPHT-growing, but can be done in the same machines) at additional cost to whiten them, healing defects in the crystal lattice.
The cost to grow a rough white diamond is generally comparable with the cost to mine one from the ground. From there, the cutting, grading, logistics and jewelry all cost essentially the same.
Lab-grown diamonds are a raw good, more similar to steel, than they are an assembled good, like a TV or laptop. There will certainly be more improvements along the way, but diamond synthesis only occurs under certain conditions defined by nature. Changing the crystalline structure of carbon is a bit more involved than heating up some filament for a 3D printer.
Thanks for your informative comment. I know less about HPHT diamond synthesis, and may not understand the cost structure of that technology as well as I would like.
I agree re the current high capital cost of CVD diamond synthesis equipment, but I'm pretty certain it need not remain so. For example, in microwave plasma assisted diamond CVD, significant slices of the cost pie are in the microwave power source and the deposition chamber. The former tends not to take advantage of 2.45 GHz consumer sources and is, I think, overpriced in $/Watt compared to what it could be with some additional electronic design work. The latter suffers because diamond microwave CVD chambers tend to be one-offs. Building them in hundreds or thousands would allow lower cost manufacturing technologies to be used.
Power costs are an issue, but there are ways of extending the lifetime of atomic hydrogen, which is a key cost determinant of CVD diamond. Labor costs will be reducible to the extent that CVD processes can be automated, which I regard as largely a matter of getting reproducible processes in hand. When you have a predictable process, you can automate it.
I concur it will be awhile before my Replicator 2 can spit out a diamond filament. But I think the current manufacturing cost of diamonds is far higher than what it might be. The missing link is somebody willing to fund the volume manufacturing process development.
> My conclusion is that people who wants diamonds want simply something expensive, as status symbol. They don't want a shiny rock at the most reasonable price, otherwise, it wouldn't be a status symbol anymore.
Right, until recently, it's been a hard to fake McGuffin. A small, highly portable thing you can point at to demonstrate wealth (or the appearance of wealth).
Destroying the diamond's ability be "prof of disposed funds" will be an unmitigated good for humankind. Only the louts in the diamond business will suffer, in proportion to how deeply they are tied to the vicious evil aspects of the enterprise.
Joshua Gans suggests setting up a way in which people can flaunt the fact that they've paid a very large amount of tax, as a way of taking this impulse for a status symbol and turning it to a positive social end. http://economics.com.au/?p=9958
This is especially interesting considering Tiffiany's earning reports this week which showed a substantial part of their post recessions profits is now in the low end consumer goods.
If the correlation holds, we can expect to see a lot more teal at Target.
It's a strange many party prisoners dilemma out there, that is so far without a lot of defections. When the primary and secondary markets join together then prices will come down quite a bit. Right now, taking a diamond out of the store cuts its value at least in half.
Or even if for cultural reasons the secondary market remains relatively unimportant, you'd expect prices to fall in the primary by quite a bit. Must say I'm surprised that it hasn't happened already. So far no defections seems like a reasonable guess, though I Googled for 10 seconds and couldn't find any further discussion of that guess.
If looking only at jewelry-quality diamonds, there are millions of carats of diamonds mined per year, while there are generally thousands of carats of diamonds grown per year. In that regard, lab-grown white diamonds are much more rare than mined diamonds. It will take billions of dollars in capital to have a diamond growing facility with enough capacity to output more jewelry-quality diamonds than a single large diamond mine (though I suppose that is less than one WhatsApp, so is within the realm of possibility).
The Wired article about synthetic diamonds from 2003 was full of hype and misconceptions. Most all synthetic diamonds grown today are not flawless, and that is not by design. However, in the last couple years lab-grown white diamonds have become much more available in normal jewelry-quality ranges:
http://d.neadiamonds.com/lab-created-diamonds/White-Diamonds
^ Disclosure: I'm an owner of D.NEA and have been selling jewelry-quality synthetic diamonds for many years.
Thanks for the additional input, EF. The disparity is much larger than I initially thought. In time, as methods & costs are refined, perhaps the ratio will shrink and reverse.
I also believe that is the article I was referring to... IIRC the 'white' conundrum was the big impediment to mass production... much like the recent breakthrough in LED tech's progression to white light.
