Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diamonds Suck (2006)

diamondssuck.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#111

Post by beevai142 »

sametmax wrote: post #31

Seems like an american things really. In France, nobody would expect anyone to buy a certain kind of ring. As long as it's pretty, you can go for anything. Or no engagement ring. Some friends of mine don't even get wedding rings. And I just met a not married couple wearing rings just because they liked it. Our wedding ceremonies are also usually way cheaper and less show off that the ones your pop culture is selling…

Given that the diamond ring fad apparently originated from a marketing campaign, it would be interesting to see how well the belief that wedding rings should have a diamond correlates with where the ads were run.

At least in the nordics, I don't think there's a specific type of wedding (EDIT: or engagement) ring that you're expected to have, and I think many people have no stone of any kind embedded in theirs.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#112

Post by ejcx »

joshkaufman wrote: post #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 bri…

I sent this to my SO and she now wants one instead of a diamond. Until now, it's been non-negotiable.

Thanks for writing. I did not want to buy a diamond :)

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#113

Post by atomical »

vpayette wrote: post #97

We were engaged in 2006 and I forwarded that article to my soon to be wife. Her answer was: I don't think this is funny. I ended up buying a 10k diamond ring. We're still happily married with 1 beautiful 8 y.o. daughter. Ask any married guy and they'll all say the same: pick your battles!

How bad do the fights have to be to make 10k not worth arguing over?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#114

Post by DanBC »

ginko wrote: post #109
DanBC wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That assumes that a more expensive ring buys a stabler marriage. Actually the opposite seems to be the case: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501480

Nothing in my comment is saying that buying an expensive ring will save a marriage.

I'm only saying that if your marriage lasts for 10 years, which about 66% of them do, it's weird to complain about the cost of a ring when there will be very many more expensive and equally bullshit things to spend or not spend on.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#115

Post by [deleted] »

sametmax wrote: post #31

Seems like an american things really. In France, nobody would expect anyone to buy a certain kind of ring. As long as it's pretty, you can go for anything. Or no engagement ring. Some friends of mine don't even get wedding rings. And I just met a not married couple wearing rings just because they liked it. Our wedding ceremonies are also usually way cheaper and less show off that the ones your pop culture is selling…

[deleted]

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#116

Post by atomical »

emodendroket wrote: post #51
strictfp wrote: post #6

Similar arguments can be made about almost any fashion item. People don't buy fashion due to it's great quality, and most of the time not even due to good design, but mostly just to show off.

Yeah, the arguments about resale value seem ridiculous. Who's buying a wedding ring as an investment?

The argument about resale value is used to justify the purchase. The person buying the ring doesn't seriously consider it an investment, but it makes it less painful to think of it as one.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#117

Post by vaveh »

diamond1 wrote: post #48

"The big difference between moissanite and diamond is that moissanite can be manufactured reliably and efficiently in a laboratory." Thats not true, diamonds can be manufactured reliably and efficiently in a laboratory as well. And its nearly impossible to tell the difference between natural and artificial ones. Only a very complicated lab test with a machine can tell the difference.

I thought fabricated diamonds were yellow-ish and easy to tell apart from real ones?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#118

Post by stephencanon »

jakewins wrote: post #84
joshkaufman wrote: post #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 bri…

Wife and I had read the Atlantic article before it was too late, went with plain wedding bands for both of us. However, living in America, this is causing issues for her, continuously having to explain to friends and acquaintances why she does not have a diamond. We'd been looking for used rings as an alternative - hence, thank you very much for writing this, you just saved me and my wife several thousand dollars.

> having to explain to friends and acquaintances why she does not have a diamond.

I don't think this is a universal "in America" thing. Maybe in some parts of the country, but here in the northeast it seems like it's none of their business; I can't imagine asking someone to explain it, and I would think someone who did ask was being awfully nosy. FWIW my wife has a diamond ring which she almost never wears, and I can't remember anyone ever asking about it. My parents wear plain gold wedding bands only, and I've never heard anyone ask them about it either.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#119

Post by Isamu »

We went with a sapphire, in an antique setting with some small inexpensive diamonds on either side. Better in every way than a big diamond, much cheaper, easier to get a far prettier custom result.

And I have to say prong settings are ungainly and not durable.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#120

Post by pessimizer »

sametmax wrote: post #31

Seems like an american things really. In France, nobody would expect anyone to buy a certain kind of ring. As long as it's pretty, you can go for anything. Or no engagement ring. Some friends of mine don't even get wedding rings. And I just met a not married couple wearing rings just because they liked it. Our wedding ceremonies are also usually way cheaper and less show off that the ones your pop culture is selling…

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-yo...

"In Europe, where diamond prices had collapsed during the Depression, there seemed little possibility of restoring public confidence in diamonds. In Germany, Austria, Italy, and Spain, the notion of giving a diamond ring to commemorate an engagement had never taken hold. In England and France, diamonds were still presumed to be jewels for aristocrats rather than the masses. Furthermore, Europe was on the verge of war, and there seemed little possibility of expanding diamond sales. This left the United States as the only real market for De Beers's diamonds. In fact, in 1938 some three quarters of all the cartel's diamonds were sold for engagement rings in the United States. Most of these stones, however, were smaller and of poorer quality than those bought in Europe, and had an average price of $80 apiece. Oppenheimer and the bankers believed that an advertising campaign could persuade Americans to buy more expensive diamonds."

Post reply on HN