Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like to have done this. Maybe we’ll get it reset with a proper, clean, nice man made one instead!
What? I'm confused. Why would you burn more resources to replace an existing diamond?
[deleted]
The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge
231–240 of 619 posts
Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buying from your website might burn the requisite amount of money, but it wouldn't be conformist enough. Signalling conformity with social norms is also important to some people.
that guy selling glass with a Russian royalty like name in every mall around the world beat him to it anyway
That place always confused me. I was like, "So what's this stuff made of? Uh huh, okay, and why exactly are these tchotchkes and brooches and stuff worth this much?"
Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better advice: upgrade to a fiance that isn't distracted by pointless bling.
oh yes preference for a diamond ring is definitely a dealbreaker
because I definitely want to spend the rest of my life with someone who's hypnotized by multi-generational marketing campaigns into wearing industrial abrasives as a status symbol. who wouldn't?
Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
The diamond ring has no utility, so there’s no calculation to make. It’s an irrational proof of commitment.
Proof of commitment can have utility. And status symbols can have utility. (Going on a tangent: compare Bitcoin's proof-of-work, which also has utility. Of course, that doesn't mean diamonds nor proof-of-work are the best bang-for-buck. For the latter, you can use proof-of-stake or avoid cryptocurrencies altogether. For the former, there are plenty of other social arrangements that avoid diamond rings.)
Just realized: A big fat diamond is a literal Proof of Work.
Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
A Needless Pedanticism, that is only technically correct if you mean gold that won’t kill you We can make gold in the lab. It’s radioactive gold but still gold. Edit, actually i think in the 1980s Seaborg might have created stable gold out of bismuth, but just might have. The articles aren’t mentioning which isotope was created so I don’t know. Mercury to gold is radioactive isotopes, which is the one I’d known about…
Tangentially related item, since we're just getting weird now. Related to gold and (SPOILER ALERT) Mercury. Listen to the podcast Shit Town. It's one of the best pieces of media ever created.
I’m 2 hours in and it’s riveting, thank you.
Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge
#236It's about time. Even more useless than gold. Hopefully it's next, though at least it's somewhat fungible and has a small industrial use.
Diamond and gold are far from useless. Quite the contrary, they're way both too expensive to use in applications where they'd be ideal. Copper is used as cheap gold Mica is used as cheap diamond.
Copper has superior mechanical properties for its applications than gold would. Gold is plated on contacts not just for its conductivity but bc it won’t oxidize.
Mica is easier to work with than diamond as well as being cheaper.
Both gold and diamond have exotic uses. Diamond is common as an abrasive but no need for clear ones for that application.
Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess that works for most men. Personally, one of my criteria is that she can't want a diamond, that might sound crazy but I want a partner in life that is financially sensible and fiscally responsible, we have to leave our children with more than we were left with or we have failed, that is a core part of my philosophy of family building. Thankfully I found her. I also had a talk with her dad about it after I met…
Splurging every once in a while does not inherently make someone “fiscally irresponsible.” For many people, especially on this forum, $3k-$5k for a ring is literally a few days work or less worth of pay. (Please no one get pedantic on ring cost to me, absolutely not the point of this comment)
Spending money on something expensive but valueless to appease someone is starting what is supposed to be a lifelong partnership on the wrong foot. I'm happy to get my fiancé something expensive, as long as it's valuable. I want her to have something valuable if I fail as a husband, it's more meaningful, it's a real commitment rather than a demonstration of willingness to appease. A woman that can't see that distinction is, to me, a woman that isn't interested in building a future.
Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge
#238Diamonds are worthless, but reject them at your own peril. When my friend proposed to his girlfriend of 3 years, because the ring didn’t have a diamond she said no.
Sounds like a protocol error. They did not have a conversation first about the stones for the engagement ring?
Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not the cost that’s the issue, it’s the underlying desire. Belief in astrology is seemingly harmless, but it’s a sign of underlying irrationality that I find unacceptable. The ritual around a hunk of carbon is the same category of thinking IMO. Also, ‘a few days salary’ rather defeats the rituals purpose.
Eh, I’m fervently anti-diamond (they’re silly imo), but I can acknowledge that, to some, they represent (I think?) a lasting commitment and are a cultural tradition. If the desire is emotional, then there’s no reasoning with it anyway. (And not everything in life need be logical.)
Does it count as a cultural tradition if it was manufactured within the last 2 generations? It’s kinda like asking a family if they celebrate Toyotathon or Hondadays as a tradition.
Re: The diamond world takes radical steps to stop a pricing plunge
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
The happiest relationships result from both partners putting the other first. This forum is predominantly men. As a woman, I see variations on that "keep the hubby happy" phrase all over womens' spaces. So yeah. Some equality here is a little refreshing.
I would strongly object that both putting the other person first is a surefire way for happiness. Putting the other person first at your own detriment can easily lead to destruction.
Key point, the effort must be mutual. Putting your partner first at your detriment should be an intolerable proposition to your partner. In all things, moderation.