Live data from Hacker News

Diamonds Suck (2006)

diamondssuck.com

61–70 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#61
post #9

A diamond purchase is a type of proof-of-burn. It's a way to display how much you value the person by being willing to sacrifice a large part of your savings for them. It's not really about the stone itself, it's about the cost.

To me this expectation would be a strong signal to leave that person.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#62
post #9

A diamond purchase is a type of proof-of-burn. It's a way to display how much you value the person by being willing to sacrifice a large part of your savings for them. It's not really about the stone itself, it's about the cost.

And it's a social ranking mechanism. You've attracted a mate that is richer, more capable provider, therefore you are more capable and rank higher in your groups social ranking.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#63

So people do this to signal (both to their spouse and their friends) they are both financially capable and care enough about their spouse to burn a large amount of money on a pyre. It's also a very useful signal that you are serious about the commitment and unlikely to back off of the marriage. I would prefer to replace it with a certificate that proves you have spent X thousand dollars on said certificate from Moche…

Another alternative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#64

So people do this to signal (both to their spouse and their friends) they are both financially capable and care enough about their spouse to burn a large amount of money on a pyre. It's also a very useful signal that you are serious about the commitment and unlikely to back off of the marriage. I would prefer to replace it with a certificate that proves you have spent X thousand dollars on said certificate from Moche…

Check out this article, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how...

It shows how the concept of diamond engagement rings were completely invented by a specific ad campaign; first in America and now expanding to the rest of the world.

They were specifically trying to create social pressure to buy the most expensive ring possible; to reinforce the impression that a diamond ring demonstrated wealth and ability to take care of a spouse; and even set the three months salary purchase price target most people reference.

If there's ever been a greater con so openly and deliberately imposed on society, I can't think of one off the top my head.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#66
I'm the OP - surprised to see this at the top of HN today, but happy to post a quick update:

My wife and I have been happily married for ten years now. She loves her ring, and it has held up extremely well. (She just had the band resized, absolutely no issues with the stones.)

No one has ever thought it was anything other than a diamond ring, which includes several years of daily scrutiny from crazy New York City brides in her role as a bridal gown sales manager in a high-end atelier in Midtown Manhattan. Those who know about the stones think they're beautiful and love that there's a good alternative to diamond.

I stand by everything I said in this essay, and would 100% recommend moissanite to anyone who is (or will soon be) in the jewelry market.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#67
I like to believe that there's a lot of savvy and affluent couples out there who are buying either moissanites instead of diamonds and choosing not to tell their friends or family about it to avoid the social stigma. They then take the $5k to $20k they just saved (what's the rule of thumb, one month's gross salary?) and put it towards bootstrapping their new life.

You can even post close-up pictures of the stone on Facebook and not a single person you know will ever be able to tell because, as noted by the article, the difference is indistinguishable to the human eye.

As long as both members of the couple find this acceptable, it would be silly not to at this point.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#68
post #18

> Isn't it amazing (and scary) how brainwashed people are about the "value" of diamonds, even though they're not actually worth that much? I've never understood this argument. Aren't they worth what people are willing to pay?

There's a classic article from The Atlantic in 1982 that explains the bullshit. The article is astonishingly relevant, nothing has changed in the 35 years since.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#69
post #50

Can anyone give me advice on how to convince my girlfriend of this though without her thinking I love her any less :)?

A $2000 ring is cents per day for a long marriage. 66% of marriages survive 10 years. The ring would cost 50c per day. Buy the ring, and spend less of coffee.

How many starving/diamond mining children in Africa can 50c a day feed?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#70

Can anyone give me advice on how to convince my girlfriend of this though without her thinking I love her any less :)?

If you're old enough to be thinking about marrying your girlfriend, your girlfriend has probably decided already what she thinks about diamonds and spending money on pretty but useless things. And if you've been dating her long enough to think about marrying her, then you should probably have a pretty good guess about how she thinks about it. First and foremost, it's a proof of social status between her and her peers…

There's a catch-22 here: you can't raise the topic of diamonds without her understanding you are thinking about marriage. And even if you've been together for years, it may just not have come up. And people are unpredictable: she may just have an irrational dream of a diamond ring. So I think the worry is justified and not necessarily a sign of insufficient marriage-maturity. But that doesn't change the advice: the only solution is talking about it.
Post reply on HN