Imagine wanting to marry someone and buying a ring with a rock that pretends to be a diamond but is worth <10% of what a diamond costs.
Interesting that you (presumably) read the article and came to this conclusion.
[dead]
Diamonds Suck
21–30 of 171 posts
Re: Diamonds Suck
#22Before 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?
Just another option.
Re: Diamonds Suck
#23To 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.
It makes sense to waste resources on purpose (e.g. buying overpriced gemstones), at least from the evolutionary perspective - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle.
Yet, the world would be better if the same amount could be burnt on something with better externalities. If jewelry, then hand-made one.
Re: Diamonds Suck
#24The diamond tradition became a ridiculous cultural trait, buy lab-grown diamonds can help greatly mitigate the wastefulness of regular natural diamonds. 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.
Lab-grown diamonds, however, can be had for as low as 20% of the price of natural diamonds (for large sizes), often less than Moissanite, and absolutely look the part. You simply can't tell the difference between a lab-grown diamond and a natural diamond without highly specialized equipment because they are, well, the same thing and differ only in minute growth "marks" in their fine structure. If I'm not mistaken, there is regulation preventing companies from calling competitors' lab-grown diamonds "fake diamonds", and retailers can call them "real diamonds" (but NOT "natural diamonds").
I got my wife of 15 years a large lab-grown diamond ring from Ritani for ~2K and she loves it. She won't take it out. Everybody is blown away by it because an equivalent natural diamond ring would go for ~10-15K.
Re: Diamonds Suck
#25Imagine wanting to marry someone and buying a ring with a rock that pretends to be a diamond but is worth <10% of what a diamond costs.
A: And this rock was not soaked in the blood of slave child workers...
B: So, how do you expect it to have the magical power to keep your love?!
Re: Diamonds Suck
#26Before 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?
I did sapphires in my engagement ring. Love their blue color!
Re: Diamonds Suck
#27On Netflix there is a nice documentary about this: Nothing Lasts Forever
Re: Diamonds Suck
#28Earlier 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 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.
Re: Diamonds Suck
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 "neat" Seiko, Tudor, or even Rolex, there's always one Cristiano Ronaldo that will buy the 2 million dollar gem covered version, or the tourbillon whatever.
BTW, today there is people commercializing fake Rolex (and others) of a quality so high that even experts have difficulty distinguishing them from the originals. Apparently they're sold under the excuse of protecting your assets: keep your very expensive Rolex on the bank, bring this replica to the party. And they're not cheap, I think I've seen them for around 2k or 3k euro.
Re: Diamonds Suck
#30[deleted]