Bought my wife a big old man made diamond necklace in the early 2000s from an ad in Popular Science. She was aware but loved it. She especially liked when other women would ask her if she was afraid to wear it out, for fear of losing it. Best $70 I spent.
At this point you’re not paying money for a diamond, you’re paying money for a certificate.
If you want to know how much a diamond is really worth, go to any jewelry store and ask them to appraise the resell value of your natural diamond ring with certificate and all, no matter how much you paid for it, they’re probably going to tell you only the precious metal setting is worth any money, and the rock itself is utterly worthless the second you received it.
Which makes diamond a terrible symbol for love.
Considering more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, maybe a worthless symbol is fitting.
Initially inflated and overwhelming, then completely ordinary with little value beyond how you feel about it.
“See, our love is just like a diamond: Turns to coal under high pressure and to smoke when heated.”
Diamonds turn to coal under pressure? I thought it was the other way around. i.e. formed from coal under high pressure.
The fact diamonds can burn is pretty crazy, but it makes sense since they’re mostly (entirely?) carbon.
Edit: Sorry for ruining your otherwise perfect analogy :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
A Veblen good is a type of luxury good, named after American economist Thorstein Veblen, for which the demand increases as the price increases, in apparent contradiction of the law of demand, resulting in an upward-sloping demand curve. The higher prices of Veblen goods may make them desirable as a status symbol in the practices of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure. A product may be a Veblen good because it is a positional good, something few others can own.
That said, part of the problem with lab-grown diamonds is that they’re not competing against a rare commodity. They’re competing against a powerful vertically integrated cartel. There isn’t any real diamond shortage, just a supply-side monopoly. There isn’t a natural high demand for diamonds, just a market saturated with aggressive advertising. There isn’t a wholesale diamond exchange judging the rocks objectively on their quality, just a series of elaborate marketing gimmicks and scammy sales goons trying to upsell you.
Diamonds have always been a racket. The one blessing of manufactured diamonds is that they’re no longer a racket putting market pressure on industrial grade diamond equipment. But the jewelry exists to separate gullible superficial status-fixated people from their money. Ethics was never part of the equation.
Best comment that I also hated reading all month.
So the answer is just to buy a lab-grown diamond, and then tell everyone it’s real, because once the poors have it, it won’t be cool anymore
The issue is he cartel. Telling people “I overpaid for a blood diamond” and flashing them your big rock does nothing to undermine the cartel in the long run.
Cool-ass economics fun fact, hell yeah
or not so fun
The dismal science
I like diamonds, my wife calls me a magpie. I buy her jewelry so I get to look at it while she wears it. That being said, I only buy jewelry with artificial diamonds for my better half. She jokingly reacts affronted when I tell her, with an incredulous face she will go “What? No children died for this? Some husband you are!”
That’s an adorable nickname
Your wife sounds absolutely lovely.
Use to work opposite a De Beers building that had a helipad on the roof. Choppers were always flying in and out.
Thought it was the CEO coming and going by heli, but turns out they were for diamond shipments. Safer to transport them by air than on the road.
It’s actually the diamond industry that keeps pushing that narrative as -obviously- they want to be the sole supplier
It was weird to me, when I was looking for rings and jewelry that there are gems that have a higher brilliance and luster than diamonds (and unlike super-fancy bright glass is actually robust enough for typical use). And yet, the folks that want diamonds want diamonds. Since around 2016 after seeing the Mnuchins in the news, it felt like conflict diamonds and slave-mined diamonds are in.
it’s the suffering that makes them special.
I want to buy a synthetic gemstone that is impossible to be formed naturally. I’m sure there’s at least a few.
