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

531–540 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#531

Post by kdamken »

Casseres wrote: post #43
beaner wrote: post #9

A diamond purchase is a type of proof-of-burn. It's a way to display how much you value the person by being willing to sacrifice a large part of your savings for them. It's not really about the stone itself, it's about the cost.

Then give a donation receipt for a charity that you both support for the cost of the diamond instead. At least that way the sacrificed money will support something you both believe in rather than the diamond industry.

I think the main issue here is not to burn a huge chunk of money when starting a new life together, especially when the amount spent is usually a lot more than they can really afford.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#532

Post by JoeAltmaier »

beaner wrote: post #9

A diamond purchase is a type of proof-of-burn. It's a way to display how much you value the person by being willing to sacrifice a large part of your savings for them. It's not really about the stone itself, it's about the cost.

Many cultures you give a valuable gift to the spouse, to ensure they won't be totally dependent - they have their own wealth. Until you can prove you can support a spouse, you can't marry.

That would make more sense today if it were possible to sell a diamond for anywhere near the purchase price.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#533

Post by delecti »

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #260
pault wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah. The real advantage of synthetics over naturally occurring is they don't come with human exploitation baggage or contribute to climate change.

There's also a side-benefit if you're like me. I think the idea of a synthetic diamond is way more interesting than one we dug up. To me it's the difference between "hey look at this shiny rock I found" and "look at what beauty our technology has allowed us to create"

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#534

Post by delecti »

matt_morgan wrote: post #203

My wife has a diamond engagement ring and wedding band. Since then I've bought her several cubic zirconias. I can tell the difference (I'm a geologist by training) because the CZ's have too much fire, but I'm not sure I would ever see the difference if I didn't know in advance. And moissanites are much closer even than CZ in diamond-like properties. CZ, however, is way cheaper. Like $10 for a 1-carat stone. Could be…

Additionally, I think CZ has negative connotations that moissanite hasn't acquired yet. There's been longer for sitcoms to make jokes like "the jerk got me a cheap cubic zirconium!", which isn't the case for moissanite.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#535

Post by mirimir »

sangnoir wrote: post #516
mirimir wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why does only one partner get a ring? Why, typically, the female one? In same-sex marriages, how do partners determine who gets the ring? Flip a coin? Damn.

The answer to all your questions is: it depends on the partners and what they agree to. But on the most part, it is driven by cultural momentum - the same reason men's formal clothing includes a tie. One could equally argue "One does not need to wear a tie to go to work", but there are people who love ties and how they look wearing them.

Ties = strangulation devices ;)

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#536

Post by delecti »

ginko wrote: post #109
DanBC wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A $2000 ring is cents per day for a long marriage. 66% of marriages survive 10 years. The ring would cost 50c per day. Buy the ring, and spend less of coffee.

That assumes that a more expensive ring buys a stabler marriage. Actually the opposite seems to be the case: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501480

That paper doesn't attempt to make a causal link. It's possible that being broke during the courtship process (when the ring is purchased) is what leads to a lasting marriage. I also can't find any discussion of the cost of the ring to the cost that could have been afforded. Is there a comparable outcome from someone who could easily afford a $10k ring but instead spends $1k vs someone who can only barely afford the $1k ring in the first place?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#537

Post by takingflac »

dimino wrote: post #214
kenny_r wrote: post #3

According to Wikipedia[0], the patents for the creation of Moissanite expired in 2015 in the US and in 2016 for the most of the rest of the world. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moissanite#Applications

What if you spend the same amount you would have spent on a diamond, but on a Moissanite ring?

While I love the idea of a crystal ring of any kind, metal beats it in two cases:

1. Crystals can shatter if stuck at the wrong angle (unlikely but possible).

2. Unlike a gold band the crystal ring can't be resized later in life.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#538

Post by rhino369 »

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.

They've probably gotten better since I looked in 2012, but at that time, they weren't much cheaper and they had both superior and inferior properties. IIRC, they had less imperfections in the crystalline patterns but more impurities that lead to a more yellow color because of impurities leaking in during fabrication. So they were kickass for practical uses, but didn't look at good.

Maybe they are overall superior now.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#539

Post by jk563 »

vbrhjajcn wrote: post #361
swang wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You are correct. You can hear how it's pronounced in this YouTube clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFZKPQuAaw Sol: No, it's a moissanite. Bad Boy Lincoln: A what-in-ite? Sol: A moissanite is an artificial diamond, Lincoln. It's Mickey Mouse, mate. Spurious. Not genuine. And it's worth... fuck-all. :)

Reading the first two lines made be expect a pronunciation clip in a language series on YouTube (blocked on the corp network).

Then I saw Sol and Bad Boy Lincoln. I guess I'll watch Snatch tonight. For educational reasons.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#540

Post by mikemikemike »

Interesting read and great points. But the reason I'm shopping for a diamond is precisely that it is too expensive. It's supposed to be proof that I am glad to make sacrifices for her. If we wanted to do something nontraditional we might choose some completely different kind of ring, but to choose something that looks super expensive and is not would make me feel like I had cut corners for my fiance.
Post reply on HN