Kind of rare, but not enough to justify the sort of price premium they demand, at least according to [citation needed]. Heck, it's probably the same source(a) the Grandparent post is thinking of.
Supply and demand is more of a guideline than a strict rule (as is almost everything in economics).
Monopoly pricing could result in lower than market pricing if 1) they have enough supply to satiate the market demand and 2) they want to continue to price any competition out of the market. By keeping prices lower they stop existing competition from being able to make a profit and they stop new competition from being able to justify the costs to start mining operations.
In other words, in a market that anyone can enter, a monopoly can establish a continued monopoly by ensuring that they are the sole supplier of goods in that market. If it becomes too profitable, then other competition will naturally start eating at your market share.
Note: I'm not saying this is what happened with DeBeers.
Diamond is used everywhere in tons of applications. It's especially useful in cutting and drilling of metal and stone. Although contra to the GP's point, industrial diamonds are in a completely separate market from gemstone diamonds and de beers' monopoly doesn't have much effect on that. You can find diamond tipped and coated tools at any local hardware store, for example, at quite reasonable prices.
Diamonds are also useful for cutting stones. Granted this was never much of a problem because one only needs to sprinkle the saw blade with tiny diamond fragments. Your local hardware store should have a shelf of diamond cutting blades.
Holy shit! No kidding! From wikipedia: "Monocrystalline synthetic diamond enriched in the isotope 12C (99.9%) has the highest thermal conductivity of any known solid at room temperature: 33.2 W/(cm·K)"
There's also some quantum computing applications, but that requires synthetic diamonds doped with some other elements, and in very thin sheets. The energy levels of the electrons around the impurities are the different states it can be in, and can be controlled by lasers.
Apart from the thermal properties mentioned already, and other more esoteric uses, they also happen to be really strong, and if we can scale up our manufacturing processes, they should become quite cheap as well.
Imagine all of the applications for a transparent material stronger than steel! We're a way off yet, but it's feasible.
On the gem side, the vast majority of people wearing diamonds would tell you they have utility.
On the industrial side, diamond is a fascinating material with physical properties at the extremes, e.g. hardness, thermal conductivity, electrical conductivity, etc etc. It is vital in many applications where there is simply no other material which could fulfil the physical requirements.
>>people wearing diamonds would tell you they have utility
Fashions change, yet people believe that diamonds have permanent value ('is forever'). In contrast to bullion, this is relatively recent development with little ties to traditional banking practices.
>>On the industrial side, diamond is a fascinating material
These can be made on demand, and cutting diamonds cost something like $1 per carat. Nobody is raging against the crystal lattice.
> Fashions change, yet people believe that diamonds have permanent value ('is forever'). In contrast to bullion, this is relatively recent development with little ties to traditional banking practices
No, actually diamonds (and other gems) have had artistic/cultural/symbolic value for as long as civilizations have existed. I.e. the "crown jewels", the "hope diamond" and more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diamonds
They simply do wonders with light and are aesthetically pleasing when well cut. Not to mention they are incredibly hard to destroy.
A completely arbitrary value that only requires a critical mass of women to being valuing some other arbitrary gauge of status as a surrogate. Consider how in the last few years owning Apple products has become its own perverse symbol of status, because Apple played an extremely effective rebranding campaign.
It's not arbitrary, though. Like all values, they are derived from an exchange. And to be fair, Apple's popularity is not only as a status symbol. For many people they provide a well-priced combination of features, sometimes extremely well-priced. A MacBook Air by any other company costs at least 50% more. If anything, your comment illustrates that Apple is saddled by their old reputation as having overpriced offerings, despite shifts of focus in their marketing campaigns.
This articles mentions current diamond prices and even shows a graph of prices over time. My understanding was that there has not been a real market for diamonds, and thus, nobody was able to show an accurate price.
Where is this price data coming from? Is there now a market where you can buy e.g. diamond futures contracts?
Wass just reading a _new_ article regarding debeers and how majority ownership has changed after near a century of ownership by one family.
Debeers plans to raise costs 5% ever yearn for at least next 10 years to hit profit targets. So they must be doing good if now majority of market undercuts them literally.
