[HN Gopher] Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever
___________________________________________________________________
Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever
Author : kasperni
Score : 471 points
Date : 2021-05-04 09:49 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| cmod wrote:
| If you want to read about the insanity of manipulation in the
| diamond industry, this Atlantic article on de Beers from 1982 is
| a ... gem.
|
| Of the many shocking moments, one that stood out to me was the
| way they went after post-war Japan to convert their "backwards"
| desires to ones of a more "forward-thinking" diamond friendly
| impulse:
|
| "J. Walter Thompson began its campaign by suggesting that
| diamonds were a visible sign of modern Western values. It created
| a series of color advertisements in Japanese magazines showing
| beautiful women displaying their diamond rings. All the women had
| Western facial features and wore European clothes. Moreover, the
| women in most of the advertisements were involved in some
| activity -- such as bicycling, camping, yachting, ocean swimming,
| or mountain climbing -- that defied Japanese traditions. In the
| background, there usually stood a Japanese man, also attired in
| fashionable European clothes. In addition, almost all of the
| automobiles, sporting equipment, and other artifacts in the
| picture were conspicuous foreign imports. The message was clear:
| diamonds represent a sharp break with the Oriental past and a
| sign of entry into modern life."
|
| "The campaign was remarkably successful. Until 1959, the
| importation of diamonds had not even been permitted by the
| postwar Japanese government. When the campaign began, in 1967,
| not quite 5 percent of engaged Japanese women received a diamond
| engagement ring. By 1972, the proportion had risen to 27 percent.
| By 1978, half of all Japanese women who were married wore a
| diamond; by 1981, some 60 percent of Japanese brides wore
| diamonds. In a mere fourteen years, the 1,500-year Japanese
| tradition had been radically revised. Diamonds became a staple of
| the Japanese marriage. Japan became the second largest market,
| after the United States, for the sale of diamond engagement
| rings."
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-yo...
| webinvest wrote:
| This has for a long time now been the best article I've ever
| read from The Atlantic and I used to be a magazine subscriber.
| If you haven't read it already, I highly recommend it!
|
| Anyone care to share their own favorite articles?
| logshipper wrote:
| I am operating under the assumption here that said articles
| can pertain to any topic, and not just diamonds. If that is
| not the case, I do apologize.
|
| I am a huge fan of William Langewiesche's work (some of
| which, incidentally, has been for The Atlantic). He writes
| crisp, longform articles on a variety of topics, including
| but not limited to aviation [1], shipping [2], nuclear
| proliferation [3], the dark net [4], and private military
| contractors [5].
|
| [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/07/mh37
| 0-m...
|
| [2] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/04/inside-el-faro-
| the-w...
|
| [3] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/12/how-
| to-...
|
| [4] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/welcome-to-the-
| dark-...
|
| [5] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/04/g4s-glob
| al-...
| adamhp wrote:
| Damn. This is one of those cases where you have to be slightly
| impressed even when the act is nefarious or the result
| negative...
| beervirus wrote:
| It's just marketing. I'd call this a hell of a lot less
| nefarious than modern adtech.
| sangnoir wrote:
| Isn't modern adtech a subset of marketing?
| beervirus wrote:
| Yes, a nefarious subset.
| vonwoodson wrote:
| We just got out first "fake" diamond. It is not perfect, it does
| have bubbles in it (s1), so the idea that lab grown diamonds are
| all flawless is just not true. The price was what reeled us in.
| My wife in inherited two diamond earrings from her mother that
| were fairly large, also my wife has three piercings in each ear.
| Buying a property sized natural diamond was way, _way_ , too
| expensive. We tried to look for a zirconia or crystal that would
| match the set, but nothing sparkles like a diamond; well the lab
| grown diamond just fist right into the set like a long lost
| sibling. What made my wife finally be ok with the lab grown
| diamond, in her mind, was that the gems and the gold were not
| what made the jewelry valuable to her. They are valuable because
| they were her mother's. When my son, or his kids, eventually get
| our jewelry I hope that the value is the same for them for their
| sentiment and not their spot price. The lab grown diamond will be
| just as durable and beautiful as the natural ones. And, I would
| not be unhappy if the price of diamonds drops to be as cheap as a
| pebble.
