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

Diamonds Are Bullshit

blog.priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 774 posts

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#371

Post by larrys »

jmspring wrote: post #293
dclowd9901 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diamonds aren't popular because they have any real value. No one actually believes they do. They cost a lot and are an easily worn, thus making them perfect for their favorite hobby: making other women feel inadequate. Even women who are positively liberal on such matters are drawn to the idea of forcing their husbands to show such monetary devotion. The issue here isn't the scarcity of diamonds. It's the scarcity if…

The comment "making other women feel inadequate" is chauvinistic and generalizing...but at least you acknowledge it... My wife and I eschewed engagement rings or expensive wedding rings (her's was a little pricey, but from an artisan jeweler, but not a lot of bling), instead we opted for spending the money on property (not our main residence). At the least, despite ups and downs here in the states, it has held it's v…

"Charities or other personal investments really are a better option than the bling. "

How do you put charities on the same level as personal investments?

If you make an investment you have something that theoretically might increase in value (as your example "spending money on property"). If you give it to charity you feel good but that's not something that's not something you can retire on or insure the financial well being of your family (or pay for your children's college).

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#372

Post by larrys »

steveklabnik wrote: post #4

It's linked within the article, but it's worth pointing out that "Have you ever tried to sell a diamond"[1] is very much worth your time, and has been discussed here many times. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4535611 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1405698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1110283 1: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...

Noting that the Atlantic article is 30 years old. More recently I was able to sell a diamond for approx. what someone paid for it roughly 10 or 12 years ago. It didn't appreciate but it didn't exactly loose value over the retail purchase. ymmv for sure but this is one data point from my personal experience. (Gave the diamond ring on consignment to a jeweler and after 2 years it sold not sure what the retail buyer paid but that is what we received for the ring.)

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#373

Post by rwhitman »

tsotha wrote: post #343
rwhitman wrote: post #61

Please don't remind me about this. I'm pretty sure every guy knows all this already and unless you have a super hippy / progressive girlfriend (and even then..) you will ultimately find out that even the most rational women could give a crap about the economic / social realities of the diamond market and still " need " a diamond of X carat in order to impress their family and friends. DeBeer's wins. Either you get ov…

The funny thing is it's not just the guys who realize this. It's the women too. One day there will be a preference cascade and everyone will look at each other and ask "Why are we spending so much money on semi-precious stones?" But until that day...

There is some really bizarre complex psychology / sociology behind the whole thing that really needs to be untangled. The De Beers marketers were mad geniuses that made the world bend to their will in a way that can't be undone

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#374

Post by larrys »

clicks wrote: post #123
rayiner wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It irks me a little bit that the issue is painted as one of "reason" versus lack thereof. There is a rationality in adhering to social convention. My wife is a diamond nerd, as well as one of the most rational people you'll ever meet, and she'd explain it this way: the diamond is a test that serves various useful purposes from the perspective of the woman: 1) It demonstrates the man's ability to provide; 2) It demons…

1) It demonstrates the man's ability to provide; 2) It demonstrates the man's willingness to forgo the other things he could buy with the money for a gift for her that does not directly benefit him in any way; and 3) It demonstrates to the woman's peers her husband's social standing. To play devil's advocate here: If you substitute 'ring' with 'a $3k donation to redcross' you could still potentially qualify all of th…

"that is of absolutely zero functional value when you can"

So what's the functional value of entertainment then? It makes you feel good. A diamond makes a woman feel good. It's that simple. Doesn't matter why. It's for her. Not up to a man to judge the value anymore then you want a woman deciding the value of why you might spend you money on whatever makes you feel good.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#375

Post by blaireaug »

eli wrote: post #348
blaireaug wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gilette. During WW2, they didn't have anyone to sell their products to, so they started marketing shaving to women. Before this, a woman shaving was akin to claiming yourself to be a prostitute. Now, it's a cultural norm for women to shave...all because of manufactured desire.

This sounds apocryphal. Women were shaving their armpits in the 1920s.

Sorry, WW1. I get those two mixed up all the time. And yeah, actually, it may be apocryphal, but here's why I believe it to be true.

[1]http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/625/who-decided-wom...

"The gist of the article is that U.S. women were browbeaten into shaving underarm hair by a sustained marketing assault that began in 1915. (Leg hair came later.) The aim of what Hope calls the Great Underarm Campaign was to inform American womanhood of a problem that till then it didn't know it had, namely unsightly underarm hair."

[2]http://history.barnard.edu/sites/default/files/inline/kirste...

