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

41–50 of 55 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#41

Post by xur17 »

kop316 wrote: post #7

I'll add my name to the list of folks who did not get a dianmond, but a Moissanite ring. A couple of things I learned along the way: - I bought the ring and the Moissenite seperately. I bought the ring at a regular jewelry store (my spouse found one she liked). It is a very HARD sell when you buy the ring to also get the diamond. I ended up buying the ring online to pick it up, and I have wondered since then if they…

> When I took the moissanite to a jewelry store to get it mounted, the "fake" diamond detector actually said the moissanite was a diamond! I was actually very surprised to see that, and I was candid in the fact that I brought them a moissanite. (which leads to my following point....)

That's hilarious - any idea how the "fake" detectors work (it seems they are not very accurate)?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#42

Post by curryst »

nsajko wrote: post #29

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…

It's not even particularly traditional. Up until the DeBeers campaign in the 30s/40s, a wide array of gems were used in wedding rings. Wedding rings are traditional, but solely using diamonds is fairly novel. It would be more traditional to use any other gem.

> This is what I think is really the reason people gift and wear engagement rings: upholding tradition and signalling commitment.

Both of those are bad reasons. A diamond wedding ring is not traditional (nor is the obscene spending, at least once we stopped using wedding rings as part of the dowry), and spending a bunch of money is a bad way to show commitment. Anyone can spend a bunch of money without caring at all. This is the worst part of the DeBeers mythos; equating lavish spending with commitment. They are not the same.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#43

Post by lotr »

c22 wrote: post #36
lotr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lol, my partner and I don't wear rings, but if you're interested in her she'll let you know to drop it.

This is tedious for someone receiving frequent attention.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#44

Post by rini17 »

curryst wrote: post #39
c22 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have some friends who got their wedding "rings" tattooed onto their ring fingers. I loved the concept, I have no tattoos to date, but this is one I would consider getting.

I would nope right out of that one. Relationships change; rings can change, but tattoos do not. Nobody wants a constant reminder of a failed relationship, and I would imagine that your new SO wouldn't be super thrilled to be constantly reminded of your ex. Plus what do you do if you get re-married? Tattoo another ring on? Wear an actual ring over the tattooed ring?

Black out whole finger :D

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#45

Post by silicon2401 »

ashtonbaker wrote: post #27

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 ar…

It's easier to tell someone to eat less meat than to eat no meat at all. Similarly it's easier to tell people to get a diamond alternative rather than just no diamond at all.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#46

Post by kop316 »

xur17 wrote: post #41
kop316 wrote: post #7

I'll add my name to the list of folks who did not get a dianmond, but a Moissanite ring. A couple of things I learned along the way: - I bought the ring and the Moissenite seperately. I bought the ring at a regular jewelry store (my spouse found one she liked). It is a very HARD sell when you buy the ring to also get the diamond. I ended up buying the ring online to pick it up, and I have wondered since then if they…

> When I took the moissanite to a jewelry store to get it mounted, the "fake" diamond detector actually said the moissanite was a diamond! I was actually very surprised to see that, and I was candid in the fact that I brought them a moissanite. (which leads to my following point....) That's hilarious - any idea how the "fake" detectors work (it seems they are not very accurate)?

IIRC they either measure resistance or heat conductivity (as a carbon crystal structure has very specific properties). The device was a pen with two probes on it. It had different lights that said "Diamond", "Mossanite", and "Cubic Zirconia", so I was very surprised to see that the detector thought it was a diamond.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#47

Post by CollinEMac »

nsajko wrote: post #29

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…

I agree. I think the author is missing the point of diamond engagement rings.

Also, none of this seven points really sway me.

1. Basically anything that's expensive has had its price inflated in some way. That doesn't make it anyone any less willing to pay the price.

2. Same as number 1. Lots of things are only expensive because they've been marketed well. Does that make them less valuable?

3. No one buys an engagement ring as an investment. Who buys an engagement ring thinking they'll be able to recuperate costs?

4. This one has merit but there has also been a lot of progress in recent years. things like these have popped up and most major jewelers are taking part. Ask where your diamond was sourced before buying. https://www.responsiblejewellery.com/

5. Don't spend more than you can afford on anything. That's just common sense.

6. The author is really missing the point here. You can make an exact replica of a famous painting but it's still a replica. There's value in authenticity.

7. Same as number 5. Also, you could say this about any major purchase.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#48

Post by Pyramus »

CollinEMac wrote: post #47
nsajko wrote: post #29

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…

I agree. I think the author is missing the point of diamond engagement rings. Also, none of this seven points really sway me. 1. Basically anything that's expensive has had its price inflated in some way. That doesn't make it anyone any less willing to pay the price. 2. Same as number 1. Lots of things are only expensive because they've been marketed well. Does that make them less valuable? 3. No one buys an engageme…

> 1. Basically anything that's expensive has had its price inflated in some way. That doesn't make it anyone any less willing to pay the price.

That doesn't make sense. Liquid expensive things like gold have a market price plus some transaction fee or fee for storing etc. Even illiquid expensive things like houses cost market prices + transaction fees + fees for agents etc. The point here is that diamonds are marketed like liquid assets when in fact they aren't.

> 2. Same as number 1. Lots of things are only expensive because they've been marketed well. Does that make them less valuable?

Yes, unless you define value to be 100% subjective, in which case, no.

> 3. No one buys an engagement ring as an investment. Who buys an engagement ring thinking they'll be able to recuperate costs?

I've had lengthy arguments with family about this. Engagement rings aren't bought as an investment but every single person had the expectation that diamonds are an investment, and as such can be resold, will appreciate (at least not depreciate) etc.

There are valid reasons to buy a diamond, don't get me wrong, but the large majority is not aware that diamond rings loose 30-50% of monetary value the instant they are bought.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#49

Post by c22 »

curryst wrote: post #39
c22 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have some friends who got their wedding "rings" tattooed onto their ring fingers. I loved the concept, I have no tattoos to date, but this is one I would consider getting.

I would nope right out of that one. Relationships change; rings can change, but tattoos do not. Nobody wants a constant reminder of a failed relationship, and I would imagine that your new SO wouldn't be super thrilled to be constantly reminded of your ex. Plus what do you do if you get re-married? Tattoo another ring on? Wear an actual ring over the tattooed ring?

Those properties are also what makes it such a good indicator of commitment, and of course it has the added benefit of not getting caught in machinery.

I made a personal rule early in life never to marry someone I hadn't successfully lived with for 5 years prior and it's worked out well for me so far.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#50

Post by ycombinete »

intrasight wrote: post #20
blacktriangle wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just don't blow a ton on rings? My wife and I spent roughly $200 each on rings. Or even just buy some of those silicon rings that are roughly $50. I really like wearing a wedding ring, but not being attached to any one ring that I'm worried about losing or damaging is nice too. Also like you say gems other than diamonds are nice. I'm seeing many more engagement rings recently that are opting for different stones a…

Is women giving men an engagement ring a new thing? I got my wife (30 years ago) a ring with two opals and a center sapphire - custom made by a local jeweler. It makes diamond rings look pretty boring.

I assumed that your parent was talking about wedding rings
Post reply on HN