| midjji wrote:
| Well unless you light them on fire?
|
| That said I wonder if this isnt because its easier to restrict
| supply with branded artificial diamonds, compared to mined ones.
| If they expect the diamond rich regions of africa to stabilize in
| the next two decades, then they have to move away from natural
| diamonds asap.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I wonder if they'll record that they're man-made diamonds in
| whatever database they register the laser etched serial numbers
| in
| arbitrage wrote:
| Diamonds are really ugly and boring. I'm so glad they're finally
| becoming passe, there are a lot more interesting gemstones and
| jewelry configs than just "big diamond in the middle".
| postalrat wrote:
| You aren't going to win any argument with just a opinion very
| few people are going to share.
| isitdopamine wrote:
| > Diamonds are really ugly and boring.
|
| Ehm... They are still selling diamonds, just lab-grown.
| Optically identically to the ugly and boring ones.
| Clewza313 wrote:
| While this is a great step forward, let's not ascribe too much to
| it just yet. Pandora's niche is cheap, impulse-buy jewelry, a lot
| of it under $100, so diamonds rarely feature anyway and few
| people would buy their engagement rings there. It'll take Tiffany
| switching to synthetics to make De Beers really start crapping
| their trousers.
| tijuco2 wrote:
| Don't worry guys, the price is gonna be the same. It's Not about
| environment, it's about lowering the cost and making more money.
| I can prove it! Why don't they stop mining gold and start turning
| lead into the precious metal? Because it's cost prohibitive.
| Don't be naive.
| MrVu wrote:
| It's a win-win for the company gets the image of caring for the
| environment, and they can buy the Lab diamonds for a 15000% mark
| up. So if you buy a $1,000 Lab Diamond, they are literally
| getting it for almost $7. All it really is, is heating up carbon.
| Nursie wrote:
| Good for them. It's literally the same material, and we can now
| use scientific and engineering advances to remove the need for
| people to toil and die underground to get them.
|
| Hopefully the process is more environmentally friendly too.
|
| They are real diamonds.
|
| I find it hi-goddamned-larious that the moment these became
| viable, the industry switched from "Diamond purity is the be-all
| and end-all and you must have the clearest, most pure" to "Oh,
| well of course it's all about having the right impurities to
| increase sparkle and character, lab-grown diamonds don't have
| character"
|
| Just like with sapphires, if we're not there already I'm sure it
| won't be long before exactly the right type and number of
| impurities or faults can be introduced to mimic any natural
| diamond.
| rlv-dan wrote:
| Why do people pay insane amount for a box copy of Super Mario
| Bros, a game you can play one pretty much any device. ROM dumps
| are literary the same data.
|
| I guess rarity is hard to set a price on. And people like being
| rare and unique.
| Nursie wrote:
| It's not exactly the same thing though, there's a difference
| there, you get the physical object.
|
| I agree that some people value rarity and uniqueness, but it
| doesn't look to me like diamonds (natural or otherwise)
| provide that.
| thom wrote:
| You can make or buy your own custom SNES cartridges with
| whatever ROM you like. They're about $20 so clearly there's
| more at work here.
| Nursie wrote:
| OK, but then there's still a physical difference,
| purchasing the physical object, including original box,
| published by nintendo, or reprogramming your own generic
| which will contain different electronics.
|
| But yes, as I said above, there is value _to some people_
| in the rarity and uniqueness of that original, even if
| you could pump out something that is to all intents and
| purposes identical.
|
| But diamonds aren't all that rare, the market is managed
| to restrict supply, even with that everyone and their
| grandmother has one on their finger. And few people
| (other than geologists I guess) are really bothered about
| the back story here. They have an idea about what's
| "real", and what's not, but that can change.
|
| (I also think where we're just talking about lumps of a
| material, it's slightly different to a manufactured
| object, perhaps)
| bongobingo wrote:
| They do. Actual diamonds have occlusions, slight color
| shifts, unique sparkle patterns, and other characteristics.
