Diamonds Suck (2006) | Hacker News Reader

Diamonds Suck (2006)

diamondssuck.com

1,336 pointsTomte576 comments

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 brides in her role as a bridal gown sales manager in a high-end atelier in Midtown Manhattan. Those who know about the stones think they're beautiful and love that there's a good alternative to diamond.

I stand by everything I said in this essay, and would 100% recommend moissanite to anyone who is (or will soon be) in the jewelry market.

Congrats on the solid decade together with your wife, happy to hear you're doing well. I was wondering why in the ten years since your posting I hadn't come across much moissanite in jewelry, until I found out Charles & Colvard had a patent on it until the last year.

Really looking forward to how jewelrs will use these now that moissanite is off patent and startups like the Diamond Foundry have interesting approaches as well. http://www.racked.com/2016/6/14/11872830/lab-grown-diamonds-...

After decades of glimpses into the practices of DeBeers, maybe now will be the time the public becomes fully aware

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.

I had no idea that this could possibly be a thing.

> having to explain to friends and acquaintances why she does not have a diamond.

I don't think this is a universal "in America" thing. Maybe in some parts of the country, but here in the northeast it seems like it's none of their business; I can't imagine asking someone to explain it, and I would think someone who did ask was being awfully nosy. FWIW my wife has a diamond ring which she almost never wears, and I can't remember anyone ever asking about it. My parents wear plain gold wedding bands only, and I've never heard anyone ask them about it either.

That's absolutely fair, I should know better than to generalize like that. We live in rural Missouri, which is probably why the social pressure is what it is.

Sorry about Trump, BTW.

My wife and I, living in the SF Bay area and having no regard for convention whatsoever -- and not really liking diamonds -- went with a sapphire for her ring. She tells me that other women do sometimes ask her about it. This is unfathomable to me, but there it is.

same area; we went with ruby. they ask her about her ring all the time... though she reports never feeling judged.

Fuck, my wife and I are in possession of my parents gold (+small diamond) band and rings and wore them during our courtroom marriage ceremony - but we switched to tungsten rings with a carbon fiber inlay because the gold was too fragile and the wife kept scratching everything (including our daughter) with the diamond.

We're much happier with $20 disposable rings (both of us have lost one already); no fear of loss or damage and it gets the point across fine- hell, when I proposed to her I didn't even have a ring, we would have done it this way in the first place.

> WIW my wife has a diamond ring which she almost never wears, and I can't remember anyone ever asking about it

Interesting, I'm from Europe and I'd be curious to know at which point exactly did diamond rings replace gold wedding bands as the "official marriage signs" in the States. Wedding bands are still quite popular over here in Europe, hopefully they don't get replaced any time soon (for one thing, gold actually has some intrinsic value compared to diamonds).

> at which point exactly did diamond rings replace gold wedding bands as the "official marriage signs" in the States.

They didn't. Wedding bands are still the "official marriage sign". Diamond engagement rings are extremely common, however, and it's very common for American women to continue wearing their engagement ring alongside their wedding band.

(As with my wife and my mother, it's definitely not unheard of for women to wear just the wedding band either).

Why not just not tell people that it isn't a diamond? Noone is going to notice, and it doesn't really matter that it is a lie.

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."

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.

I've never heard of your tradition before, where are you from?

My mom was born around 1951 in San Francisco to parents raised there and in the central valley. My dad was born around 1946 in San Mateo to parents from Iowa and I forget. The ancestry is Catholic from Ireland, Scotland, Germany, and similar.

The engagement ring is fancy. The wedding band is plain. The wedding band is always worn. The engagement ring could be worn, but that is optional. My mom wore hers often enough that it and the wedding band ground each other away and eventually had to be soldered together. So you don't have to always keep the engagement ring in a box, but you might, and wearing it is totally optional. The wedding ring pretty much never comes off.

My (now ex) wife wanted a titanium ring. She loved it because it was so light and felt like it wasn't even there.

That's one thing out of that marriage that didn't cost me much... (Actually, it was a very amicable divorce; marrying someone who isn't a selfish person fixated on superficial stuff like diamond rings is, I think, a good way to make sure that if the marriage does have to end, that it'll be as painless a transition as possible.)

Is this really a thing in the US? In Italy (and AFAIK in most of Europe) wedding rings are normally plain gold (rarely white or red gold, or platinum) bands. Engagement rings do have a stone, but they are not worn every day.

and AFAIK in most of Europe

In Sweden at least it seems to be quite common to wear both rings. However it also seems to be more common to have inset stones, rather than one that sticks out. I've also seen several people who buy the engagement ring and wedding band together as a matching set to make sure they work together. (something which to me always felt rather presumptuous)

What is more presumptuous than getting married?

Fair point.

It was that way in the US for a very long time. Sometime in the last couple decades a new trend arose to wear both the engagement ring and a wedding band together. The logic being you spent 4-5 figures on beautiful jewelry, so it's silly to only wear it during the engagement. (Whether it's silly to spend that much in the first place is another argument.) I don't know if they are in fashion currently, but many jewelers began selling engagement rings with a paired wedding band that is designed to match perfectly and be fused with the engagement ring after the wedding.

> The logic being you spent 4-5 figures on beautiful jewelry

Good lord, people do this? People spend ten thousand dollars on a ring? Fuck. When we got engaged, we shopped together and I bought her a black opal ring. Diamond was never on the menu, so I never even looked at their prices. I knew diamonds were expensive, but I had no idea the extent to which people were getting suckered.

> Good lord, people do this? People spend ten thousand dollars on a ring?

No, of course not - why would you think that? Those 'high priced' rings are like the wax fruit in a greengrocer, or plastic lobsters at the fishmongers - just there for show...!

Back in the real world, people can actually spend hundreds of thousands, even millions, on jewelry.

There was a big ad campaign from the diamond cartel to make everyone believe that 3 months of (gross) salary was the standard amount to pay for an engagement ring. That means if you only make $36K/year, you still shell out $9K for a ring. I don't know how many bought into it, but it likely did raise the average amount paid by anchoring the price so high. "That's crazy! Maybe half that..."

It's pretty much always been the case that a married woman would wear both her engagement and wedding ring? There's even long-standing etiquette about the order in which they should be placed on the finger - engagement first, I believe? It certainly isn't something new since the 1990s.

We came to a similar conclusion. Although we had already bought a diamond ring.

After researching, we figured out that we could sell our diamond (we only got about 60% of the original price back from a diamond broker) and buy a twice as large synthetic diamond and still save several thousand $.

There is only upside as far I can tell: it looks better (clarity), is bigger (no can tell the difference between a real and "fake" diamond), has fewer environmental and ethical externalities, and is cheaper.

I'm sorry about the 40% haircut. Any jeweler worth doing business with should refund a ring minus the cost to set it.

Diamonds cannot be used, as there is no such thing as a new one. Certainly they can be damaged but that's totally different.

I figure if you buy something a billion years old and return it a few months later in exactly the same condition, if you can only get 60% back then you dramatically overpaid.

It's a very impressive example of avoiding the sunk cost fallacy, though. I think a lot of people would be unwilling to cop that 'loss', even if they realised it would leave them better off overall. (Or perhaps more realistically, they would be unable to admit to themselves that it would leave them better off.)

You could just buy used diamonds

Thank you! It was your website that convinced us to go with moissanite in 2008! I owe you a beer or 12 :)

I sent this to my SO and she now wants one instead of a diamond. Until now, it's been non-negotiable.

Thanks for writing. I did not want to buy a diamond :)

> 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.

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.

Non-negotiable was a bad choice of words. It's been very negotiable. She just really didn't want cubic because of the perception, like someone else had noted.

It's just a little ridiculous to read 3 sentences a stranger types and tells them they are going to get a divorce. Bad form as far as unsolicited advice goes.

I think he was trying to help (even if misguided) and besides he apologized. You could be gracious about it.

Hey mythrwy are you pregnant, you're looking a lot bigger? And also you should dump your partner because they conform to mainstream social standards, total red flag. Oh and you're raising your kids wrong.

Hey why are you offended? I was trying to help! You could be gracious about it.

Are you teaching me a lesson? Or trolling? Real question. Because your approach isn't very constructive.

The guy apologized and maybe he thought his advice was good. I admit though it was blunt and the part about divorce was rude.

Ok, at this point I have to comment.

For one thing, I never said he would get divorced. I said "if you get divorced".

For another thing, if you are going to divulge details of your personal relationship online, you should not be surprised or get upset if someone comments about it. If it's a sensitive issue for you - keep it to yourself. This isn't your journal.

I take my apology back. I did absolutely nothing wrong, and people seriously need to develop thicker skin.

> people seriously need to develop thicker skin.

You should heed your own words...

I still read it that way. It seemed odd to me, too. I don't think you did anything wrong.

I think it would be helpful if people who are giving their thoughts on a diamond can state if they've been married/engaged before.

I don't think this is about expecting a diamond. More likely that it's about the abrupt mention of divorce.

> Cubic [zirconia?] is cheap and tacky.

What does this mean to you? Why isn't it true of silicon carbide?

I find it odd to see the simultaneous complaint that one clear cubic crystal is "cheap", but another is "overpriced". What do you want the price to be? Why?

"Cheap" as a criticism is not usually about price, but about perceived value.

The value of a courtship gift is its price.

So a self-written poem is worth less than a purchased fortune cookie?

I agree with your sentiment, but the retort would be that even a few minutes of your time has more monetary value than that cookie.

The diamond cartels love this kind of thinking. It should be about value, not price.

With a diamond, you are not getting value (except in some rare circumstances involving unusual stones).

It is not a good thing for courtship gifts to have value; if they have too much value they are likely to be dishonestly accepted by someone who isn't interested in the giver but does want the object.

If you're buying people because you're in a sexist world, agreed. Should probably stop doing that though.

> Cubic is cheap and tacky

Why the fact it's cheap makes it tacky? There's plenty of good CZ jewelry and 99% of people won't know the difference with diamonds or moissanite if you don't tell them. Moassanite is good, but still way too much expensive than it should be. It would be fun if we chose homes same way - "Oh, that big house with large lot, fireplace, etc is perfect in every way for us, but it's 30 times cheaper than that another almost-the-same house that was built by the company which enslaves people and makes them die while building those houses. We will only have to be in mortgage for it for 1 year, so we won't buy it." Why don't use left over money to buy some trip or something like that? I don't understand why regular working people want to wear half a car on a finger...

The house analogy isn't really working for me.. An almost same house gives 99% of all the important value, but a non-diamond ring isn't the same since it's still a pretty big mental and societal shift one has to deal with.

That does sound better, spending the saved money on 4x$2000 amazing trips together, or 2x$4000 SUPER trips. Priceless memories that would easily be higher value than a nice rock.

The problem with CZ is that it absorbs oil and dirt from the surroundings, so that within a couple years of regular use it's noticeably cloudy. Though I would say for the first year, it's a perfectly good substitute for diamond.

The house analogy doesn't quite work for me. Housing prices vary wildly by their location. Some of it is due to practical reasons(urban centre, close to work), but some of it is clearly just social posturing(buying a house in a posh neighbourhood).

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 :)

> 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.

> You know, you don't need an engagement ring to get married

You also need a partner who wants to get married to you. Where does HN get it's perfectly compatible partners from? A difference in opinion is not unexpected - not everyone is equally pragmatic. Also,things that are considered "deal-breakers" are far from universal.

So why does only one partner get a ring? Why, typically, the female one? In same-sex marriages, how do partners determine who gets the ring? Flip a coin? Damn.

The answer to all your questions is: it depends on the partners and what they agree to. But on the most part, it is driven by cultural momentum - the same reason men's formal clothing includes a tie. One could equally argue "One does not need to wear a tie to go to work", but there are people who love ties and how they look wearing them.

Ties = strangulation devices ;)

"Where does HN get it's perfectly compatible partners from?"

Truth is women in our culture are still somewhat of a status symbol. My wife is essentially perfectly compatible with me that was achieved by not simply selecting the most physically attractive person who would marry me but instead finding someone who actually is a decent human being. Her ring cost under 50 dollars. She wants me to spend the short time we all have on earth with her, not working to buy her shiny rocks, a overvalued house or an expensive car so she can impress her friends. I wouldn't have it any other way.

If people want to spend their money on a ring then I have no issue with that. Personally my wife is quite frugal about signs of material wealth (raised in a family with money that drove old Honda's etc) and had very strong opinions about not wanting an expensive ring. Instead we spent our money on a honeymoon exploring Asia and Europe - I wouldn't trade that time for any ring. Travel may be a privilege but teaches you a lot more about the world and the person you want to spend the rest of your life with.

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.

>There was no alternative before this article.

There was always the alternative: I don't care about rings and diamonds and such BS, I care about us being together.

Which is not that uncommon (even in the US) as people here make it out to be. Not everybody goes for a big wedding either -- or even a wedding at all.

Also, as another commenter pointed out, "non negotiable" (as in: I want my diamond ring or we're not getting married") and "no alternative" (as in: we both want to buy the ring, and don't care for it being expensive, but there's no good replacement for a real diamond) is a different thing.

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 was introduced in the 1970s, it sent shockwaves through the gem trade.

CZ is a bit less durable than diamond (8 vs 10 mohs hardness, some porosity), but it's so cheap that you can have the stone replaced if it starts to show signs of wear.

Moissanite is a very fine simulant, but to my mind, the main advantage over CZ is that it's more expensive. CZ is implausibly cheap for a high-quality diamond simulant.

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.

> diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign

It's deeply ingrained in Western culture. Think about it like eating dogs. There's no rational reason not to use dogs for meat, but most Westerners would throw a hissy fit rather than eat dog meat.

So don't assume the prospective bride is unreasonable. In fact, assume the opposite, as she was able to read a rational explanation of the issues with diamonds, and change her mind.

Horse may be a better example. Meat from carnivores tends to concentrate more toxins, which actually is a rational reason to avoid it.

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.

Culture just tends to be arbitrary, in the details. If you don't care about potential social consequences, then feel free to ignore the parts that you find absurd.

OT aside: I sometimes like to play automatic reading (ala dada) with google. So at this moment a google search for "It's all nonsense. None of it makes sense." brings up your comment at the top of the page and a few items below this link [1] which has a section entitled "Making sense of nonsense. Conant and Diamond read Wittgenstein's Tractacus".

Now I wonder if that Diamond is a chance event ("nonsense") or correlation artifact from the search algorithm ("sense").

[1]: http://philosophy.uchicago.edu/faculty/files/conant/costello...

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

I can't reply to stouset for some stupid reason, but why is it "absurd" to not want to eat horse for texture reasons? My understanding is that horse meat generally does not taste that good and is very tough, because those animals get a lot of exercise; it's like deer meat. Some people like venison, and there's no stigma attached to eating it, but it's hard to buy because demand is low (and they're not raised as livestock), and the meat is generally considered "gamey" and difficult to cook properly so it's tender instead of tough and nasty. Cow and especially chicken is popular meat because it's both relatively cheap and rather easy (and fast) to cook. It's really hard to screw up cooking chicken in fact.

> I can't reply to stouset for some stupid reason

On deeply nested comments, if it hasn't been long since the post was made you have to click the "permalink" ("XX minutes ago" or "XX hours ago") link to reply. I think the extra step is to help slow down flamewars ("do I really need to reply to this comment, right now?".

Hmmm... I didn't know that thanks for the heads up.

Thanks for the info, that's very useful.

If this is the intention, it seems like it'd make more sense to throw up roadblocks to only someone else who's in the comment chain, rather than to someone who hasn't been involved at all and is just chiming in. Usually, those flamewars are long chains of comments between two people.

It's also useful to slowdown people dog-piling the 'obvious' response to new comments.

Many people wouldn't be able to distinguish from beef. I had it once in Quebec, much to the amusement of a jerk waiter.

It's not tough, just very lean and thus prone to overcooking. Honestly it tasted pretty good, I thought it was grass fed beef.

Venison is a lot gamier. I only like it in stews.

I think hes saying that it's absurd to not eat horse for reasons other than taste or texture, which would agree with what you're saying

horse, at least the horse I've had, was very tender. It did however have slightly odd aftertaste I wasn't too fond of.

Deer meet is hard to buy, at least in the US, partly because the US has ridiculous laws prohibiting transportation of venison from US deer across state lines in various ways.

> and they're not raised as livestock

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_farm#Deer_Farming_in_New_... -- not quite as many of them as sheep there, but you definitely see a bunch of deer farms just driving around.

In fact, in my experience you're more likely to see New Zealand venison in a US store than US venison, because of the above laws prohibiting transportation.

> There's no rational reason not to use dogs for meat...

Yes there is, unless you would make the same argument for having sex with relatives - which philosophers have rationalized against for thousands of years (way before the genetic consequences were understood). Morality is a rationalization. Dogs are genetically predisposed to be man's best friend - friends don't get eaten.

Diamonds don't even come close, there is no positive moral argument - just a fairly recent PR campaign.

"Dogs are genetically predisposed to be man's best friend - friends don't get eaten."

I take it you've never met a cow, horse, pig, chicken or tame deer. Most animals will befriend humans if you are patient enough.

All those animals were domesticated for very different reasons. I've spent a lot of time with horses, my family had three, and they're great animals - but they don't come anywhere close to dogs when it comes to trust and the ability to read people. I've seen dogs trained with nothing more than praise - the desire to please is that strong for them. That doesn't work for horses.

I've owned horses too. It depends on what you want them to do. If you want to jump on their back and ride them around, sure. I don't do that personally, and while they don't read you like a dog can I've taken unsocialized "mean" horses and turned them into friendly companion horses with nothing but patience and the occasional cookie or carrot.

Unless your children keep having sex with their siblings as well, just pair of incest marriage doesn't actually have significant risk of genetic consequences.

Good to know. Although it does raise the question of how a line is drawn. I'm imagining a "I smoked pot when I was your age but..." sort of conversation - just infinitely more uncomfortable for everyone involved.

>It's deeply ingrained in Western culture.

It's only "deeply ingrained" in the US. In most of the Western Europe etc it's negligible.

And from what I've read it wasn't some deep rooted tradition in the US either -- it took a lot of advertising from diamond companies to instill it...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you... has some details on the ad campaigns.

Eh, my wife got some flack in Ireland when she didn't have a diamond engagement ring. Yet somehow we're still together.

I have to agree that it's not a great sign if she insists on this. What other trendy stuff is she going to demand just because "everyone else does it"?

I'm somewhat recently divorced now, but one good thing about my ex is that she was never superficial like this. She was perfectly happy to get a $70 Titanium wedding band, and loved how lightweight it was, and never wanted a silly gemstone on her hand. We did get her a couple other rings with gemstones (much cheaper ones, and prettier too; I think one was Tanzanite?), for wearing at special occasions, but wearing a gemstone ring every day is impractical and dumb really; it's just going to get in your way, and worse it's easy to take it off and then lose it. I knew a guy once whose wife dropped her $10k diamond ring down the drain while doing dishes! (No, they didn't recover it.)

So even without that "red neon warning sign" you marriage still didn't work.

Or may be, just may be, wanting diamond is just normal for some women, and it doesn't indicate whether she is a good couple or not.

it ain't normal to want to see the man you are supposed to love unconditionally, to financially bleed on impractical trinket that some people pay with almost proper enslavement, so you can brag about it with your friends (you = anybody, nothing personal here).

if that's an US norm, so what, it's still wrong on many levels. it ain't like that here in europe. the last ex-gf that mentioned 3-salary rule for it was exactly the type you should never, ever marry, no matter what person you are. my fiancee on the other hand is happy with 70 euro ring since relationship is about everything else, but this.

if woman sets this as non-negotiable standard to get married, there is no love from her in relationship, just pure calculation and she treats her counterpart like an idiot. simple as that.

If she wants a diamond so badly, she can spend her own money on it.

If I really want a sports car, I don't expect my fiance to buy it for me. If I want a cellphone, I don't expect my girlfriend to buy it for me and pay for the service.

Just to be clear, your benchmark for 'trendy' includes diamonds? That's like calling printed books a fad.

> diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign

uh... well, apparently it was negotiable, since all he had to do was find a suitable alternative and send her a link to a convincing article on the internet.

> diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign

This is dependent on the relationship between the two people. If one party is strongly against the concept of diamonds and DeBeers, then yes, it'll be an issue. However, your parent commenter might be more moderate, or just doesn't care that much that their partner agrees with this particular societal pressure.

We can only read so much into that statement.

Did she say "I must have a diamond that costs a minimum of $15k, or else I'm leaving you"?

Or does she get kind of sad & blue & disengaged when he pitches alternatives, because she dreamed of a diamond ring as a kid?

The later is quite understandable. Even if you think diamonds are silly, it's a matter of fact women in the USA grow up surrounded by diamond culture.

I gave my wife a moissanite and seeded are to-be joint saving account with the 10k we saved. You just have to remember that the burden of wearing the moissanite is on the woman. The choice is obvious but the social pressure is huge. 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 :)

> 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!

Also most guys wouldn't care in the least about rings (unless you know it has bluetooth or zigbee or something).

Agree grandparent comment truly made me understand the woman's side of thing. It's easy for men to dismiss them as being irrational.

I am glad that diamond engagements aren't a thing in India. (Although in place of it we have a ton of other retarded customs). Gold is pretty much the standard here - which is actually quite practical. It makes a good liquid asset, holds its value, stays as an insurance and safety during hard times.

> 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.

In Hong Kong, both the husband and the wife wear a ring. My mother lost hers, my dad is still wearing his. My wife lost hers, I'm still wearing mine. XD

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.

I'm probably odd, but I personally wouldn't be marrying anyone who "caved" to social pressures about a non-functional fashion accessory barely noticeable from anything other than up close. Thankfully, I already found someone like that.

Yes, I feel like there is a growing social pressure to resist social pressure ;)

it's about strength of the personality - are you a conformist which tries hard to not stick out of the crowd, behaves as all the others, listens to the same stuff, thinks the same or do you forge your own way, whatever it means for you specifically?

I prefer this strength in women - as it is not an isolated feature of personality. Life is too short to spend it with someone that shallow, unless that is exactly what you want/need.

And yes, if it's not clear, women requesting diamond rings as statement of true love (that's just not true and won't make the relationship any better), or blabbing about 3-salary-worth of diamonds... meh, I say you can do better.

Don't give in to peer pressure, none of the cool kids do

Are you peer pressuring them to not give into peer pressure?

It sounds a lot like my marriage advise which is "Don't listen to any marriage advise - except mine".

From a fellow moissanite fangirl, thank you for writing this up! I always enjoy telling people my ring isn't a diamond, but the essay is more compelling to share with folks that can't see moissanite in person.

I have a 1ct moissanite and 2 3mm white sapphires in my ring, and the bonus was that custom designing my own ring was still _drastically_ cheaper than getting a diamond: http://i.imgur.com/H3jDulz.jpg

That is a very beautiful ring. Thanks for sharing the photo!

Custom design ring. Plus earrings. Plus necklace. Plus manband.

I think I can now (by that I mean in the future) justify this by not having diamonds. Yours looks amazing.

I was on vacation and missed your reply!

Funny you say that. My partner got a custom band of his own too (engraved and anodized titanium): https://i.imgur.com/c08efTs.jpg

The diamond ring he was "supposed" to get me (according to my family and friends and DeBeers) is easily over 10x the cost of my ring+band plus his band combined - even without comparison shopping. We spent that excess money on a 2 week honeymoon, most of our wedding expenses and splurges, and cat food. I recently just added the two white sapphires (a nod to our currently baking bun) for pocket change too. No regrets. I get my shiny bling-desires fulfilled at bargain bin prices.

Seems like the link to the article about de beers is 404. Hopefully it still exists somewhere :)

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...

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.

Compared to the wedding, 500 dollars is nothing.

Not if you get married in Vegas at a chapel with a small handful of family members. It's still a fraction of that cost, but a reasonably-large fraction (maybe 1/10 at most, instead of 1/100).

Don't over-generalize. I got married for a total price of about $700. One can be frugal if one decides that saving money is a priority.

That would be a significant fraction of our wedding costs. We held ours in our back yard, ordered some catering, served buffet-style, about 50 guests. No DJ, just set up some playlists on Google Music. There's no requirement to blow five figures on a one-day party, just some bizarre social expectation.

where does one search the 2nd hand market for these things? I'd be worried I'd be ripped off (granted I worry about that in a jewelry store too).

There's a nice article by Priceonomics on Diamonds.

http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-b...

Would you confirm or deny my two hunches:

- Lab-grown diamonds are purer, more perfect crystals, cheaper, and better than mined diamonds in every way. (ignoring the market manipulation factor, which I'm not too knowledgeable about, except that I've heard big diamond companies do some shady things to keep prices high)

- Girls hate lab-grown diamonds because they consider them "artificial".

Also in your article, you don't seem to make such a distinction, so I'm wondering if your article is about lab-grown, mined, or both?

1st assumption is correct. 2nd assumption is incorrect.

My wife was perfectly happy in particular with the environmental and ethical benefits. Also doesn't hurt that you can get a larger diamond that looks much better.

Give your girl the benefit of the doubt.

Regarding the second, that's very much the angle DeBeers marketing has been trying to push. In practice, it will be true of some girls and not true about others.

FWIW, I agree that "science and the progress of human knowledge" isn't exactly the right symbolism for a wedding ring. But I do think it's better than "blood and oppression", at least given my personal views on marriage...

I think a lot of women would now prefer a perfect diamond over a dirty ground diamond.

Lab grown diamonds are still too expensive.

> Lab-grown diamonds are purer, more perfect crystals, cheaper, and better than mined diamonds in every way. (ignoring the market manipulation factor, which I'm not too knowledgeable about, except that I've heard big diamond companies do some shady things to keep prices high)

This is completely correct, although in the absence of De Beers mined diamonds would be cheaper. (Creating diamonds is technically quite difficult, but they are very common in nature.)

> Girls hate lab-grown diamonds because they consider them "artificial".

I can deny this. I collect synthetic cut gemstones. There are three types of common reactions:

1. "It looks fake."

2. "What are you going to do with it? What's the point?"

3. "Wow, it's beautiful!"

I've never seen someone who thought a gem was beautiful decide they'd been wrong after learning the stone was created. Girls might dislike synthetic diamonds in engagement rings because they think the symbolism is wrong; they don't dislike them in general.

> in your article, you don't seem to make such a distinction, so I'm wondering if your article is about lab-grown, mined, or both?

The OP is talking about lab-grown moissanite:

>> The big difference between moissanite and diamond is that moissanite can be manufactured reliably and efficiently in a laboratory. The result: flawless, brilliant gemstones at about 1/10th the cost of a comparable diamond.

1st is incorrect.. Lab-grown of the same quality are more expensive than natural diamonds.

I'm not, especially that this article was very popular not so long ago [1].

After a while on HN you can figure which subjects they like, and which they don't. Diamond are yes subject. Another example could be Leonard Cohen. His recent departure has so much to do with technology or hacking as your toilet seat, but yet he was #1 for a long time...

[1] https://priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bulls...

Not all diamonds are "blood" diamonds nor are they all associated with DeBeers. Canadian diamonds are conflict free and environmentally sourced.

No one has ever thought it was anything other than a diamond ring

I recently bought a ring from Diamond Foundry after reading this: http://qz.com/630512/would-you-propose-with-a-diamond-grown-... and related articles, and AFAICT no non-specialist can tell the difference.

There is also an interesting online company called My Trio Rings (http://www.mytriorings.com) that does conventionally mined diamonds but has, AFAICT, lower than average prices. I think one of their guys posts to HN sometimes.

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.

I find the arguments in your essay compelling. Are there any particular resources you'd recommend to someone wanting to educate himself further about moissanite?

Why would you get a silicon carbide stone, when you can get a manufactured diamond?

Also, are other natural stones, e.g. sapphire, ruby, overpriced as well?

There's a spelling error in the article: lusterous -> lustrous.

sorry to attach this to the top post, but how do you actually pronounce moissanite? "moist"(sans 't') + "a" + "night"?

You are correct.

You can hear how it's pronounced in this YouTube clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFZKPQuAaw

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.

Reading the first two lines made be expect a pronunciation clip in a language series on YouTube (blocked on the corp network).

Then I saw Sol and Bad Boy Lincoln. I guess I'll watch Snatch tonight. For educational reasons.

Why there's N/A for toughness in Cubic Zirconia?

This 10 year follow up is invaluable.

Thanks for writing this. I'm glad people are pushing back against the insanity of the diamond marketing.

But you're still buying into the concept of the gifting of rings, when this is a recent phenomenon created by De Beer's. Unless they were European royalty, your great-great-grandparents did not exchange rings. Commoners did not have this custom until the twentieth century. When you suggest getting non-diamond rings, you perpetuate the expectation that people should exchange rings, continuing De Beer's advertising campaign.

My wife and I got married without exchanging any rings for this reason. I thought that I might need to explain my position on rings to friends and family, but we've never gotten so much as a comment about it.

(BTW, your link to the Atlantic article 404s.)

This site isn't trying to upend the artificial customs that we've come to cherish, just to substitute one costly part of it with a cheaper indistinguishable alternative for all the reasons he described

Sure. That's why I opened by thanking OP.

> Commoners did not have this custom until the twentieth century

It really depends on the culture. Having the groom give the bride something of value is a quite old tradition for Jewish weddings, including "commoners" (read: all Jews, pretty much). A ring was in fact a quite common such gift going back a long way.

That said, if a ring is used in this case it must traditionally be a plain band with no stones; we're not talking diamond rings here.

Should have commented under your comment! Here's my post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12949728

Question: Did you buy your ring at Charles & Colvard? (I want to know if that is a trustworthy site to place an order.)

Seems like an american things really. In France, nobody would expect anyone to buy a certain kind of ring. As long as it's pretty, you can go for anything. Or no engagement ring. Some friends of mine don't even get wedding rings. And I just met a not married couple wearing rings just because they liked it.

Our wedding ceremonies are also usually way cheaper and less show off that the ones your pop culture is selling to you, so I hope you are not actually doing it IRL cause that seems a terrible way to start a long term relationship, money wise.

But I guess we don't have such a marriage culture here anymore. People do marry, but we also now have something called the PACS, which is a very simple legal union with no bells and whistles that is pretty popular. And of course plenty of people living for ever without a label on their relationship.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that only diamond rings are acceptable, but also to say that they're unknown outside the United States.

They are not unknown but diamonds are "just another expensive stone" here. People do think they got a lot of value though, it's just that the symbolism of buying one is not as strong.

> It's a bit of a stretch to say that only diamond rings are acceptable

"only" is a pretty exclusive word, but I don't think it's a stretch saying that only diamond rings are acceptable in the general case. Especially amongst the reasonably affluent class that you'll find a lot of on HN, not getting a diamond for a spouse would be unusual enough that friends would whisper behind your backs about it.