"In July of 1915, the first Gillette razor for women came on the market. But where Gillette had responded to a clear void in the men’s hair removal market, he now faced the dilemma of promoting to a market that did not yet exist. Hence Gillette was responsible for introducing to American women the revolutionary concept of shaving."

[3]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1542-734X.1982....

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#376

Post by logn »

evilduck wrote: post #340
evilduck wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her answer: For an actual rock (which are classified differently than gemstones) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourmaline and her reasoning, "Actually gains value, good ones are not common (like diamonds are), awesome variety of colors" Also said she likes aquamarine for actual gemstones (it's beryl, same thing as emeralds), but it's not as hard as diamond and wouldn't stand up to the daily abuse as well. She also sai…

She sent me this link as an example: http://www.etsy.com/listing/85093794/on-sale-rose-cut-indico... She's also a fan of monzinite and clear topaz.

Neat! Thank you. I've always wanted to ask a geologist this question so I'm glad I finally could.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#377

Post by btilly »

lectrick wrote: post #342
enraged_camel wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have anything to do with financial security. Look, if your man is spending three months worth of salary on a piece of shiny rock, he is exercising poor financial judgment and that is a signal against future financial security. Women want diamonds not because of any symbolic reasons ("Diamonds are forever!") but because of reasons that are much more practical: they want to be able to show off the diamonds t…

What if I bought a nominal ring and instead threw the rest of the money (and then some) at a REALLY awesome vacation for us?

You have to find the right woman.

A bit over 23 years ago I had a wedding which - including wedding bands - was under $200. I'm still married to her. We're both glad we didn't go into debt to get married...

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#378

Post by larrys »

rayiner wrote: post #133
clicks wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) It demonstrates the man's ability to provide; 2) It demonstrates the man's willingness to forgo the other things he could buy with the money for a gift for her that does not directly benefit him in any way; and 3) It demonstrates to the woman's peers her husband's social standing. To play devil's advocate here: If you substitute 'ring' with 'a $3k donation to redcross' you could still potentially qualify all of th…

It doesn't qualify (3), which is a very important one. I've got a daughter. She's only 4 months old, but I've had occasion to think a bit about this. I would not want her to marry someone who wasn't willing to give her a ring? Why? Reasons (1) and (2) I mentioned, sure, but also reason (3). It is the mark of a sensible man that he cares what other people think about him. People who buck social conventions sometimes b…

"It is the mark of a sensible man that he cares what other people think about him."

Agree with you (and my daughter is much much older).

I would be totally wary of a man that decided in lieu of buying a ring for my daughter to make a donation to a charity. The ring is a gift for the woman. In the event of a divorce the woman typically gets to keep the ring it's an asset and does have value despite all the drivel of the OP and everyone else here is saying. Owning 100% of something that is only worth 50% of what someone else paid for it is still more than 0 (what you get with a charity donation at least monetarily).

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#379

Post by itsprofitbaron »

On a previous Priceonomics blog post[1] in the HN discussion 'startupfounder' suggested that we needed a "Warby Parker for Diamonds"[2] which I disagreed with[3] my disagreement is also relevant with this Priceonomics post because:

"Diamonds are bought, not because of what they are but what they represent.

The whole point of diamonds is to capitalise on what they're representing rather than their actual worth.

Their value is created through the likes of "diamonds are a girl's best friend" which is why the price is high for them. Hence the advertisements have been developed around the whole perceived value of diamonds ala. "diamond's are a girls best friend" because when you present a woman with a diamond you're presenting her with a promise - a promise that you will look after & take care of her. Which is something that most women want."

[1] http://priceonomics.com/mattresses/#industry

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4522922

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4523062

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#380

Post by larrys »

wutbrodo wrote: post #233
rayiner wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't qualify (3), which is a very important one. I've got a daughter. She's only 4 months old, but I've had occasion to think a bit about this. I would not want her to marry someone who wasn't willing to give her a ring? Why? Reasons (1) and (2) I mentioned, sure, but also reason (3). It is the mark of a sensible man that he cares what other people think about him. People who buck social conventions sometimes b…

Your logic is technically sound, and I'm not faulting you for thinking that way, but for me personally that's an unfortunately regressive way of looking at the world. I'm unsure where the idea that being principled requires being foolish comes from, but I myself would care more about the character of my daughter's husband (and incidentally, the assumed father of my grandchildren). I'm not even sure what one would be…

"but I myself would care more about the character of my daughter's husband "

Parent commenter is interested in someone who thinks the way he does. There is nothing wrong with that and there are probably more parents from my experience who wants someone who hold their views then are willing to accept someone with different views.

Post reply on HN