|
| Grown diamonds are too perfect, and it's trivially easy to
| tell the difference. You don't need a loupe at all.
|
| I don't own any diamonds, but I like rocks and minerals.
| Hank from breaking bad would be proud.
| Nursie wrote:
| > Actual diamonds have occlusions, slight color shifts,
| unique sparkle patterns
|
| All of which can either be recreated in a lab now, or are
| likely to be possible before long. See for example
| synthetic star sapphires.
|
| > I like rocks and minerals
|
| Good for you, so does my step-dad (he's a geologist). The
| man was a nightmare to try and drag around the New York
| museum of natural history, I thought we'd never get out
| of the mineral section...
| sneak wrote:
| > _And people like being rare and unique._
|
| It's amazing how powerful the marketing narrative must be for
| something extremely normie and prescribed to be viewed
| instead as "rare and unique".
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Original Super Mario Bros carts are rare, diamonds are not.
| Natural diamonds have an artificially reduced supply thanks
| to a cartel, if their market actually functioned they'd be
| very cheap.
| chongli wrote:
| The original Super Mario Bros sold ~40 million copies,
| excluding all the re-releases. It's not a rare game at all.
| You can buy the cartridges on eBay for less than $10.
| Complete in box versions for a few hundred at most.
|
| The only thing rare about this big sale is that it's sealed
| in the box in perfect condition. All that extra money just
| for packaging material. Collectors are truly weird.
| lucideer wrote:
| I saw an "unboxing" video for Nintendo amiibo's recently,
| by a collector who had amassed a large collection (all of
| them?) was unboxing them on video. The unboxing process
| obviously de-values each of the items, but the amazing
| thing about it was how shocked he was at the detail &
| manufacturing quality of the figures after removing the
| packaging: details he couldn't make out at all when they
| were packaged.
|
| It's so strange. Buying boxed items with no intention to
| (ever?) unbox essentially amounts to just paying for the
| box itself, rather than the contents.
| Spivak wrote:
| Natural diamonds _are_ really cheap. You can go online
| right now and buy rough diamonds for $3.50 /carat. Diamonds
| that you would want to put into a ring are much rarer and
| diamonds have all the qualities that jewelry enthusiasts
| want are rarer than that.
|
| We need to start thinking about jewelry like hi-fi audio.
| If you just want to listen to good music then lord knows
| you don't need a $10k setup. You hit diminishing returns
| really fast and your untrained eye isn't gonna be able to
| tell the difference between a $500, $2,000, and $10,000
| diamond -- they will all be pretty. But that doesn't mean
| that there aren't people who do notice and do care.
| parineum wrote:
| > But that doesn't mean that there aren't people who do
| notice and do care.
|
| And even more people who only notice when they're told.
| username90 wrote:
| A large majority of people don't pay insane amounts for
| collection items. A large majority of people pay insane
| amounts for jewellery though.
| jonnydubowsky wrote:
| Would the lab grown process tolerate adding in some super-fine
| particulate matter, added using a random number generator to
| control the amount? "Natural" imperfections on-demand?
| Nursie wrote:
| Most likely yes, this has already happened with other
| synthetic gems - look up star sapphires, once exotic and
| sometimes mounted on engagement rings alongside diamonds, the
| process to create carborundum was figured out, and then
| another to insert the right inclusion, and hey-presto, you
| can buy them in bulk for around $1 per carat. They can create
| bi-colour sapphires now too.
|
| A quick search of the internet turns up various articles
| about inclusions in diamonds deliberately introduced to
| control the properties of the resulting material. So if we're
| not there yet with synthetic jewellery diamonds, we will be.
|
| The sapphire market is interesting in some ways, 'natural'
| sapphires still fetch a few hundred dollars per carat. It
| genuinely fascinates me that someone would pay (as an example
| I just found) over PS7000 for a ring with a 4.98 carat
| "natural" bi-colour sapphire set with six small 0.1 carat
| diamonds, when you can get a synthetic stone chemically and
| physically the same for around PS12.
