Diamonds Suck (2006) | Hacker News Reader

Diamonds Suck (2006)

diamondssuck.com

51 pointsbrink53 comments

I'll add my name to the list of folks who did not get a dianmond, but a Moissanite ring. A couple of things I learned along the way:

- I bought the ring and the Moissenite seperately. I bought the ring at a regular jewelry store (my spouse found one she liked). It is a very HARD sell when you buy the ring to also get the diamond. I ended up buying the ring online to pick it up, and I have wondered since then if they would have refused to sell me the ring if I tried to buy it in store without a diamond.

- I bought the moissanite online. It was nice seeing a linear increase in price on size versus an exponential price difference.

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

- Many jewelry stores do not want to touch moissanites. As soon as the jewelry store found out I bought them a moissanite, they said they cannot do anything with it. I ended up bringing the ring and moissanite to a store that deals in moissanites.

My spouse likes her ring, and absolutely no one has been able to tell the difference. The closest I have seen is commenting on how "flawless" it looks, and the "diamond" must have cost a lot due to it looking flawless.

My spouse and I have had similar experiences with people remarking on the stone. Its funny how they think it must be so fancy, being quite large and flawless and shiny. Then when we tell them its actually a moissanite sometimes their opinions rapidly change. People somehow get hung up on the idea of manufactured versus mined stones, or that its a "fake" diamond.

I found the local shop that does the work for the chains. Turns out most of the big guys outsource their work. They didn’t care in the least what stone we brought them and their prices were way better than the big local chains, even though it was actually the same work. I’m guessing this arrangement is the same in most cities.

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

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

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

Diamond alternatives are fine, but another option is just not getting a ring. My wife and I decided not to and nobody really cares. We spent the money on travel instead, and the memories are more valuable to us than a tiny rock.

Don’t get me wrong, diamonds and other gems are beautiful and if you want one, go for it. But if it’s not something that is worth $5-10k to you, just know that it’s a choice, not an obligation.

Or just don't blow a ton on rings? My wife and I spent roughly $200 each on rings. Or even just buy some of those silicon rings that are roughly $50. I really like wearing a wedding ring, but not being attached to any one ring that I'm worried about losing or damaging is nice too.

Also like you say gems other than diamonds are nice. I'm seeing many more engagement rings recently that are opting for different stones as well.

I splurged a bit on my wife's rings but absolutely didn't care about mine. I have two $30 tungsten carbide rings from Amazon, one I wear daily and a nicer one for special occasions.

Is women giving men an engagement ring a new thing?

I got my wife (30 years ago) a ring with two opals and a center sapphire - custom made by a local jeweler. It makes diamond rings look pretty boring.

As an unmarried mid-30 male, I absolutely plan on getting myself a nice jeweled ring. I like shiny things ;). I also like weird rare metals (seems to be a common thing among the HN crowd), my current favorite is Rhenium, but I'm wary of medical considerations (the "can't get it off in an emergency" kind, not the allergy kind.)

It does seem to be a generational difference to some degree. FWIW I just don't give a f*ck anymore about conventions.

P.S.: Absolutely agree on plain diamond rings being boring & giving it a personal touch. I mean, how is a diamond ring special to our relationship?

I assumed that your parent was talking about wedding rings

There's also the "cheaper ring" option -- my wife's ring was under $200 for sterling silver and a semi-precious stone, and I assume mine was a similar price (she bought it) for a simple engraved ring in 92.5% sterling silver.

It's simple, not flashy, my wife loves the design, and it's easy to have it adjusted by any jeweler. No need to break the bank for something that's more about symbolism than money.

EDIT: Wife's ring was from Moonkist Designs on Etsy if you're looking for a place to start.

I'm in the don't buy a ring club and it has never come up in social situations.

No one cares about your stuff as much as you do.

Of course it comes up in social situations. If I'm interested in a girl and she has a ring on her left ring finger, I drop it. It's literally the first thing I check; it's basic etiquette.

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

Exactly, there are lots of social cues at play in these situations besides a ring. It’s no different than the way someone who is unmarried but in a committed relationship lets people know not to bother.

This is tedious for someone receiving frequent attention.

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

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

Black out whole finger :D

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

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

> and of course it has the added benefit of not getting caught in machinery.

They make safety gloves for that reason. And silicone rings too.

