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

291–300 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#291

Post by burfog »

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.

That tradition is news to me. As far as I knew, the tradition is to give a ring with a stone (commonly diamond) for engagement, and then a plain band for the wedding. Once married, only the plain band is worn.

The reason: stones can snag on clothing, rip an eyeball, snap off, attract violence, or scratch something you care about.

I went with my birthstone (Arizona Peridot, cheap and pretty) from my grandma for the engagement. My wife thought that was sweet. She keeps it in a drawer somewhere as a memento, and wears a plain gold band every day.

I suppose I might prefer titanium over gold, for weight reasons, but the gold is OK.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#292

Post by matryoshka4811 »

intrasight wrote: post #169

Diamonds really aren't that attractive IMNO. Other gemstones I like better include sapphire, ruby, opal, emerald. My wife's engagement ring has a blue sapphire with opals on each side. We created each other's wedding band and cast them with gold recycled from old family jewelry. Be creative - these artifacts will have great sentimental value as your marriage ages.

Couldn't agree more. I always found diamonds a bit boring, not to mention all the ethical issues involved. Gemstones and interesting settings are much more attractive in my opinion. I love that you two recycled some family history as well!

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#293

Post by tukelully »

lacampbell wrote: post #218
ejcx wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, I read that as your SO dictating to you that you must give her a diamond. My apologies.

I think you were in the right and didn't really assume as much as suggested. I got the same impression particularly because of the language chosen. "non-negotiable" implies that there was a second party to necessitate negotiation. Saying "no alternative" would come closer to describing a personal taste threshold.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#294

Post by iaw »

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…

I have a diamond ring I need to get rid of. Next time the need arises I'm going moissanite and platinum which will have a much better melt value.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#295

Post by ClayFerguson »

People buy diamonds for a lot of the same 'irrational' reasons they believe in religion. Brainwashing. Girls have it pounded into their head over and over all their lives that this diamond is a MUST so they never think with their own brains about it. 99% of people would never spend $10K on a single piece of jewlery, if it was logic and reason, as opposed to pure brainwashing, that was governing their decisions. So actually it's a very sad aspect that I hate about humanity. Susceptibility to being brainwashed and the need to fit in, and the fear of not fitting in. All the above are mental disorders. And by the way just because "everyone is doing it" doesn't mean it's not a mental disorder. It is.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#296

Post by Can_Not »

morgante wrote: post #282
Can_Not wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The…

Yes, that is the exact kind of ritualistic barbarianism that modern societies should be avoiding. There's nearly endless better ways to have that money spent, even before you get to the "blood" part of blood diamonds.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#297

Post by TD-Linux »

saidajigumi wrote: post #26
kenny_r wrote: post #3

According to Wikipedia[0], the patents for the creation of Moissanite expired in 2015 in the US and in 2016 for the most of the rest of the world. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moissanite#Applications

Interesting. Moissanite (silicon carbide) has a number of similar characteristics to diamond. So I decided to see whether, like diamond, its use as a high-temperature semiconductor had been investigated. Turns out the answer is yes, specifically by Toyota for its hybrid cars' power control units (PCUs): https://www.wired.com/2014/06/toyota-semiconductors-evs/

Yeah, manufacturers like Cree specialize in it for high voltage MOSFETs.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#298

Post by TeMPOraL »

Can_Not wrote: post #289
jakebellacera wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Pissing off your potential future parents-in-law will not win you the love of your fiancée. You have to weigh the gains against the consequences.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#299

Post by rahkiin »

dllthomas wrote: post #126
vaveh wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought fabricated diamonds were yellow-ish and easy to tell apart from real ones?

This depends on the method of fabrication - there are several. From my recollection of a Wired article from a decade ago, there was a then-new technique that produced diamonds that were indistinguishable from natural diamonds but for being maybe a little too perfect. Article seems to be here, method in question was "Chemical Vapor Deposition": https://www.wired.com/2003/09/diamond/

You do realise that the OP article was from 2006 while the article you cite is from 2009?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#300

Post by jonloldrup »

thecatspaw wrote: post #241
jonloldrup wrote: post #231

This turns out to be based on a conspiracy theory: "Current public perception of diamonds is the direct result of a masterfully executed marketing campaign by De Beers that began in 1938, not inherent scarcity or value. If you've read the article by Edward Epstein (you really should), you know all of the gory details. Isn't it amazing (and scary) how brainwashed people are about the "value" of diamonds, even though t…

there's no need to call anyone a croony crackpot or similar. lots of big newspaper seem also to agree that diamonds are bullshit, here's huffingtonpost's article about it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-weissman/7-reasons-why-you...

actually, I wrote in irony.. my post was supposed to be a satire on all knee jerk reactions.
Post reply on HN