Moissanite (Synthetic Silicon Carbide):
While natural silicon carbide (moissanite) does exist, it is extremely rare and is not used in jewelry. The moissanite used in jewelry is entirely synthetic. Its properties, such as brilliance and hardness, make it a common alternative to diamonds. YAG (Yttrium Aluminum Garnet):
Originally developed for industrial and laser applications, YAG is sometimes used as a gemstone. Although it is named a “garnet,” it is not related to the natural garnet family of minerals. Strontium Titanate:
Developed in the mid-20th century as a diamond simulant. It has a much higher dispersion than diamond, giving it a fiery brilliance, but it is too soft for practical jewelry use. Synthetic Rutile:
While natural rutile exists, the synthetic version created in the lab has been used as a gemstone due to its high dispersion and brilliance. The synthetic version is engineered for specific optical qualities. Titanium Sapphire (Ti:Sapphire):
A synthetic material often used in lasers. While not commonly used in jewelry, it is a synthetic gemstone that does not naturally occur in this form. These synthetic gemstones are often engineered for specific aesthetic, optical, or industrial purposes and are distinct from natural gemstones, either because they do not naturally occur in gem-quality form or because they are entirely man-made.
Synthetic Alexandrite (Czochralski or Flame Fusion):
Although natural alexandrite exists, synthetic versions often have unique compositions or colors that don’t occur naturally, created purely for novelty. Boron Nitride Crystals:
Synthetic boron nitride can be engineered into gem-like forms. It’s extremely rare in nature and appears in fascinating, unusual forms in the lab. Synthetic Opal (Novel Patterns):
Lab-grown opals can exhibit color patterns or transparency levels not seen in natural opals, such as extreme brightness or perfectly uniform “play-of-color.” Synthetic Quartz Variants:
Quartz can be synthesized with inclusions or colorations (e.g., deep purple or unique patterns) that are unattainable in natural environments. Colored Synthetic Diamonds:
Lab-created diamonds can be grown with colors that are extremely rare or impossible in nature, such as perfectly vibrant reds, blues, or even neon shades due to precise chemical doping. Bismuth Crystals:
While not technically a gemstone, synthetic bismuth crystals are grown in labs and have rainbow-colored, step-like structures not naturally found in geological settings. Synthetic Spinel:
While spinel exists naturally, synthetic spinel can be created in colors or with clarity not found in nature, such as vibrant neon hues. Synthetic Perovskites:
Perovskites are naturally occurring but rare in gem-quality form. Synthetic versions, often used in solar panels, can be cut into unusual, sparkling gems. Synthetic Corundum with Patterns:
Sapphire and ruby (corundum) can be synthesized with added colors or patterns, such as stars, gradients, or even mixed hues that are impossible naturally. Gallium Nitride Crystals:
Used in electronics but can be fashioned into gemstones with unusual optical properties, entirely absent from nature. Synthetic Fluorite Variants:
While fluorite exists in nature, synthetic fluorite can exhibit colors and patterns engineered for jewelry or purely aesthetic purposes. Zirconium Carbide or Nitride:
These materials are synthetic and metallic, with a high refractive index and an unusual, futuristic appearance when polished. Metal-Organic Framework (MOF) Crystals:
MOFs are a class of synthetic porous crystals with complex geometric structures and vibrant colors, making them unique and striking. Hyper-Modified Glass or Vitreous Materials:
Glass-like gemstones doped with rare elements (such as europium or neodymium) can fluoresce or shift colors in ways impossible in natural stones. Synthetic Garnets (Uncommon Types):
Garnets like gadolinium gallium garnet (GGG) or yttrium iron garnet (YIG) are synthesized for industrial purposes but can be cut into gemstones. These stones are not just rare but impossible to find naturally, offering a unique and unconventional aesthetic perfect for someone looking to stand out.