(And to be clear, I'm of the opinion that this is crazy.)

Nobody has ever been the least bit bothered by my non-diamond choice of an engagement ring for my wife.

For every such anecdote, there is seventeen opposing anecdotes where the wife insisted on a diamond ring and/or her friends/family thought the husband was "cheap" for not buying her one.

edit: Looks like I said something unpopular. Whoops!

If you don't get down voted some times then you probably aren't speaking your mind or you're just very boring.

That attitude speaks volumes about their character and lack of critical thinking skills.

For not buying a ring at all maybe, but for a nice ring with different stones I really don't think so.

What part of "behind your backs..."

Do you not find it's the case that you can generally perceive when people are talking behind your back?

So it's kindda like cows in Nigeria?

Yes.

Except you can resell the cows... :)

Friends whispering behind your back? Then you should consider if they really are a friends.

(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.

It's not a matter of comparison or opinion.

Still, it's very jarring to read statements in the form: US is larger than Europe, [therefore] <total non sequitur>.

fire with fire

When I was at Berkeley, a colleague did the same. Came into the office one morning, said "[girlfriend of 5 years] and I just decided to get married today, come down to city hall with us at lunch for the party."

Given that the diamond ring fad apparently originated from a marketing campaign, it would be interesting to see how well the belief that wedding rings should have a diamond correlates with where the ads were run.

At least in the nordics, I don't think there's a specific type of wedding (EDIT: or engagement) ring that you're expected to have, and I think many people have no stone of any kind embedded in theirs.

It's the engagement ring that traditionally has a stone, not the wedding band, which is often just a pure metal (in the US), though many have small stones around the ring.

In Nordic countries, the order is reversed. We wear simple bands after the engagement, and give the fancier ring during the wedding.

In Netherland, stones are rare. A plain gold band is the traditional wedding ring. If engagement rings are a thing at all, they're generally the wedding ring worn on the other hand, I think.

Tattoos are up and coming. My wife and I (both from good Christian homes) have a Moebius strip tattooed on the inside of our wrist, as wedding tattoo. My sister and her husband have a self-designed rune on their ring finger, and a heart-shaped celtic knot on their lower arm as engagement tattoo (and I think these are their only tattoos; they certainly are for my wife and I).

My wife and I did have engagement rings: titatium with gold. I lost mine before the wedding, though. I can't lose my tattoo.

De Beers clearly never had much influence here.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-yo...

"In Europe, where diamond prices had collapsed during the Depression, there seemed little possibility of restoring public confidence in diamonds. In Germany, Austria, Italy, and Spain, the notion of giving a diamond ring to commemorate an engagement had never taken hold. In England and France, diamonds were still presumed to be jewels for aristocrats rather than the masses. Furthermore, Europe was on the verge of war, and there seemed little possibility of expanding diamond sales. This left the United States as the only real market for De Beers's diamonds. In fact, in 1938 some three quarters of all the cartel's diamonds were sold for engagement rings in the United States. Most of these stones, however, were smaller and of poorer quality than those bought in Europe, and had an average price of $80 apiece. Oppenheimer and the bankers believed that an advertising campaign could persuade Americans to buy more expensive diamonds."

To each his own, but personally, I find large wedding celebrations to be an absolute blast. I went to a 500+ person wedding in Beersheba Israel last year and it was incredible. It was one of the most fun, warm, and endearing events I have ever been too.

I kinda have a weird idea that everyone should just be able to do their own thing without being judged. I certainly don't think they should be demonized as "show off" or "pop culture selling to you".

You can have a big party that doesn't cost a lot. I went to an Algerian and a Malian wedding, with 200+ and days of partying for very cheap (even for the local standard).

What I'm talking about are incredible expense like putting fresh flowers everywhere, renting a some fashionable place, spending thousands on rings, dress, make up artists, haircuts, etc.

You can absolutely have a great venue, look stunning and have fun with 100 people without getting in debt for 5 years. This is not what TV is selling you though.

> Seems like an american things really.

Good point. German guy here. She got me a wooden engagement ring back then. Everyone loved it.

> Seems like an american things really.

Just for info, diamonds and expensive marriage parties are the rule in Southern Italy as well. Northern Italy is similar to France, when you actually go to a marriage to enjoy yourself and not just to show your dress.

So people do this to signal (both to their spouse and their friends) they are both financially capable and care enough about their spouse to burn a large amount of money on a pyre. It's also a very useful signal that you are serious about the commitment and unlikely to back off of the marriage. I would prefer to replace it with a certificate that proves you have spent X thousand dollars on said certificate from Moche Silnorin Inc. A less personally-beneficial alternative would be some sort of modern dowery, the recipient of which is Moche Silnorin Inc, who holds on to the money until the culmination of the marriage, after which the dowery is given to the wife and so reunited with its giver once they share finances. If the engagement gets broken off, Moche Silnorin Inc keeps the money. However, this raises the possibility of bondsmen. Which isn't a possibility with diamonds, with their awful resale value. So perhaps just a non-refundable expense in exchange for proof you've given X thousand dollars to Moche Silnorin Inc would be ideal.

Another alternative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich

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 and ability to take care of a spouse; and even set the three months salary purchase price target most people reference.

If there's ever been a greater con so openly and deliberately imposed on society, I can't think of one off the top my head.

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.

Come on, it's 2016, the female partner can take care of herself. Valiant knights are not needed anymore, she's slaying dragons too.

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.

It's definitely not just that, because placing huge import on diamonds, and gushing over their (much agreed upon) beauty, and having preferences for stones and cuts etc., and showing them off at the office, and talking about their size and how much they must have cost, and equating some of those things with the size of someone's affection and worth as a person, are still ubiquitous in (at least) American society.

As far as I can tell they're only on the way out with bleeding-edge progressives.

>As far as I can tell they're only on the way out with bleeding-edge progressives.

A demographic known for their immunity to costly signalling behaviors.

Just trying to work in a jab against that group?

Which is why the Tesla model S is so wildly unpopular in the bay area.

Totally. It doesn't serve any purpose other than signaling status, can't imagine what else anyone could possibly like about it. /s

How would she wear the certificate? Across her chest like a sash?

Why does it need to be flaunted? As long as the couple is happy, that's all that matters.

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 start my engagement, that's an even better commitment than spending a large sum of money on something which I think is worthless.

People who are anti-diamond should really focus on coming up with alternative signals which has better social outcomes. I would personally prefer some sort of trust, where if the engagement is successful the money is donated to our preferred charity—but if it's not, it's donated to a politician I despise.

If we're dead-set on continuing to use pretty rocks as signals, someone should establish a monopoly on a gem which is impossible to procure from exploiting conflicts. They should still make it extremely expensive, but have all the mining be ethical.

> 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.

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.

> Simply wishing that these signals didn't exist won't make them go away.

No, we try to make the case for the waste and stupidity, and when a group still can not come to terms with it, we shame them.

only immature people with little real relationship experience would consider this childish signaling worth a dime. the only signal being passed is bowing to peer pressure just because you don't want to stick out

If you need money to show your devotion and dedication to a relationship, you will be having a hard time. A relationship makes sense as long as parties enjoy each others company regardless of the size of diamond on the finger.

If something external, such as an expensive ring, is to keep the relationship afloat, I have hard time seeing a point of living and sharing your life with someone.

Saying you are married to someone is also a kind of signal.

Why do you propose? Why do you say "I love you"? They are all signal.

Alternative signal: Bitcoin. If the engagement ends poorly, the Bitcoin can be un-earmarked and so the entire value can be salvaged. Many other obvious pros as well.

http://thebtcring.com/

Yes giving a girl a Bitcoin ring is certainly a signal of something.

This is a cultural thing you've bought into, that a man must give a woman a tool to signal with. In other cultures this is not important or works the other way around.

I'm anti diamond and your pleas to come up with another useless signal fall on deaf ears - this manufactured need for the signal itself is something we should be fighting as we progress.

For a start it's pretty damned sexist and regressive

Why do you assume I've "bought into" it? I have no intention to marry any time soon, I just think it's unhelpful to completely ignore the reason diamonds are used for engagement rings.

Bought into idealogically speaking.

I think the 'reason' is a rationalisation and not hard and fast, it's also culture-specific so hardly transcendent. That's why I take issue with the idea of replacing one signal with the other - the worth of tge signal is entirely subjective and the signal itself is rather out of place in the modern world.

Oh dear. We are constantly subjected to this sort of scolding in the name of some political ideology (in this case, 'wimmin'). Diamonds are exactly about signaling, as is an Ivy League education. Attributing useful properties to either only confuses the signal, which is purest when there is absolutely no utility. Since Ivy League schools pre-select, it is not hard to show that they add no value in and of themselves, apart from fleecing the recipients in exchange for safe spaces.

Scolding?

I'm just pointing out that the basis of this signalling behaviour (if it is as described) is somewhat sexist and regressive - it makes assumptions about the man being the provider and the woman being kept.

Diamonds are indeed all about signalling. Enjoy yourself doing that. Some of us will be laughing at you behind your back for falling for the con though.

De Beers specifically ran ads suggesting that you should spend 2 months salary on your ring, and people bought that idea: http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/74843000/jpg/_...

When you go to buy a ring they even ask you how much you make some of the time. It's not so much a signaling mechanism, as companies trying to bleed as much as you can possibly afford out of you.

I told my girlfriend (5 years) how I feel about diamonds and that I reject the very notion of buying a diamond engagement / wedding ring early on in our relationship.

Several months ago, we landed on the marriage conversation, again. I reiterated that I am against diamond engagement bands. She then said: "What about a wedding ring then?" I told her it applies to wedding rings as well. We got into a heated argument and she eventually said: "Let's just not talk about it anymore." What? Let's not talk about marriage anymore because I am against diamond engagement wedding rings and wedding bands?

Umm...Okay!

TL;DR GF said she doesn't want to get married unless I show her how much I love her by getting a diamond wedding ring or engagement ring.

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 called culture, social pressure and someone spending half of their life imagining the perfect diamond ring. Those are perfectly valid reasons too. So if she insist, don't be angry at her - be angry at De Beers.

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 dunno, I don't think it's that simple. For one, the "respect your values" arguments goes both ways: she values a diamond, he doesn't. If she insists on a diamond, she's not respecting his values. If he insists on no diamond, he's not respecting hers.

It's very easy to justify going the no-diamond route, sure. From a financial point of view, it's just a bad idea. Some say the finances aren't the point, so you can turn to ethical arguments (diamonds are bloody business). You can't really lose the no-diamond argument; it's too easy to make.

Still, it's awfully convenient for the guy to be the one making the argument against buying an expensive ring. This doesn't make the arguments wrong, but depending on the relationship, the girl might suspect that the guy is making those arguments, not out of financial responsibility or morality, but out of apathy or simply being cheap. The guy might be making sound arguments, but his ulterior motive might still be problematic, and the girl might be taking issue with that. Also, there is a whole lot of meaning (artificial, but real just the same) that goes into the rituals of marriage, and you can't just dismiss all of that with some textbook argument about diamond cartels.

The relationship isn't doomed in this case; the couple can grow past it, and it's an opportunity to understand each other. The problem is, if either the guy or the girl takes on the perspective of "I'm obviously right and you're wrong if you disagree," then they're being unreasonable and stalling out the relationship. Both parties need to be honest and understand the other to get past it. The discussion over the diamonds may in fact be very important because it gets to the heart of a bunch of concurrent issues.

(I'm using "guy" and "girl" here because that's the situation where these cultural norms are at play. Obviously any other combination of genders could have the same issues, though I suspect it's less common in those cases.)

> It's very easy to justify going the no-diamond route, sure. From a financial point of view, it's just a bad idea.

Going with the nuts advice of spending a month's salary (or more!), yeah, that is awful, but, as I did, you can buy a diamond ring for less than < 1k (Canadian!). I'd have preferred not buy anything, but as you said, being reasonable in your relationship is about understanding what your partner values as well and try to reach a middle ground.

Going the no-diamond route is also a way to test the relationship. The more she expects a diamond, the better the test works.

It goes both way.

> she values a diamond, he doesn't

You are conflating moral values with financial value.

Not at all. Of all the reasons for wanting a diamond ring, the mere fact that it's expensive is relatively low on the list for many (most?) people, and even then the price is just a proxy for expressed commitment. If it were about the money, a million other things could take its place. Personal value is the sum of many different factors, of which finances, morality, tradition, etc. are all a part.

"she values a diamond" sounds very different.

If it was about "expressed commitment" donating a significant sum of money to a charity would be equivalent to buying a diamond.

Now I wonder if that would float...

There are many factors and implications that go into the tradition, and the diamond itself is symbolic of much of it. That's why you can't logically reduce the tradition down to a single element with an easy alternative.

For example, the actual act of popping the question is an important part of the tradition, and it's inextricably linked to the ring. We all know how it goes: the guy and the girl are on some sort of date, the guy says something vague, he pulls out a small box and opens it, and the girl can see the ring inside. She knows what this means before he even says anything, and is already nodding her head (hopefully) before he asks, "Will you marry me?"

That's all very easy to follow. Now imagine the guy pulls out the keys to a house or something instead of the ring. She wouldn't realize what's happening until he actually asks the question, which is fine of course... but it's not the same tradition, and it might not have the same magic to it. Beyond the proposal itself, the ring is a physical difference that she will carry through to the next day, which will prompt excitement from her friends and coworkers and remind her of that moment.

And that's just one element of the whole tradition. I think it's very easy to see why one would value the diamond. I just said that the price was about expressed commitment. There's much more to the tradition than that.

There's also another argument: what exactly is the woman's role in this relationship? Is she merely a possession? If she insists on a diamond, then I think she should also be expected to be treated as a possession, and an inferior person. Because she's not acting like an equal partner by insisting the husband spend a ton of money on a worthless rock to "prove" his dedication and love for her.

A woman who's really an equal partner would rather see her husband do something useful with that money, such as make a down payment on a house.

The whole concept of spending 2 months' salary on a diamond ring is the product of the most successful marketing campaign in history, by the deBeers company back in the first half of the 20th century. It is not something steeped in tradition (or at least nothing that goes back that far, or is the product of anything besides corporate marketing). So someone who insists on a real diamond ring is merely a dumb stooge who's easily swayed by advertising if you think about it.

just because I buy someone a gift doesn't make them my possession.

First off, I don't understand how you make the jump from "wants a possession" to "deserves to be treated as a possession." Even if we accept that wanting a diamond ring would make her dumb (and I don't accept that), it still wouldn't warrant treating her like property. That seems like an awfully dehumanizing perspective to hold.

Second, the fact that the tradition is a modern one, that started with an advertising campaign, is basically irrelevant. As far as the woman is concerned, this is something that every other married girl she's ever known has received. It's perfectly natural to want hers too. If she's particularly financially minded or happens to be exceptionally grounded in this case, she might decide to reject the tradition, but it's hardly a marker of unintelligence to feel otherwise. I'm sure you hold many irrational preferences in your life, as do we all, and it's not any more fair to insult her for her wishes than it is to insult you for yours.

I find it interesting that you suggest a down payment on a house as an alternative to buying a diamond ring. First, you're presuming that the diamond ring is such a burden that it's getting in the way of the couple's other financial obligations (which may be the case, but also may not). But also, your suggestion proves just how subjective and emotional these things really are, because property ownership is yet another optional part of "the dream" that many might consider a needless extravagance, much like a diamond ring. Sure, it seems to have more utility (on the surface), but it's also far more expensive, and it will continue to become more expensive as time passes on. Property ownership is valued much more highly in some cultures than others, and the notion of saddling yourself with debt (a mortgage) for 30 years just for that privilege seems downright insane to some people.

She deserves to be treated as a possession because somehow the man is expected to shell out all of HIS money for this stupid rock, solely for her benefit. What exactly is SHE contributing to the relationship anyway? Obviously, she has nothing to contribute except being a possession, so she should act like this, because this is the role she is demanding. After all, why isn't SHE blowing 3 months' worth of her pay on something for you?

Is this dehumanizing? Damn right it is. If you demand a dehumanized relationship, then of course it's dehumanizing. If you don't want to be dehumanized, then demand a relationship based on equality. I'm not going to treat a woman as an equal if she doesn't act like it, and instead demands to be treated as some kind of possession, which is the only reason there is to spend 3 month's salary on a stupid rock for her.

And yes, it absolutely IS a marker of unintelligence for her to not reject this idiotic tradition. What do you think of women who demand to have their or their daughters' genitals circumcized because of tradition? That's pretty stupid too. This is no different. Again, if you want to be treated as an intelligent person, then start acting like it. There is no rational basis for wanting a diamond ring worth 3 months' salary. And while I may not be perfect as far as rational preferences, I try damn hard to make sure I am rational and am not clinging onto stupid beliefs for no good reason. This also isn't to say that all traditions are stupid: for instance, I like the tradition of putting up a Christmas tree (which of course comes from Germanic pagan traditions). It looks nice, it's seasonal, it's fun putting up the ornaments with family, etc. And these days you can get artificial trees so you're not killing trees for the tradition (you can also get trees with intact root balls and then replant them after the holidays). But the important key here is cost versus benefit: holiday traditions are fun and a nice family practice, but they're also pretty cheap. Artificial trees and ornaments are not at all expensive these days, unless you're desperately poor.

Now, as for your comment about a ring being a burden, it damn well is a huge burden, for everyone. Did you forget the part about it having to be 3 months' salary? This isn't like a Christmas tree which is generally fixed-price, it scales to whatever your income is. Can you seriously afford to take 3 months of your salary, withdraw it as cash, and set it on fire? I don't know anyone who would do anything that stupid; if I'm going to lose 3 months' pay, I might as well just take a 3-month unpaid vacation instead of working my ass off for money when then gets wasted.

And no, a house downpayment is not a "needless extravagance"; that is an utterly stupid thing to claim. People need a place to live, and while you can debate things like rent vs. buy, real estate appreciation rates, and the current market conditions, in general, for middle-class people, home ownership in the US is a fairly stable store of value if you don't plan to move for a while, and owning your own home means you don't have to pay rent any more. If you don't like the mortgage example, change it to something else, like putting the money in the bank or a stable value fund in case you lose your job. Or into a good index fund, where it's most likely going to appreciate significantly over the years. There's plenty of places where you can invest 3 months' pay that are perfectly sensible and will give you a far better return than just lighting it on fire.

I love how questioning a sexist tradition earns me downvotes.

You're not merely "questioning a sexist tradition", you're shoehorning a bunch of other weirdness (and a bunch of assumptions that may or may not hold for any specific couple) around it.

Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument boils down to saying that any human who spends money on something that's not strictly utilitarian deserves to be treated as non-human. You try to hedge against this by saying that you enjoy some traditions--like putting up a Christmas tree--but that just shows bias. A Christmas tree is a pointless item that people buy because it looks nice and the ritual helps bring people together. Why can't a diamond ring be bought because it looks nice and can help bring people together? There are definitely people out there that actually enjoy shopping for the ring.

There are many things people "waste" money on, yet they don't deserve to be called sub-human or property. People pay thousands of dollars extra for luxury car models. People pay millions of dollars for art that they can't appreciate any more than a dollar store painting by Joe-painter. People pay hundreds of dollars for expensive meals that contribute to the suffering of animals. These are the extreme cases, but every human being that has expendable income will buy pointless things simply because they like them. Heck, weddings themselves are usually more expensive than the ring, and they're an even greater waste of money; at least you can sell the ring for something later on. People pay for memories and for experiences (which the ring also provides, by the way); compared to those things, which hold zero financial value long-term, overpriced gemstones are actually a relatively good investment. It's more like buying an overly huge TV than setting the money on fire.

Yet once again, even if they were the worst investment in the world, your pride in taking a dehumanizing stance is bothersome.

I don't know why you would think the woman is contributing nothing to the relationship. Why not assume the man is contributing nothing? Maybe the woman is the breadwinner and highly supportive while the man pursues some artistic dream that generates little income? Forget the finances; why can't a woman contribute mentally and emotionally to the relationship? I simply can't understand where your comments are coming from.

The most troubling part of the tradition is, of course, that the man is expected to do it. Except the woman is also expected to receive it. If you personally refuse to buy a ring, then you need to find a partner who agrees with your stance. But, even a woman who doesn't care that much might still be put into uncomfortable situations (by friends, family, etc.) by not having one. To her, the social inclusion might mean she would prefer to have one (plus, it looks nice). If your partner makes it clear to you that they value a ring, then there's no foul play; it's simply one more part of their complex personality. It's simply an emotional preference; intelligence doesn't come into it. You can choose whether that's a deal breaker for you. Personally, I'm happy to buy the ring, because I enjoy buying nice-looking things for other people, and the ring is one I'll get to appreciate every day I see it. Like having children or living in Hawaii, it's something that one person might value more than the other, and it's important that the couple come to an understanding before they commit to each other.

Your fixation on the 3-months salary is misguided. First off, that's a guideline, not a requirement (I've heard of few brides who count the pennies, and the ones that do make their values quite obvious). Second, I seriously can afford to spend 3 months of my salary on a luxury item. I understand and sympathize that not everyone is as comfortable a financial situation as I am, but just like every single purchase, how much of a "burden" it is to you depends entirely on your financial situation.

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.

> 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 with me, even admitted that it was a silly notion to have a diamond ring, but I can tell it's what she truly wanted.

At the end of the day, I decided to go with the diamond and she really loves it. If I had gotten my way, I would've gone with an alternative like moissanite or a synthetic, but we're both happy with the outcome.

It's good to see that Americans are starting to wake up about wedding culture, but I'm anticipating that it will take a few generations for most people to rid themselves of it. If I purchased an alternative gemstone for my fiancé, her parents would've been upset with me, but if my child wanted to get an alternative gemstone, I would praise them.

What about the synthetic diamond excluded it from the options?

Synthetic != "the real deal", which makes it (perceived as) worthless.

I know that's the argument for various people, I just wondered whether that was the case for their spouse, since synthetic is definitely a real diamond, albeit not one that took centuries to grow.

> Giving DeBeers more money

DeBeers only has a 40% market share now. ALROSA has about 40% and they're basically a Russian government company.

> 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.

Why would I be the one arguing with my in-laws? If she's not openly offended at the presumption of blood diamonds, she's not really my type.

Sounds like this relationship might be more trouble than its worth, if it means giving up your (sensible) principles.

> It's good to see that Americans are starting to wake up about wedding culture, but I'm anticipating that it will take a few generations for most people to rid themselves of it.

Don't worry, there's always another advertising campaign to push us something we won't need. Trust me. "If you can't afford to take a year off and travel with your future partner, then your relationship won't be able to sustain the trials of everyday life."

> So if she insist, don't be angry at her - be angry at De Beers.

By doing so, you're ignoring her agency and her role in the problem. It's not like DeBeers has some kind of mind control laser pointed at the brains of every woman in the world. They put out advertising, and some people fall for it.

If you need to be angry about something, be angry about our education system which fails to teach people to think critically about what they see on their glowing god-screens.

I didn't mean that De Beers is actually lasing neurons in womens' brains. But they shaped the culture around western wedding rituals by a century's worth of heavy marketing.

> If you need to be angry about something, be angry about our education system which fails to teach people to think critically about what they see on their glowing god-screens.

I would cut the education system some slack here. Advertising isn't a physical constant - it's a dynamic, optimized product of other humans. Smart humans who weaponize psychological and sociological research to maximize the impact of marketing techniques. An individual doesn't stand much of a chance against it by the very virtue of how professional specialization works. Even if people all suddenly became perfect critical thinkers, advertising industry would focus on exploiting some other weak spots.

> By doing so, you're ignoring her agency

A tangent, but I'm increasingly believing that individuals have much less agency than it is generally believed. We all strongly respond to incentives, especially in areas that strongly matter to our lives.

I'd agree with you if this were any other product. The marketing campaign in this instance was so utterly, totally, disastrously successful that it's become a cultural phenomena.

Really, you've got to hand it to them. And I have to agree it's not a fault to be sensitive to the judgement of your peers.

It's still ignoring her responsibility if, when provided with the new information, she decides to ignore it.

If after the overwhelming evidence, you can't still reach a reasonable agreement, I think that is a very good reason to not marry someone. That is a the kind of pattern that would repeat for the rest of the life, and at some point you will max out and burst by spoiling the marriage.

Why not instead be with someone who you can reason?

She just wants to show the world that you would hurt poor people for her.

What are you even talking about? You do know that diamonds come from other places than war torn Africa, right?

The gem you're buying may not come from war torn Africa, but increased demand will be reflected there. Smuggling is a thing, and the Kimberly Process is flawed.

... or at least that was the state of things last I looked into this in depth; my knowledge may well be dated.

that's what crushing dreams looks like. nonetheless i agree with you, some dreams are just not worth it.

The flashing red color in your peripheral vision? That's the warning light. It means you should reach down and pull the eject lever.

And what color is in her peripheral vision?

Purple from the anger that her boyfriend doesn't love her enough to drop their own personal beliefs, and get that damned rock.

For girls, it's not personal, it'd social. If her "friends" are such that they will look down on her if she didn't get a rock, she will insist on one. As a man, you must understand this.

If she wants a diamond why doesn't she just buy a diamond? Is anyone stopping her?

Someone can want a diamond, someone can want to be given a diamond, these are slightly different things.

She needs better friends.

WHy would someone who loves you ever expect you to forego your personal beliefs to prove you love them?

That sounds fucking disastrous.

If symbols of love are more important then actual love you should get out of that relationship. Seems toxic.

It's a bit rude to make an armchair analysis of someone's intimate relationship dynamics based on a single internet comment, don't you think?

I've thought about what I would do in your situation. One way to counter the "you're cheap and don't love me enough to spend the money" thoughts that she may have is to spend the same amount of money. Say you buy her some kind of ring whatever setting / stone / etc... The rest of the "3 month's salary" marketing that has been shoved upon us you could donate to charity or give away to relatives, homeless or whatever. That along with explaining your rationale as someone else suggested would be good too. Show her resources online. Hearing it from someone else can help, show her you're not the only one. If you're still at a deadlock after that well, take it or leave it...

This isn't really a place for relationship advice, but to frame it in the context of a startup, if a founder just won't talk about a decision you both need to make together, that's a huge red flag that maybe going into business with this person isn't the best idea.

I haven't gone through this myself, but I've read that part of picking a great founder is finding someone you can talk through issues with, even if they're uncomfortable.

Not talking about something is a much bigger issue than disagreeing about something.

> This isn't really a place for relationship advice

Yes. If we could let people relate their experience as customers without giving unwanted relationship advice that'd be great.

Take it from another perspective, this is more like a cofounder (or really, two cofounders) being so headstrong that he won't budge on his opinion for the good of the company.

If you explain clearly your viewpoints on diamonds, where those viewpoints are rooted, and the partner doesn't agree even after understanding your viewpoint, then you should consider compromising.

I would say think very carefully before deciding if you want to marry her.

This advice applies to everyone really, but especially to you as this incident is a signal that there might be some incompatibility in your values, which is a warning sign.

I'd say try and take this to the ultimate conclusion of resolving the topic amicably, without either side just giving in. Don't shut it down or put it off. A fight, or even a break up is better than carrying on as if it doesn't matter. This would be a good test of how things will go once you are married.

Also read some books on choosing a partner / comparability. I would say that this should be the highest priority thing for you so ditch any side projects, say NO to overtime and sort this one out. Good luck, and feel free to take this unsolicited advice with a pinch of salt :-)

Just buy her the diamond! If it's something that she really wants, then don't let your own feelings get in the way of that. Thats really selfish. Kind of the gist of being married is compromise.

I mean, seriously, a ring could be had for $3k. You're going to throw away a 5 year relationship with someone you'd like to be married to because you won't buy her something that costs the same as the new stupid MacBook? She's not worth the $3k to you? She's the one who should be having second thoughts.

> Thats really selfish

And it's not selfish of her to demand spending tons of money 'just because'? Of course each case is individual, but the whole situation can be a signal for a bunch of bad things (bad with money; can't use logic; don't care about man's feelings; etc). Maybe it is right thing to do to cut losses now.

> She's not worth the $3k to you?

This is one of the most manipulative arguments I've heard from people. I can't put a price on what my wife or son are worth to me, yet, I'd not buy something just at any price because my wife or son want it. Thankfully I was in a position to talk to my wife and she just wanted something symbolic so we went with something for less than 1k. Another good argument to bring in this situation is to show you're willing to spend the money, just not on something like a diamond, offer perhaps take her to a ver nice vacation.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while.

And what if you do not want to get married unless she shows you how much she loves you by getting you a mustang?

Next her. Honestly and from personal experience.

You seem unable explain why she requires a diamond ring, which makes it very unlikely you would be able to change her mind.

Engagement/wedding rings are status symbols. Most women feel this more strongly than men. When first engaged most women will want the ring to be noticed and be rather conspicuous about making it visible. Many of her friends and colleagues will comment on it and having a high value ring will be a point of pride.

It feels good to show off. By saying you don't want to pay for a diamond, she may feel that she will be missing out on all of the pride and status effects.

My own tactic for convincing my wife to accept a moissanite stoned ring was simple. Reframe it as the higher status option. The moissanite stones are higher quality and have more brilliance. Moissanite are "conflict-free" stones. We went ring shopping together and allowed her to choose rings/settings that she liked. I pointed out that some of the settings would be out of our price range even with a flawed diamond, but we could substitute a flawless moissanite and people would notice the improvement.

Ultimately if she still wants a diamond stone, it is her choice and it is her status symbol.

When we got engaged I put the money I would have spent on a ring towards buying a farm (as someone said in a thread on news.yc "oh, you're The Farm Guy!").

My wife thanks me almost literally every day for the farm. I don't think she'd appreciate a diamond ring nearly as much.

When it came time to actually get married I dropped around $2 or $2.5k on gold casting grain, carving wax, a small burn out kiln, a crucible, etc., and made wax blanks for our rings on my Sherline lathe, then cast them in gold using the burn out kiln and my blacksmithing forge.

Meanwhile, she sewed her own dress from scratch.

After the small church ceremony we had everyone back to our house for BLTs and tomato soup, using home made bacon and home made bread, etc.

Our complete wedding cost maybe $3,000 or $3,500 and the cost was dominated by the burn out kiln and the gold.

The good news is that the kiln and accessories still get used: a few weeks ago she carved a belt buckle from wax and I cast it in bronze.

My advice: eschew consumerism. A DIY lifestyle is a lot more fun.

[ edit ] here's a pix of my first practice rings in silver, and then one of the rough cast gold rings before cleanup. https://goo.gl/photos/tdLEjxQipMS2ZtQh8

I never knew moissanite existed, thank you for the unknown.

I am skeptical of the post—the argument is diamond sucks, but after reading the post, it appears to be “diamond sucks, buy moisanite instead.” 1). Why is there only one alternative? 2). Why does it matter that people will assume the ring is diamond? 3). Let’s assume all diamonds are subsidizing African warlords. How would I know if my hard-earned money isn’t subsidizing some Chinese manufacturers known to exploit human labor?

I would be getting more “bling for my buck” if it was the same commodity. You mentioned that others wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between moisanite and diamond, but if moisanite is better than diamond, then others should be able to recognize moisanite and perhaps comment “the refraction index for this ring appears to be higher than diamond, it must be a moisanite. It’s beautiful!”

Wedding is a tradition, but it’s not required for marriage likewise diamond is the symbolic instrument for proposals, but the ring does not have to be diamond.

I appreciate your post for the detail comparison breakdown between diamond and moisanite, but I am skeptical of the intent. Research the luxury handbag industry and you’ll find the same patterns, and what alternatives are there, typically, for cheaper Chanel handbags?

Yeah, quite fishy. He even goes on to say Retail ~$735, Moissanite.net $399. That article is practically an ad.

I would go with CZ. Interestingly there is an inverse correlation between wedding ring cost and likelihood of staying together.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501480

If you want such jewelry and dislike diamonds, it can be worth it to choose something casually similar to diamond that you both appreciate, so that you won't generate as much unwanted "OMG WHY NOT DIAMOND" nonsense and have to explain to practically everyone who looks at it. They'll just assume you meet their internal idea of an engagement ring and not bother you with the [n+1]th set of questions about it.

>If I can prevent a single reader from needlessly dropping $6,000-10,000+ on a diamond engagement ring, this site will be a success. Financial worries are the #1 cause of stress in a married relationship - there is absolutely NO excuse to start your married life by taking on that level of debt.

This is probably very naive of me but it honestly never occurred to me that anyone would actually go into debt for a ring. I naively assumed everyone did it the old fashioned way. Save up and don't pop the question until you either have bought the ring or at least have the cash on hand to go get one together.

Personally if I was being proposed to and discovered that my partner had gone into debt to get a ring I would seriously question the wisdom of picking them as a life partner.

I know many people whose ring was financed by the place where they bought the ring. From my understanding, the financing is similar to that of a car, in the sense that the interest is artificially low so you are "tricked" in to spending more for ring than you otherwise would have.

I'm the same, I wouldn't buy a ring, or even a car if I couldn't pay outright. But I think a lot of people would do so. Just look at how many people have basically zero savings [0].

[0] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/can-you-guess-how-m...

Since 2006, the synthetic diamond gem industry has made considerable progress, and is now banging out real diamonds at a good clip. Gemesis was the first to mass-market synthetic diamond gemstones. (DeBeers tried intimidating the CEO, a retired U.S. Army general. Intimidation didn't work.) Now other companies are doing it.

Silicon carbide gemstones are available in bulk on Alibaba.[1] So are diamonds.The page for Changsa Chenguang Machinery and Electric Company makes it clear how far down diamonds have come.[2] They have a list of diamond products - diamond plate for cutting tools and wear parts, monocrystalline diamond for wire drawing dies, diamond inserts for well drilling cutters, and diamonds for gemstones. The gems are a sideline from the cutting tool business. Minimum gem order 10 grams, capacity six metric tons of diamonds a year. That's just one small manufacturer.

[1] https://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?IndexArea=product_en&Ca... [2] https://china-chenguang.en.alibaba.com/

Diamonds in machinging is nothing new. Diamond grinding wheels, etc, have been around forever. Real diamonds are cheap in those sizes (we're talking grain of sand or smaller).

Diamonds as parts of cutting tools are now above abrasive size. Look at the site linked. There are sizable diamonds as cutting edges in tools.

All I can say is "Wow!" Synthetic diamonds have sure come a long way. At the rate the technology seems to be progressing, even golfball-sized diamonds at ridiculously low prices might not be unrealistic, and I'm sure others will find applications for it.

Due to its thermal properties, I think handling a huge diamond might also be an interesting experience.

You can get a golfball-sized 80mm cubic zirconia jewel right now.[1] Price for the big ones is $33.25. Minimum order quantity from the factory is 5.

[1] https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/wholesale-80mm-round-...

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.

What if you spend the same amount you would have spent on a diamond, but on a Moissanite ring?

While I love the idea of a crystal ring of any kind, metal beats it in two cases:

1. Crystals can shatter if stuck at the wrong angle (unlikely but possible).

2. Unlike a gold band the crystal ring can't be resized later in life.

You must be fun at parties...

Another alternative is synthetic, lab grown diamonds. They are superior to naturally occuring diamonds, cheaper, aren't tainted by human misery and suffering like conflic/blood diamondst, and arent extracted from ecologically damaging mining techniques like open pit mining.

Plus they create jobs!

Yeah, well... this is the future.

The prices on these are still artificially inflated. I was told directly by the president of one of these synthetic companies that De Beers will move into large production in a few years For now, the other synthetics are just being allowed to exist as the cartel makes the transition provided they don't undercut too much and stay carefully in a few niches.

Where can you buy that?

They're mostly made for industrial purposes, but just google synthetic diamonds.

Be careful googling synthetic diamonds. There are a lot of scammy companies out there using slippery language to fool you into thinking their cubic zirconias are sythetic diamonds. AFAIK there are only a few companies making real jewelry grade synthetic diamonds and they are just barely cheaper than mined diamonds, so if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

Yeah. The real advantage of synthetics over naturally occurring is they don't come with human exploitation baggage or contribute to climate change.

There's also a side-benefit if you're like me. I think the idea of a synthetic diamond is way more interesting than one we dug up. To me it's the difference between "hey look at this shiny rock I found" and "look at what beauty our technology has allowed us to create"

In Amsterdam there was a factory that sold them to the public. I believe they were reputable.

Or just buy used stones.

But here's the thing, even though they are purer and "better" in any objective measure they sell for a much lower price because people don't want them.

Diamond ring purchase is about status projection and having an "artificial" one screams low social status and is to be avoided at all cost.

I found that the hard/funny way while visiting Amsterdam and witnessing a woman choosing a diamond at bulk retailer.

When checking the beauty of the stone she clearly preferred the lab created one. Once informed that it was "artificial" and thus much cheaper she immediately changed her opinion stating that the "natural" one was much better and totally refusing the "artificial" one.

It's all about status.

They've probably gotten better since I looked in 2012, but at that time, they weren't much cheaper and they had both superior and inferior properties. IIRC, they had less imperfections in the crystalline patterns but more impurities that lead to a more yellow color because of impurities leaking in during fabrication. So they were kickass for practical uses, but didn't look at good.

Maybe they are overall superior now.

No one is getting killed for them and they aren't extracted from open pit mines. Those are two big pluses for me

I like to believe that there's a lot of savvy and affluent couples out there who are buying either moissanites instead of diamonds and choosing not to tell their friends or family about it to avoid the social stigma. They then take the $5k to $20k they just saved (what's the rule of thumb, one month's gross salary?) and put it towards bootstrapping their new life.

You can even post close-up pictures of the stone on Facebook and not a single person you know will ever be able to tell because, as noted by the article, the difference is indistinguishable to the human eye.

As long as both members of the couple find this acceptable, it would be silly not to at this point.

I think the "rule of thumb" is three months of salary.

> I like to believe that there's a lot of savvy and affluent couples out there who are buying either moissanites instead of diamonds and choosing not to tell their friends or family about it to avoid the social stigma.

This is so foreign to me. Why do people care? It's just a way to signal wealth and really not much different than a bride price (a cultural practice that American expats are quick to criticize in an Asian culture, for reference). My girlfriend / future-wife and I will get matching steel rings or something similar, like my parents have. She's not American so she was thrilled by that idea. I already told her I won't wear it most of the time because rings are annoying, and again that was no problem at all.

I would run the other way if someone is resolute about buying a diamond, after everything that is known about the diamond industry. It means either that person is totally ignorant of the world around them, or doesn't care about making a positive impact with their lifestyle choices.

My impression is that it's due to the same reason Americans leave large tips if they can. Without an established class system, money is the signal used to demonstrate your standing in relation to others.

Incidentally, money and class are, in my experience, the most misunderstood aspect of the English class system by Americans. There is a loose correlation, but it's only very loose. It's quite common in the UK to have upper class families with hardly any money beyond inheritance, and conversely rich lower class families who might run their own businesses.

Interestingly, the upper class man wouldn't feel the slightest bit inferior for neglecting to buy a diamond ring for his fiancé unless doing so was the "done thing" by previous generations of his or her family, whereas the rich lower class man would be clamouring for the biggest one he could afford.

Generalizations, but so termed due to being generally true.

There was an AMA on reddit [1] that addressed the status of DeBeers price control, the idea that synthetic diamonds are 'flawless', etc. Lots of other cool info too, related to the diamond and gem industry.

[1] "IamA programmer who writes code for calculating diamond prices. AMA about De Beers, the diamond industry, synthetic diamonds, engagement rings, etc." https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2aijjh/iama_programme...

Similar arguments can be made about almost any fashion item. People don't buy fashion due to it's great quality, and most of the time not even due to good design, but mostly just to show off.

True of any human vanity.

oh the humanities

Yeah, the arguments about resale value seem ridiculous. Who's buying a wedding ring as an investment?

The argument about resale value is used to justify the purchase. The person buying the ring doesn't seriously consider it an investment, but it makes it less painful to think of it as one.

In Europe there are banks selling diamonds for "investment purposes".

I laughed very hard for minutes when I found that!

The only special thing about diamonds in particular is that - as opposed to other fashion items - the market for diamonds has been[0] literally created out of thin air by a single company, thanks to many decades of marketing efforts.

[0] - according to sources like http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...

Veblen goods.

Maybe you just surround yourself with superficial people? I have a hard time believing people passionate about fashion don't have a nuanced appreciation for the aesthetic aspect of it.

Edit: Also wouldn't calling a fashion item ostentatious or low quality be a critique of bad fashion?

My wife has a diamond engagement ring and wedding band. Since then I've bought her several cubic zirconias. I can tell the difference (I'm a geologist by training) because the CZ's have too much fire, but I'm not sure I would ever see the difference if I didn't know in advance. And moissanites are much closer even than CZ in diamond-like properties. CZ, however, is way cheaper. Like $10 for a 1-carat stone.

Could be that moissanite is just expensive enough to qualify as an engagement stone (where CS is way too cheap).

Additionally, I think CZ has negative connotations that moissanite hasn't acquired yet. There's been longer for sitcoms to make jokes like "the jerk got me a cheap cubic zirconium!", which isn't the case for moissanite.

Can anyone give me advice on how to convince my girlfriend of this though without her thinking I love her any less :)?

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

Lying is a great way to start a relationship. Then when she goes to get the ring insured or tries to add it to your homeowners or renters insurance and the appraisal comes back you can have the informed, rational discussion of your thought process with no fall out. Just in case someone wants to avoid that approach, it might be helpful to have some specific arguments. I think it is good to point out what you could use the money for instead. If you show that the money could be used to strengthen your relationship over the long term, that should show deep concern and love for your partner.

Spend 10% on the ring and the extra 90% add to the honeymoon budget, or buy her something she actually needs.

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

> Lying is a great way to start a relationship.

It sounded to me like the advice was "show her the fake diamond, so that she can see that it's visually indistinguishable from a real one" rather than "present her the fake diamond as a real one".

So, lie?

I think the point is that when she wears it around her friends, she can omit the fact that it's moissanite and her friends will think that it's a big, brilliant diamond.

> 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 she opens it of course it's too small. So girlfriend takes box and ring to the jewellery store named on the box, and asks to swap it for one that fits. And the shop assistant doesn't spot it's a $10 ring, so girlfriend gets a nice silver/zirconium ring that fits, costing like $150. The day after she tells boyfriend she had to go to the store and swap it. After a few minutes he realises what's happened, but of course keeps very quiet to her about the true story, and enjoys his status as the super romantic/affectionate guy.

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

Meanwhile everyone else probably paid $150 for a $10 ring.

If you're old enough to be thinking about marrying your girlfriend, your girlfriend has probably decided already what she thinks about diamonds and spending money on pretty but useless things. And if you've been dating her long enough to think about marrying her, then you should probably have a pretty good guess about how she thinks about it.

First and foremost, it's a proof of social status between her and her peers, so you need to know who her friends are. But there are so many factors to weigh in. Someone I know got a sapphire ring to propose to his girlfriend, and she commented about how she was glad that he remembered that she hated diamonds. A couple I know have silver wedding bands which were made by an artist that they both know. The rings are unique and special—and this is important—in a way that they can brag about. They don't brag about it, but they could, if they were that kind of people.

However, if you are unable to express your concerns about diamonds without worrying that she'll think you love her less, then you are NOT ready to propose. Consider premarital counseling—which is something you do to get ready for marriage, not something you do because you have problems.

There's a catch-22 here: you can't raise the topic of diamonds without her understanding you are thinking about marriage. And even if you've been together for years, it may just not have come up. And people are unpredictable: she may just have an irrational dream of a diamond ring. So I think the worry is justified and not necessarily a sign of insufficient marriage-maturity. But that doesn't change the advice: the only solution is talking about it.

A complete surprise proposal is a bad idea, IMO. We're talking about a (nominally) lifelong decision. In a relationship with good communication, the proposal should be a formality, because marriage has been explicitly discussed, probably many times, over the course of the relationship. It can and should still be a romantic moment and even a bit of a surprise.

It's only a catch-22 if you can't let her know you are thinking about marriage before you propose. Just saying that out loud it sounds like such a ridiculous idea: I might want to marry her, but I can't let her know that I'm thinking about it.

You say it's not a sign of a lack of maturity, but it sounds exactly like a lack of maturity to me (an inability to communicate honestly with someone who you want to spend the rest of your life with about really basic stuff).

men and women are different hombre, you won't convince anybody without muscle.

Please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

Use the difference in price on a down payment on a home/apartment or open a college savings account for your kids. Tell the truth, you want to build a life together and are thinking about the long term financial and personal consequences of this decision. I bought a ruby for my wife for this exact reason. I also wanted to show our community that we rejected diamonds as a tradition. I think the more we discuss this issue the more likely social conventions will change so future couples won't have to have a discussion.

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.

Sounds like a bad relationship to be in :(

tell her you'd rather set the $3k on fire - as in, real fire, with smoke and all - while she watches than buy a diamond ring. be prepared to follow through.

oh also don't listen to advice on the internet.

The trick here is to use good-quailty counterfeits, and then afterwards ask her if she feels the same way about the ring. If so, buy it. If not, spend the money on something else.

Also, don't do this.

I don't agree with people that say just because she wants the diamond ring, it means the relationship is a bad relationship. It's not irrational to feel social pressure, and feel real pain by not conforming to social norms. At the end of the day if she is happier, that is where she drives economic utility. Just keep at the dialogue, and try to communicate how spending money on something you consider to be unnecessary and imprudent actually harms you emotionally. Hopefully, you will be able to have a nice dialogue and compromise so that you both feel respect from the other person.

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 3k MBP provides a lot more value than a 3k diamond ring

if used correctly, a 3k MBP is a netgain

And a wife is a net loss monetarily. I guess you shouldn't get married then

you can get married without a diamond ring or a expensive marriage. its only a netloss if you make it one

Ok, fine then...a kid is a net loss, a particularly large one at that. Should you not have kids then?

Kid is a pretty solid long time investment(¹), which makes wife a cofounder. Good cofounder won't ask to burn some money to celebrate foundation of the company:).

(¹) of course some children are still a net loss, but other investments fail too so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You seem to get emotional. Because a guy on the internet does not want to by her GF a diamond ring? Why do you care at all?

