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

231–240 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#231

Post by jonloldrup »

This turns out to be based on a conspiracy theory:

"Current public perception of diamonds is the direct result of a masterfully executed marketing campaign by De Beers that began in 1938, not inherent scarcity or value. If you've read the article by Edward Epstein (you really should), you know all of the gory details. Isn't it amazing (and scary) how brainwashed people are about the "value" of diamonds, even though they're not actually worth that much?"

Thus, without further investigation, we can conclude that the writer is a croony crackpot (I don't know if thats a thing, but, anyhow)

right?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#233

Post by andai »

mk89 wrote: post #4

Great advice. Possibly coming from someone who doesn't have a girlfriend. :) try to give such a stone to a girl and see how amused she is gonna be. You are just gonna sound "cheap". Diamonds are a status, not a beautiful stone. edit: I see many downvotes. Guys, seriously, was it for me, I would buy nothing. It's just how this world works. You can express your anger by downvoting me, I'll be fine, but please don't fal…

Hope you don't mind I ride off the bottom comment ;)

I came here to post that the article misses the point!

As you said, diamond rings are about the status.

They are a signal, first and foremost.

It's like expensive cars and (dare I say) Apple products:

the wastefulness is an indicator of wealth, just like the peacock's massive tail is wasteful: it is expensive to grow and detrimental to its ability to escape predators.

So, as dimino suggested, I would spend the same amount...

but I'd spend it on Moissanite ;)

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#234

Post by thaumasiotes »

fizixer wrote: post #166
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…

Would you confirm or deny my two hunches: - Lab-grown diamonds are purer, more perfect crystals, cheaper, and better than mined diamonds in every way. (ignoring the market manipulation factor, which I'm not too knowledgeable about, except that I've heard big diamond companies do some shady things to keep prices high) - Girls hate lab-grown diamonds because they consider them "artificial". Also in your article, you do…

> Lab-grown diamonds are purer, more perfect crystals, cheaper, and better than mined diamonds in every way. (ignoring the market manipulation factor, which I'm not too knowledgeable about, except that I've heard big diamond companies do some shady things to keep prices high)

This is completely correct, although in the absence of De Beers mined diamonds would be cheaper. (Creating diamonds is technically quite difficult, but they are very common in nature.)

> Girls hate lab-grown diamonds because they consider them "artificial".

I can deny this. I collect synthetic cut gemstones. There are three types of common reactions:

1. "It looks fake."

2. "What are you going to do with it? What's the point?"

3. "Wow, it's beautiful!"

I've never seen someone who thought a gem was beautiful decide they'd been wrong after learning the stone was created. Girls might dislike synthetic diamonds in engagement rings because they think the symbolism is wrong; they don't dislike them in general.

> in your article, you don't seem to make such a distinction, so I'm wondering if your article is about lab-grown, mined, or both?

The OP is talking about lab-grown moissanite:

>> The big difference between moissanite and diamond is that moissanite can be manufactured reliably and efficiently in a laboratory. The result: flawless, brilliant gemstones at about 1/10th the cost of a comparable diamond.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#235

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

coin wrote: post #206

> superior to diamonds in every essential way: cut, color, clarity, durability, fire, brilliance Yet the author still uses the "desirable" properties taught by the diamond industry

What is the point of this comment?

If I design a new type of helmut that was totally awesome, it would rightly be judged against other helmuts.

If I buy a stone specifically as an alternative to diamond for jewellery, why would I come up with different criteria?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#236

Post by bluedevil2k »

noonespecial wrote: post #159
ftrflyr wrote: post #96

I told my girlfriend (5 years) how I feel about diamonds and that I reject the very notion of buying a diamond engagement / wedding ring early on in our relationship. Several months ago, we landed on the marriage conversation, again. I reiterated that I am against diamond engagement bands. She then said: "What about a wedding ring then?" I told her it applies to wedding rings as well. We got into a heated argument an…

The flashing red color in your peripheral vision? That's the warning light. It means you should reach down and pull the eject lever.

And what color is in her peripheral vision?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#237

Post by odiroot »

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!

Who said it was funny in the first place? The article touches some important, serious topics.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#239

Post by bluedevil2k »

ftrflyr wrote: post #100
digitaltrees wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use the difference in price on a down payment on a home/apartment or open a college savings account for your kids. Tell the truth, you want to build a life together and are thinking about the long term financial and personal consequences of this decision. I bought a ruby for my wife for this exact reason. I also wanted to show our community that we rejected diamonds as a tradition. I think the more we discuss this is…

This doesn't work. I have tried it. She (my GF) just argues with me about any purchase I try to make that is around the ballpark of what she is expecting me to pay for a ring. e.g. Her: So you want a new MacBook Pro, but you can't afford a $3000 engagement ring? Me: No, I need a MacBook Pro for work. This has been going on for quite some time now.

If you can afford a $3k MBP, you can afford a diamond ring. And her diamond ring will be worn forever, your shiny new laptop will be on Craigslist in 5 years.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#240

Post by [deleted] »

chucky_z wrote: post #143
Roritharr wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for writing this. My problem is only that you consider mosanite inexpensive, which is relative to Diamonds true, but from a ring search i could only find nice looking ones for >1000€ which is still expensive/hardly affordable to me.

Try the second-hand market, and buy the stone you like, and the ring you like (sperate). It's extremely in-expensive (usually included in the cost of the ring if you buy it at a store) to have your stone set into the ring of your choice. I spent a total of $500 to have a .75ct diamond set in a ring this way.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN