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

41–50 of 229 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#41

Post by ainiriand »

nailer wrote: post #3

Another option: second hand diamonds, which diamond merchants will tell you don't exist. People die, if they don't pass their stones onto their children, this is where they end up. Sotheby's jewelly auctions. Know what you want, buy stones and ignore settings (they'll be dated and you can sell the metals), and know you're the only retail customer in a room full of diamond merchants. Another option: get a house deposi…

It reminds me of one of my friends that owns 4 jewelries. One of those was converted to a sort of gold pawn broker when things got complicated in Spain. He showed me plastic bags full of diamonds that nobody wanted in the industry.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#42

Post by Freak_NL »

tzaman wrote: post #26
mysterydip wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's seems to be mostly a US thing (it doesn't seem common in Western Europe either). It boggles the mind how spending several monthly salaries on a ring became a solidly embedded tradition over there.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#44

Post by stinos »

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…

Yet plenty of people love buying luxury items for the feeling it gives them

For me that is the huge rip-off next to the financial part: for a lot of these luxury items the extra money doesn't get you proportionally more or better functionality nor quality (2 things which are imo actually worth money since they give you something practical and useful back). It's often more about looks and how it feels. But do the people really care about the looks themselves, or rather how they are perceived by others? And is that really worth pursuing? And does buying a feeling really work and how long does this feeling last? Also is the feeling 'real' or is it just made-up in the end because culture tells you it's like that?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#45

Post by marklgr »

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…

Signaling is also a strong component of luxury; you let everyone know that you have means, good tastes, and that you belong to such and such circle. Some brands don't even bother to deliver superior quality products, they just "sell the signal" -- the term "ripoff" then feel adequate.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#46

Post by Freak_NL »

retSava wrote: post #22
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.

> "it's the most important day of my life"

Implying that its all downhill from there. I find this such a depressing way of looking at life.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#48

Post by baud147258 »

realusername wrote: post #32
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.

In France, you can have both: an engagement ring (with stones like diamands) and an "alliance" (wedding ring).

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#49

Post by realusername »

baud147258 wrote: post #48
realusername wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In France, you can have both: an engagement ring (with stones like diamands) and an "alliance" (wedding ring).

Engagement rings are very rare in France, I don't know personally any couple who did it and even the wikipedia page on it is very small, unless you are from the upper class or an international couple, it's pretty rare.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#50

Post by mijamo »

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).

The average engagement ring in France is 800$ (https://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2014/09/15/1952013-bagues-f...)

One comment above talked about $5600 for an engagement ring in average in the US.

That is quite a difference indeed!

Post reply on HN