Synthetic Alexandrite (Czochralski or Flame Fusion):
Although natural alexandrite exists, synthetic versions often have unique compositions or colors that don’t occur naturally, created purely for novelty. Boron Nitride Crystals:
Synthetic boron nitride can be engineered into gem-like forms. It’s extremely rare in nature and appears in fascinating, unusual forms in the lab. Synthetic Opal (Novel Patterns):
Lab-grown opals can exhibit color patterns or transparency levels not seen in natural opals, such as extreme brightness or perfectly uniform “play-of-color.” Synthetic Quartz Variants:
Quartz can be synthesized with inclusions or colorations (e.g., deep purple or unique patterns) that are unattainable in natural environments. Colored Synthetic Diamonds:
Lab-created diamonds can be grown with colors that are extremely rare or impossible in nature, such as perfectly vibrant reds, blues, or even neon shades due to precise chemical doping. Bismuth Crystals:
While not technically a gemstone, synthetic bismuth crystals are grown in labs and have rainbow-colored, step-like structures not naturally found in geological settings. Synthetic Spinel:
While spinel exists naturally, synthetic spinel can be created in colors or with clarity not found in nature, such as vibrant neon hues. Synthetic Perovskites:
Perovskites are naturally occurring but rare in gem-quality form. Synthetic versions, often used in solar panels, can be cut into unusual, sparkling gems. Synthetic Corundum with Patterns:
Sapphire and ruby (corundum) can be synthesized with added colors or patterns, such as stars, gradients, or even mixed hues that are impossible naturally. Gallium Nitride Crystals:
Used in electronics but can be fashioned into gemstones with unusual optical properties, entirely absent from nature. Synthetic Fluorite Variants:
While fluorite exists in nature, synthetic fluorite can exhibit colors and patterns engineered for jewelry or purely aesthetic purposes. Zirconium Carbide or Nitride:
These materials are synthetic and metallic, with a high refractive index and an unusual, futuristic appearance when polished. Metal-Organic Framework (MOF) Crystals:
MOFs are a class of synthetic porous crystals with complex geometric structures and vibrant colors, making them unique and striking. Hyper-Modified Glass or Vitreous Materials:
Glass-like gemstones doped with rare elements (such as europium or neodymium) can fluoresce or shift colors in ways impossible in natural stones. Synthetic Garnets (Uncommon Types):
Garnets like gadolinium gallium garnet (GGG) or yttrium iron garnet (YIG) are synthesized for industrial purposes but can be cut into gemstones. These stones are not just rare but impossible to find naturally, offering a unique and unconventional aesthetic perfect for someone looking to stand out.
A lot of comments here are suspicious of you, so I’m going to try my hand at guessing whether this was AI.
Since GPTs are hilariously bad at detecting themselves, I’ll venture on the human spirit!
First, we establish truth 1: this is copy-pasted.
Although Moissanite isn’t mentioned twice, everything after “Synthetic Alexandrite” inclusively is mentioned twice. That means this was procedurally copy-pasted. Someone writing on their own would either CTRL+A then CTRL+C and make no mistakes, or not repeat themself at all.
Of course, we can also look at the half-formalized format that indicates something was copied from raw text and pasted into markdown, rather than formatted with markdown first.
Colon:
words words Colon:
words words Colon:copy-paster spotted
Second, we cast doubt that a human wrote the source.
- AI-isms vs. non AI-isms
-
Non-reused acronym definitions.
Garnets like… yttrium iron garnet (YIG)
This is probably taken straight from the Wikipedia’s site description for YIG. Usually humans don’t define an acronym only to never use it, unless they’re making a mistake, especially not for just making repeated structure. So either Wikipedia was in the training corpus or this was Googled.
-
5/23 sentences start with “While” (weak ai indicator)
-
no three-em dashes or obvious tricolons are overused (non ai-indicator)
-
no filler bullshit introduction or conclusion (non ai-indicator)
-
obvious repeated structure that you can feel (strong ai indicator)
-
Suspiciously uncreative descriptions (ai indicator)
“These stones are not just rare but impossible to find naturally, offering a unique and unconventional aesthetic perfect for someone looking to stand out.” (emphasis added)
-
Repetition of “unusual” and “rare” rather than more flavorful or useful adjectives (AI indicator)
- We’re talking synthetic stuff. Would a human write about rarity?
-
Superficial, neutral-positive voice despite length and possible source. If this was pasted from a technical blog, I’d expect it to have more “I” and personal experiences, or more deep anecdotal flavor (AI indicator)
- e.g. use of “fascinating” but doesn’t go deeper into any positivities
-
Third… let’s take a guess
So it was copy-pasted from somewhere, but I can’t imagine it being from a blog or website, and it isn’t directly from Wikipedia. It has some nonhuman mistakes, but is otherwise grammatical, neutral-positive, and repetitively structured. And it lacks that deeper flavor. So… it was an AI, but likely not openAI.
At least there aren’t any very “committal” facts, so the length but lack of depth suggests that everything’s maaaaaaybe true…
I wasted my time typing this
I enjoyed your analysis, and appreciate the time you spent on it!
