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

431–440 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#431

Post by ryuker16 »

m1aw wrote: post #15
err4nt wrote: post #8

After reading about Moissanite I went out and got a nice custom diamond ring. I've seen it in person and sometimes you CAN tell, because of the 'fire' its way more rainbowy than diamond, diamonds are 'whiter' looking. I'm not even opposed to CZ if it looks pretty, but I wanted to give her a diamond and gold, and anything else would have felt like a substitution.

This is what annoys me. The geek and idealist in me doesn't want to give her a diamond because it's not that valuable. Yet, I don't want to be cheap. I don't want her to feel like I don't value her enough.

Buy used wedding bands. Best deal out there.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#432

Post by ryuker16 »

atomical wrote: post #172
HiroP55 wrote: post #139

Estate jewellery is a good option too. Estate jewellery is often cheaper and of very good quality. Why buy something new when something 60 or 50 yrs old looks the same or better?

Wouldn't the diamond be the same price since they are valued by the CCC's? Is it the setting and diamond combo that costs less?

No, most overpaid for jewelry so a diamond store is gonna offer them a low ball offer at best.

If a store wants the Dimond they have to melt it and reset it which is work.

There is a base price for diamonds based on ccc but good luck getting that from a store .

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#433

Post by zeroer »

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…

Thanks for writing this. I'm glad people are pushing back against the insanity of the diamond marketing.

But you're still buying into the concept of the gifting of rings, when this is a recent phenomenon created by De Beer's. Unless they were European royalty, your great-great-grandparents did not exchange rings. Commoners did not have this custom until the twentieth century. When you suggest getting non-diamond rings, you perpetuate the expectation that people should exchange rings, continuing De Beer's advertising campaign.

My wife and I got married without exchanging any rings for this reason. I thought that I might need to explain my position on rings to friends and family, but we've never gotten so much as a comment about it.

(BTW, your link to the Atlantic article 404s.)

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#434

Post by Jean-Philipe »

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…

> Seems like an american things really.

Good point. German guy here. She got me a wooden engagement ring back then. Everyone loved it.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#435

Post by woodman »

joesb wrote: post #407
woodman wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no rational reason not to use dogs for meat... Yes there is, unless you would make the same argument for having sex with relatives - which philosophers have rationalized against for thousands of years (way before the genetic consequences were understood). Morality is a rationalization. Dogs are genetically predisposed to be man's best friend - friends don't get eaten. Diamonds don't even come close, there i…

Unless your children keep having sex with their siblings as well, just pair of incest marriage doesn't actually have significant risk of genetic consequences.

Good to know. Although it does raise the question of how a line is drawn. I'm imagining a "I smoked pot when I was your age but..." sort of conversation - just infinitely more uncomfortable for everyone involved.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#436

Post by selina22 »

My name is selina From USA i never know that spell caster is real, I thought they are fake until I met a man called Dr okuku On this day i am very happy to tell the world that Evelyn is back to me thanks to Dr. okuku who use is great powersto cast a spell that brought Evelyn back to me within 48 hours. I really want to tell the world that Dr. okuku is genius andpowerful this means that is capable to restore any broken relationship or marriage just within the periodof 48 hours. And due to the fact that Dr. okuku is very helpful and must people will need is help to restore there relationship or marriage i will write out the contactvia email: okukulovespell@gmail.com or call or add hem on whatsapp or viber +2347063836098 Believe me Dr. okuku is the right person to restore your proplems just exactly the way you want it to be. selina FROM united states

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#437

Post by 77pt77 »

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #60

Another alternative is synthetic, lab grown diamonds. They are superior to naturally occuring diamonds, cheaper, aren't tainted by human misery and suffering like conflic/blood diamondst, and arent extracted from ecologically damaging mining techniques like open pit mining.

But here's the thing, even though they are purer and "better" in any objective measure they sell for a much lower price because people don't want them.

Diamond ring purchase is about status projection and having an "artificial" one screams low social status and is to be avoided at all cost.

I found that the hard/funny way while visiting Amsterdam and witnessing a woman choosing a diamond at bulk retailer.

When checking the beauty of the stone she clearly preferred the lab created one. Once informed that it was "artificial" and thus much cheaper she immediately changed her opinion stating that the "natural" one was much better and totally refusing the "artificial" one.

It's all about status.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#438

Post by 77pt77 »

baby wrote: post #149
FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #60

Another alternative is synthetic, lab grown diamonds. They are superior to naturally occuring diamonds, cheaper, aren't tainted by human misery and suffering like conflic/blood diamondst, and arent extracted from ecologically damaging mining techniques like open pit mining.

Where can you buy that?

In Amsterdam there was a factory that sold them to the public. I believe they were reputable.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#439

Post by occamrazor »

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.

Is this really a thing in the US? In Italy (and AFAIK in most of Europe) wedding rings are normally plain gold (rarely white or red gold, or platinum) bands. Engagement rings do have a stone, but they are not worn every day.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#440

Post by 77pt77 »

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?

In Europe there are banks selling diamonds for "investment purposes".

I laughed very hard for minutes when I found that!

Post reply on HN