Getting married is emotional.

Shouldn't get married.

Getting married is probably something worth getting emotional about. Strangers on the internet having made different decisions (or even thinking badly about my decisions) probably isn't.

Your assertion was "if you can afford a $3k MVP you can afford a $3k ring." That the MVP shows a financial return speaks directly to affordability. The parent is not making a claim that financial return is the only thing relevant to decision making.

MBP, of course. Dang autocorrect...

>> 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.

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.

In a situation like this it is quite impossible to give a good advice.

I would recommend you to read the book How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World. Not because of your question regarding the diamond ring but generally.

Try something like this: http://www.kokes.net/projectlonghaul/projectlonghaul.htm

If my girlfriend thought that I loved her less because I didn't give her a diamond ring, I'd reconsider my relationship.

Sounds like a good pickup line: "What do you think about diamond ring?"

Better discover the answer after 3 minutes rather than 3 years.

Though liking a nice ring is different from dumping a boyfriend who doesn't buy one.

Except you'll sound like those guys out there trying to hustle fake jewelry in sketchy situations.

try to make one at home?

A $2000 ring is cents per day for a long marriage.

66% of marriages survive 10 years. The ring would cost 50c per day.

Buy the ring, and spend less of coffee.

How many starving/diamond mining children in Africa can 50c a day feed?

A US marriage is phenomenally expensive. If you want to send 50c a day to Africa, and you can't afford it, it's probably better to cut back on dressed chairs at the wedding than to tell your future wife who wants a ring that she's not going to get one.

Why is everything an investment

My wife-to-be and I agreed to skip 'engagement' and the money we would have paid for a ring covered the entire cost of our wedding and an all-friends garden-party.

To this day, no-one has asked my wife why she only has a [tungsten] wedding ring and no engagement ring. So that's 50c per day saved for better causes. And we have lots of good memories from the party.

Cool, if someone's prospective wife doesn't want a ring they can spend the money on whatever they want.

Here, though, GP makes it sound like his SO wants a diamond ring.

That assumes that a more expensive ring buys a stabler marriage. Actually the opposite seems to be the case:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501480

Nothing in my comment is saying that buying an expensive ring will save a marriage.

I'm only saying that if your marriage lasts for 10 years, which about 66% of them do, it's weird to complain about the cost of a ring when there will be very many more expensive and equally bullshit things to spend or not spend on.

The divorce rate is increasing every day. One shouldn't based a decision on outdated marriage statistics from 10 years ago. Just sayin'

the divorce rate has actually been falling steadily since about 1980.

That paper doesn't attempt to make a causal link. It's possible that being broke during the courtship process (when the ring is purchased) is what leads to a lasting marriage. I also can't find any discussion of the cost of the ring to the cost that could have been afforded. Is there a comparable outcome from someone who could easily afford a $10k ring but instead spends $1k vs someone who can only barely afford the $1k ring in the first place?

Apparently couples spend on average $4k on a wedding ring and from moissanite.net I see the most expensive ring costing $2,575. If that's too "low" then keep buying necklaces, ankle bracelets and belly button rings until it adds up to $4k.

I hope the ending :) indicates that you are joking. If this is a legitimate fear, I would strongly reconsider this relationship.

Ask her to read this article, and the Atlantic one it links to. My now-wife couldn't stomach the idea of wearing a diamond after learning about the industry. She went with a sapphire from a reputable company instead.

Other tip, her and I went ring shopping together, which really helped alleviate the pressure of trying to pick out something she'd enjoy wearing for many decades. She was still pleasantly surprised by the prosposal a couple months later, although she obviously knew it was in the cards at some point!

Yeah we did a Sapphire as well, it's crazy what colors you can get. I asked her to marry me without a ring, and then we designed the ring together. Altogether a much less stressful experience and the surprise was still there.

Tell her that she has a choice, she can get an expensive ring that looks the same as that less expensive ring. Except that with the less expensive ring you're going to spend 3 weeks in Asia road tripping from Thailand to the Philippine in paradisiac places.

I convinced mine, but, obviously, YMMV. I was lucky in that she's divorced, so has already gone through with that, and hate hate hated the idea of debt.

We had already had conversations about getting married, that sort of thing, so when it came to the ring it was easy to bring it up. I mentioned I was a little reluctant to go with a diamond; I said I was -willing-, but due to the intentional supply limit and the ensuing price hike, it would necessarily be small, as I was not willing to go into debt for it (which she was already in agreement we should never do; beware if your significant other has no issues with going into debt). Had she considered alternatives, such as moissanite?

I showed her some images and videos of moissanite, compared price, showed it was nearly as hard -and- glittered more (and that I could get her a 2+ carat stone for what ~.5 carat diamond of comparable color and clarity would cost, and that at < 1/10th what a 2 carat diamond of comparable color and clarity would cost), and she was convinced enough to go scope it out at a jeweler's that carried it.

I also mentioned the possibility of gemstones; there were plenty that were gorgeous and would be more distinctive than diamond, and set her apart from other women (who, after all, could only brag about the size of their diamond, rather than how it had special meaning to them). Etc.

At the jeweler's as she explored different stones, she ended up picking out an aquamarine that she really liked (and then found out that was my birthstone, locking in the decision even more).

Find a documentary about blood diamonds. Find some excuse to watch it while she's around, and don't let her stop you. Swear and say that you aren't going to hurt people for a wedding ring! Say she can have any thing but a diamond! Etc. Good luck with the drama :)

The documentary would have to be from the early 90's since there's almost no blood diamonds in the rough market

That's just clearly false. The Kimberly Process wasn't even introduced until 2003! Why would they have done so if there were no issues in the preceding decade?

Further, Wikipedia has this to say:

"The effectiveness of the process has been brought into question by organizations such as Global Witness, which pulled out of the scheme on 5 December 2011, claiming it has failed in its purpose and does not provide markets with assurance that the diamonds are not conflict diamonds."

Girl here. The comments you've gotten so far are going about this the wrong way. Arguments about price, ethics, practical tradeoffs are the dead wrong tone. Proposals should be over the top romantic; you'd never suggest skipping a beautiful or dramatic location to save money, right?

Beyond that, this isn't just about how she feels about it. Everyone she knows, relatives, friends, is going to want to see the ring and hear the story. To all of them, a diamond is the gold standard and a cheap substitute will be an awkward counterfeit. Even if you convince her, you are signing her up to have the ultimate celebration of her, the once in a lifetime birthday party, turn into a lot of awkwardness and sympathy. Bad deal.

Ignore the cost. It's impolite to ask and moissanite is expensive enough. If what you do looks legitimate enough, no one need know. The critical key is that you sell this as better, representative of more thought, more effort, more investment on your part.

Focus on that you're doing something different. Something special. Design a custom ring that speaks to you about who she is. Focus on the ways in which the stone is superior to a diamond. It is unusually brilliant which reminds you of her. It is tougher, harder than what everyone else takes for granted. You mounted it with blue stones for her eyes.

Make it personal and in every possible way, about her and as much as possible tell a story that will make her friends wish someone that thoughtful cared about them enough to do something truly special rather than checking the expected box.

I went for a moissanite/diamond compromise with my fiancee and it worked!

Charles and Colvard (the originators of lab grown moissanite) recently released a new generation known as Forever One and these cuts are currently the best on the market. They're brighter and have more sparkle than diamonds and are completely colourless. Essentially, they look better than any diamond money can buy and have the same properties in terms of hardness etc.

Despite all the advantages of moissanite (quality, price, ethics, environment etc), I knew a little part of her still wanted a real diamond on her finger (no matter how much she tried to pretend otherwise!).

My solution looked like this:

1. A 1 carat 6.5mm Forever One moissanite round centre stone (in a halo setting)

2. ~20 tiny, 0.3 carat real side diamonds (F colour, SI clarity - Note: these two metrics are much more important than the carat weight!)

3. 18K gold for the ring itself (bonus: the gold was recycled - feeble but worthwhile attempt to offset the environmental damage of the diamonds)

All told, it came in at under $1,500 (which, sadly, is ridiculously cheap these days for an engagement ring).

She loves it (and got her diamonds), we have more money to spend on other things and I'm happy I didn't lose too much cash and karma to the diamond cartels.

FYI, I did all of this online through https://www.moissaniteco.com. Highly recommend them!

Screw the synthetic advice here and go buy the ring pre-owned or buy the diamonds direct from a wholesaler and get them set in a new piece.

"The big difference between moissanite and diamond is that moissanite can be manufactured reliably and efficiently in a laboratory."

Thats not true, diamonds can be manufactured reliably and efficiently in a laboratory as well. And its nearly impossible to tell the difference between natural and artificial ones. Only a very complicated lab test with a machine can tell the difference.

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?

The article I cited was from 2003, but I'm not sure what the relevance is of the relative dates. My comment wasn't directed at the OP, but at the parent's question about fabricated ("cultured" ;) ) diamonds.

At the moment I believe labs can make anything you want diamond wise... And somewhere around 2012 diamond grading labs started issuing certificates for man-made/synthetic stones. http://www.gia.edu/gem-lab-service/synthetic-diamond

I'm curious how difficult moissanite is to manufacture compared to diamonds, as I was under the impression diamonds require high pressure and temperature to make.

This was written in 2006, so things may have changed since then.

That's nice. Androids are fine phones too for a fraction of the cost. The problem is my wife likes diamonds and iPhones and I doubt either has much to do with the specs.

I can't get over the fact that americans apparently pay $5k-10k for an engagement ring. As if this decides the success of the marriage.

I have known people that spent $18k-30k. If I was on the other side it would scare me that my partner was willing to blow that much money on a novelty. It's a sign that they are bad with money.

I paid a three digit sum and chose the ring based on what my girlfriend likes. She loves it.

Something personal yet affordable is a much better idea than burning money on an expensive but impersonal status symbol.

My wife wanted a diamond ring, but one that included stones that have been in her family for a 6 generations. We designed the ring together (with the help of Rhino3D and a local gem shop in Chicago). We melted down the old platinum ring and used the money for a new setting. It's the only ring she has; no separate engagement and wedding rings.

My opinion is that people who insist on the two-months' salary-marketing ploy are chumps and I don't respect that lack of real thought for such a major decision. I told her afterwards that if she would have insisted on a new diamond ring, we wouldn't have gotten married. Currently at seven years and two kids.

A diamond purchase is a type of proof-of-burn. It's a way to display how much you value the person by being willing to sacrifice a large part of your savings for them. It's not really about the stone itself, it's about the cost.

Which in turn isn't even just about the (monetary) cost: the diamond ring is part of a collection of social rituals intended to increase the (social & psychological) cost of exit from marriage.

Then give a donation receipt for a charity that you both support for the cost of the diamond instead. At least that way the sacrificed money will support something you both believe in rather than the diamond industry.

It's also to display for others, not just for the receiver of the ring.

Frame the donation receipt and display it in a prominent position.

Wastefulness as a status symbol is a really harmful idea. I'd prefer someone who is smart with money.

I think the main issue here is not to burn a huge chunk of money when starting a new life together, especially when the amount spent is usually a lot more than they can really afford.

Does giving them something of actual value not prove the same? Do divorce laws not guarantee monetary sacrifice already?

My opinion is that this is proof of irrational attachment..

To me this expectation would be a strong signal to leave that person.

And it's a social ranking mechanism. You've attracted a mate that is richer, more capable provider, therefore you are more capable and rank higher in your groups social ranking.

What's actual marriage in Cryptocurrency terms? Multi-signature?

Many cultures you give a valuable gift to the spouse, to ensure they won't be totally dependent - they have their own wealth. Until you can prove you can support a spouse, you can't marry.

That would make more sense today if it were possible to sell a diamond for anywhere near the purchase price.

I go out to collect gemstones as a hobby on the weekends. And it only took a half day class to learn how to shape them for jewelry. So while some people still like diamonds, I prefer to give hand-collected and crafted stones. They might not be worth as much, but I made them myself and can guarantee nobody was harmed or screwed over in the process.

Much more personal too. I like it.

I got my wife a moissanite ring, and it indeed sparkles amazingly...but so do cubic zirconiums

The worst part of the diamond industry is how much space is wasted here in New York for diamond stores. Around Midtown there are whole blocks of sketchy diamond stores. No way all are profitable.

I'm sure you appreciate how easy selling diamonds makes avoiding taxes. Diamonds and High-End Art make it nearly impossible to not help launder.

What about gift shops and massage parlors? Both take over Manhattan blocks as well.

We went with a synthetic crystal/man made diamond that is simply beautiful and was cheaper than a moissanite yet is quite a bit closer to the fire and refraction index.

The key is to spend the money on the band. The quickest trick that jewelers use to spot a fake is a cheap band. No one puts an expensive diamond in a cheap plated band. We had a custom platinum and 14k yellow gold band with pave diamonds and it is stunning. My wife gets compliments literally daily. I am quite confident that even a professional jeweler or gemologist would not be able to tell with the naked eye that this is not a real diamond.

Add to that, the majority of the cost for the band was the raw materials which we paid spot price for. You could literally melt it down and get most of the value out of it. Additionally the companies that sell the higher end synthetics offer lifetime warranties and in our case, even a replacement for a lost stone with a deductible.

Koi carps are a fish with a lot of variance in their cost. Koi carps can cost from $25 to over $50000, depending on their size and color. What do you need a larger koi carp for? Well, I personally do not know why someone might be so appreciative of larger fish, go ask that person.

Price is about perceived value and perception can be manipulated in many, many ways.

And you can pretty much start talking about mostly anything. Wristwatches, cars, etc... and how some features are super important where in real life they probably aren't.

Just like a larger koi carp, lower 0 to 60 mph so you can get to that red traffic light faster, a shiny gold watch that will give you the exact same time, wine that tastes 90% the same as a wine with 10% of the cost, and we can go on and on...

Truth is that some of those things make people happy, and that's pretty much all the reason behind it. Just go for the ring that will give you the "yes".

We were engaged in 2006 and I forwarded that article to my soon to be wife. Her answer was: I don't think this is funny. I ended up buying a 10k diamond ring. We're still happily married with 1 beautiful 8 y.o. daughter. Ask any married guy and they'll all say the same: pick your battles!

How bad do the fights have to be to make 10k not worth arguing over?

Exactly. Who is one person to judge what someone else finds important or gets pleasure from even if invented by a marketing person? What is the value of a football or soccer game or a host of other things people spend money on. Ripoff is in the eyes of the beholder.

It doesn't cost 3 months salary and support death in Africa to watch a football or soccer game.

Although it does support permanent brain injury in football players.

Who said it was funny in the first place? The article touches some important, serious topics.

I think she's letting him pretend he was joking so as to avoid a fight...

It sounds more that both of you are [insanely lucky to be / oblivious of being] well off rather than that you're gifted with exceptional knowledge about marriage.

I commissioned a bespoke moissanite ring for my wife. One of her family members seemed gobsmacked by the shiny thing. A couple months later this person was wearing a new ring with a larger stone. If you are concerned about conflict diamonds, there are some weird edge cases you need to consider.

> Isn't it amazing (and scary) how brainwashed people are about the "value" of diamonds, even though they're not actually worth that much?

I've never understood this argument. Aren't they worth what people are willing to pay?

Yes that is true, what he was saying is that if more people were educated about it, that worth would drop like a rock. Pun intended

> I've never understood this argument. Aren't they worth what people are willing to pay?

I think the parent's argument is that not many people know about their price being inflated by a combination of artificial scarcity and hype.