I thoroughly enjoyed your in-depth analysis and learned a few things. I think we need to understand how to spot if something was written by AI or not, and this is very helpful for that.
Thank you! (˶ˆᗜˆ˵) ✧
lol
- AI-isms vs. non AI-isms
Before I proposed, my (now)wife and I discussed this and we did some research, then went with Moissanite.
She has a ring with a huge very shiny stone that doesn’t break when it hits something, and we both also still have some money left.
It’s awesome that all these other options exist as well!
(Similarly, we got married at home with a friend as an officiant* and only close family present. It was great.
*He had earlier gotten himself ordained by mail so he could officiate the wedding of his own daughter.)
Moissanite is so pretty. I’m not much of a jewelry guy. And I’m not trans. But I’ve always wanted to wear lots of pretty sparkly things. I’m having a blast looking through all these fun possibilities. When I was in Atlanta a pedestrian walked by me wearing all white, and dripping in silver chains, he looked like a time traveler, I want to do that but with purple or green. Do you remember where you got your engagement ring stone?
Have you ever considered glitter as a starting point?
to marry someone? you monster
This is fascinating and badass. Now I want a crazy neon pink gemstone.
Me too, just researching gave me so many ideas, even if I never plan to buy one. They’re so pretty. Check out the quartz
Some of these vendor sites are crazy expensive but with a little more digging I bet I could find high quality, big beefy stones for under a hundo
Quartz can be synthesized
Hmm…
That fucking site is going to cause so much unnecessary strife and difficultly. LLMs are trained on real speech; that site is going to get is wrong constantly. We all want there to be some magic bullet or to pretend that AI is so easily clockable, but the simple truth is that it simply isn’t and all shit like this does is end up making people who actually know how to use “advanced grammar” (said sarcastically) like semicolons and em dashes have to deal with a shit ton of harassment from idiotic chuds who can’t comprehend that a real person can be more eloquent than “me like good thing!”
yeah, well… Some website said you talk like a chat bot so hahah owned! /s
The hypocrisy of using AI to ferret out AI and then to act like that gives one any right to judge…
right? who cares who wrote it. it’s a hobby post, not a dissertation
Why does it say “likeley generated by AI”? If it’s 43%, that means it’s more likely to be written by a Human.
Those sites are really inaccurate afaik, but it does feel generated.
Probably because it was boring and repetitive by the 3/50th paragraph.
?
Well… Was it?
what
Heh it was
what
Ok, but is any of it wrong? That’s much more important to me, but I can’t speak for anyone else.
I want a stone so un-natural that the mineral is named cthulite.
In it, you see a tiny civilization. You are the cosmic horror.
Sorry, but the demon core is not for sale.
These exist
It’s a rabbit hole. Some of these things don’t even have names. You can buy them and wear that shit in a ring. Some of them are wildly expensive. But imagine somebody asking you what that stone is and being able to say, I don’t know lol
deleted by creator
I’m not even sure where the need for an expensive gem stone came from, diamond or otherwise.
My wedding/engagement ring came from an artist and the bands are sculpted and fit together. It’s beautiful and I never have to worry about the stone falling out of the setting, plus it was in our price range. Gem stones can be nice, not arguing against them, but rings without them can be just as pretty and more affordable.
It was a marketing campaign from De Beers. Where else would it have come from.
Shit like that is why I think neuro-atypical people might actually be the correct psychological state and everyone else is just a “normal” animal.
(Edit: The point of this comment was to flip stereotypes inside-out. Yet, providing this perspective seems to have put some folks on the defense. To make it easier to see where these comments are coming from (and that none of this is meant as an attack on anyone), I’ve provided additional information behind each point.)
An AuDHD perspective:
Neurotypicals tend to lack curiosity and passion for interests.
Clarification
This is opposed to autistic people “having intense interests.” If a high level of interest in a particular topic is my “normal,” then other people’s levels of interests seem very low by comparison.
They’re less in-touch with their senses, sometimes needing mind-altering substances in order to appreciate basic sensory stimuli.
