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

71–80 of 229 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#71

Post by technofiend »

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.

You're not kidding! My wife was a wedding coordinator for nearly a decade and I used to joke with her "What next, wedding water?" Then someone got the bright idea to buy bottled water wholesale, label it with the wedding details and sell the result at a huge markup.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#72

Post by moviuro »

realusername wrote: post #49
baud147258 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Weird. Friends are getting engaged all around me and the ladies all have an engagement ring. No international couple nor upper class.

Weird.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#73

Post by antirez »

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.

Same in Italy, this diamonds thing is an US anomaly similar to other things like cost of healthcare and so forth.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#74

Post by xg15 »

dkobia wrote: post #70

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.

In other words, as with most successful marketing campaigns (sadly), you can't dispel its effects simply by saying "it's a marketing campaign".

(Edit/add: Though, contradicting my own argument a bit, I think point 2 and 4 - that there was deliberate effort to establish it as a "luxury item" and that today it's used to fund all kinds of atrocities - could be able to change demand of diamonds: They also change the things that wearing a diamond would imply about the wearer.

The Mossanite argument makes no sense because one of the points of wearing a diamond is to be seen as "my significant other is rich and/or dedicated enough to gift me this" - however, no-one wants to be seen as a helpless brainwashed sheep or a supporter of war crimes.)

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#75

Post by tgb »

darkcha0s wrote: post #18
charlesdm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everything is about money though. Want to have an extravagant wedding? Fine. Want something basic? Also fine. Yes: diamonds, jewellery, mechanical watches etc are all bad value for money. People don't buy them because they're bad value. They buy them because they like wearing them, and women buy jewellery because it makes them feel pretty. That's life. It's fine throwing money away sometime.

>mechanical watches [...] are all bad value for money Citation needed. Seriously, mechanical watches can be a great investment if you know what you are buying.

I think the meaning was in terms of a time keeping device not as a value store. The cheapest Walmart watch keeps time significantly better than the most expensive mechanic watch and many will last years of use.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#76

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#77

Post by antirez »

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.

You are implying then that the point is to pay a lot of money and your future wife should be happy that you are paying a lot of money for a useless thing, just to show you did it. This is a bad ground for a relationship IMHO. Because otherwise the physical qualities (how it looks) is the whole point.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#78

Post by sametmax »

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 selling pitch.

Nobody is saying your designer handbag is naturally rare. They explicitly say "we produce it in a small number so that it's exclusive".

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#79

Post by dreamfactored »

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.

Luxury goods prices are largely related to the cost of production in the form of quality rather than any other form of scarcity. The question they answer is 'what is the very best product possible?' Luxury leather bags for example have a huge degree of craftmanship (which is why fakes are mostly lousy and very distinguishable). This is why they become a well-known brand in the first place - it's a mark of quality in design and production.

Rimowa is an example where they have had to constantly innovate in order to maintain a quality edge. Service is another area - if you buy a Hermes silk tie, you can get it cleaned and pressed for life for free at any Hermes shop in the world (cleaning and pressing silk ties is incredibly hard and they often get destroyed by dry cleaners).

The problem occurs when the brand itself becomes the cash cow as a result of this consistency in quality, and businesses start to exploit this. They will usually slap their brand on an outsourced production line product and charge a premium. Occasionally that might be justified by the product having a great distinguishing design to compensate but often it's not the case - and that's where we start to think of it as a bit of a scam. An example is Church's Shoes. From 1873, they were around the highest quality brogues in the world available at any price (short of bespoke shoes) and were handmade in workshops in Northampton. In the 1990s Prada bought them and started transferring production of all but a top end line to Italy, where the shoe manufacturing was partly automated and inferior. Unless you are buying the handmade bench grade shoes, you are now paying extra for the name and probably being a bit of a mug unless you are very attached to the particular design. Now that brand is tarnished for the high end shoe market and dependent on consumer ignorance for the rest. (As a sidenote, a lot of the craftspeople who worked for Church's before the takeover moved to the other Northampton shoe makers who used to be considered lesser quality and some of those brands are slowly moving into the luxury end as a result of the quality improvements.)

I will very happily buy a nobrand or knockoff where there is no functional difference or the price tradeoff doesn't justify the difference, but often top end goods can justify their price.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#80

Post by mysterydip »

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.

She's even had random strangers (like a store checkout clerk or hotel front desk) ask to see it closer and then compliment what a good job I did (not tooting my own horn, I and others think it's just as silly as you do, but if you want the girl you get her what she wants).
Post reply on HN