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

161–170 of 171 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck

#161

Post by g9yuayon »

merelysounds wrote: post #159
g9yuayon wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. T…

I would assume so too, except that initially De Beers was arguing that natural diamonds were more pure than the lab-made. When lab-made beat every criteria, 3C and whatnot, created by the diamond cartel, the cartel started to argue for impurity.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#162

Post by BlueTemplar »

xtiansimon wrote: post #111
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?

Well, I'm seemingly able to tell these two high quality diamonds apart from only pictures thanks to the minute differences in the Ideal Scope / ASET pictures coming from slightly different cuts, so better also invest in these tools (a tiny fraction of the price of even these diamonds) ?

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/compare/?lidnos=26...

Re: Diamonds Suck

#163

Post by Izkata »

RandomLensman wrote: post #4

Before diamonds were the go-to for engagement rings, color stones like ruby, sapphire, and emerald were the thing. So why should it be mossianite and not going back to other gem stones?

Even as a kid I'd always thought diamonds were bland and didn't understand why so many people wanted them. Any other gemstone looked better to me, and I think still would.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#164

Post by weevil »

imjonse wrote: post #35
weevil wrote: post #20

My partner and I specifically avoided diamonds (and ultimately all gemstones) for our engagement rings. We went for unobtrusive silver rings, then shelled out for good quality gold wedding rings from a craftsperson we both knew. I think we spent about $1500 on rings in total and, can you believe it, our marriage has not fallen apart because we didn't spend thousands of dollars getting shiny rocks for our fingers.

your marriage was protected from falling apart by shiny metals on your fingers :)

Sssh don't tell anyone that's our secret!

Re: Diamonds Suck

#165

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Diamonds Suck

#166

Post by aurizon »

spokeonawheel wrote: post #109
aurizon wrote: post #15

This is a socially engineered marketing racket. The earth diamond peddlers came out with a laser mark/blemish visible under a microscope to create a non fakeable brand for earth diamonds and are trying to hold those as a premium 'natural' product. A desperate rear guard action to preserve their racket - that is what it is, - a racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering

isnt all of marketing socian engineering?

survivalship

Re: Diamonds Suck

#167

Post by Aerbil313 »

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).

People want to be bonded, formally, officially. Marriage is not some artificial thing, it’s baked into human nature.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#168

Post by artyom »

prmoustache wrote: post #127
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.

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

Definitely wrong. Or you're completely surrounded by psychopaths.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#169

Post by bovermyer »

marssaxman wrote: post #155
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.

Interesting. Mine has lasted for five years now.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#170

Post by [deleted] »

tecleandor wrote: post #152
hilbert42 wrote: post #66

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…

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN