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

461–470 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#461

Post by dagw »

occamrazor wrote: post #439
jakewins wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

and AFAIK in most of Europe

In Sweden at least it seems to be quite common to wear both rings. However it also seems to be more common to have inset stones, rather than one that sticks out. I've also seen several people who buy the engagement ring and wedding band together as a matching set to make sure they work together. (something which to me always felt rather presumptuous)

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#462

Post by paganel »

stephencanon wrote: post #118
jakewins wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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…

> WIW my wife has a diamond ring which she almost never wears, and I can't remember anyone ever asking about it

Interesting, I'm from Europe and I'd be curious to know at which point exactly did diamond rings replace gold wedding bands as the "official marriage signs" in the States. Wedding bands are still quite popular over here in Europe, hopefully they don't get replaced any time soon (for one thing, gold actually has some intrinsic value compared to diamonds).

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#463

Post by coleifer »

The fact of the matter is, you're still talking about buying a rock. Once you have accepted the absurdity of that, it seems like bikeshedding to argue that diamonds are better or worse than anything else (or any less absurd).

Despite this, I spent an outrageous sum on the diamond engagement ring I bought my wife (as well as the wedding band). Because anything other than diamonds wouldn't have been diamonds!

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#464

Post by 75j »

brandur wrote: post #67

I like to believe that there's a lot of savvy and affluent couples out there who are buying either moissanites instead of diamonds and choosing not to tell their friends or family about it to avoid the social stigma. They then take the $5k to $20k they just saved (what's the rule of thumb, one month's gross salary?) and put it towards bootstrapping their new life. You can even post close-up pictures of the stone on F…

> I like to believe that there's a lot of savvy and affluent couples out there who are buying either moissanites instead of diamonds and choosing not to tell their friends or family about it to avoid the social stigma.

This is so foreign to me. Why do people care? It's just a way to signal wealth and really not much different than a bride price (a cultural practice that American expats are quick to criticize in an Asian culture, for reference). My girlfriend / future-wife and I will get matching steel rings or something similar, like my parents have. She's not American so she was thrilled by that idea. I already told her I won't wear it most of the time because rings are annoying, and again that was no problem at all.

I would run the other way if someone is resolute about buying a diamond, after everything that is known about the diamond industry. It means either that person is totally ignorant of the world around them, or doesn't care about making a positive impact with their lifestyle choices.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#465

Post by jdietrich »

ejcx wrote: post #208
lacampbell wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Until now, it's been non-negotiable. I really hate to be a random person on the internet giving personal advice but... diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign. Don't be surprised to find out a bunch of other things are non-negotiable if you divorce.

Wow. It's very difficult to respond to you civically. We've been together for a long long time. It is amazing what people you don't know on the internet will assume about you. There was no alternative before this article. Cubic is cheap and tacky. Diamonds are overpriced and awful. Lab diamonds not much better. This article has a real alternative. That's a huge contribution to all diamond haters everywhere.

CZ is a very satisfactory diamond simulant. A $10 CZ is almost impossible to distinguish visually from a $10,000 diamond - unless you're a very skilled grader, you really can't tell the difference without a thermal tester or a refractometer. The visual giveaway is that it's too good - the stones are perfectly clear, perfectly colourless and have exceptional fire. CZ grades better than the very best diamonds. When it was introduced in the 1970s, it sent shockwaves through the gem trade.

CZ is a bit less durable than diamond (8 vs 10 mohs hardness, some porosity), but it's so cheap that you can have the stone replaced if it starts to show signs of wear.

Moissanite is a very fine simulant, but to my mind, the main advantage over CZ is that it's more expensive. CZ is implausibly cheap for a high-quality diamond simulant.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#466

Post by thesmok »

Just two weeks ago I was ordering a ring from a jeweler and I wanted a moissanite. It seems to be impossible to find this gem in Ukraine. My jeweler wasn't able to order it anywhere. I'm visiting Germany soon, so I went to Charles&Colvard website to see if they have a reseller in Germany – no they don't. The closest reseller is in UK. And I can't just order it from US because every delivery service specifically doesn't deliver precious stones and metals to Ukraine. So no moissanite for me.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#467

Post by hobarrera »

Zombieball wrote: post #376
matthewaveryusa wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gave my wife a moissanite and seeded are to-be joint saving account with the 10k we saved. You just have to remember that the burden of wearing the moissanite is on the woman. The choice is obvious but the social pressure is huge. Women love to look at other women's rings and chat about it. If she is open to the idea, just remember that she's the one being brave and breaking out of the mold more so than you :)

> Women love to look at other women's rings and chat about it. If she is open to the idea, just remember that she's the one being brave and breaking out of the mold more so than you. This is a great description that captures the social pressure aspect quite well. Guys aren't the ones wearing the ring everywhere!

> Guys aren't the ones wearing the ring everywhere!

I believe that the bride-only thing is US-only, or (maybe) limited maybe limited to ex-british regions, but it's definitely not universal, and definitely not a thing in latinamerica (diamonds aren't a thing here either) or a great deal of europe.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#468

Post by mariuolo »

kyle4211 wrote: post #256
mariuolo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've never understood this argument. Aren't they worth what people are willing to pay? I think the parent's argument is that not many people know about their price being inflated by a combination of artificial scarcity and hype.

But effectively all modern products have their prices inflated by hype (i.e. marketing) and many by artificial scarcity. Not many people think about this for any product, why should we expect them to think about it for diamonds?

There is another aspect: resale value.

Much lower for diamonds.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#469

Post by qb45 »

Akkuma wrote: post #451
matthewaveryusa wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gave my wife a moissanite and seeded are to-be joint saving account with the 10k we saved. You just have to remember that the burden of wearing the moissanite is on the woman. The choice is obvious but the social pressure is huge. Women love to look at other women's rings and chat about it. If she is open to the idea, just remember that she's the one being brave and breaking out of the mold more so than you :)

I'm probably odd, but I personally wouldn't be marrying anyone who "caved" to social pressures about a non-functional fashion accessory barely noticeable from anything other than up close. Thankfully, I already found someone like that.

Yes, I feel like there is a growing social pressure to resist social pressure ;)

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#470

Post by tdkl »

ryuker16 wrote: post #427
ClayFerguson wrote: post #295

People buy diamonds for a lot of the same 'irrational' reasons they believe in religion. Brainwashing. Girls have it pounded into their head over and over all their lives that this diamond is a MUST so they never think with their own brains about it. 99% of people would never spend $10K on a single piece of jewlery, if it was logic and reason, as opposed to pure brainwashing, that was governing their decisions. So ac…

Alot of women think this of men when they see us drop $60k-80k+ on car instead of getting a cheapo Toyota.

Well, they might, but your ring doesn't get you anywhere faster and more comfortable.

Also you don't attract men with a ring, but the other way around...*

*This is not my way of thinking, but it exists out there.

Post reply on HN