Clarification
This is opposed to autistic people “stimming” in various forms. Exploring textures, staring at interesting lights, engaging in repetitive physical movements, and more are all examples of “stimming.” A lot of neurotypical people wouldn’t wave their hands between their eyes and a light just to enjoy the visual (and physical) sensations that arise from it - unless they’re tripping balls. Some people can’t seem to appreciate a super soft blanket, or how strange their own body feels, until they’ve taken some kind of mind-altering substance that heightens their sensory experience. Yet, this stuff is part of my “normal.” Even just on thoughts and ideas alone, I can’t count how many times I’ve said things that made people go, “What are you smoking? (And are you willing to share?)”
Not only that, but they are overly-invested in “following the group” and “blending in,” even if it ends up harming them.
Clarification
When you’ve always stuck out, the idea of “blending in” is laughable. I’ve never had the luxury of being a wallflower. I’ve come across so many people who have had good reason to speak up or stand out, yet they’d been terrified of breaking from conformity. From the perspective of someone who lacks the compulsive need to align themselves with an in-group, being so scared of “standing out” feels rather silly.
So yeah, you might be onto something.
What self-important bullshit 🤣
That’ll be the autism.
Says the guy who just had his feeling of superiority threatened.
Is this supposed to be a description about a person with adhd or a person without cuz that description was spot on for some of my relatives with adhd in that they can’t hold attention on one thing too long so passion and interest was very brief. And if we’re studying one relative I had in particular, she was constantly trying to fit in, follow groups, cults and buy things to fill a void. It did much harm. ADHD was only one of the comorbidity she was struggling with along with addictive personality and dyslexia.
As far as drugs, she was into them in spades. Went most her life undiagnosed so she self medicated with drugs. Probably even more so than the neurotypical in the fam who could hold interest for long periods of time as they don’t require medications to get through studies and didn’t have to struggle with learning disabilities such as dyslexia.
Perhaps the people you are witnessing whom you assume are neurotypical and self medicating with mind altering drugs are secretly struggling with something mental or behavioural that hasn’t been diagnosed yet. Addiction is often hand in hand with undiagnosed depression as well. And people who are vulnerable and trying to blend in or follow the herd, join cults etc are often overlooked when it comes to proper help. That is often an outcome of family abuse or very low self esteem or both which can make a person very susceptible to gangs and cults.
might not watch tv and buy a diamond but If anything being atypical can make a person more vulnerable as they can be a target quite easily by local predatory con artists looking to pay a bit of attention and help a person fit in.
It’s a description of “neurotypical people” from the perspective of somebody who has autism/ADHD.
Neurotypicals tend to lack curiosity and passion for interests.
This is opposed to autistic people “having intense interests.” If a high level of interest in a particular topic is my “normal,” then other people’s levels of interests seem very low by comparison.
They’re less in-touch with their senses, sometimes needing mind-altering substances in order to appreciate basic sensory stimuli.
This is opposed to autistic people “stimming” in various forms. Exploring textures, staring at interesting lights, engaging in repetitive physical movements, and more are all examples of “stimming.” A lot of neurotypical people wouldn’t wave their hands between their eyes and a light just to enjoy the visual (and physical) sensations that arise from it - unless they’re tripping balls. Some people can’t seem to appreciate a super soft blanket, or how strange their own body feels, until they’ve taken some kind of mind-altering substance that heightens their sensory experience. Even just on thoughts and ideas alone, I can’t count how many times I’ve said things that made people go, “What are you smoking? (And are you willing to share?)”
Not only that, but they are overly-invested in “following the group” and “blending in,” even if it ends up harming them.
When you’ve always stuck out, the idea of “blending in” is laughable. I’ve never had the luxury of being a wallflower. I’ve come across so many people who have had good reason to speak up or stand out, yet they’d been terrified of breaking from conformity. From the perspective of someone who lacks the compulsive need to align themselves with an in-group, being so scared of “standing out” feels rather silly.
Does that help make more sense?
lacks the compulsive need to align themselves with an in-group
Don’t hold back. Just come out and say it that you think people who can actually hold a conversation with each other are just pathetic and you look down on them.
Not that distant from what an incel would write.
Is there any particular reason why you’re trying so hard to find an insult? Surely, you understand that not every autistic person is a hate-filled incel?