Of course there are types of machinery where "safety gloves" are in fact detrimental to safe operation...[0]

[0] http://files.hria.org/files/OH4433.pdf

>Coinbase Employees Exchange NFT Rings in Wedding Ceremony

https://decrypt.co/63906/coinbase-employees-exchange-nft-rin...

Threads about diamonds are forever:

Diamonds Suck (2006) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26698511 - April 2021 (<-- you are here)

Diamonds aren’t special and neither is love - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25978139 - Jan 2021 (90 comments)

Diamonds Are Bullshit - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25059605 - Nov 2020 (27 comments)

Billions of dollars of unsold diamonds are piling up around the world - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23502201 - June 2020 (104 comments)

Shaking Up the Diamond Industry - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22209364 - Feb 2020 (120 comments)

Diamonds Keep Getting Cheaper - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21522898 - Nov 2019 (389 comments)

Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? (1982) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20818618 - Aug 2019 (237 comments)

The Elite Club That Rules the Diamond World Is Starting to Crack - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20555503 - July 2019 (200 comments)

Would You Pay $32,709 for a Lab-Grown Diamond? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19287565 - March 2019 (34 comments)

Diamonds Suck (2006) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17186457 - May 2018 (215 comments)

Diamonds Are Bullshit - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17184539 - May 2018 (45 comments)

De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17183603 - May 2018 (439 comments)

Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16551147 - March 2018 (301 comments)

Diamonds Suck (2006) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12944464 - Nov 2016 (576 comments)

A Lab-Grown Diamond Is Forever - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11903409 - June 2016 (106 comments)

What the diamond industry is really selling - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11099809 - Feb 2016 (83 comments)

Diamonds Suck (2006) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10834567 - Jan 2016 (2 comments)

Diamonds are Bullshit (2013) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9251952 - March 2015 (75 comments)

A Diamond Market No Longer Controlled By De Beers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7793386 - May 2014 (111 comments)

Diamonds Suck - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6868968 - Dec 2013 (3 comments)

Diamonds Are Bullshit - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5403988 - March 2013 (734 comments)

Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? (1982) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4535611 - Sept 2012 (225 comments)

Have you ever tried to sell a diamond? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1405698 - June 2010 (85 comments)

Have you ever tried to sell a diamond? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1110283 - Feb 2010 (76 comments)

The Facts About Diamonds (and why I don’t like De Beers) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1109318 - Feb 2010 (41 comments)

De Beers profits fall 92% - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=722115 - July 2009 (25 comments)

Diamonds on Demand - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=330749 - Oct 2008 (16 comments)

For clarity: reposts are fine after a year or so (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html). Links to past discussions are just for curiosity's sake. In the case of a perennial topic like this one, we probably should wait longer than 5 months though.

That 1982 Atlantic article "Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond?" is a great read.

The link in the article is dead, but it can now be found at: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-yo...

I was fortunate enough to inherit a few pieces of diamond jewelry. Imagine my surprise when I went to try to sell it! It's not uncommon to only be able to sell something for 1/3 of the appraisal value.

When it came time to get married, I did not want a diamond ring.

I completely agree with the points the page makes, but I don't think it will turn away many from diamonds as it misses the point of getting a diamond. Shoving a diamond in an engagement ring might have been pretty cool the first few times somebody did that, but nowadays it's not at all interesting, novel or original; and I'm pretty sure people don't marvel at the way their gem disperses light after the first few days of having it pass.

This is what I think is really the reason people gift and wear engagement rings: upholding tradition and signalling commitment. Even if the tradition is "fake", created by De Beers marketing, isn't most tradition like that anyway? Artificial gemstones don't lie too well with people who care about the tradition of gemstones. I don't even think it's necessary to care for the tradition, I think the value of natural diamonds is pretty much burned into everybody's subconscious by pop culture. And the inflated cost is actually a "plus" for signalling commitment.

Don't get me wrong, I would feel pretty stupid if I had to buy diamond jewelry (if I could); I just don't think the article makes a good pitch, because its points don't hit close enough to the reasons people buy (or desire) diamonds. I kind of think that the article speaks best to those who are least inclined to buy diamonds anyway.

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

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

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

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

Also, none of this seven points really sway me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another alternative is to simply buy second hand or from an auction.