| boatsie wrote:
| Last I checked, lab grown diamonds had no fluorescence. If that
| is still the case, it might make fluorescent diamonds more
| valuable than non, as a sign they are more "natural". Though in
| the past fluorescence in diamonds was considered a negative
| trait.
| goldcd wrote:
| The flip side though, is that you're making diamond miners
| unemployed. I suspect if they had alternate employment
| opportunities available that were more pleasant/better-paying,
| they'd have already taken them.
|
| So losers are the poor folks digging in the ground and winners
| are the companies who've just built themselves a lab.
|
| Maybe a way out of this, would be price up the grown diamonds
| to include a charitable donation to help create alternate
| employment for the miners. Would be quite nice to have that
| representation included in the shiny thing on a finger.
| me_me_me wrote:
| If we let them slaves free how are they going to feed
| themselves?
|
| See how similar that sound to what you are saying?
| rakoo wrote:
| This argument is as old as time. There even was a satirical
| text on the matter 2 centuries ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/
| wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat#Eco...: The Sun, being an
| infinite source of free light, is unfair competition to
| candlemakers and should be blocked to allow the economy to
| grow and people to make a wage.
| fullshark wrote:
| And yet we still don't have a good solution for the
| societal problems it causes.
| rodgerd wrote:
| > I suspect if they had alternate employment opportunities
| available that were more pleasant/better-paying, they'd have
| already taken them.
|
| Spoken like someone who thinks that mining is conducted by
| volunteers.
| goldcd wrote:
| erm in the vast, vast majority of cases they are..
|
| Most of the world's diamonds are coming out of open-cast
| mines and most of those are in Russia.
| canadianfella wrote:
| Employees.
| Nursie wrote:
| This is the case with any advance, and could be said about
| all sorts of exploitative, dangerous forms of employment. In
| general we seek to remove these and consider it a good thing
| and an advance for humanity.
|
| Should I feel sad we no longer send kids up chimneys to sweep
| them?
|
| I agree that social programs are needed to help these folks,
| but I think even without them, undermining this industry is a
| win.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| I've seen vidoes from some of those mines and I don't think
| the miners browse job openings with their morning coffee
| before heading off to work. I think they probably just do
| whatever the man with the (literal or figurative) gun tells
| them to.
| himinlomax wrote:
| > The flip side though, is that you're making diamond miners
| unemployed
|
| I'm responsible for many unemployed miners as I've never
| bought a diamond. Also you're responsible for unemployment in
| smiths by not buying horsehoes.
| rodgerd wrote:
| See also: the return of vinyl. Tube amplifiers. Yellow
| lighting. All from people arguing that poor reproduction of
| audio and natural light is superior!
| shatnersbassoon wrote:
| Tube amplifiers are still where it's at for guitars. Still
| not beaten despite the attempts of digital signal processing.
| The reason is that the same thing that makes it a bad general
| amplifier makes it an excellent guitar amp.
| Kye wrote:
| The vinyl thing is ironic because the reason it sounds better
| is that it's such a horrible medium that only highly skilled
| production sounds right on it. Your half hour bedroom mix
| won't cut it.
| simonh wrote:
| If the best option available to people was diamond mining, by
| taking that away from them we're by definition pushing them
| into an even worse option. That's a big problem I have with a
| lot of the do-good commentary on developing world labour.
| Taking away options from people, even bad ones from our point
| of view, isn't necessarily doing them any favours. None of
| these peoples options are going to look good to us. Actually
| helping these people means improving their existing options, or
| giving them new better ones.
|
| Having said that, I think given the other pretty grievous
| activities associated with the diamond trade, this is probably
| a good move. They're not called blood diamonds for nothing.
| adwn wrote:
| > _If the best option available to people was diamond mining_
|
| The best option available to a person in the short term is
| not necessarily the best option for a society in the long
| term. In this case, it almost certainly isn't. Compare
| "resource curse" [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
| [deleted]
| tom_mellior wrote:
| > Actually helping these people means improving their
| existing options, or giving them new better ones.
|
| Yes. A basic income for which one doesn't need to go into the
| diamond mines, for example.
| pentae wrote:
| Or how about a functioning government with minimal
| corruption for starters? clean water? a functional banking
| system? access to education? UBI is putting the cart before
| the horse
| frockington1 wrote:
| How do you implement UBI without any centralized government
| and in some cases a functioning currency?
| gbear605 wrote:
| Charities like GiveDirectly do it using various mobile
| baking programs along with physically driving shipments
| of cash to remote areas that don't have phone access.
| It's a complicated problem that involves a lot of human
| time but it's also a mostly solved problem.
| tom_mellior wrote:
| https://www.givedirectly.org/ gives a basic income to
| poor people. It's not universal.
| simonh wrote:
| Well of course, that's what I'm saying, just taking away
| jobs for miners doesn't do that.
| eru wrote:
| > If the best option available to people was diamond mining,
| by taking that away from them we're by definition pushing
| them into an even worse option.
|
| Couldn't you say that about any and all technological
| advances?
| ivanhoe wrote:
| So far these diamonds were both the primary cause of
| conflicts, as well as the main way of financing and
| prolonging them. Wars are expensive, so if you take money out
| of the game many militias/ fractions/ criminals will simply
| loose interest in those territories, and that should reduce
| the corruption and make things more stable for people there.
| In theory, that's way more important for progress than
| outside help, although it will also be needed.
| bitL wrote:
| Imagine the next war will be financed with NFTs.
| gruez wrote:
| Not really. NFTs are closer to paintings and intellectual
| property than conflict diamonds/minerals.
| faeyanpiraat wrote:
| That was a joke..
| myfavoritedog wrote:
| If it isn't diamonds, it will be land, water rights, drug
| distribution, religious purity, and on and on.
|
| Diamonds are just another means of gaining power and
| wealth. They're only a problem in societies that don't have
| the mechanisms for dealing with inevitable power and wealth
| disparities.
| Nursie wrote:
| I think that we shouldn't keep funding exploitative companies
| that treat people badly, and industries that are dangerous
| for workers and environmentally damaging. I think that's a
| win anyway.
|
| Here's another take - able bodied workers are less likely to
| be sucked into an industry which digs up shiny rocks to send
| overseas, and may be able to take up something of more
| benefit to the local economy.
| crocsarecool wrote:
| I'm worried that it takes a certain amount of
| poverty/desperation in the local workforce to be exploited
| heinously. For them, an exploitative job is probably the
| difference between eating a little or not eating at all.
| Yes, it's good that they won't be exploited once the mined
| diamond industry goes away, but I think they're still
| getting the rug pulled out from under them. Their income is
| replaced with nothing, and in a country with a weak
| economy, there's probably very little there to help these
| people in the interim. It's a desperate situation, even if
| it's for their benefit.
| Digit-Al wrote:
| There's a very strong chance I am completely wrong about
| this but my feeling on the matter is as follows.
|
| As long as mined diamonds are profitable there is a
| strong incentive for criminal interests to hinder any
| attempts to improve the lot of the local inhabitants so
| they have a continued supply of very cheap labour. If you
| make diamond mining unprofitable then the criminal
| elements move on to other more profitable enterprises.
| This leaves the local populace free from interference,
| and efforts by aid agencies to improve their lot may have
| a better chance of succeeding.
| crocsarecool wrote:
| I agree with you. I think it will all work out for the
| better. I just think the path between exploitation and
| greener pastures may be a rough one if there is no
| support structure to keep people from getting desperate
| once they are jobless. It's hard to look to the future
| when you're worried about putting food on the table
| tonight. It's a good thing that this is happening, but I
| sympathize with the people affected because it might get
| worse before it gets better. I hope they can keep their
| chins up and see that there is a huge light at the end of
| the tunnel.
| andromeduck wrote:
| It's a resource curse.
| dijit wrote:
| > If the best option available to people was diamond mining,
| by taking that away from them we're by definition pushing
| them into an even worse option.
|
| If your business is to force people into slavery, then it is
| part of your business to remove other avenues for them to get
| out of slavery.
