Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diamonds Suck (2006)

diamondssuck.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#281

Post by pbhjpbhj »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #78
omribahumi wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From reading this, just show it to her. It says people can't spot the difference.

> people can't spot the difference OK, story time: Way back, a friend of mine in High School wanted to give his girlfriend a ring just randomly (for no occasion), so he bought a cheap one, like $10. So he's going to wrap it as a gift at home, and he needs a box. Asks his big sister, and he gets an unused proper ring box from a local jewellery store. Wraps gift, puts in girlfriend's mailbox as cute surprise, and when…

Meanwhile someone else probably paid $150 for a $10 ring ... I wonder if they ever found out.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#282

Post by morgante »

Can_Not wrote: post #276
morgante wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. The problem with every diamond critique I see is that their very first argument against diamonds is that they're expensive when that is, in fact, the entire point. Likewise, all the people who cry foul about the De Beers conspiracy are neglecting the fact that this does absolutely nothing to reduce their signal value. If I spend a large sum of money on something which I know to be worthless just to star…

> If we're dead-set on continuing to use pretty rocks as signals Why do we need signals? Why does the social contract of marriage need an expensive down payment on essentially nothing? These are things modern cultures should be distancing themselves from. The down payment should be for a house or apartment, or just anything useful.

> Why do we need signals?

Signals are an essential aspect of human behavior. I don't think trying to eliminate signaling is a productive goal.

You yourself brought up the "social contract" of marriage. A contract is not very powerful if there aren't consequences for breaking it. So that's one crucial signal: we are committed enough to this relationship to spend money on something which is only useful as a signal.

There's also the signals of "my mate is wealthy enough to buy me an expensive diamond" and "he cares enough about me to spend a large sum of money on something which has no useful purpose besides signaling his love for me." Simply wishing that these signals didn't exist won't make them go away.

Useful things make poor signals because you might buy them without any intention of signaling anything. That's why glasses are a worse signal than jewelry, even though they cost just as much: you might be spending money on glasses because you need to see, not because you have money to burn.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#283

Post by Nullabillity »

chucky_z wrote: post #143
Roritharr wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for writing this. My problem is only that you consider mosanite inexpensive, which is relative to Diamonds true, but from a ring search i could only find nice looking ones for >1000€ which is still expensive/hardly affordable to me.

Try the second-hand market, and buy the stone you like, and the ring you like (sperate). It's extremely in-expensive (usually included in the cost of the ring if you buy it at a store) to have your stone set into the ring of your choice. I spent a total of $500 to have a .75ct diamond set in a ring this way.

$500 is still an insane price for a glorified lump of coal.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#284

Post by xahrepap »

ejcx wrote: post #208
lacampbell wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Until now, it's been non-negotiable. I really hate to be a random person on the internet giving personal advice but... diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign. Don't be surprised to find out a bunch of other things are non-negotiable if you divorce.

Wow. It's very difficult to respond to you civically. We've been together for a long long time. It is amazing what people you don't know on the internet will assume about you. There was no alternative before this article. Cubic is cheap and tacky. Diamonds are overpriced and awful. Lab diamonds not much better. This article has a real alternative. That's a huge contribution to all diamond haters everywhere.

We put cubic in my wife's ring when we got engaged nearly a decade ago. No one has ever noticed and most people talk about how gorgeous her stone is and how much it must have cost :)

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#285

Post by pbhjpbhj »

err4nt wrote: post #200
riffraff wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

try to convince her that a different gemstone (ruby, sapphire etc) is better. I tried and failed, but it might work.

Yellow sapphire is non traditional and very beautiful. If I had opted for something other than a diamond, I would have chosen something that was very different but still beautiful. My boo desperately wants an opal ring, but unfortunately opal is too soft for daily wear and tear like that, so we would have ended up replacing the stone many times over the lifespan of the ring. Now, moissanite or CZ for fun jewellery, w…

Sort of seriously I'm surprised you can't encapsulate the opal in an epoxy or something (CVD cover it or something). Perhaps not at home, but seems like we should have the tech to do that.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#287

Post by kpwagner »

Sol: No, it's a moissanite. Bad Boy Lincoln: A what-in-ite? Sol: A moissanite is an artificial diamond, Lincoln. It's Mickey Mouse, mate. Spurious. Not genuine. And it's worth... fuck-all.

This quote has stuck with me, though it sounds like Snatch (Guy Ritchie) got the "artificial" part wrong based on the site.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#288

Post by simplexion »

jakewins wrote: post #84
joshkaufman wrote: post #66

I'm the OP - surprised to see this at the top of HN today, but happy to post a quick update: My wife and I have been happily married for ten years now. She loves her ring, and it has held up extremely well. (She just had the band resized, absolutely no issues with the stones.) No one has ever thought it was anything other than a diamond ring, which includes several years of daily scrutiny from crazy New York City bri…

Wife and I had read the Atlantic article before it was too late, went with plain wedding bands for both of us. However, living in America, this is causing issues for her, continuously having to explain to friends and acquaintances why she does not have a diamond. We'd been looking for used rings as an alternative - hence, thank you very much for writing this, you just saved me and my wife several thousand dollars.

The correct response for when someone asks your wife why she doesn't have shiny carbon on her ring is, "because fuck you, that's why."

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#289

Post by Can_Not »

jakebellacera wrote: post #185
TeMPOraL wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you get to the point of explaining why you're against diamonds? Was she able to tell you why she wants a diamond in particular? To resolve this issue it would be good to exchange the exact, real reasons why one side wants the diamond and the other doesn't. But even then, it may end up your GF will insist on the diamond - while all the rational-in-the-vacuum reasons are against diamonds, there's this whole thing c…

> So if she insist, don't be angry at her - be angry at De Beers. I completely agree. My fiancé and I are currently two engaged Americans, and we had a couple conversations about how we envision our wedding ceremony to happen. For the most part, we had very casual viewpoints on marriage (we don't need to make a big deal out of it), but she wanted a ring and I wasn't too hot on giving De Beers more money. She agreed w…

> If I purchased an alternative gemstone for my fiancé, her parents would've been upset with me

And that would be the right time to let them learn about blood diamonds or give them their much deserved shaming.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#290

Post by Can_Not »

joecool1029 wrote: post #134
TeMPOraL wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you get to the point of explaining why you're against diamonds? Was she able to tell you why she wants a diamond in particular? To resolve this issue it would be good to exchange the exact, real reasons why one side wants the diamond and the other doesn't. But even then, it may end up your GF will insist on the diamond - while all the rational-in-the-vacuum reasons are against diamonds, there's this whole thing c…

Yeah well, societal pressures only go so far in influencing a relationship. If the other party can't respect your values, an argument over a diamond is the least of your worries.

I'd rather not be with someone who is so callously materialistic. If she's not openly offended at the presumption of blood diamonds, she's not really my type.
Post reply on HN