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

111–120 of 229 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#111

Post by Semaphor »

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? :)

I got my fiancee a great looking engagement ring from a Chinese Etsy store. Cost including shipping was a little bit above $100.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#112

Post by wyclif »

matthberg wrote: post #110

If I might ask, why was this flagged? It was last discussed in 2016 [0], and though it needs a [2006] tag, it is otherwise a really valid and interesting post. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12944464

I wondered the same thing.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#113

Post by wycy »

xstartup wrote: post #86

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 othe…

How does a diamond represent "fuck you money" if everyone has them?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#114

Post by coldtea »

tssva wrote: post #81
coldtea wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Depends on the brand. Luxury handbags are also wholly made in the US, France, Italy, and so on, in anything like slave and child labor situations...

(Besides even the worst sweatshop is probably better than the best mine).

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#115

Post by mgkimsal »

lordvigm wrote: post #107
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…

Holy shit 30k? Hopefully the average is just skewed up by rich people. If middle class people are plunking down that much, it would be insane

I don't have much to compare against, but my own wedding was... infinitely small. 2 witnesses, low cost ceremony, marriage license, 2 day honeymoon in a B&B, and a car rental was all had for under $500. (1998). I'd also started a new job that week - my new cubemate had just moved back to the area from out of state. She'd been married the year before, was now going through a divorce, and they were fighting over who was going to handle the $20k debt incurred for their wedding expenses.

The $500 is a bit misleading - each family later threw us a small backyard get together with other friends/family, but we were in different countries, so there was airfare involved later, and the food/catering for each event was probably a couple hundred each (burgers, chips, drinks, cake, etc for a few dozens folks). Including airfare to visit people, and the cost of those events, it was probably still under $3k. I understand it was 20 years ago, but some people were spending $20k even back then, apparently.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#116

Post by test1235 »

hrktb wrote: post #83
mjhagen wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 weddi…

it doesn't matter how you define it - the initial premise was that once you've decided that it the most important, then it's all downhill from there.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#117

Post by slfnflctd »

rayiner wrote: post #28
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? :)

Our engagement rings trace back to Middle Ages Europe, where they arose to serve a notice function (this person is taken). Diamonds became associated with them in the Victorian era, and became more widespread when ordinary people started copying the trappings of nobility (diamond engagement rings, college, etc.).

I was told a story that the concept originated before this, as a subtle way to identify acolytes of a certain religious order or place of worship in ancient times. The phrase used was "temple prostitutes". I've searched a bit and had trouble finding a source to back this up, though. If anyone has one or can debunk it, I'd be happy either way.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#118

Post by chasingthewind »

andrei821 wrote: post #109

> Isn't it amazing (and scary) how brainwashed people are about the "value" of diamonds, even though they're not actually worth that much? It seems to me that the same strategy is curently used in the crypto ecosystem.

I was wondering to myself "what are the diamonds of the HN crowd?" and found you've answered my question.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#119

Post by realusername »

moviuro wrote: post #72
realusername wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Strange, maybe you are coming from a big city or something similar? It's very unusual around my place, I only know of one distant cousin who did it and it made people raise some eyebrows because it was judged as posh.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#120

Post by nailer »

wycy wrote: post #84
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?

Easy. If you have the stone you can get a new setting (and the stone placed in it) at most high/main street jewellers. Everyone who reuses their family stones gets this done, so the jeweller won't mind doing it.
Post reply on HN