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

601–610 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#601

Post by bzbarsky »

zeroer wrote: post #433
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 ring…

> Commoners did not have this custom until the twentieth century

It really depends on the culture. Having the groom give the bride something of value is a quite old tradition for Jewish weddings, including "commoners" (read: all Jews, pretty much). A ring was in fact a quite common such gift going back a long way.

That said, if a ring is used in this case it must traditionally be a plain band with no stones; we're not talking diamond rings here.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#602

Post by dang »

MustardTiger wrote: post #599
dang wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12945175 and marked it off-topic.

But leave the initial off topic and inflammatory political attack there. Very unbiased non-partisan moderation.

I'd appreciate it if people wouldn't rush to the conclusion that we do these things for partisan reasons. It takes self-discipline to suspend your political reflexes and consider other explanations, but that's a necessary habit to get into if we're to have thoughtful discourse here.

In the above case, there was no ideal place to prune the off-topic subthread. 12945175 started the political digression for sure, but seemed clearly to be an offhand misstep in an otherwise good-faith conversation. That's not really a problem on HN. The problem is when other users (you, in this case) pounce and turn the politics knobs to 11. Then we get a flamewar. Had it been possible to snip the thread at the original off-topic aside, we'd have done that, but obviously we can't edit users' comments that way.

While I have you, I need to ask you to change how you use HN. You've been violating the site's guidelines by using it primarily to conduct political battles. That's an abuse, and we ban accounts that do it. HN exists to gratify intellectual curiosity. Using it to bash political foes damages that.

This isn't because we favor one political position over another. We're gardeners. When gangs show up to rumble and trample the garden, it doesn't matter what colors they're wearing.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#603

Post by dllthomas »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #247
thecatspaw wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a 3k MBP provides a lot more value than a 3k diamond ring if used correctly, a 3k MBP is a netgain

And a wife is a net loss monetarily. I guess you shouldn't get married then

Your assertion was "if you can afford a $3k MVP you can afford a $3k ring." That the MVP shows a financial return speaks directly to affordability. The parent is not making a claim that financial return is the only thing relevant to decision making.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#604

Post by findjashua »

hueving wrote: post #205
Moshe_Silnorin wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As far as I can tell they're only on the way out with bleeding-edge progressives. A demographic known for their immunity to costly signalling behaviors.

Which is why the Tesla model S is so wildly unpopular in the bay area.

Totally. It doesn't serve any purpose other than signaling status, can't imagine what else anyone could possibly like about it. /s

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#605

Post by Grishnakh »

joesb wrote: post #409
Grishnakh wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to agree that it's not a great sign if she insists on this. What other trendy stuff is she going to demand just because "everyone else does it"? I'm somewhat recently divorced now, but one good thing about my ex is that she was never superficial like this. She was perfectly happy to get a $70 Titanium wedding band, and loved how lightweight it was, and never wanted a silly gemstone on her hand. We did get her…

So even without that "red neon warning sign" you marriage still didn't work. Or may be, just may be, wanting diamond is just normal for some women, and it doesn't indicate whether she is a good couple or not.

If she wants a diamond so badly, she can spend her own money on it.

If I really want a sports car, I don't expect my fiance to buy it for me. If I want a cellphone, I don't expect my girlfriend to buy it for me and pay for the service.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#606

Post by eeZah7Ux »

somestag wrote: post #452
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> she values a diamond, he doesn't You are conflating moral values with financial value.

Not at all. Of all the reasons for wanting a diamond ring, the mere fact that it's expensive is relatively low on the list for many (most?) people, and even then the price is just a proxy for expressed commitment. If it were about the money, a million other things could take its place. Personal value is the sum of many different factors, of which finances, morality, tradition, etc. are all a part.

"she values a diamond" sounds very different.

If it was about "expressed commitment" donating a significant sum of money to a charity would be equivalent to buying a diamond.

Now I wonder if that would float...

