Diamonds Suck (2006) • Hacker News Board

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#21

Post by arethuza » Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:07 AM UTC

mehwoot wrote: post #7

If you think that solely the physical properties of the stone are what matters then you dont understand the point of an engagement ring.

Well, I do understand the point of an engagement ring - what I am completely flummoxed by is the idea that you should spend a huge chunk of money on one.

I got my wife an eternity ring as an engagement ring - not because of any rules but because we both liked it and it wasn't very expensive. Been married 27 years so far so it seems to have worked! ;-)

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#22

Post by retSava » Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:07 AM UTC

isostatic wrote: post #4

> If I can prevent a single reader from needlessly dropping $6,000-10,000+ on a diamond engagement ring, this site will be a success. Financial worries are the #1 cause of stress in a married relationship - there is absolutely NO excuse to start your married life by taking on that level of debt. Average U.S. wedding cost $30k in 2014, while the average engagement ring was $5600, or 19% of the cost [0] https://www.val…

Yeah, it's upsetting. As soon as merchandise X is prefixed with "wedding", the cost is doubled. Wedding cake? Boom. Wedding napkins? Check. Etc.

It's astonishing how easy it is to fall into the trap of "it's just a one-time event", "it's the most important day of my life", etc.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#23

Post by specializeded » Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:08 AM UTC

LordHeini wrote: post #17

As a sidenote, the rings with diamonds thing is mostly an American fad. All people i know in Germany have just plain gold rings. It is way nicer because it is more a symbol of commitment than a show of wealth. Those never get out of style, can hardly be damaged and if need be can be replaced cheaply.

It is way nicer (in my opinion)*

Diamonds are beautiful, and in my opinion much nicer than a boring solid gold ring. Still a scam, but a pretty one!

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#24

Post by lostcolony » Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:08 AM UTC

isostatic wrote: post #4

> If I can prevent a single reader from needlessly dropping $6,000-10,000+ on a diamond engagement ring, this site will be a success. Financial worries are the #1 cause of stress in a married relationship - there is absolutely NO excuse to start your married life by taking on that level of debt. Average U.S. wedding cost $30k in 2014, while the average engagement ring was $5600, or 19% of the cost [0] https://www.val…

Some aspects of a wedding are unnecessary inflated...others aren't or don't have to be. The engagement ring is one that is. It's totally worth diving into what is and isn't a sensible expense, but diamonds are unique in that you can get substitutes or alternatives for far cheaper, far more humanely, and in the case of a synthetic, at least, aren't even visibly different.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#25

Post by vermontdevil » Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:08 AM UTC

tzaman wrote: post #14

Out of curiosity, what's all the fuss with engagement rings in the first place? When me and my wife got engaged, I gave her nothing (nor did she expect anything), just asked her to marry me and she agreed, we kissed and that was it. We did, however, made wedding rings, which together were about $1300, but that's because they were made out of gold. Why overcomplicate things? :)

Marketing companies pushed for the “diamond” part of the engagement ring and built a narrative around it in the 30’s

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/ho...

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#26

Post by tzaman » Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:09 AM UTC

mysterydip wrote: post #19

tzaman wrote: post #14

Out of curiosity, what's all the fuss with engagement rings in the first place? When me and my wife got engaged, I gave her nothing (nor did she expect anything), just asked her to marry me and she agreed, we kissed and that was it. We did, however, made wedding rings, which together were about $1300, but that's because they were made out of gold. Why overcomplicate things? :)

I assume peer pressure of some sort. When my now wife was telling all her friends she was engaged, the first thing they all asked was "let me see the ring!"

Must be cultural differences then - nobody around here (Central Europe) cares or asks about rings.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#27

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:09 AM UTC

charlesdm wrote: post #11

maaaats wrote: post #5

What is the difference between a diamond and an expensive handbag or other accessory? If a thing is worth what people pay, how come diamonds are a scam and other items not? I have a hard time grasping this everytime an anti-diamond article pops up. I can see the logic in not using that kind of money on a ring, but not what's so special about the price/scarcity/fashion of diamonds compared to other luxury goods.

Just another guy pointing out WHY they're a ripoff. Most luxury goods are "ripoffs" (from a financial point of view). Yet plenty of people love buying luxury items for the feeling it gives them and the experience, and because the item (in comparison to a non luxury item) is still much better. Nothing wrong with that in my view. Personally I don't share they view they're a ripoff, but to each their own. Have you ever…

[deleted]

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#28

Post by rayiner » Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:09 AM UTC

tzaman wrote: post #14

Out of curiosity, what's all the fuss with engagement rings in the first place? When me and my wife got engaged, I gave her nothing (nor did she expect anything), just asked her to marry me and she agreed, we kissed and that was it. We did, however, made wedding rings, which together were about $1300, but that's because they were made out of gold. Why overcomplicate things? :)

Our engagement rings trace back to Middle Ages Europe, where they arose to serve a notice function (this person is taken). Diamonds became associated with them in the Victorian era, and became more widespread when ordinary people started copying the trappings of nobility (diamond engagement rings, college, etc.).

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#29

Post by pjc50 » Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:09 AM UTC

maaaats wrote: post #5

What is the difference between a diamond and an expensive handbag or other accessory? If a thing is worth what people pay, how come diamonds are a scam and other items not? I have a hard time grasping this everytime an anti-diamond article pops up. I can see the logic in not using that kind of money on a ring, but not what's so special about the price/scarcity/fashion of diamonds compared to other luxury goods.

Handbags don't get quite as many people killed in the process of their manufacture and shipment. There's a real problem with conflict diamonds. Even if you buy one with a non-conflict pedigree, you're still supporting the price.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#30

Post by giancarlostoro » Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:11 AM UTC

maaaats wrote: post #5

What is the difference between a diamond and an expensive handbag or other accessory? If a thing is worth what people pay, how come diamonds are a scam and other items not? I have a hard time grasping this everytime an anti-diamond article pops up. I can see the logic in not using that kind of money on a ring, but not what's so special about the price/scarcity/fashion of diamonds compared to other luxury goods.

The other thing is: sentimental value. People have been proposed to with diamond rings and the truth is, they're not looking for make a profit from said diamond, if the value drops to nothing it's still a symbol of their marriage and a basis for the beginning of memories leading up to their marriage and so on. Sentimental value is worth more than diamonds.

I say this having proposed with a diamond ring knowing I may be somewhat annoyed if I found out it was worthless tomorrow, but it wont take it away, it's not like we plan on selling it off someday or something.