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

331–340 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#331

Post by burfog »

err4nt wrote: post #200
riffraff wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

try to convince her that a different gemstone (ruby, sapphire etc) is better. I tried and failed, but it might work.

Yellow sapphire is non traditional and very beautiful. If I had opted for something other than a diamond, I would have chosen something that was very different but still beautiful. My boo desperately wants an opal ring, but unfortunately opal is too soft for daily wear and tear like that, so we would have ended up replacing the stone many times over the lifespan of the ring. Now, moissanite or CZ for fun jewellery, w…

Star sapphire is durable. It has a really neat look. It's also smooth, so less likely to scratch things.

Seriously though, a plain band is way less annoying to wear.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#332

Post by copenja »

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…

To each his own, but personally, I find large wedding celebrations to be an absolute blast. I went to a 500+ person wedding in Beersheba Israel last year and it was incredible. It was one of the most fun, warm, and endearing events I have ever been too.

I kinda have a weird idea that everyone should just be able to do their own thing without being judged. I certainly don't think they should be demonized as "show off" or "pop culture selling to you".

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#333

Post by ejcx »

tukelully wrote: post #293
lacampbell wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, I read that as your SO dictating to you that you must give her a diamond. My apologies.

I think you were in the right and didn't really assume as much as suggested. I got the same impression particularly because of the language chosen. "non-negotiable" implies that there was a second party to necessitate negotiation. Saying "no alternative" would come closer to describing a personal taste threshold.

Non-negotiable was a bad choice of words. It's been very negotiable. She just really didn't want cubic because of the perception, like someone else had noted.

It's just a little ridiculous to read 3 sentences a stranger types and tells them they are going to get a divorce. Bad form as far as unsolicited advice goes.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#334

Post by beachstartup »

Grishnakh wrote: post #324
jakewins wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhm, well, because I'm having a conversation about cultural differences between the midwest and the north-east. I think it's appropriate to segway into another topic that way. If it's the sarcasm you find inappropriate, I respectfully disagree. If our new president fulfills his promises, friends of mine will be cataloged, deported. My own hopes of US citizenship and the life me and my wife had planned for ourselves i…

>If our new president fulfills his promises, friends of mine will be cataloged, deported. My own hopes of US citizenship and the life me and my wife had planned for ourselves is now uncertain. Are you sure about that? He's already backtracking on ObamaCare, saying he wants to keep parts of it, and the latest news about deportations is that he wants to deport people who have criminal records. Personally, I'm wondering…

i think the 60 minutes interview tonight is going to calm a lot of nerves.

personally i think the trump presidency will be shocking in how normal it is. people are just completely worked up over his campaign persona which is understandable.

what people forget sometimes is that we have a political system in place designed to prevent dictatorships, exactly the kind of thing people on the left are concerned about with trump (and people on the right were equally concerned about with obama).

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#335

Post by jjeaff »

We went with a synthetic crystal/man made diamond that is simply beautiful and was cheaper than a moissanite yet is quite a bit closer to the fire and refraction index.

The key is to spend the money on the band. The quickest trick that jewelers use to spot a fake is a cheap band. No one puts an expensive diamond in a cheap plated band. We had a custom platinum and 14k yellow gold band with pave diamonds and it is stunning. My wife gets compliments literally daily. I am quite confident that even a professional jeweler or gemologist would not be able to tell with the naked eye that this is not a real diamond.

Add to that, the majority of the cost for the band was the raw materials which we paid spot price for. You could literally melt it down and get most of the value out of it. Additionally the companies that sell the higher end synthetics offer lifetime warranties and in our case, even a replacement for a lost stone with a deductible.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#336

Post by atomical »

jakewins wrote: post #174
MustardTiger wrote: post #152

>Sorry about Trump, BTW. Why on earth do you think that sort of random political non-sequitur is appropriate?

Uhm, well, because I'm having a conversation about cultural differences between the midwest and the north-east. I think it's appropriate to segway into another topic that way. If it's the sarcasm you find inappropriate, I respectfully disagree. If our new president fulfills his promises, friends of mine will be cataloged, deported. My own hopes of US citizenship and the life me and my wife had planned for ourselves i…

What does that have to do with diamonds?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#337

Post by nitwit005 »

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…

De Beers specifically ran ads suggesting that you should spend 2 months salary on your ring, and people bought that idea: http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/74843000/jpg/_...

When you go to buy a ring they even ask you how much you make some of the time. It's not so much a signaling mechanism, as companies trying to bleed as much as you can possibly afford out of you.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#338

Post by corford »

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 :)?

I went for a moissanite/diamond compromise with my fiancee and it worked!

Charles and Colvard (the originators of lab grown moissanite) recently released a new generation known as Forever One and these cuts are currently the best on the market. They're brighter and have more sparkle than diamonds and are completely colourless. Essentially, they look better than any diamond money can buy and have the same properties in terms of hardness etc.

Despite all the advantages of moissanite (quality, price, ethics, environment etc), I knew a little part of her still wanted a real diamond on her finger (no matter how much she tried to pretend otherwise!).

My solution looked like this:

1. A 1 carat 6.5mm Forever One moissanite round centre stone (in a halo setting)

2. ~20 tiny, 0.3 carat real side diamonds (F colour, SI clarity - Note: these two metrics are much more important than the carat weight!)

3. 18K gold for the ring itself (bonus: the gold was recycled - feeble but worthwhile attempt to offset the environmental damage of the diamonds)

All told, it came in at under $1,500 (which, sadly, is ridiculously cheap these days for an engagement ring).

She loves it (and got her diamonds), we have more money to spend on other things and I'm happy I didn't lose too much cash and karma to the diamond cartels.

FYI, I did all of this online through https://www.moissaniteco.com. Highly recommend them!

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#339

Post by kristianp »

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…

Why would you get a silicon carbide stone, when you can get a manufactured diamond?

Also, are other natural stones, e.g. sapphire, ruby, overpriced as well?

There's a spelling error in the article: lusterous -> lustrous.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#340

Post by jakewins »

Grishnakh wrote: post #324
jakewins wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhm, well, because I'm having a conversation about cultural differences between the midwest and the north-east. I think it's appropriate to segway into another topic that way. If it's the sarcasm you find inappropriate, I respectfully disagree. If our new president fulfills his promises, friends of mine will be cataloged, deported. My own hopes of US citizenship and the life me and my wife had planned for ourselves i…

>If our new president fulfills his promises, friends of mine will be cataloged, deported. My own hopes of US citizenship and the life me and my wife had planned for ourselves is now uncertain. Are you sure about that? He's already backtracking on ObamaCare, saying he wants to keep parts of it, and the latest news about deportations is that he wants to deport people who have criminal records. Personally, I'm wondering…

I'm not, rationally anyway, worried about mass deportation of illegal aliens - there are constitutional measures in place to prevent those, like illegal search and seizure, that a conservative court will uphold. My specific concern with deportations is that congress will pass a bill where the federal government no longer recognizes states rights to marry homosexual couples, and that a more conservative supreme court will uphold it.

That would remove grounds for residency for the wife of a very good friend of mine, since the USCIS uses the federal gov'ts recognition of marriage for visa proceedings, forcing them apart. I expect there are many thousands like them.

On the overall gist of what you're saying though - I hope you are right.

Post reply on HN