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

151–160 of 171 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck

#151

Post by iteratethis »

omnicognate wrote: post #3
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 don't think that's news to the author, but even on those terms it's not a great purchase to "parade" if its visually indistinguishable from something with a fraction of the price.

Even the act of parading in general is questionable in its effectiveness. What is the intended goal? That somebody has a more favorable view of you? I don't think it does that, at all.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#152

Post by tecleandor »

hilbert42 wrote: post #66
tecleandor wrote: post #29

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. It's true that for some, a big appeal of a good watch is the "implementation" or the mechanics or electronics that go inside, or the craft on creating it. And others use watches more as jewellery. But there's always somebody that use them to "show off": while some people will buy a…

"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…

Oh, that of course. I'm not in the "showing off jewelry" nor the "speculating with Rolex" business. I was talking more to the "but diamonds are also an investment" side. I'm more into technique and curiosity and I'm more than delighted by my Casio, Seiko, Vostok... I even have a fake Omega too :)

I find devices as your magnetron quite interesting, BTW.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#153

Post by g9yuayon »

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…

> I, as a European, cannot fathom how anyone would spend a significant amount of money on an engagement ring

It's all thanks to more than 100 years of marketing campaign and tight control of supply of diamond by De Beers. People did not buy diamond rings before De Beers' "A diamond is forever", and the supply of natural diamond is practically unlimited. I have to give it to the ingenuity of De Beers - they got Soviet Union to agreed to a supply deal after Soviet Union found huge diamond mine that could have supplied the market with dirt cheap diamonds for hundreds of years! So, I'm very happy that Chinese entrepreneurs do not give a shit about De Beers and managed to figure out how to mass produce lab-made diamonds cheaply (yes, the process was invented and greatly improved by the west, but it was China, specifically the manufacturers in Henan Province, that didn't succumb to De Beers' heinous control, and gave De Beers a huge middle finger).

It's funny that the traditional diamond industry started to argue that these lab-grown diamonds were too pure and lacked the impurities that natural diamonds have. And what is the response of the Chinese manufacturers? They laughed, as adding impurity to a lab-made diamond can be easy and precise.

Personality, I hate the kind of consumerism and irrationality driven by De Beers. I'm very happy to see De Beers destroyed.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#154

Post by marssaxman »

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…

If you are like me and actually prefer the substantial feeling of a heavy ring, you can get a nice tungsten ring for under $100, too!

Re: Diamonds Suck

#155

Post by marssaxman »

bovermyer wrote: post #96

Orrrr you can do what my wife and I did: just get those silicone rings. They come in lots of styles, you can wear them while working out or diving or any other physical activity, and they're much cheaper than actual jewelry.

My wife and I tried that, while we were living on a sailboat, but I was disappointed by the lack of durability; my silicone ring only lasted six months.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#156

Post by jimmydddd »

g9yuayon wrote: post #153
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…

> I, as a European, cannot fathom how anyone would spend a significant amount of money on an engagement ring It's all thanks to more than 100 years of marketing campaign and tight control of supply of diamond by De Beers. People did not buy diamond rings before De Beers' "A diamond is forever", and the supply of natural diamond is practically unlimited. I have to give it to the ingenuity of De Beers - they got Soviet…

Agreed. My wife did not care about getting a fancy diamond ring for our wedding (US) but I ended up getting the standard expensive diamond ring out of tradition. One thing I noticed was how many of her female friends and relatives wanted to inspect and complement her ring. Even MY female relatives were saying things like, "Oh, I am glad he chose well, I was worried he was going to cheap out on the ring." So, we have a ways to go in the US. Maybe gen Z will save us.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#157

Post by trogdor »

marssaxman wrote: post #154
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…

If you are like me and actually prefer the substantial feeling of a heavy ring, you can get a nice tungsten ring for under $100, too!

I have a three inch tungsten cube. It’s the best thing I have ever wasted money on.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#158

Post by jtbayly »

exitb wrote: post #28
Mordisquitos wrote: post #19

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.

Not really. It’s that it’s a better hard, clear crystal gemstone.

It could easily be argued that your Seiko makes a better watch than a Rolex.

What people are looking for and value in the product will make the argument more or less compelling.

One of those things they might value is the similarity to some other well-known, valued product.

Moissanite apparently looks like a diamond but better. I could say the same about a number of watches in comparison to Rolex.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#159

Post by merelysounds »

g9yuayon wrote: post #153
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…

> I, as a European, cannot fathom how anyone would spend a significant amount of money on an engagement ring It's all thanks to more than 100 years of marketing campaign and tight control of supply of diamond by De Beers. People did not buy diamond rings before De Beers' "A diamond is forever", and the supply of natural diamond is practically unlimited. I have to give it to the ingenuity of De Beers - they got Soviet…

> It's funny that the traditional diamond industry started to argue that these lab-grown diamonds were too pure and lacked the impurities that natural diamonds have.

I guess they're doing that because humans have a long history of idolising old times and old imperfections. We praise analog photo grain, or analog audio noise. Industries from clothing brands to guitar manufacturers release artificially aged products.

Then again, adding imperfections in "post production" seems to be the status quo.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#160

Post by BlueTemplar »

tecleandor wrote: post #29
exitb wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people buy expensive watches, even though there are visually indistinguishable clones on the market. I still don't think that a fake Rolex makes for a great gift. I don't really want to advocate for diamonds here. I hate that it's mined at the expense of human welfare. I just want to point out that this article is 17 years old and not much has changed since it was written. Maybe it's not a compelling take?

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. It's true that for some, a big appeal of a good watch is the "implementation" or the mechanics or electronics that go inside, or the craft on creating it. And others use watches more as jewellery. But there's always somebody that use them to "show off": while some people will buy a…

I would love to buy one of the Ankythera watches, but since only 4+20 have ever been made, it's way out of my price range...

https://www.gphg.org/horlogerie/en/watches/antikythera-sunmo...

Post reply on HN