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

51–60 of 171 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck

#51

Post by mrec »

GTP wrote: post #45
shiroiuma wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This of course is true and makes sense, but you could also say the same thing about eating dinner in a restaurant: you could save money by skipping a meal, or by getting a frozen meal at the supermarket. A restaurant meal at a decent restaurant isn't that expensive (though it is pretty bad in the US these days; other countries are much better). A ring doesn't have to be expensive: you can get a nice titanium ring for…

Number 3 seems a good idea for a 007 movie :D

I think GP was referring to that exact thing happening in The Abyss.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#52

Post by f1shy »

kristiandupont wrote: post #9
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...

What about lux watches? A 3 dollars Quarz Casio can beat any hand made Rolex in precision… but still some buy it. And in between there are all kinds of possibilities.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#53

Post by iSnow »

glimshe wrote: post #24

The diamond tradition became a ridiculous cultural trait, buy lab-grown diamonds can help greatly mitigate the wastefulness of regular natural diamonds. I don't think Moissanite is the right replacement - they have too much of the so-called "fire", almost too sparkly as the article shows. I think Moissanites are inferior to diamonds in appearance in my personal, subjective opinion. Lab-grown diamonds, however, can be…

>I think Moissanites are inferior to diamonds in appearance in my personal, subjective opinion.

Yeah, same. They have too much bling and look exactly like something the nouveau riche would parade around. To make things worse, moissanite jewellery usually has too many gems, something you couldn't afford with diamond.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#54

Post by kelnos »

vasdae wrote: post #21
weevil wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that you (presumably) read the article and came to this conclusion.

[dead]

Perhaps, but it's pretty sad that we buy things just because they're expensive. In most cases it's just a waste, and you're only hurting your own bank account, but when it comes to diamonds, it actually causes harm.

And yes, I did buy my partner a diamond engagement ring. I wish I'd tried harder to see if she could be happy (or happier, even) with something else, or at least a lab-grown diamond.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#55

Post by fardinahsan »

dbrgn wrote: post #40

I, as a European, cannot fathom how anyone would spend a significant amount of money on an engagement ring! The engagement rings we got ourselves cost 18$ and were made from wood. After all, they only need to last a few months, or maybe 1-2 years, until the wedding. Regarding the wedding ring, I can understand slightly better how someone would put a bit more money into that, considering that you wear it for life. But…

Because "creating memories" can't be exchanged for social status.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#56

Post by vasdae »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #48
vasdae wrote: post #16

Imagine wanting to marry someone and buying a ring with a rock that pretends to be a diamond but is worth <10% of what a diamond costs.

Ok I get ya. Need to spend $20k or whatever. But why a diamond? So many other things you can spend that on that would be a nice keepsake.

I completely agree. My point is that, even though buying a diamond is stupid, buying a cheap knock-off is even stupider. The only point of a diamond is to show wealth, since it's a rock - a knock-off can't even show wealth, so why buy it?

If you want to buy something useful instead, that's much better.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#57

Post by viciousvoxel »

f1shy wrote: post #52
kristiandupont wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

What about lux watches? A 3 dollars Quarz Casio can beat any hand made Rolex in precision… but still some buy it. And in between there are all kinds of possibilities.

A high quality mechanical watch, aside from being a beautiful object from an artistic and engineering perspective, tends to be a significantly better store of value than diamonds (vs natural diamonds especially)

Re: Diamonds Suck

#58

Post by smcl »

f1shy wrote: post #52
kristiandupont wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

What about lux watches? A 3 dollars Quarz Casio can beat any hand made Rolex in precision… but still some buy it. And in between there are all kinds of possibilities.

The point of the tweet is slightly different from what you're making though. Your comparison would be valid if the artificial diamonds were somehow cheaper-looking while otherwise performing as good if not better than natural diamonds for use-cases where aesthetics don't matter (drill bit tips, or what have you). But that's not the case, the artificial ones look exactly the same - maybe a jeweller could inspect them and say "ah this one is artificial, I think".

They also mention suffering, which seems kind of hard to measure but I think it's relatively well known that natural diamonds are saddled with a fair bit of baggage in that regard (slave labour, conflict diamonds, things of that nature).

You can't easily map this onto luxury watches, but it'd be like if you could buy a watch that was indisputably a Rolex, was "equal" in aesthetic appeal to its equivalent Rolex while being cheaper and didn't involve whipping the watchmaker who built it or something. And maybe a few watch afficionados with special knowledge of serial numbers could inspect it and go "ah this one was made without whipping the watchmaker"

Thing is, there are inexpensive watches that are well-regarded within the watch community though: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/a-seventy-five-dollar-watc...

Post reply on HN