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

31–40 of 229 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#31

Post by FrozenVoid »

scandox wrote: post #20

People who buy engagements rings are simply spending lots of money as an expression of love and providing visible proof of that to other people. I don't think that's a great idea but everybody's different. So the value of diamonds is somewhat irrelevant.

Nope, they're victims of succesful marketing campaign by De Beers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_ring#20th_century In 1938, the diamond cartel De Beers began a marketing campaign that would have a major impact on engagement rings. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the price of diamonds collapsed.[25] At the same time, market research indicated that engagement rings were going out of style with the younger generation. Before World War II, only 10% of American engagement rings contained a diamond.[26] While the first phase of the marketing campaign consisted of market research, the advertising phase began in 1939. One of the first elements of this campaign was to educate the public about the 4 Cs (cut, carats, color, and clarity). In 1947 the slogan "a diamond is forever" was introduced.[27] Ultimately, the De Beers campaign sought to persuade the consumer that an engagement ring is indispensable, and that a diamond is the only acceptable stone for an engagement ring.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#32

Post by realusername »

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.

In France it's the same, it's mostly gold or silver, one example website I found randomly on google:(http://www.histoiredor.com/fr/mariage/alliances/(univers)/ho...).

Even when you search on google with the two languages, you see that difference clearly in the illustrations.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#33

Post by eindbaas »

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.

Those are wedding bands. Engagement rings more often feature diamonds or other gems. Wedding bands rarely do indeed (in Western Europe anyway).

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#34

Post by aunty_helen »

pfortuny wrote: post #12
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.

No: it is not a scam. It is a monopoly, which is different. They are a luxury good because the inly seller makes them so, without a real motive (they are not scarce). Louis Vuitton bags are scarce by manufacture but this is not artificial.

The motive is profit.

>Louis Vuitton bags are scarce by manufacture but this is not artificial.

Are you suggesting that LV bags are scarce because for the 4000$ price range they can't figure out a way to make more bags? I would make the suggestion that their scarcity is entirely atrificial to inflate prices.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#35

Post by mijamo »

scandox wrote: post #20

People who buy engagements rings are simply spending lots of money as an expression of love and providing visible proof of that to other people. I don't think that's a great idea but everybody's different. So the value of diamonds is somewhat irrelevant.

You could do that without mined diamonds and all its negative consequences.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#36

Post by stult »

pfortuny wrote: post #12
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.

No: it is not a scam. It is a monopoly, which is different. They are a luxury good because the inly seller makes them so, without a real motive (they are not scarce). Louis Vuitton bags are scarce by manufacture but this is not artificial.

You're right, but to elaborate it's a government granted monopoly via trademark. Yes, you can get an identically made bag for far cheaper, but it can't (legally at least) have the LV logo on it. Which is why so many luxury brands are essentially plastered in logos. The logo has no value beyond its ability to signal the wealth of its owner. So essentially rich people use an overpriced trademark for conspicuous consumption purposes.

Natural diamonds are a scam because there is no way for them to be visibly distinguished from lab grown diamonds. There's no equivalent to a trademarked logo that distinguishes them from their cheaper competitors. Meaning, even if you think conspicuous consumption to display wealth is a worthwhile activity, diamonds don't even achieve that purpose anymore!

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#37

Post by realusername »

eindbaas wrote: post #33
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.

Those are wedding bands. Engagement rings more often feature diamonds or other gems. Wedding bands rarely do indeed (in Western Europe anyway).

I can't speak of Germany but in France engagement rings are very rare and more something of the upper class, out of all the weddings I've done, none of them did that.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#38

Post by raverbashing »

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? :)

A lot of places have wedding bands, without stones

Seems like diamond rings are another BS pushed by marketing and swallowed by the public.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#39

Post by [deleted] »

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? :)

[deleted]

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#40

Post by FrozenVoid »

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.

>What is the difference between a diamond and an expensive handbag or other accessory?

There is no 'expensive handbag' cartel enforcing artifical scarcity and preventing resale of used handbags.

Post reply on HN