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#607

Post by somestag »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #606
somestag wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Of all the reasons for wanting a diamond ring, the mere fact that it's expensive is relatively low on the list for many (most?) people, and even then the price is just a proxy for expressed commitment. If it were about the money, a million other things could take its place. Personal value is the sum of many different factors, of which finances, morality, tradition, etc. are all a part.

"she values a diamond" sounds very different. If it was about "expressed commitment" donating a significant sum of money to a charity would be equivalent to buying a diamond. Now I wonder if that would float...

There are many factors and implications that go into the tradition, and the diamond itself is symbolic of much of it. That's why you can't logically reduce the tradition down to a single element with an easy alternative.

For example, the actual act of popping the question is an important part of the tradition, and it's inextricably linked to the ring. We all know how it goes: the guy and the girl are on some sort of date, the guy says something vague, he pulls out a small box and opens it, and the girl can see the ring inside. She knows what this means before he even says anything, and is already nodding her head (hopefully) before he asks, "Will you marry me?"

That's all very easy to follow. Now imagine the guy pulls out the keys to a house or something instead of the ring. She wouldn't realize what's happening until he actually asks the question, which is fine of course... but it's not the same tradition, and it might not have the same magic to it. Beyond the proposal itself, the ring is a physical difference that she will carry through to the next day, which will prompt excitement from her friends and coworkers and remind her of that moment.

And that's just one element of the whole tradition. I think it's very easy to see why one would value the diamond. I just said that the price was about expressed commitment. There's much more to the tradition than that.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#608

Post by silencio »

Normal_gaussian wrote: post #222
silencio wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a fellow moissanite fangirl, thank you for writing this up! I always enjoy telling people my ring isn't a diamond, but the essay is more compelling to share with folks that can't see moissanite in person. I have a 1ct moissanite and 2 3mm white sapphires in my ring, and the bonus was that custom designing my own ring was still _drastically_ cheaper than getting a diamond: http://i.imgur.com/H3jDulz.jpg

Custom design ring. Plus earrings. Plus necklace. Plus manband. I think I can now (by that I mean in the future) justify this by not having diamonds. Yours looks amazing.

I was on vacation and missed your reply!

Funny you say that. My partner got a custom band of his own too (engraved and anodized titanium): https://i.imgur.com/c08efTs.jpg

The diamond ring he was "supposed" to get me (according to my family and friends and DeBeers) is easily over 10x the cost of my ring+band plus his band combined - even without comparison shopping. We spent that excess money on a 2 week honeymoon, most of our wedding expenses and splurges, and cat food. I recently just added the two white sapphires (a nod to our currently baking bun) for pocket change too. No regrets. I get my shiny bling-desires fulfilled at bargain bin prices.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#609

Post by dllthomas »

dllthomas wrote: post #603
bluedevil2k wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a wife is a net loss monetarily. I guess you shouldn't get married then

Your assertion was "if you can afford a $3k MVP you can afford a $3k ring." That the MVP shows a financial return speaks directly to affordability. The parent is not making a claim that financial return is the only thing relevant to decision making.

MBP, of course. Dang autocorrect...

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#610

Post by stillsut »

Some thoughts I haven't seen mentioned in the comments:

1. Diamonds, like gold, are highly portable pieces of wealth that hold value across economic shifts. When rich people go on the run, they usually carry hidden diamonds with them.

2. A good looking woman in certain jobs will be approached very frequently by other men. It's not just waitresses, think pharma rep. The ring is an effective shield, and the bigger the better.

Putting these thoughts together, the pointless rock is actually providing a good amount of security to the woman. Even if you disappeared, or if she wanted to disappear, the diamond will always have value and can get her through a few months expenses. Second, you're helping her avoid confrontation in public life.

Now realistically, some women have a back office job where everyone already knows their marital status. Many women today don't need the precious stone as pawnable thing of last resort. So I don't think its wrong for a couple to skeptically evaluate the value prop I've described above.

Post reply on HN