Diamonds Suck (2006)

Post by vbrhjajcn » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 1:12 AM UTC

swang wrote: post #351

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…

sorry to attach this to the top post, but how do you actually pronounce moissanite? "moist"(sans 't') + "a" + "night"?

Post by shawndumas » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 1:16 AM UTC

ScottBurson wrote: post #153

stephencanon wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

My wife and I, living in the SF Bay area and having no regard for convention whatsoever -- and not really liking diamonds -- went with a sapphire for her ring. She tells me that other women do sometimes ask her about it. This is unfathomable to me, but there it is.

Post by 2muchcoffeeman » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 1:22 AM UTC

coin wrote: post #329

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The point is that these "desirable" attributes were chosen by the diamond industry to promote their own gems. Why is "fire" or "brilliance" the reference by which gemstones are judged by? This mindset is exactly what the diamond industry has created, and the irony is that the author has taken the same sheepish following that diamond customers have.

Post by Spooky23 » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 1:26 AM UTC

Grishnakh wrote: post #314

eyko wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horse meat is quite normal in western culture, unless if by western culture you mean anglophone countries.

I can't reply to stouset for some stupid reason, but why is it "absurd" to not want to eat horse for texture reasons? My understanding is that horse meat generally does not taste that good and is very tough, because those animals get a lot of exercise; it's like deer meat. Some people like venison, and there's no stigma attached to eating it, but it's hard to buy because demand is low (and they're not raised as lives…

Post by retsibsi » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 1:31 AM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #319

ziszis wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We came to a similar conclusion. Although we had already bought a diamond ring. After researching, we figured out that we could sell our diamond (we only got about 60% of the original price back from a diamond broker) and buy a twice as large synthetic diamond and still save several thousand $. There is only upside as far I can tell: it looks better (clarity), is bigger (no can tell the difference between a real and…

I'm sorry about the 40% haircut. Any jeweler worth doing business with should refund a ring minus the cost to set it. Diamonds cannot be used, as there is no such thing as a new one. Certainly they can be damaged but that's totally different. I figure if you buy something a billion years old and return it a few months later in exactly the same condition, if you can only get 60% back then you dramatically overpaid.