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

521–530 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#521

Post by akie »

smhost wrote: post #229
erelde wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(french also) I know a couple who married at the beggining of their fifties, just went to the mayor's office with two witnesses, signed the papers and that was all. They are both litterature teachers for students in their master cycle.

I was a witness for a couple (who I had only met earlier that day) at a Vegas wedding. I would also like to point out that the U.S. is as large as all of Europe combined, and that there are vast cultural differences throughout.

From a European perspective the cultural differences are not so vast.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#522

Post by jsjohnst »

jdietrich wrote: post #465
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.

CZ is a very satisfactory diamond simulant. A $10 CZ is almost impossible to distinguish visually from a $10,000 diamond - unless you're a very skilled grader, you really can't tell the difference without a thermal tester or a refractometer. The visual giveaway is that it's too good - the stones are perfectly clear, perfectly colourless and have exceptional fire. CZ grades better than the very best diamonds. When it…

Maybe I'm the exception to the rule, but I've been able to consistently spot a CZ, even from a distance. I thought maybe it was just the average cut of a CZ, but doing a blind comparison between similar quality cuts of CZ and diamonds with a jeweler friend, I was able to pick out the CZ first try every time.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#523

Post by pyrale »

hobarrera wrote: post #467
Zombieball wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Women love to look at other women's rings and chat about it. If she is open to the idea, just remember that she's the one being brave and breaking out of the mold more so than you. This is a great description that captures the social pressure aspect quite well. Guys aren't the ones wearing the ring everywhere!

> Guys aren't the ones wearing the ring everywhere! I believe that the bride-only thing is US-only, or (maybe) limited maybe limited to ex-british regions, but it's definitely not universal, and definitely not a thing in latinamerica (diamonds aren't a thing here either) or a great deal of europe.

It's pretty much the same in France, although social pressure has eased on that as of late.

Usually the only jewel men wear is their wedding band.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#524

Post by chris_7 »

stouset wrote: post #301
eyko wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horse meat is quite normal in western culture, unless if by western culture you mean anglophone countries.

And not eating it is for non-taste/texture/allergy reasons is just as absurd as wanting to have a "real" diamond. It's all nonsense. None of it makes sense.

Does horse meat not raise the risk of digestive system cancer, as other red meats do? (and notably unlike fish and vegetables)

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#525

Post by TheCoelacanth »

NumberCruncher wrote: post #252
bluedevil2k wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can afford a $3k MBP, you can afford a diamond ring. And her diamond ring will be worn forever, your shiny new laptop will be on Craigslist in 5 years.

>> her diamond ring will be worn forever The divorce statistics say something else.

If this is their first marriage, it has something like a 70% of being worn until death. The Macbook has a >90% chance of being relegated to the trash heap in less than 10 years.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#526

Post by at-fates-hands »

mcv wrote: post #504
aianus wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was no alternative before this article. You know, you don't need an engagement ring to get married. Much less one with a shiny stone of any kind.

Stoneless rings are common in other countries. Tattoos are up and coming. A bit more painful, but still cheaper than a diamond (and much more permanent).

>> A bit more painful, but still cheaper than a diamond (and much more permanent).

My best friend is a tattoo artist. He said the top two coverups he does are for:

a. band names

b. significant other initials or names

He joked that its practically a harbinger of a failed relationship since most are back in his chair within 12-18 months to get them covered up.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#527

Post by kdamken »

ryuker16 wrote: post #427
ClayFerguson wrote: post #295

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 ac…

Alot of women think this of men when they see us drop $60k-80k+ on car instead of getting a cheapo Toyota.

To be fair, I don't think people spending their money stupidly on overpriced things is specific to one gender or the other : )

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#528

Post by kdamken »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #239
ftrflyr wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't work. I have tried it. She (my GF) just argues with me about any purchase I try to make that is around the ballpark of what she is expecting me to pay for a ring. e.g. Her: So you want a new MacBook Pro, but you can't afford a $3000 engagement ring? Me: No, I need a MacBook Pro for work. This has been going on for quite some time now.

If you can afford a $3k MBP, you can afford a diamond ring. And her diamond ring will be worn forever, your shiny new laptop will be on Craigslist in 5 years.

A diamond ring loses a large amount of its value when you purchase it, because engagement rings don't really ever sell for what they bought them for. If he uses that MBP for work, it is a return on the investment as it allows him to earn income with it, eventually (hopefully) more than what he spent on it.

The diamond just sits on her finger for bragging rights.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#529

Post by mcv »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #526
mcv wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stoneless rings are common in other countries. Tattoos are up and coming. A bit more painful, but still cheaper than a diamond (and much more permanent).

>> A bit more painful, but still cheaper than a diamond (and much more permanent). My best friend is a tattoo artist. He said the top two coverups he does are for: a. band names b. significant other initials or names He joked that its practically a harbinger of a failed relationship since most are back in his chair within 12-18 months to get them covered up.

Name or initial is not quite the same thing, I think. I don't know anyone who has names or initials as a wedding/engagement tattoo. It's usually a simple symbol, like a rune, or in my case, a Moebius ring (two sides that are one, what better wedding symbolism is there?). Although I do know one person with both a wedding and an engagement tattoo who is about to get a divorce after more than 10 years of marriage.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#530

Post by delecti »

lqdc13 wrote: post #402
digitaltrees wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out this article, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how... It shows how the concept of diamond engagement rings were completely invented by a specific ad campaign; first in America and now expanding to the rest of the world. They were specifically trying to create social pressure to buy the most expensive ring possible; to reinforce the impression that a diamond ring demonstrated wealth a…

Everyone knows about it and yet everyone does it. It is like getting a luxury brand car or a watch or living in a certain part of town. All aren't practical. When social pressure is already there, you are asking the female partner to break the norm which can be tough.

It's even worse than those. A luxury car will probably be high quality, and might have extra features not standard on more reasonably priced cars. Living in a certain part of town is probably safer. A fancy diamond is only expensive because people think it can be expensive.
Post reply on HN