<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Luxist - Comments for Diamonds in Glass</title>
<link>http://www.luxist.com/2008/01/04/diamonds-in-glass/</link>
<description>Luxist Comments for Diamonds in Glass</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Diamonds in Glass]]></title><link>http://www.luxist.com/2008/01/04/diamonds-in-glass/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.luxist.com/2008/01/04/diamonds-in-glass/</guid><description><![CDATA[Tack-orama! Another example that taste and cost don't neccesarily go together. I think that maybe the main problem are the uninspired designs. Swarovski do a range of wine glasses with crystals in the stems which retail for $300-400 and are infinately more attractive than these glasses. The stones set in the black glass do look pretty and with some proper design input could create some spectacular pieces.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve Combe]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Jan 4th 2008 3:52PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Diamonds in Glass]]></title><link>http://www.luxist.com/2008/01/04/diamonds-in-glass/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.luxist.com/2008/01/04/diamonds-in-glass/</guid><description><![CDATA[Diamond melting point is actually 3547 °C, much higher than that of glass.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[rajat]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Feb 12th 2008 10:39AM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>