| slightwinder wrote:
| But then the best option would be to fix the business, not
| take it away and put more pressure on people, forcing them
| into another slavery.
| simonh wrote:
| Who said anything about slavery? The vast majority of third
| world workers mining diamonds do so in the regulated
| commercial sector. These are largely technical engineering
| jobs that bring investment in infrastructure into the
| country, certainly much more so than many other local
| opportunities. A single mine like those in Botswana can
| employ thousands of people, and be the core of the local
| economy. I'm not saying there are no slaves in diamond
| mines, but if so it's a marginal source.
|
| Oh my good grief. What on earth did you think I was
| advocating?
| wccrawford wrote:
| >If your business is to force people into slavery, then it
| is part of your business to remove other avenues for them
| to get out of slavery.
|
| I suspect your sentence got a little mangled. It sounds
| like you're saying that businesses should try to prevent
| people from getting out of slavery by removing other
| avenues by which they could free themselves.
|
| I suspect you mean that they should create those avenues
| for freedom, instead.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >It sounds like you're saying that businesses should...
|
| They are saying slavery based businesses should... If you
| profit off slavery you don't want it to end.
| wccrawford wrote:
| I see. Thank you.
| extrememacaroni wrote:
| Anyone got a clue where they're gonna drop em?
| webreac wrote:
| Does it require more CO2 to mine diamond or to make them ? True
| question.
| gandalfian wrote:
| Or buy an antique and have it resized. You might actually get
| value and history with it. Imagine jewelry that appreciates in
| value rather than loses two thirds as soon as you leave the shop.
| xyzelement wrote:
| I really love this topic because it's been fascinating to watch
| my own thinking on it change.
|
| There are many comments below that come from the point of view
| that diamond rings don't make sense. On one hand this is
| completely true. On the other hand, whether they do or don't make
| sense depends on who's evaluating and there are many perspectives
| one could come at this from.
|
| I wanted to share my point of view and how it evolved in case it
| helps as nuance (or helps people understand when their partner is
| coming from)
|
| Growing up really poor and practical, I thought of diamond
| engagement rings as really stupid and impractical and that I
| would either never buy one, or buy one begrudgingly.
|
| Fast forward to a few years ago I met the woman that I am now
| married to. She grew up very differently from me and in many ways
| we think very differently. For example she values "how things
| work" and "tradition" much more than I do, because I focus on
| first principles thinking and how things ought to change.
|
| So her attitude towards diamond rings wasn't "I need something
| this expensive" or "you'll do it if you love me" but simply "this
| is how it works."
|
| It would be easy to say that my attitude was more nuanced and
| evolved but I also recognized that I had dated plenty of women
| who thought more like I do (in general and perhaps on this topic
| specifically) but that I didn't want to marry them. That I wanted
| to marry this woman because of who she is, and her tradition
| focus is part of that, and her attitude towards diamonds is part
| of THAT.
|
| I also noticed how women around her felt about their rings. They
| loved them and thought they were special. Her parents had just
| celebrated their 40th anniversary and her dad chose to buy her
| mom a new diamond ring which she loves.
|
| So here I was and my option was to either "put my foot down" and
| have our engagement go along my original principles or to
| recognize that my partner by nature of who she is sees it
| differently and to recognize how much joy and sentiment she will
| get out of it. I realized it's a no-brainer.
|
| I ended up having fun with it. Visiting old Jewish diamond
| dealers in dusty and super secured upstairs offices in NYs
| diamond district. Looking through loupes at the makeup and
| imperfections until I found a stone that resonated with me.
|
| Long story short I don't regret the approximately 20k I had spent
| for a second. It has brought more than than worth of joy already.
| I "get it" more now than I did before.
|
| We can say it's all marketing but everything is marketing, or
| rather product market fit. We don't really judge people for
| spending more money (or its equivalent, time) on things that make
| them happy. If someone spends 20k more on a car because they love
| it, or have 20k worth of vintage video games in their house, we
| don't get worked up about it. Those things are marketing too but
| the product resonated with the audience and I think the diamonds
| are much the same.