AuDHD refers to simultaneous autism + ADHD.
Some symptoms appear to “cancel out” each other from an external perspective.
my neighbour’s son has autism with adhd. Their son was preyed upon by a gang. and my nephew has autism with adhd but presents very differently. Hopefully he will grow to not be so easily taken as the neighbour’s son. it’s so tragic.
my niece has adhd. Their father had adhd but again, very different.
No two are exactly the same.
It’s a massive stretch to say simply being atypical means you’re invulnerable to peer pressure. If anything it’s been quite the opposite.
And as per my question above regarding descriptive criteria of atypical, are we or are we not including even just adhd as part of the argument here for what is described as ‘neurotypical’? Cuz if so I would beg to differ that we’re just randomly calling out criteria of what defines as ‘neurotypical’ such as drug use and predatory cults. My friends and relatives with adhd (struggling with addiction) would be the last to use ‘neurotypical’ to describe their experiences when it comes to how it’s been diagnosed and picked out in school years.
You edited your original post. I thought you were unaware of what AuDHD meant. I’m not for or against anything anyone else wrote, mostly because I’m half-reading while intermittently socializing with inlaws on Christmas eve.
Carry on.
Edit: wait, it’s christmas right now. whatever. Happy hannukah.
Neurotypicals tend to lack curiosity and passion for interests.
When the interest at issue is human relationships and social norms, I think it flips the other way around.
Better to characterize things by what type of interests tend to appeal to which.
Idk, dude. I’ve met people I swear are autistic but social but they’re overly rigid about social norms and being polite. I don’t buy it (what you’re saying). Anyone can be interested in anything.
Anyone can be interested in anything.
Yeah, but I’m responding to a comment that says that neurotypical people aren’t curious or passionate about the things they’re interested in, and I think that’s too narrow of a way to define “interest.”
I’d reject that way of thinking because that principle could be weaponized to accuse some neurodivergent people of not caring about people by misreading why they might not be great with social cues or things like that.
That’d be a problem if people were using blanket statements, but that’s not how the comment is worded.
If someone said, “Autistic people tend to have strong, specific interests,” nobody would be getting insulted. We’d be like, “Yeah, that tracks.” Even if somebody autistic lacked that particular trait, the phrase “tend to” allows for exceptions to the statement - it’d be understood that not every autistic individual fits that description, but many often do.
Which is why it’s interesting that when an autistic person flips that exact same sentiment around to show what “normal” people look like from their perspective, neurotypicals are taken aback.
I like to call it Attention Surplus Disorder. It’s crazy to me how most people can just focus on something for 50 hours a week that they’re not interested in at all, and this doesn’t set off warning bells in their head.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of antiwork neurotypucals, but it seems weird how many people actively support it.
I think for most people it’s just a matter of tradeoffs. You don’t have to be interested in the act of doing something in order to be interested in the consequence of doing that thing.
Someone who doesn’t like driving may still drive, and concentrate on driving the entire time, to get to a destination where they want to end up. For someone who doesn’t like to cook but wants to eat hot food, cooking is a means to that end.
Now, if you’re saying that you don’t think that tradeoff is worth it to you, maybe that’s true of them if they stop to think about it, too. But I’m not sure that’s what’s going on for most people who continue to work jobs they don’t like.
Neurotypical // Neurodivergent
I often forget the term and end up using atypical.
I don’t listen to hip-hop.
it’s a good show
I gotta be honest, some of you people barely seem conscious.
I gave my wife a natural diamond engagement ring, but it belonged to my great-grandmother, so I felt that it was ethical enough. You can’t really do much about suffering 120 years ago (or whatever it was) and probably everyone involved in making that ring was treated like shit in one way or another because it was 1904 and everyone who wasn’t white, male and rich suffered.
The most suffering-free and eco-friendly ring is the one already made, so, you did the best thing!
It makes sense.
I think so too, thank you.
My brain; “120 years? So the mid 1800s right?..”
How many world wars were fought in the last century? The answer might surprise you!
If by last century, you mean 1900-1999; 2
If you mean in the last 100 years; 1. Which is honestly impressive all things considered.