Personally I see diamonds in a league with works of art. There is definitely value, but it's subjective, generally a lot less then expected and highly illiquid.

Yep...

They can complain all they want about how diamonds have no resale value, but if the place you bought it from initially was an auction, then logic follows that you should be able to sell it for the exact same price at another auction.

In other words, buy jewelry from auctions and you will get exactly what you pay for.

I bought a wedding ring set for my partner for around $600 off ebay and then I had it appraised. It would have retailed for around $4,000 according to the appraiser. That's a massive amount of wasted money if I had bought it brand new!

It's a bit odd to me to have a very clear condemnation of De Beers, their advertising, the diamond industry, purchasing diamonds, paired with a recommendation for a "diamond alternative". Isn't this just buying into the cultural expectation - artificially created by De Beers - of wearing an expensive clear-colored rock? Doesn't it benefit the diamond industry if you wear a very large moissanite, cubic zirconia, or artificial diamond, even if it isn't the genuine article? It's advertising for them anyway, as you're promoting the general trend, especially to those who you don't explain yourself to, and who just see a big shiny rock that looks like a diamond. It seems more productive to just go the rest of the way and avoid gemstones on your rings, or avoid rings in general.

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

Right, of course! And it even makes sense for a vegan food company to make its products taste as close to meat as possible to appeal to meat-eaters expectations about food, and decrease the amount of meat eaten in the world.

It's slightly strange, though, that the first part of the pitch here is basically "the cultural desire for diamonds, including your own desire for diamonds, can be traced back to this single ad campaign" - it seems like the logical next step in that argument is "therefore, do not desire diamonds", not "here's something that looks as much like diamonds as possible, to satisfy your desire".

I think it's harder to make the "unnaturalness of desire" argument with meat, though many vegans/vegetarians do try. And it's certainly not part of the messaging of the Impossible Burger.

My father sidestepped the diamond issue by way of my parent's rings being simple yet lovely gold bands.

The kicker, they're made from gold he mined himself in Alaska.

I checked out moissanite when shopping for an engagement ring but I found even that to be too expensive for my (and more importantly, my future wife's) taste. I went with cubic zirconia, it looks great, maybe not as durable as diamond or moisannite but if it gets damaged I can replace it for $50-100.

Yep, and it's much likelier that a diamond (or any other stone) is lost, rather than damaged.

Indeed. Came here to say that over several decades the risk of losing a diamond is non-trivial. It's not even a matter of losing the ring; sometimes the ring setting can fail and the stone simply falls out.

Do you even need a stone? Couldn't a regular metal band do well enough?

If it needs to be fancy, make it out of gold, platinum or silver?

My main squeeze and I wanted black rings, and we just got Oura Rings, which track sleep and activity. This way they actually have utility, and we get to ask each other in the mornings, "how'd you sleep?", and have data to back it up.

You know what else doesn’t pass the smell test? The whole “spend 3 months salary on a ring” propaganda I’ve heard more and more over the last 5 or so years. Some people really believe this like it’s some cultural rule.

It's amazing what people can be made to believe. The non-religious, too, carry faith in all sorts of popular memes for which there's little/no evidence, just stories.

Absolutely true, but FTR there are now lab grown diamonds which change the calculus a bit.

This lost a lot of credibility at the point where they linked to the moissanite.net shop.

It wasn't even a hyperlink, it was plain text. Generally you want to source your information, and that one price point came from moissanite.net

For me, in this case, trustworthiness is more important than knowing the price at one particular shop.

This page is from 2006 when the Charles and Colvard patent on silicon carbide gems was still active and there were no other sellers.

The author focuses on the "object of beauty" role of the engagement stone, but I think that the more important role in marital tradition is as a "store of value". It publicly indicates the groom's value for the wife, while also handing her a measure of independence, to assist in exiting a bad marriage. That is, it helps to mark the union as consensual.

While a deed to real estate might serve these purposes better than a gemstone, the gemstone is easier to flaunt. But the details of its luster, etc., are still less important to the longevity of the tradition than its economic value.

The author actually included a section on diamond being a poor store of value. The idea that a man is spending wads of cash on an engagement ring for his wife as "insurance" that she is able to leave and sell the ring seems wrong to me.

If you believe that engagement stones should be a store of value then you are supporting the authors point that we shouldn't buy diamonds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com