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

81–90 of 229 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#81

Post by tssva »

coldtea wrote: post #57
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? Usually there's way less war, slave and child labor involved in the making of a handbag.

I'll concede less war. The production of fashion goods including luxury handbags involves a pretty good amount of slave and child labor.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#82

Post by obelix_ »

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 difference. Just that mindless consumption culture turns people with brains into ants running an ant hill. So there will always be opposition.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#83

Post by hrktb »

mjhagen wrote: post #63
Freak_NL wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

That’s still usually not the most important. For instance even if your partner is the best thing that ever happens to your life, the most important moment will be the proposal or whatever moment you recognize and mutually accept you need each other in your life.

The wedding is the inking of the deal, the most important moment is when you agree to the deal in the first place (and I hope that’s way far before the wedding takes place).

From there, the impact of the wedding is mostly memories, networking and social perception.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#84

Post by wycy »

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…

How easy/hard is it to extract diamonds from these old settings and get a new setting for it? Where would one even go to get a diamond placed in a new setting?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#85

Post by skywhopper »

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.

You seem to believe the commercials more than most Americans do. The vast majority of people don't spend that much on an engagement ring (I'm pretty sure the commercials said "two months'" not "several" anyway--but still, that's nuts, no one I know spent anywhere near that much). An engagement ring is pretty entrenched as a tradition, sure, but not the boggling part about the expense.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#86

Post by xstartup »

Yes, this post missing the point that I as a diamond buyer already know this but it will not stop me from purchasing more diamonds.

In a hypothetical world, if a diamond could be bought for $10K and sold for $10K, where is the risk? Then it's no longer for only rich, others can take a loan from a bank and purchase diamonds.

When I pay for a diamond, I don't pay for its intrinsic value. I pay for diamonds because other people around me feel they are expensive and you've to be rich enough to set your money on fire (like you do while purchasing a diamond). It's a signal for others that I am "fuck you money" rich.

The very same reason for which I purchase a sports car, yes a sports car does have some advanced engineering but the resale value is not same.

As long as diamond purchase price stays up I'll keep buying. Only thing I want is that no other people are able to acquire them for cheap when I am willing to pay a premium. (I hate price discrimination, i've also worked hard for my money, why should anyone get them cheap?)

Please stop treating me like a victim of De Beers campaign.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#87

Post by GimbalLock »

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.

Powerless? No. Just don’t buy it. It really is that simple. You don’t have to change everyone’s mind. Just stand up for yourself.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#88

Post by peatmoss »

arethuza wrote: post #21
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! ;-)

> Been married 27 years so far so it seems to have worked!

As I like to joke with my wife, it’s not a successful marriage until one of us dies.

As for rings, we didn’t do an engagement ring, and my wife’s ring contains a sapphire mined from our home state.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#90

Post by tcgv »

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.

One big difference is that many men feel obligated to buy expensive diamond engagement rings to their pretenders to "show his love", i.e., the three salary rule[1].

This kind of cultural/social pressure was built from a long history of, one could say brilliant, marketing campaigns.

[1] https://www.financialsamurai.com/the-new-rule-for-engagement...

Post reply on HN