Live data from Hacker News

Diamonds Suck

diamondssuck.com

121–130 of 171 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck

#121
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…

You don't even have to wear rings.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#122
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still don't think that a fake Rolex makes for a great gift. Arguably moissanite is not analogous to a fake Rolex. Rather, it is analogous to an elegant and good quality watch of a non-luxury brand. To that extent, I think that a good Swatch, Seiko or Casio wristwatch can make for a great gift.

I wear a Seiko watch. Never, ever was it mistaken by anyone for a Rolex or any other luxury brand. Meanwhile, the whole discussion around moissanite, including the linked article, is centred around how it makes a better diamond than an actual diamond.

In that case I think the root of the disagreement is our understanding of the role of a diamond as a gem on an engagement ring versus the role of a Rolex as an elegant and good quality wristwatch.

If the diamond's function is to be long-lasting, beautiful, and satisfy the expectations in certain cultures of a gemstone to symbolise one has committed to marry a certain person, then moissanite is a cheaper alternative to an actual diamond which is just as good (or arguably better, in terms of beauty). The same goes for a Rolex. If its function is to look good and be a dependable timekeeping instrument, then many other watchmakers can be a perfectly valid and less expensive option.

However, if a diamond's only function in an engagement ring is to prove that one's partner has spent a large amount of money to commit to marriage, then of course moissanite would indeed be analogous to a "fake Rolex". But then the whole idea of finding an alternative to diamond engagement rings due to the disproportionate price of diamonds would be to beg the question — there cannot be an alternative, for the very purpose of an engagement ring would be to spend a stupid amount of money.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think watches can be a bit different... At least expensive watches retain more of their value, or even go way up in the case of Rolex." Buying old Rolex watches is cult activity a bit like buying Elvis's shoes or such at auction for many thousands of dollars—although the latter is likely rarer and ultimately might be of historical interest in centuries to come. Same goes for other engineered products such as old L…

Signalling value is real and not related to gullibility. (There is a lot of costly signalling by animals as well.)

I'd argue that signalling honed by eons of evolution is significantly different to signaling dictated by fashion, it has evolutionary purpose, and it may be costly.

Fashion is fickle and can change quickly. Diamonds weren't really fashionable until De Beers started its Diamonds are Forever campaign decades ago; same with jeans, they didn't become a fashion statement until the 1950s when James Dean, Marlon Brando et al appeared in them in movies.

That type of signalling is only effective after marketing and often—but not always—has little beneficial outcome other than to benefit those who started the fashion or craze, and it's usually the gullible and or susceptible who pick up and run with such signals. In, say, the 1950s, unless you were a manual laborer or a gang member, it wasn't respectable to wear jeans. Back then, those who wished to become gang members—a la the 1950s Rebel Without a Cause — would follow the jeans/leather jacket dress code of the gangs, others would consider those who did as 'greasers' and or possible criminal elements.

In many instances signalling can be missed altogether especially so those who are not its intended recipients, and when it's recognized its effects aren't always positive. Whenever I see someone wearing a Rolex I think 'pretentious bastard, clearly you aren't sophisticated enough to wear another classy watch that would equally signal your intent but not show you up to be a dork'.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#124

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.

Yeah I never understood people spending crazy amounts of money, especially when they could use that to much better use that would make greater the chances of the mariage to last long.

It is not supposed to be the best day of your life. It would means all goes downhill from there which is the opposite of what you want your marriage/life partnership to be.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#125
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…

You don't even have to wear rings.

Agreed but it's still perceived as a property tag.

Anyone trying to hook up will look for a ring as part of the non-verbal social clues.

Rings being expensive or not is a different matter.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signalling value is real and not related to gullibility. (There is a lot of costly signalling by animals as well.)

I'd argue that signalling honed by eons of evolution is significantly different to signaling dictated by fashion, it has evolutionary purpose, and it may be costly. Fashion is fickle and can change quickly. Diamonds weren't really fashionable until De Beers started its Diamonds are Forever campaign decades ago; same with jeans, they didn't become a fashion statement until the 1950s when James Dean, Marlon Brando et a…

The seriously rich and powerful valued diamonds well before that marketing campaign (just look at the Imperial State Crown).

Btw., your reaction to a rolex suggests that you are not an intended recipient anyway.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#127
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't even have to wear rings.

Agreed but it's still perceived as a property tag. Anyone trying to hook up will look for a ring as part of the non-verbal social clues. Rings being expensive or not is a different matter.

I don't think anyone is pulling the brake at the sight of a ring.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#128

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?

I have no clue but maybe you could measure it with a micrometer

Re: Diamonds Suck

#129
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have lots of money and like fancy rings, sure, go for it! If you just finished your college, sit on a big pile of student loans, work in your first job and then spend several months of income on a shiny rock, then that is a bad financial decision, no matter whether you love diamond rings or not. (And from what I hear, this situation happens a lot, due to social pressure and "desired social status".)

I personally would never even think of denying a poor graduate from trying, however clumsily, to impress the girl he fancies with some unaffordable ring. Bad financial decision? Maybe. Story of beautiful romance? Absolutely.

"Aww, you risked bankruptcy unnecessarily because you think I'm vain. And now you want me to be financially bound to you for life. How sweet."

Re: Diamonds Suck

#130
post #85

Diamonds suck indeed. They are easily reproduced and are artificially kept at a high price by big business Gold on the other side, is impossible to reproduce and is a very rare metal that will have many fine uses. You can do anything to it and it won't lose its value. I will never understand why some women require worthless diamonds. It's a crystal, it reflects and will lose its value if broken.

"I will never understand why some women require worthless diamonds."

Marketing, it's a cleverly crafted fashion statement long-ingrained in culture by monopolistic cartel member De Beers.

The artificially high prices maintained by the diamond cartel must end, diamonds are too valuable to industry for industrial purposes than to let these bastards run the show.

Post reply on HN