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

61–70 of 229 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#61

Post by paulgb »

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.

Diamonds have pretty effectively been marketed across the class spectrum as something you have to buy to get engaged, to the point of the "two month (salary) rule" being a thing. Other luxury goods don't have that.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#62

Post by coldtea »

Freak_NL wrote: post #46
retSava wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The other opposite would be considering your final day the "most important day of your life".

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#63

Post by mjhagen »

Freak_NL wrote: post #46
retSava wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't believe I'm about to defend a marketing slogan. "Most important" doesn't imply "best", in my opinion, I think it implies that this day has the most impact on your life, so make it a good one. Maybe future days will be better because of what happened on this day.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#64

Post by branchless »

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.

Artificial scarcity in watches

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/18/richemont-d...

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#65

Post by Guest9812398 »

aunty_helen wrote: post #34
pfortuny wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I would make the suggestion that their scarcity is entirely artificial to inflate prices.

You're suggesting people pay $4,000 for a LV bag because LV is limiting their supply and they're difficult to find? I don't think that's the case. They're expensive because only LV can produce bags with their logo, and they're charging as much as people are willing to pay.

Artificial scarcity might be the case for a special edition bag, or a Nike or Adidas shoe produced in a unique color with a limited run of 100 products. But, that's not the core of their business or the source of their overall higher prices.

In short, LV bags are simply not scarce.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#66

Post by thecatspaw »

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.

A nice engagement ring does not require a diamond though. It does not require 3 months of salary.

So what _is_ the point of an engagement ring? To show love? I can do that without a ring. To show I'm taken? I've got another ring for that. We both do.

Those rings cost about 20$ together

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#67

Post by rusk »

paulgb wrote: post #61
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.

Diamonds have pretty effectively been marketed across the class spectrum as something you have to buy to get engaged, to the point of the "two month (salary) rule" being a thing. Other luxury goods don't have that.

Flowers when I mess up ... handbag when I really mess up ... cards flowers and chocolates on valentines day ... chocolate at Easter ...

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#68

Post by glandium »

Freak_NL wrote: post #42
tzaman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It got to Japan too. Probably from the US.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#69

Post by skywhopper »

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? :)

That's cool. It's also cool to give a token (such as an engagement ring) or exchange gifts as part of the engagement as well.

Why criticize the way other people choose to celebrate their engagement?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#70

Post by dkobia »

Unfortunately this is one of those American traditions we love to hate but are for the moment powerless to change. Your significant other may not care but societal pressure and expectation is hard to get around. She has a mother, sisters, friends etc. It is the same reason an expensive handbag makes absolutely no sense to a man but matters so much to a woman. It is confounding.
Post reply on HN