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

111–120 of 171 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck

#111

Post by xtiansimon »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #102

This is wrong: > 3. A diamond is an illiquid asset, not an "investment". Don't believe me? Try to sell a second-hand diamond ring on eBay or at a pawn shop. Do you really think you'll get anything close to what you paid for it? Yes you'll get close to what you paid for it if you buy it the same way jewelers buy it. There's an ultra liquid market for diamonds: a friend jeweler showed it to me. He needs a diamond to ma…

> “…you can even bring your own stone to the jeweler…”

I’m curious, how would you know the diamond you gave the jeweler was the same diamond they put into the ring, as a layman?

Re: Diamonds Suck

#112

Post by fsflover »

sambalbadjak wrote: post #88

lol, I forwarded this article to my girlfriend, and she immediately responded: absolutely not! I guess some things are not meant to be optimised. She mentioned that you can buy a lab-grown diamond for much cheaper, and keep the same shine as a "real" diamond.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38247835

Re: Diamonds Suck

#113

Post by Semaphor »

shiroiuma wrote: post #39
Thomashuet wrote: post #33

I have an even cheaper solution: just don't buy a ring. It all depends on what your partner wants obviously. If it's important for your partner to get a diamond ring and you value your partnership more than the cost of a diamond, then buy a diamond. If your partner wants a "I'm married" sign (as my wife did), just buy a simple wedding ring without a stone. If it's not that important for her, don't buy a ring.

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…

For her engagement ring, we got a ring with some kinds of slightly bigger green stones (don’t ask me) on Etsy for maybe 100€, for the wedding bands we went with titanium, 3 small colorless stones (again, don’t ask me which) for her, no stones for me, that came in at slightly over $100 for both. Can recommend titanium.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#114

Post by beavis000 »

Not to hijack the thread, but weddings are significantly suckier. The cost is several multiples more than a diamond (natural or lab), only lasts one night, and is typically a large source of stress. Just have a party at a restaurant and use the $50k-$100k saved for student debt or rent or kids school.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#115

Post by pavlov »

ckolkey wrote: post #63
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I feel the same way. Moissanites are basically TOO good. They reflect light in so many carnival colors, and they shine so brightly, that they frequently look like fake carnival jewelry.

What? I can't understand this at all. We like gems _because_ they are shiny, not in spite of that. But alright, subjective opinion. I'm just enjoy my affordable shiny rocks over here.

Shininess is one property people appreciate in gems, but not the only one. Many so-called fine things are loved exactly because their quality can’t be pinned down on a simple scale, but rather is a blend of subjective evaluations whose weightings are constantly evolving as tastes change.

Is the best wine the one with the highest alcohol content? The best chocolate the one with the most cocoa or the most sugar? The best painting the one with the most contrast? Etc.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#116

Post by Semaphor »

globular-toast wrote: post #98
Thomashuet wrote: post #33

I have an even cheaper solution: just don't buy a ring. It all depends on what your partner wants obviously. If it's important for your partner to get a diamond ring and you value your partnership more than the cost of a diamond, then buy a diamond. If your partner wants a "I'm married" sign (as my wife did), just buy a simple wedding ring without a stone. If it's not that important for her, don't buy a ring.

Even better: just don't get married. Very few advantages, if any, for most people (only big exception I'm aware of is for citizenship status).

> Very few advantages, if any, for most people (only big exception I'm aware of is for citizenship status).

Residency as well, not just citizenship. Other benefits (here in Germany) include: Better adoption rights, no visiting issues when your SO is suddenly in the hospital, tax benefits, and a bunch of other small benefits that you have a decent chance of encountering in your life.

While we mainly got married for her residency, it’s worthwhile to get married for a multitude of reasons. My sister and her husband also decided to get married for the 2nd child, as they also encountered issues being unmarried.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#117

Post by A_D_E_P_T »

npteljes wrote: post #79
ckolkey wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? I can't understand this at all. We like gems _because_ they are shiny, not in spite of that. But alright, subjective opinion. I'm just enjoy my affordable shiny rocks over here.

I find people usually like a specific amount, and that often there is such a thing as excess, even with desirable things, traits. This also changes over time, and from culture to culture. Another example is the coloring of clothes. In ye olde times, a vibrantly bright colored article is a rarity, because dying it, and then keeping it clean are not trivial tasks. Nowadays, bright basic colors such as royal blue can ea…

Right. There's also the fact that cubic zirconia has, like moissanite, a refractive index higher than diamond's. So a lot of poverty-tier CZ costume jewelry is, like moissanite, extremely shiny. That moissanite is basically indistinguishable from CZ -- but highly distinguishable from diamond -- is not a point in its favor.

> In ye olde times, a vibrantly bright colored article is a rarity

I had heard that medieval nobility was very fond of brightly-colored clothes. Blues, reds, yellows, etc. It stands to reason that this was to exhibit their wealth in an immediate and obvious way.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#118

Post by glimshe »

globular-toast wrote: post #97
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…

> She won't take it out. What's the point then?

Take it out of her finger

Re: Diamonds Suck

#120

Post by pilchard123 »

AndyJames wrote: post #74
throwaway287391 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After all, [engagement rings] only need to last a few months, or maybe 1-2 years, until the wedding. I think this is the cultural distinction you're missing -- married American women typically wear both their engagement and wedding ring their entire lives, and the engagement ring is usually the more ornate/expensive one (which might be due to the De Beers marketing throughout the 20th century this article discusses…

The thing is it's not the culture or tradition of the US. It's just a brilliant ad campaign that lasted way longer than it should.

At what point does something become part of a tradition or culture? Why does "it started as an ad campaign" preclude something from becoming part of culture?
Post reply on HN