Diamonds Suck (2006) • Hacker News Board

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#21

Post by mcgingras » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:33 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #15

The author focuses on the "object of beauty" role of the engagement stone, but I think that the more important role in marital tradition is as a "store of value". It publicly indicates the groom's value for the wife, while also handing her a measure of independence, to assist in exiting a bad marriage. That is, it helps to mark the union as consensual. While a deed to real estate might serve these purposes better tha…

The author actually included a section on diamond being a poor store of value. The idea that a man is spending wads of cash on an engagement ring for his wife as "insurance" that she is able to leave and sell the ring seems wrong to me.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#22

Post by pwython » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:33 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #14

This lost a lot of credibility at the point where they linked to the moissanite.net shop.

It wasn't even a hyperlink, it was plain text. Generally you want to source your information, and that one price point came from moissanite.net

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#23

Post by Chris2048 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:35 PM UTC

Do you even need a stone? Couldn't a regular metal band do well enough?

If it needs to be fancy, make it out of gold, platinum or silver?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#24

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:35 PM UTC

mcgingras wrote: post #21

hirundo wrote: post #15

The author focuses on the "object of beauty" role of the engagement stone, but I think that the more important role in marital tradition is as a "store of value". It publicly indicates the groom's value for the wife, while also handing her a measure of independence, to assist in exiting a bad marriage. That is, it helps to mark the union as consensual. While a deed to real estate might serve these purposes better tha…

The author actually included a section on diamond being a poor store of value. The idea that a man is spending wads of cash on an engagement ring for his wife as "insurance" that she is able to leave and sell the ring seems wrong to me.

[deleted]

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#25

Post by Arrath » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:37 PM UTC

My father sidestepped the diamond issue by way of my parent's rings being simple yet lovely gold bands.

The kicker, they're made from gold he mined himself in Alaska.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#26

Post by amelius » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:39 PM UTC

pwython wrote: post #22

amelius wrote: post #14

This lost a lot of credibility at the point where they linked to the moissanite.net shop.

It wasn't even a hyperlink, it was plain text. Generally you want to source your information, and that one price point came from moissanite.net

For me, in this case, trustworthiness is more important than knowing the price at one particular shop.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#27

Post by ashtonbaker » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:42 PM UTC

It's a bit odd to me to have a very clear condemnation of De Beers, their advertising, the diamond industry, purchasing diamonds, paired with a recommendation for a "diamond alternative". Isn't this just buying into the cultural expectation - artificially created by De Beers - of wearing an expensive clear-colored rock? Doesn't it benefit the diamond industry if you wear a very large moissanite, cubic zirconia, or artificial diamond, even if it isn't the genuine article? It's advertising for them anyway, as you're promoting the general trend, especially to those who you don't explain yourself to, and who just see a big shiny rock that looks like a diamond. It seems more productive to just go the rest of the way and avoid gemstones on your rings, or avoid rings in general.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#28

Post by smolder » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:43 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #15

The author focuses on the "object of beauty" role of the engagement stone, but I think that the more important role in marital tradition is as a "store of value". It publicly indicates the groom's value for the wife, while also handing her a measure of independence, to assist in exiting a bad marriage. That is, it helps to mark the union as consensual. While a deed to real estate might serve these purposes better tha…

If you believe that engagement stones should be a store of value then you are supporting the authors point that we shouldn't buy diamonds.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#29

Post by nsajko » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:44 PM UTC

I completely agree with the points the page makes, but I don't think it will turn away many from diamonds as it misses the point of getting a diamond. Shoving a diamond in an engagement ring might have been pretty cool the first few times somebody did that, but nowadays it's not at all interesting, novel or original; and I'm pretty sure people don't marvel at the way their gem disperses light after the first few days of having it pass.

This is what I think is really the reason people gift and wear engagement rings: upholding tradition and signalling commitment. Even if the tradition is "fake", created by De Beers marketing, isn't most tradition like that anyway? Artificial gemstones don't lie too well with people who care about the tradition of gemstones. I don't even think it's necessary to care for the tradition, I think the value of natural diamonds is pretty much burned into everybody's subconscious by pop culture. And the inflated cost is actually a "plus" for signalling commitment.

Don't get me wrong, I would feel pretty stupid if I had to buy diamond jewelry (if I could); I just don't think the article makes a good pitch, because its points don't hit close enough to the reasons people buy (or desire) diamonds. I kind of think that the article speaks best to those who are least inclined to buy diamonds anyway.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#30

Post by lotr » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 2:44 PM UTC

nonotreally wrote: post #17

paulgb wrote: post #6

Diamond alternatives are fine, but another option is just not getting a ring. My wife and I decided not to and nobody really cares. We spent the money on travel instead, and the memories are more valuable to us than a tiny rock. Don’t get me wrong, diamonds and other gems are beautiful and if you want one, go for it. But if it’s not something that is worth $5-10k to you, just know that it’s a choice, not an obligatio…

I'm in the don't buy a ring club and it has never come up in social situations. No one cares about your stuff as much as you do.

Of course it comes up in social situations. If I'm interested in a girl and she has a ring on her left ring finger, I drop it. It's literally the first thing I check; it's basic etiquette.