Diamonds Suck (2006) • Hacker News Board

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#241

Post by thecatspaw » Sun, Nov 13, 2016, 10:08 PM UTC

jonloldrup wrote: post #231

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 t…

there's no need to call anyone a croony crackpot or similar.

lots of big newspaper seem also to agree that diamonds are bullshit, here's huffingtonpost's article about it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-weissman/7-reasons-why-you...

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#242

Post by bluedevil2k » Sun, Nov 13, 2016, 10:09 PM UTC

willvarfar wrote: post #180

thebiglebrewski wrote: post #14

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

Find a documentary about blood diamonds. Find some excuse to watch it while she's around, and don't let her stop you. Swear and say that you aren't going to hurt people for a wedding ring! Say she can have any thing but a diamond! Etc. Good luck with the drama :)

The documentary would have to be from the early 90's since there's almost no blood diamonds in the rough market

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#243

Post by Joyfield » Sun, Nov 13, 2016, 10:11 PM UTC

My and then current GF had our engagement rings in titanium. We never got married though.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#244

Post by userbinator » Sun, Nov 13, 2016, 10:12 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #154

Since 2006, the synthetic diamond gem industry has made considerable progress, and is now banging out real diamonds at a good clip. Gemesis was the first to mass-market synthetic diamond gemstones. (DeBeers tried intimidating the CEO, a retired U.S. Army general. Intimidation didn't work.) Now other companies are doing it. Silicon carbide gemstones are available in bulk on Alibaba.[1] So are diamonds.The page for Cha…

All I can say is "Wow!" Synthetic diamonds have sure come a long way. At the rate the technology seems to be progressing, even golfball-sized diamonds at ridiculously low prices might not be unrealistic, and I'm sure others will find applications for it.

Due to its thermal properties, I think handling a huge diamond might also be an interesting experience.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#245

Post by thecatspaw » Sun, Nov 13, 2016, 10:13 PM UTC

bluedevil2k wrote: post #239

ftrflyr wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

a 3k MBP provides a lot more value than a 3k diamond ring

if used correctly, a 3k MBP is a netgain

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#246

Post by NumberCruncher » Sun, Nov 13, 2016, 10:14 PM UTC

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…

And what if you do not want to get married unless she shows you how much she loves you by getting you a mustang?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#247

Post by bluedevil2k » Sun, Nov 13, 2016, 10:14 PM UTC

thecatspaw wrote: post #245

bluedevil2k wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

a 3k MBP provides a lot more value than a 3k diamond ring if used correctly, a 3k MBP is a netgain

And a wife is a net loss monetarily. I guess you shouldn't get married then

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#248

Post by pault » Sun, Nov 13, 2016, 10:19 PM UTC

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #161

baby wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where can you buy that?

They're mostly made for industrial purposes, but just google synthetic diamonds.

Be careful googling synthetic diamonds. There are a lot of scammy companies out there using slippery language to fool you into thinking their cubic zirconias are sythetic diamonds. AFAIK there are only a few companies making real jewelry grade synthetic diamonds and they are just barely cheaper than mined diamonds, so if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#249

Post by morgante » Sun, Nov 13, 2016, 10:20 PM UTC

Moshe_Silnorin wrote: post #34

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…

Exactly this. The problem with every diamond critique I see is that their very first argument against diamonds is that they're expensive when that is, in fact, the entire point.

Likewise, all the people who cry foul about the De Beers conspiracy are neglecting the fact that this does absolutely nothing to reduce their signal value. If I spend a large sum of money on something which I know to be worthless just to start my engagement, that's an even better commitment than spending a large sum of money on something which I think is worthless.

People who are anti-diamond should really focus on coming up with alternative signals which has better social outcomes. I would personally prefer some sort of trust, where if the engagement is successful the money is donated to our preferred charity—but if it's not, it's donated to a politician I despise.

If we're dead-set on continuing to use pretty rocks as signals, someone should establish a monopoly on a gem which is impossible to procure from exploiting conflicts. They should still make it extremely expensive, but have all the mining be ethical.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#250

Post by jseliger » Sun, Nov 13, 2016, 10:21 PM UTC

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…

No one has ever thought it was anything other than a diamond ring

I recently bought a ring from Diamond Foundry after reading this: http://qz.com/630512/would-you-propose-with-a-diamond-grown-... and related articles, and AFAICT no non-specialist can tell the difference.

There is also an interesting online company called My Trio Rings (http://www.mytriorings.com) that does conventionally mined diamonds but has, AFAICT, lower than average prices. I think one of their guys posts to HN sometimes.