|
| Again it's all about who you are proposing to. The person's
| attitudes towards things are holistic. If I wanted to marry
| someone who thought more like I used to, I could have. But turned
| out the partner I needed was someone who thinks differently - and
| when you do that you have to accept that and make them happy in a
| way that makes sense for them.
| throwawayosiu1 wrote:
| I'm at the marriage age right now and I see tons of my friends
| getting married.
|
| A friend got proposed a couple of months ago and her ring is ~40k
| USD. In my opinion, that's crazy since they're spending ~30k CAD
| on their wedding.
|
| My partner also mentioned that she'd like a wedding ring of the
| same calibre since according to her - diamond ring is how much
| love / value / worth I hold for her. Furthermore, a significant
| group of middle/upper-middle class want naturally occurring
| diamonds (because they're "real") over lab produced ones (not
| because of the quality, but because of the tag associated with
| and the societal group pressure). Furthermore, the same group
| also hate moissanite because it's not diamond.
|
| It's irrational, marketing and conditioning all they way down.
|
| Hopefully, stuff like this forces lab grown diamonds to the
| mainstream culture so that we can finally get rid of that
| mentality.
| bruceb wrote:
| Don't want to get too personal but why not date in a different
| circle?
|
| Almost no matter how financially well off you are, why have
| $40K on your finger. Not worth the danger (unless maybe you are
| $100m+, have 24/7 security, rich).
| lioeters wrote:
| > diamond ring is how much love / value / worth I hold for her
|
| Wow.. I find it hard to believe how someone can say/repeat such
| a statement about the size and authenticity of a shiny rock to
| equal the love you have for the person. It sounds so
| materialistic - but, I can't blame her either, it's part of the
| value system of the surrounding society she grew up in. It's
| impressive how effective the diamond industry's marketing has
| been over the last century or so.
| sneak wrote:
| > _My partner also mentioned that she 'd like a wedding ring of
| the same calibre since according to her - diamond ring is how
| much love / value / worth I hold for her._
|
| Do not marry this person. At the very least, they're bad with
| money (presuming you/they are not a multimillionaire presently
| where $40k is just pocket money).
| klmadfejno wrote:
| > My partner also mentioned that she'd like a wedding ring of
| the same calibre since according to her - diamond ring is how
| much love / value / worth I hold for her.
|
| I don't really understand situations where peoples' partners
| say things like this and it comes as a surprise. This feels
| like an extremely aggressive statement on how they view your
| relationship, and the level of trust and mutual understanding
| you have.
|
| I just can't imagine getting to the point of considering
| marrying someone and not knowing well in advance that they will
| hold an opinion like this. And if they seemed like the kind of
| person who would have this opinion... I probably wouldn't be
| staying with them, because it seems like it would flag a
| variety of other uncomfortable personality traits.
|
| How did you react? Was it a surprise to hear this?
| sangnoir wrote:
| Social signaling and innate competitiveness is a hell of a
| drug. A former all-Linux employer had standardized on issuing
| Dell laptops, and everything was fine. Until some joiner in
| middle/lower management petitioned for a Macbook Pro and got
| it, and a couple more popped up in the Excel-jockey stratum,
| and the floodgates were opened. PMs and team leads all
| started to report all sorts of "problems" with their old
| laptops (too slow, gets too hot) to motivate for replacements
| - thought they had to run Linux VMs to get any work done. The
| Dell/Apple laptops weren't just tools anymore - they were now
| a social signal/status symbol to say "I am an important
| person" in every meeting room. It was fascinating to observe,
| because getting a Macbook made their lives worse (having to
| develop in a VM with slow disk I/O - this was before docker
| took over the world). Computers became the visible
| representation of your place on the totem pole; the same
| thing happens with engagement rings within social circles
| when going for drinks/brunch. You don't want to be caught
| dead with the Dell of engagement rings in a room full of
| Macs.
|
| > I probably wouldn't be staying with them, because it seems
| like it would flag a variety of other uncomfortable
| personality traits.