Yeah only question for me right now is if it will go to 0 or 2 before going back to 1.
Don’t limit yourself, could go to 2 and then 3 instead of back to 1.
We still have the Bell riots and WW3 to get through before the cashless society
This should not be considered a meme
The fact that the human race sees scarcity as a good thing…
Is everything I need to justify misanthropy in its most literal form (Hatred of humanity)
Well, we do label everything nice as “exclusive”, as in excluding others from ownership. So how nice things are deemed to be seems to be fuelled by pure spite for other people. You can’t have it, so it’s “exclusive”, meaning good and desirable. Our values in modern societies are just awful and misanthropic.
It’s not so much people being attracted to scarcity, but decades of diamond industry propaganda having an effect on our culture. Even now there’s an active effort being put by the diamond industry into keeping natural diamonds the “forever gem” while artificial gems made in a lab are being portrayed as “everyday gems”, as in less prestigious.
Incorrect. Scarcity refers to quantity, not quality.
For a few years I’ve saved this pic from previous similar posts in various places, no need even for freaking diamonds
Moisannaite gives the most rainbows, and I think they are gorgeous.
But I do love the sparkle of diamonds, and sometimes prefer it. Fortunately synthetic ones are easy to come by.
Is that a difference in the material, or is the Moissanite cut differently?
If Moissanaite just does that, then damn, that’s pretty.
Moissanite is a completely different substance than diamond, it’s a silicon carbide crystal, and it’s also made synthetically so no worries about exploitation mining, it’s also cheaper
no worries about exploitation
Until De Beers starts synthesizing it.
Yeah what conditions are these scientists working under?
I’m asking about the light. The lightshow produced by a crystal is down to both the optical properties of the material, but also the geometry of how it was cut.
The image is really cool, but it only demonstrates a difference if the moissanite was cut into the exact same shape as the diamonds.
A prism doesn’t split light because of the material its made of, but because of its shape.
Moissanite has a marginally higher index of refraction than diamond so the “ideal” cutting geometry would be different. This looks like a misleading demonstration intended to market something. They appear nearly identical in normal conditions
That’s what I was immediately thinking.
Getting pretty colors out of a clear crystal is more about how it was cut, than what it’s made of.
Unless it’s something like opal that produces lightshows through completely different optical effects.
Isn’t it both shape and material? The refractive index of the material is important in determining how much the light bends at the interface.
Yes, but a clear crystal is a clear crystal.
If you want to split light you can do what regardless of refractive index (as long as it isn’t zero), you’d just need to cut different angles and/or project the light onto a surface that’s closer/farther to get the same effect using a different material.
Yes, but a clear crystal is a clear crystal.
No, different materials have different refractive indices, even if they’re both “clear crystals.” Maybe the examples given are very close in refractive index, but they still differ, therefore split light differently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refractive_indices
I’m not saying it’s the entire difference, but it certainly comes into play. It could be that the more “explosive” light example is cut identically, but held slightly askew versus the others.
Point is, it’s not just the cut that impacts the result.
…
That’s literally my point.
I’m saying you can’t tell the difference between two materials unless they are cut the same.
If they are cut differently to achieve the results you are seeing, you can’t tell whether the difference is because of the cut, or because of the material.
Ah, i misunderstood, yeah, there’s got to be some rigging in that demo pic now that you mention it, however if Moissanite is essentially a drop-in replacement for diamonds in jewelry that is cheaper and looks even slightly nicer, which seems to be the case, then all should be well, doubly so if it kills the profits of De Beers. I’d ask to see the contrast IN PERSON if i was shopping for rings today though, nothing beats that.
Really? I (and I say this as someone who hates diamonds and the diamond industry) always thought it looked gaudy. Maybe that’s because most the ones I see are comically large ones that would cost more than an SUV if they were diamond.
Like, as much as I hate diamonds, I think a modest diamond ring looks better/more tasteful than a giant moissanite one. More reasonably sized ones probably look better.
I honestly couldn’t care less about the actual rocks.
But pretty colors are pretty colors.
This. If you really want an economical alternative, moissanite is a great option. Obviously not 1 for 1, but pretty damn close for jewelry.
They arguably refract better and don’t have a history of slavery and death.