But effectively all modern products have their prices inflated by hype (i.e. marketing) and many by artificial scarcity.

Not many people think about this for any product, why should we expect them to think about it for diamonds?

There is another aspect: resale value.

Much lower for diamonds.

Aren't they worth what people are willing to pay?

Yes, but only as a function of their scarcity. Diamonds aren't actually rare. They're only made rare by diamond companies hoarding them and releasing tiny numbers of stones in order to maintain a high price. You certainly wouldn't buy diamonds as an investment, just in case a diamond company dumped their stockpile on to the market and the price collapsed.

Not just that. If you also count diamonds manufactured in the laboratory, then diamonds are pretty common and cheap items. That's why diamond companies put a lot of effort into convincing people that only "natural" diamonds count as proofs of love.

There's a classic article from The Atlantic in 1982 that explains the bullshit. The article is astonishingly relevant, nothing has changed in the 35 years since.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...

Estate jewellery is a good option too. Estate jewellery is often cheaper and of very good quality. Why buy something new when something 60 or 50 yrs old looks the same or better?

Wouldn't the diamond be the same price since they are valued by the CCC's? Is it the setting and diamond combo that costs less?

No, most overpaid for jewelry so a diamond store is gonna offer them a low ball offer at best.

If a store wants the Dimond they have to melt it and reset it which is work.

There is a base price for diamonds based on ccc but good luck getting that from a store .

"dropping $6,000-10,000+ on a diamond engagement ring"

How much?! Do people really spend that much on an engagement ring? Here they're a few hundred euro at most. Unless you're a millionaire or like to pretend to be, perhaps.

I would say that if you need to have a big stone in your engagement ring at all, you're still a slave of the old De Beers advertising campaign. You may outsmart them on the product, but you're still obeying the message of having a big sparkly stone.

Yes, people do spend that much. I'm not sure what kind of virtue signalling people think they are achieving when they fake this kind of incredulity. People will spend a fuck ton of money on things they think are pretty, or unique.

But what sort of idiot would want an original Picasso or Van Goch, for example, when they can just get a digital print to put up on their wall that looks almost identical? If you're the sort of person who likes original artwork, you're really just a slave to the Christies and Bonhams marketing...

Not sure what you mean about virtue signaling there. Maybe the article was specifically aimed at millionaires or something, but for a normal middle class person to spend two or three months salary on a ring? That's crazy.

Just like most people do not own real Picassos or Van Goghs. (Though if they did, it'd retain it's value better than a diamond ring.) If the occasional rich diamond lover spends that much, that's totally understandable, but for society to expect that kind of expense from people with financial struggles (everybody who is not rich), that is irresponsible.

Let's extend this sentiment to all gemstones. Reality show enthusiasts have started ripping up high peaks in Colorado for worthless shiny stones like aquamarine.

I don't remember the source, but apparently there is an inverse correlation between expense of wedding ring and a couple's likelihood of stay together

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU

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!

Some thoughts I haven't seen mentioned in the comments:

1. Diamonds, like gold, are highly portable pieces of wealth that hold value across economic shifts. When rich people go on the run, they usually carry hidden diamonds with them.

2. A good looking woman in certain jobs will be approached very frequently by other men. It's not just waitresses, think pharma rep. The ring is an effective shield, and the bigger the better.

Putting these thoughts together, the pointless rock is actually providing a good amount of security to the woman. Even if you disappeared, or if she wanted to disappear, the diamond will always have value and can get her through a few months expenses. Second, you're helping her avoid confrontation in public life.

Now realistically, some women have a back office job where everyone already knows their marital status. Many women today don't need the precious stone as pawnable thing of last resort. So I don't think its wrong for a couple to skeptically evaluate the value prop I've described above.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...

This article is a pretty interesting one on the topic!

Anybody else have a SO who doesn't care about any of this? We talked about rings for 10 minutes before she and I got married. We wear white gold bands. No one has ever asked us about our rings. I'm feeling like I'm missing something here. Do rings appreciate in value?

Went with a lab grown diamond from Brilliant Earth and my (now) wife was ecstatic that she didn't have to feel any gilt over the stone or feeling pressure from friends trying to explain why she went with an alternative. We were both extremely happy with the ring.

I bought my wife no engagement rings and she is happy just to keep the money. Society just needs to get saner so you won't need any of these coveted stones. So instead of looking for alternative stones to carry on the madness, just date utilitarian women.

We went with a sapphire, in an antique setting with some small inexpensive diamonds on either side. Better in every way than a big diamond, much cheaper, easier to get a far prettier custom result.

And I have to say prong settings are ungainly and not durable.

So this is Silicon Carbide? I'd love to see someone grow one of these crystals. The raw materials and the processes needed are, from what people have told me, simple but no one has ever gone past "don't worry about it".

The raw materials are cheap, but growing crystals of SiC isn't easy, and it took quite a long time to work out the growth processes. It helps that it's more or less conventional crystal growth and doesn't require super high pressure, as does one of the two main ways of growing diamond.

Here's a presentation on some aspects of growing silicon carbide (which in its low-defect state is clear & colorless, i.e., Moissonite) [1]. One thing to note is that growth temperatures exceed 2000°C - that's difficult territory for engineering apparatus that's both reliable and cheap.

A lot of the impetus for high quality SiC growth came from developing it for super high power FETs and other power switching semiconductors. That growth tech bled over into gem SiC growth.

[1] http://www.leb.eei.uni-erlangen.de/winterakademie/2005/resul...

I know this is a big ask for some machineists/industrial engineers out there but I think it would be really cool to see someone produce a one off sample of Moissonite for their spouse. Would be really lovely and from looking at this very very doable.

This would be great but reading through this but it doesn't look like a 15 minute process. You're right, the robust-ativity of this is the real concern here.

Droppin' those truth bombs. Adam Ruins Everything had a good episode covering this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU

I have only one problem with this article crawling so high... As it seems an ad for one retailer of Moisanite Charles & Colvard. Also this article was submitted twice to hackernews before, once by the same person before.

I purchased a neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet from a surplus auction that included electro-optical equipment (big lasers and such.) The garnet is a nice pink color with a high refractive index. It's slightly bigger than 1 cubic centimeter and being lab grown it has zero defects other than the neodymium atoms which turn it pink.

I plan on having it cut and set into a ring. However one obstacle is that yttrium is considered toxic to humans as a dust. Proper safety, ventilation and cleanup must be observed which makes it difficult to find jewellers that are willing to accommodate this.

Re:Alternatives - was just talking about this with Billionaire founder of MoonExpress which just the first private company to receive FAA clearance to harvest some the moon (Moon Express). Sounds like he plans on bringing some back for rings and making it a thing to not just have a honeymoon but to give your honey the moon.

https://soundcloud.com/user-925097294/billionaire-breaking-i...

There are some good alternative ideas. At a point in my life I was learning 3D modeling and planning to have a ring printed by Shapeways.

The moon rock is a cool idea, but unless the couple met while working at NASA I don't see the significance.

Millions of men spending billions of dollars every year because of a marketing campaign of one company. If they instead crowdfunded a massive anti-campaign they could've stopped this madness.

Just two weeks ago I was ordering a ring from a jeweler and I wanted a moissanite. It seems to be impossible to find this gem in Ukraine. My jeweler wasn't able to order it anywhere. I'm visiting Germany soon, so I went to Charles&Colvard website to see if they have a reseller in Germany – no they don't. The closest reseller is in UK. And I can't just order it from US because every delivery service specifically doesn't deliver precious stones and metals to Ukraine. So no moissanite for me.

I think rubies are much more appealing.

Depends on what she likes.

Ha! Great Post/Website. I personally run a personalized jewelry store, AuGrav.com, and have recently posted on why NOT to go for a diamond ring! As you mentioned, it's more of an emotional/sentimental value rather than the investment value. #GetPersonalized

Cheers!

http://www.augrav.com/blog/how-to-propose-your-love-without-...

I love this article, but why not discuss other options as well. You show CZ in your table, but don't discuss how its a perfect stone with no discolorization, and significantly cheaper than even moissanite. Its perfection means it will never pass as a diamond to a jeweller, but it looks amazing to everyone else. I bought my wife a huge CZ ring and she loves it and the cheap price tag. She lost it once and I just bought another just like it.

I recently spent a little bit of time looking into this and one thing that was interesting is how much the look of a stone is also relying on the quality of the cut.

You can get diamonds/moissonites/cz in the same cut, but they will look like night and day, depending on how well it seems to be done. Some lab created stones / replicants look indistinguishable from a diamond whereas others look very much like they're made from glass

So how has the US tradition of engagement diamonds survived the (entirely proper and welcome) amelioration of sexual stereotypes? I'm living in a bubble, I know, but huh? I've been married four times. I've never given, or received, an engagement ring. I've never even been explicitly engaged. I don't even recall that the topic ever came up. I suppose that it was just part of mutual selection process ;)

Interesting read and great points. But the reason I'm shopping for a diamond is precisely that it is too expensive. It's supposed to be proof that I am glad to make sacrifices for her. If we wanted to do something nontraditional we might choose some completely different kind of ring, but to choose something that looks super expensive and is not would make me feel like I had cut corners for my fiance.

Why does she need this proof?

Why is wasting a ton of money proof of anything but stupidity?

Genuine questions here. Diamonds are certainly a feature of UK marriages but I've certainly never heard of "X months salary"...

You can make that sacrifice is more productive ways. You could give to charity, for example. Or use it for future financial security, like a deposit for your first house, kids' college fund, or something like that.

The fact of the matter is, you're still talking about buying a rock. Once you have accepted the absurdity of that, it seems like bikeshedding to argue that diamonds are better or worse than anything else (or any less absurd).

Despite this, I spent an outrageous sum on the diamond engagement ring I bought my wife (as well as the wedding band). Because anything other than diamonds wouldn't have been diamonds!

After reading about Moissanite I went out and got a nice custom diamond ring. I've seen it in person and sometimes you CAN tell, because of the 'fire' its way more rainbowy than diamond, diamonds are 'whiter' looking.

I'm not even opposed to CZ if it looks pretty, but I wanted to give her a diamond and gold, and anything else would have felt like a substitution.

This is what annoys me. The geek and idealist in me doesn't want to give her a diamond because it's not that valuable. Yet, I don't want to be cheap. I don't want her to feel like I don't value her enough.

The argument given in the article is that you can spend significantly more on a setting and still come out spending less.

I thought the argument was that you could spend the same amount and get a bigger rock. Maybe I was injecting my own interpretation of things.

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, watches, earrings etc DOES seem like a perfect time to use those diamond-like stones!

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.

Star sapphire is durable. It has a really neat look. It's also smooth, so less likely to scratch things.

Seriously though, a plain band is way less annoying to wear.

> I don't want to be cheap

Why not get something expensive, yet valuable then?

Such as? Jewellery is inherently not valuable!

Is a gold ring not worth the gold it's made out of?

But the ring would cost more than the gold contents it contains. And i also stand by the opinion that gold is inherently valueless, and is only valued as a rarity/status symbol.

> i also stand by the opinion that gold is inherently valueless

If you have any gold, I'll take it off your hands.

So go on a fantastic two month trip around the world together? It's about the same ballpark.

Buy used wedding bands. Best deal out there.

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.

Just got married yesterday and went for the traditional thing. I am happy to read there is an alternative for diamond though, and if we have a gem put it, as is tradition for the birth of a child (for some), I will surely suggest this to my wife.

Imho, wedding rings are overrated. And they will just get lost in a few months/years. Having a super cheap ring is fine.

The same deal with ultra expensive weddings. But remember, this is just my opinion. I am more in agreement with Epicurus.

Back in the days, Slashdot had a discussion on alternative materials for wedding rings.

I cannot for the life of me remember suggestions, but the community came up with quite a few creative and meaningful materials that could make beautiful rings.

Ehhhh I'd take it one step future and say "engagement rings suck."

IMHO a fiancee that demands a diamond is not a spouse worth keeping.

My wife is sporting an aquamarine and people will actually stop her to admire her ring. There are a lot of good alternatives to the over priced/unethical diamond.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFZKPQuAaw

My wife loves sapphire, so we went that route back in 2003. The money saved went towards an IMO awesome setting that will be an heirloom.

Diamonds do suck, which is why I made the Bitcoin alternative to diamond engagement rings, the BTC Ring.

http://thebtcring.com/

Even with moissanite, the ring still has inherent value, thus subjecting the wearer to risk of loss or theft. By using a pointer to value (e.g. a Bitcoin address), one can still show off but not worry about storm drains or muggings.

So, what's an 0.47 caret, round, brilliant cut, very white, flawless to 10X diamond worth?

My and then current GF had our engagement rings in titanium. We never got married though.

Doesn't anyone have recommendations best places to get a moissanite ring?

This was supposed to be "does anyone have any recommendations" but autocorrect changed it. Apologies if it came across as rude.

Damn, this was brought to my attention about 2 days and $6,361 too early.

Silicon carbide? Hmm, if not too concerned about looks, then can get it at most hardware stores on various sanding papers and disks, right? But, sure, much the same for industrial diamonds, e.g., for knife sharpeners, maybe some high end grinding wheels?

I will send this to my other half... Maybe she will understand...

Both DeBeers recommend links are getting 404.

Do a lot of these problems go away if you can afford to pay in cash for a diamond and it doesn't inhibit future purchasing decisions?

> I recently got engaged, and found myself in the market for a suitable engagement ring.

Got engaged prior to purchasing the engagement ring?

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.

Wouldn't the idea that it's normal to have those "disorders" make it contrary to the definition of "disorder" in the first place?

No, once a particular disorder goes over 50% of the population, it doesn't magically become healthy, just because it's the norm. The fact that something is a disorder has nothing to do with how many people are afflicted by it. However, like 99% of social media disagreements among people, it comes down to who's definition of a word is right doesn't it.

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

Well, they might, but your ring doesn't get you anywhere faster and more comfortable.

Also you don't attract men with a ring, but the other way around...*

*This is not my way of thinking, but it exists out there.

The ring is bragging rights...

I drive a sports car.... some women love it others wonder why it's not quiet(it's a convertible) or super smooth and assume it's broken.

Have you seen the cars most women buy? Slowest, low mpg, boat like cars on the road. Basically Toyota in a nutshell, no wonder they do so well.

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

Also nuts, if you ask me. You can get a perfectly good second hand car for a tenth of that. Unless you want a Tesla; then you've got to pay.

I think something like expensive weddings and wedding rings, are totally a product of brainwashing of girls, to set their expectations from an early age. It's totally different from when someone buys an expensive car, or house, or even when a man buys guns, boats or other expensive 'man toys'. Girls have it pounded into their heads from childhood that their wedding day is going to be the greatest day of their lives, and the ring is symbolic of that. So they are brainwashed about the whole ordeal. There is no other word in the English language that better describes this phenomenon than brainwashing. It's no coincidence Weddings happen in Churches either. Church is the "House of Brainwashing", and the building and location around which all brainwashing is centered.

Here's a nice show "Adam ruins everything" where the host explains why weddings (and the ring "tradition") is just about marketing started in 20th century:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVLGsc0M9h0

Had to scroll way too far to this see someone mention that video.

If you're conflicted about spending thousands of dollars for a diamond ring just give your fiance the money it would cost you to buy a diamond ring and tell her it's her decision. Most girls would think twice about spending thousands of dollars on a rock and instead spend some of it while keeping the rest for other future expenditures.

You're so right! Diamonds are an incredible rip-off! But people keep buying them because of the tradition and history and because they don't know something else. Like coca cola and their ads, it's popular to buy diamonds.

