Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diamonds Suck

diamondssuck.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 171 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck

#2

Post by exitb »

To an engineer's eye this might make sense, but the significant cost of a diamond is actually the very point of buying it. And it's hardly an odd thing - the history of human civilisation is littered with examples of spending for the sole purpose of being able parade the purchase.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#3

Post by omnicognate »

exitb wrote: post #2

To an engineer's eye this might make sense, but the significant cost of a diamond is actually the very point of buying it. And it's hardly an odd thing - the history of human civilisation is littered with examples of spending for the sole purpose of being able parade the purchase.

I don't think that's news to the author, but even on those terms it's not a great purchase to "parade" if its visually indistinguishable from something with a fraction of the price.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#4

Post by RandomLensman »

Before diamonds were the go-to for engagement rings, color stones like ruby, sapphire, and emerald were the thing. So why should it be mossianite and not going back to other gem stones?

Re: Diamonds Suck

#6

Post by Retric »

exitb wrote: post #2

To an engineer's eye this might make sense, but the significant cost of a diamond is actually the very point of buying it. And it's hardly an odd thing - the history of human civilisation is littered with examples of spending for the sole purpose of being able parade the purchase.

The original purpose of such gifts was exchanging something of actual value like land not supporting a massive marketing campaign pushing a tradition as fake as Happy Honda Days.

Synthetic diamonds have already destroyed the big shiny rock as a display of wealth, but the marketing continues.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#8

Post by eviks »

RandomLensman wrote: post #4

Before diamonds were the go-to for engagement rings, color stones like ruby, sapphire, and emerald were the thing. So why should it be mossianite and not going back to other gem stones?

Because the specs are better

Re: Diamonds Suck

#9

Post by kristiandupont »

exitb wrote: post #2

To an engineer's eye this might make sense, but the significant cost of a diamond is actually the very point of buying it. And it's hardly an odd thing - the history of human civilisation is littered with examples of spending for the sole purpose of being able parade the purchase.

I'm reminded of this tweet: "it's actually crazy we figured out how to grow real diamonds that are cheaper and better quality than the real thing and so many people are still like, no thanks the suffering is what makes it special."

https://twitter.com/missmayn/status/1612892354624786444?lang...

Re: Diamonds Suck

#10

Post by exitb »

omnicognate wrote: post #3
exitb wrote: post #2

To an engineer's eye this might make sense, but the significant cost of a diamond is actually the very point of buying it. And it's hardly an odd thing - the history of human civilisation is littered with examples of spending for the sole purpose of being able parade the purchase.

I don't think that's news to the author, but even on those terms it's not a great purchase to "parade" if its visually indistinguishable from something with a fraction of the price.

Some people buy expensive watches, even though there are visually indistinguishable clones on the market. I still don't think that a fake Rolex makes for a great gift.

I don't really want to advocate for diamonds here. I hate that it's mined at the expense of human welfare. I just want to point out that this article is 17 years old and not much has changed since it was written. Maybe it's not a compelling take?

Post reply on HN