- Joined
- Aug 14, 2009
- Messages
- 27,272
I think most of the value inherent to diamonds is due to the demand society has placed on them as luxury items, not due to the physical attributes of the stone.
The the marketing efforts and society norms of diamonds in special occasions, seem to be the driver for the value, with the "4Cs" providing a common mechanism to try and quantify that value across millions of transactions.
I think if diamonds were discovered today, they wouldn't be any premium placed on them as luxury items or status symbols. While they are eye-catching in jewelry, there are many alternatives that could be used without the social stigma. For example, moissanite and CZ wouldn't be as burdened with the perception as "inferior" when used in jewelry versus diamonds.
Personally, I think diamonds are an interesting specimen of physics and light refraction... but nowhere near as valuable as what society has placed on them from a pragmatic perspective. But the status/requirement as a symbol is unparalleled. For its size and cost, there isn't another thing I can think of that is as symbolic as a diamond ring or diamond jewelry.
At least with cars, clothes, and houses there is a bit of pragmatism in the added luxury costs. High-end shoes are more comfortable, high end purses have better craftsmanship and materials. Bigger houses and faster cars are... bigger and faster. But a diamond growing from 6mm to 7mm in a jewelry setting doesn't have as much pragmatic value.
Diamonds as de facto engagement ring stones is a relatively new phenomenon borne largely of brilliant advertising.
Diamonds as treasures worthy of decorating royalty is far from new. Diamond has been precious to humans - males and females! - for hundreds and hundreds of years.
If “diamond value” is a cultural reflection - then cultures around the world, past and present, have always (exceptionally) valued it. At what point does prolonged, unyielding cultural valuation become “intrinsic worth”?