I hope the author doesn't get suicided by De Beers. Good luck, my friend!

"a.. whatenite?"

>Sorry about Trump, BTW.

Why on earth do you think that sort of random political non-sequitur is appropriate?

Uhm, well, because I'm having a conversation about cultural differences between the midwest and the north-east. I think it's appropriate to segway into another topic that way.

If it's the sarcasm you find inappropriate, I respectfully disagree. If our new president fulfills his promises, friends of mine will be cataloged, deported. My own hopes of US citizenship and the life me and my wife had planned for ourselves is now uncertain. I find it all very stressful, and humor is an outlet for that stress.

If it's the particular apology you find inappropriate, that was not a joke. As a progressive in the midwest, I did not do enough to campaign to the large group of Trump-voters in my immediate family, friend group and neighborhood.

>If our new president fulfills his promises, friends of mine will be cataloged, deported. My own hopes of US citizenship and the life me and my wife had planned for ourselves is now uncertain.

Are you sure about that? He's already backtracking on ObamaCare, saying he wants to keep parts of it, and the latest news about deportations is that he wants to deport people who have criminal records. Personally, I'm wondering why people who aren't legal immigrants or residents, and who have committed crimes (beyond speeding tickets...) are still here and haven't been deported yet. Who's going to moan about that? He's also making noises about figuring out who the "terrific people" are and keeping them here. Obviously, a lot of stuff he's said was said to appeal to angry voters, and isn't necessarily what he's going to do in office; I expect he's going to go back on a lot of his promises, but in a way that he can claim he didn't (by simply not going as far as implied; then he'll claim he didn't "mean that literally" or "didn't fully articulate the policy" or something like that). Call me crazy or overly-optimistic, but I'm thinking now that he's going to water a lot of stuff down, in an attempt to keep his popularity numbers very high, while still getting some things done that he thought needed to be done.

>As a progressive in the midwest, I did not do enough to campaign to the large group of Trump-voters in my immediate family, friend group and neighborhood.

There was absolutely nothing you could have done to change the course of the election, unless you campaigned a lot to get more people to the polls in the Dem primary to vote for Bernie. Once Hillary was anointed, it was all over: too many voters simply were not going to vote for her, no matter what. Just look at the turnout numbers: about 4-5 million fewer people voted this year than in 2008 when Obama was elected, even though there's more eligible voters 8 years later (greater population). A lot of people simply hated Hillary and voted for Trump out of spite, many voted 3rd party (though many of those votes were angry Republicans), but tons of people simply didn't vote. The DNC has only itself to blame for this, so if you're mad about that, I suggest you dedicate your campaigning efforts to reforming the DNC.

i think the 60 minutes interview tonight is going to calm a lot of nerves.

personally i think the trump presidency will be shocking in how normal it is. people are just completely worked up over his campaign persona which is understandable.

what people forget sometimes is that we have a political system in place designed to prevent dictatorships, exactly the kind of thing people on the left are concerned about with trump (and people on the right were equally concerned about with obama).

I'm not, rationally anyway, worried about mass deportation of illegal aliens - there are constitutional measures in place to prevent those, like illegal search and seizure, that a conservative court will uphold. My specific concern with deportations is that congress will pass a bill where the federal government no longer recognizes states rights to marry homosexual couples, and that a more conservative supreme court will uphold it.

That would remove grounds for residency for the wife of a very good friend of mine, since the USCIS uses the federal gov'ts recognition of marriage for visa proceedings, forcing them apart. I expect there are many thousands like them.

On the overall gist of what you're saying though - I hope you are right.

You may be right, but "Don't be worried that the president has promised to do horrible, horrible things--he was probably just lying to make racists happy, and anyway he changes his mind at the drop of a hat!" is not exactly encouraging.

No, it's not. Sorry.

>He's already backtracking on ObamaCare, saying he wants to keep parts of it

He said that over 6 months ago, that's not backtracking.

>unless you campaigned a lot to get more people to the polls in the Dem primary to vote for Bernie.

That would not have changed anything. There was no primary election, it was rigged. Perhaps try reading those leaked emails the media was telling you not to read.

What does that have to do with diamonds?

FYI, "segue" is the word you're looking for. A "segway" is one of those Dean Kamen scooters. Apologies if raising that is a jerk thing to do, but if I were on the other end I'd appreciate it. I can't tell you how long I went spelling "carotid" wrong, despite being aware of the printed word (I thought that one was pronounced differently, oddly enough).

TIL, thanks. Upvoted :)

>Uhm, well, because I'm having a conversation about cultural differences between the midwest and the north-east

The subject is entirely irrelevant. You just bring it up to virtue signal, despite the fact that even in your best case scenario, 30% of the people you are assuming would want an apology are people who voted for Trump.

The only people Trump has promised to deport are those here illegally, so I'm assuming that the friends you mention are illegal immigrants, whose mere presence in the country is a crime. Is it so much to ask visitors to our country to follow our laws?

I've traveled to a lot of countries. Every country I visit, I read and follow the laws of the country, including visa and immigration rules. Many of these laws I disagree with it find morally repugnant. Forgive me if I don't cry any tears for your deported criminal friends.

Overstaying a visa is not a criminal offense. It is a civil offense.

You may be right. I don't know the law that well.

Should there be a punishment for overstaying a visa? What should it be?

I think the answer may depend on the type of visa, the length of overstay, and perhaps some other factors, but in the majority of cases, I would expect the answer to be deportation, which would necessitate an arrest and holding. Whether that's called a criminal offense or civil offense is a distinction without a difference.

The friends I'm mentioning are a married homosexual couple; if the federal gov't stops recognizing their marriage, the non-citizen wife would lose grounds for residency.

I still want to address this though:

> Is it so much to ask visitors to our country to follow our laws?

I think this is a very strange thing to say. Obviously, if someone intentionally violates visas to stay here illegally, deportation is appropriate - the only main stream politicians who disagree with this are straw men invented by the Republican party.

What the immediate discussion is actually about is two scenarios:

One; you illegally enter the country with your young child. Your kid grows up in US preschool, elementary school, high school. She speaks English as her native language, hasn't been to Mexico since you left 25 years ago and legally works at Walmart under DACA.

Trump has said he wants to revoke DACA and deport the kid. I believe, like most on the left, that your kid should not be held responsible for you breaking the law, and should be given legal means to work and a path to attain citizenship.

Two; you illegally enter the country with your spouse. A year or so later you have a child born on US soil, that child gets a US birth certificate and becomes a US citizen.

As the law currently stands, you can now be deported, and your 2-year old would become a ward of the state, with the usual probabilities of success of those programs. There is a proposal to allow you to stay in the country to raise the kid, DAPA. Trump has said he will strike that down.

Eg: This is not about you breaking the law; it's about whether your children can be held accountable for it.

> As the law currently stands, you can now be deported, and your 2-year old would become a ward of the state, with the usual probabilities of success of those programs. There is a proposal to allow you to stay in the country to raise the kid, DAPA. Trump has said he will strike that down. >Eg: This is not about you breaking the law; it's about whether your children can be held accountable for it.

Out of interest, would you feel differently if the parents involved were convicted of a non-immigration crime and were sent to prison instead of being deported?

To be clear: I'm not saying I support DAPA, I'm saying that and DACA are the two immediate scenarios that were on the table for the election.

As I noted in my comment, I do support DACA.

For exactly the reason you state above, I'm not sure how I feel about DAPA: The same moral problem (of removing a parent from a childs life) exists in any scenario where a parent commits a jail or deportation-eligible non-violent crime.

I was hoping that maybe it might become the modern version of Cato the Elder's "Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed".

...Because if you're in USNE, you probably felt genuinely ill after hearing the nomination. Missouri, as well as the rest of the US Midwest, is famously comically red.

So if you're in a discussion about cultural differences between USNE and USMW, that's an entirely valid point.

Also, if you're in a red state, you might feel the need to tell people you didn't vote for Trump, because you want to make sure that you'll get flamed by the right people. If you feel this way, it's okay.

>Because if you're in USNE, you probably felt genuinely ill after hearing the nomination

Which is both a foolish assumption and completely off-topic and irrelevant. Even in the NE, millions of people voted for Trump. And millions more didn't vote for him, but are not so blinded by their little bubble of hate that they "felt genuinely ill" over their preferred candidate losing an election.

>So if you're in a discussion about cultural differences between USNE and USMW, that's an entirely valid point.

We're in a discussion about diamonds.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12945175 and marked it off-topic.

But leave the initial off topic and inflammatory political attack there. Very unbiased non-partisan moderation.

I'd appreciate it if people wouldn't rush to the conclusion that we do these things for partisan reasons. It takes self-discipline to suspend your political reflexes and consider other explanations, but that's a necessary habit to get into if we're to have thoughtful discourse here.

In the above case, there was no ideal place to prune the off-topic subthread. 12945175 started the political digression for sure, but seemed clearly to be an offhand misstep in an otherwise good-faith conversation. That's not really a problem on HN. The problem is when other users (you, in this case) pounce and turn the politics knobs to 11. Then we get a flamewar. Had it been possible to snip the thread at the original off-topic aside, we'd have done that, but obviously we can't edit users' comments that way.

While I have you, I need to ask you to change how you use HN. You've been violating the site's guidelines by using it primarily to conduct political battles. That's an abuse, and we ban accounts that do it. HN exists to gratify intellectual curiosity. Using it to bash political foes damages that.

This isn't because we favor one political position over another. We're gardeners. When gangs show up to rumble and trample the garden, it doesn't matter what colors they're wearing.

>You've been violating the site's guidelines by using it primarily to conduct political battles

What? I read what I find interesting, and respond if I have something to say. Your assessment of my use of the site makes it very clear that you are not succeeding in "suspend(ing) your political reflexes and consider(ing) other explanations".

Fun fact: Moissanite is nothing else than silicon carbide, which is also used for high-temperature power electronics. So, why don't give her/him a MOSFET ring? ;)

This may be a great / bad idea depending on his/her preferences.

I had a Larrabee A0 spin I tried to mount on a copper wire for my wife---that's like 30 grand in, uh, engineered jewelry. Didn't fly.

> superior to diamonds in every essential way: cut, color, clarity, durability, fire, brilliance

Yet the author still uses the "desirable" properties taught by the diamond industry

What is the point of this comment?

If I design a new type of helmut that was totally awesome, it would rightly be judged against other helmuts.

If I buy a stone specifically as an alternative to diamond for jewellery, why would I come up with different criteria?

The point is that these "desirable" attributes were chosen by the diamond industry to promote their own gems. Why is "fire" or "brilliance" the reference by which gemstones are judged by? This mindset is exactly what the diamond industry has created, and the irony is that the author has taken the same sheepish following that diamond customers have.

Probably because those criteria actually look good for jewellery.

Which makes sense, easier to get someone to pay more for a gem they think looks good, than to make them pay more for a gem they don't think looks good.

HOLY SHIT THIS CAME JUST IN TIME. THANK YOU.

Time to get my money back from this down payment I've been making, bwahahaha. My gf will love this, she's not fancy in the slightest. In fact, she'll be impressed that I got something that looks better than a diamond and a portion of the cost. You've improved everyone's life because of this site.

Hey, if you ever want to make this site fancier, I'll design/code it for free. My portfolio is https://dsgn.io and my other project live on https://the-inc.co.

Thanks again!

Gee, ever since she was three years old and playing with Disney dolls, e.g., Cinderella, she was dreaming of HER dream man, on a white horse, in shining armor, picking her up and carrying her off to their love nest castle on the top of the mountain.

Alas, with current economic conditions -- those suits of shining armor and white horses can really set a guy back -- she gets a guy, he did just take a shower, in blue denim on a mule?

Ah, for sure the good, old days of romance are gone with the wind forever?

But, now, with Silicon Valley and everyone making at least $10,000 a week, what's the big deal of a $10,000 diamond?

Or, suppose in 10 years she discovers it's not a diamond? And in the meanwhile the startup went public, and he got $600 million. Now that she's had her romantic heart crushed by the fake diamond, her mom, who never thought he was good enough for her to begin with, reminds her of the beautiful California community property law, and suddenly he has to pay both his lawyer's fees and hers, loses the house, the kids, the new, high end Mercedes SUV, the boat, the boat house, the kids, the three dogs, and half of what is left of the $600 million and has to pay child support for kids he can't see and alimony forever. All because he was cheap and bought a fake?

Just kidding, guys!!!! :-)!!

Phil Greenspun is leaking onto this forum, clearly.

I haven't read Greenspun in years! What's he up to these days?

Mostly complaining about his latest divorce.

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 they're not actually worth that much?"

Thus, without further investigation, we can conclude that the writer is a croony crackpot (I don't know if thats a thing, but, anyhow)

right?

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.

Great advice. Possibly coming from someone who doesn't have a girlfriend. :) try to give such a stone to a girl and see how amused she is gonna be. You are just gonna sound "cheap". Diamonds are a status, not a beautiful stone.

edit: I see many downvotes. Guys, seriously, was it for me, I would buy nothing. It's just how this world works. You can express your anger by downvoting me, I'll be fine, but please don't fall into this belief that diamonds are just a stone. They are unfortunately just a status, like brands...

Or you could try having a conversation about it before making the actual decision. It's going to vary from person to person...

If your girlfriend dumps you because you're not spending $5,000 on a diamond ($5,000 that could be invested for your future house, baby, etc) then you should probably celebrate.

Yes, this discussion reappears every time diamonds are mentioned on HN. Pretty brilliant marketing campaign by De Beers, though, that somebody will think you're "cheap" if you don't buy a big enough diamond that somebody dug out of the ground.

In the end it's just a conversation between people who say, "You can't just ignore these social conventions" and people who say "these social conventions are stupid, find someone who isn't so shallow."

If you think everyone falls into one camp or the other, however, then you have a lot to learn.

Here is the article that talks about the De Beers marketing plan that created the concept of a diamond engagement ring.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how...

I am a woman in a happy, long term relationship. I have issues with your assumption about "girls". I told my boyfriend not to give me a diamond because every aspect of what diamond actually embodies goes against my value.

There are certainly women who adore diamonds, but not every woman does.

Will you please speak to my GF! I am afraid we have different values and any time the ring conversation comes up, it ends in an argument. The last argument ended in her telling me that we shouldn't talk about it anymore.

Then you have an issue on the values you have, and willing to spend the rest of your life together with someone that doesn't share those same values.

You should really have an open conversation about that and weight the implications of it. It can slowly build up to an unavoidable obstacle for the relationship.

If it's great advice from your perspective as a man then surely it's also great advice from the perspective of any woman who thinks the same way you do. Women have as much interest in the ethics of the things that they wear and the value (which isn't just the price) of things that their partner buys as any man does.

Plus, to be honest, I imagine if you gave a woman the choice between an engagement ring that cost $6000 and a much cheaper engagement ring that their boyfriend spent 6 months finding, most would choose the ring that their boyfriend spent time thinking about and choosing. Women have as much money as men do for buying status symbols; when it comes to an engagement ring they're looking for something that mere money can't buy.

Hope you don't mind I ride off the bottom comment ;)

I came here to post that the article misses the point!

As you said, diamond rings are about the status.

They are a signal, first and foremost.

It's like expensive cars and (dare I say) Apple products:

the wastefulness is an indicator of wealth, just like the peacock's massive tail is wasteful: it is expensive to grow and detrimental to its ability to escape predators.

So, as dimino suggested, I would spend the same amount...

but I'd spend it on Moissanite ;)

You have bad taste in women it seems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com