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

141–150 of 171 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck

#141

Post by RandomLensman »

hilbert42 wrote: post #140
RandomLensman wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're right, clearly I'm not the intended recipient. Leaving my fashion comments aside, my other principal objection is paying for something that likely has a 1000%+ markup on its manufacturing costs, one pays for the Rolex name-not the product. I'm not saying the watch isn't engineered with precision as clearly it is, but one knows something is wrong when Rolex guards its manufacturing processes the way of state se…

There are many things with huge mark-ups but some people really hate that and that is OK (whether or not Rolex has a 90%+ profit margin I wouldn't know).

Yes, the retail marketing campaign for diamonds was quite successful (so where others btw., for example, for retail stock ownership after WWII).

Re: Diamonds Suck

#142

Post by gwbas1c »

yencabulator wrote: post #133
artyom wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you need to be marked as owned to not cheat, the marriage is probably not going to work anyway...

When women hit on me, I hold my hand in a way where my ring is very, very prominent.

If they don't "get the message" I start casually discussing my children.

That being said: I love the tradition of engagement and wedding rings. It's not just about preventing cheating. I bought my wife a moissanite engagement ring because we both wanted to follow the tradition, and we both understood that diamonds are a marketing gimmick to convince suckers to part with large sums of money.

I spent a sum of money that we were both comfortable spending, and we're both very happy with our purchase. My wedding band is made out of precious metal, and I love it. Other people I know wear cheap bands from Amazon and are happy with them.

If you want to be in a lifelong relationship with someone, it's important that you're both on the same page about these kinds of traditions. You don't have to follow them, but if your partner wants to, or values them, it might be worth it to play along to keep them happy. (As long as you're spending money that you're both comfortable spending.)

Re: Diamonds Suck

#143

Post by lowmagnet »

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…

As someone who bought a pair of matching silver rings for us, I agree with on the inexpensive option. I never wear mine because I'm getting old and my knuckles don't like to maintain a constant size.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#144

Post by gwbas1c »

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.

When moissanite sparkles, it sparkles with rainbows. Diamonds sparkle with just white light.

They are very similar, and you need to look very closely to observe the difference.

One of the nice things about moissanite is it allows creating jewelry that otherwise is economically unaffordable with diamonds.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#145

Post by gwbas1c »

One of the extremely frustrating things that I experienced when purchasing my wife's engagement was the pressure from my family to buy diamonds:

When I was a teenager in the 1990s, and moissanite came out, I listened to my older cousin go off on how she would dump any man who tried to pass off a moissanite to her.

Then my mother kept confusing moissanite with cubic zirconia, and kept telling me stories about cheap men who bought their fiancées rings that broke.

I bought my wife a moissanite, but I was so afraid that she was just saying that she wanted a moissanite to merely humor me. What I did was give her matching moissanite earrings a month before I proposed to her. She loved the earrings, so I knew she'd love the ring.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#146

Post by [deleted] »

pilchard123 wrote: post #120
AndyJames wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

Re: Diamonds Suck

#147

Post by iSnow »

Semaphor wrote: post #110
iSnow wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> To make things worse, moissanite jewellery usually has too many gems, something you couldn't afford with diamond. That is a bit hilarious. The fact that you couldn’t afford it with diamonds makes it worse? Am I misreading you there?

Yes, you are misreading. Diamond jewellery has one or very few stones which makes for a clean look. Moissanites are cheap so pieces featuring them usually look like pimped out rides.

Me, personally, I would give my GF the amount in stocks but I wouldn't buy either pearls or diamonds. Both are a total rip-off.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#149

Post by iteratethis »

throwaway287391 wrote: post #64
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…

> 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…

Yes, and culture is made up and therefore not above criticism.

It's not even culture that somehow organically came from the needs or habits of people. It's literally just a marketing scheme.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#150

Post by jakewins »

russdill wrote: post #65
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…

In the US, it's common for a woman to wear both the engagement ring and wedding ring after the wedding, they are often sold as a set. Although one tip I'd give to anyone getting married, get a pair of $18 rings for travel and what not. If one slips off while swimming in the ocean, it's ok.

Or latex/rubber ones, see the recent thread on degloving injuries in /r/construction (content warning: severe hand injuries).

Perfect for construction work, travel and sports like lifting, climbing etc

Post reply on HN