|
| I wouldn't go that far - we all have hobbies/interests we are
| passionate about that we're not utilitarian about and are
| willing to go all-out on. Judging a person on one axis feels
| like a mistake to me.
| klmadfejno wrote:
| Cocaine is also a drug, and yet, one doesn't need to date
| someone addicted to either.
|
| > I wouldn't go that far - we all have hobbies/interests we
| are passionate about that we're not utilitarian about and
| are willing to go all-out on. Judging a person on one axis
| feels like a mistake to me.
|
| I don't this is a hobby so much as a world view, or as you
| stated, an addiction. To me it indicates a very
| materialistic, shallow worldview. If 40k rings are required
| to show love, what do they think of people who aren't as
| wealthy? What would they think of you if you lost your job?
| Heck if someone's marrying you, why do you need to show
| your love at all, shouldn't that be established to them?
|
| I think you should be incredibly judgy about who you choose
| to marry.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > To me it indicates a very materialistic, shallow
| worldview. If 40k rings are required to show love, what
| do they think of people who aren't as wealthy?
|
| Or - _hear me out_ - the partner was embarrassed to
| verbalize that she 's competing with the friend's
| engagement ring, and therefore created a less
| embarrassing, post-hoc rationalization as to why she
| wants a $40k ring too. Here's a thought experiment - had
| the friend gotten a $6k ring, would she have asked for a
| ring closer to $6k or still gone with $40k, by some
| intuition?
|
| > Heck if someone's marrying you, why do you need to show
| your love at all, shouldn't that be established to them?
|
| Unfortunately, no (on both sides: some people marry for
| the wrong reasons, and it's not _close_ to showing your
| love - which shouldn 't be an event)
|
| > I think you should be incredibly judgy about who you
| choose to marry.
|
| Absolutely.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Do an experiment - ask your partner if she wouldn't marry you
| if you don't give her precious stone. If she won't, I can't see
| how such a relationship is based on love, rather than various
| calculations. The idea that money express love is plain stupid
| from any point of view I can imagine.
|
| One big warning sign right there.
|
| FYI I didn't give my wife any diamond, in fact when I proposed
| to her on top of Mont Blanc after grueling dangerous skitour I
| didn't even have a ring since she never wore any before, so I
| couldn't get correct size.
|
| It didn't matter a bit and still doesn't - everybody we talked
| about considers my proposal way cooler than usual big money
| being thrown around. I bought her a ring of her choice
| afterwards (cheap stuff), and no surprise - she lost it / got
| stolen when working at tomography lab few months afterwards.
| Not a problem, imagine losing a ring worth 40k (upon sale,
| resale maybe 50% of it if lucky).
| CapmCrackaWaka wrote:
| Some people have just been conditioned, by
| friends/family/marketing, that 'if he doesn't buy you a
| diamond, he doesn't love you'. There is _some_ logical
| thought to it. Putting money down on a marriage can be seen
| as a sign of commitment, and that's the way it's usually
| portrayed. If he won't spend money on the symbol of your
| marriage, then he hasn't committed.
|
| I, personally, decided I would not marry someone who thought
| this way. I know it is a weird hill to die on, but if someone
| won't change their mind even after seeing all of the
| pertinent information about the diamond mining industry and
| the marketing, then that is not the type of person I want to
| marry. I luckily found an amazing woman who thinks the same
| way I do.
| HDMI_Cable wrote:
| Wow, you might want to talk with your partner about buying a
| ~40k ring. That seems like it could be a big sticking point in
| a marriage, especially considering it could pay for an entire
| university degree.
| brap wrote:
| And it's probably not going to be a one-off thing...
| Tepix wrote:
| HN 2028: How to make your own diamond jewelry
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Fun fact: The expensive diamond engagement ring emerged as a way
| to facilitate premarital sex in the 1930s.
|
| That's when "Breach of Promise to Marry" laws gradually were
| abolished across the US. So now men could propose, enjoy
| premarital sex for a while, only to leave the woman no longer a
| virgin and possibly with STDs and/or pregnant.
|
| The very expensive diamond you can keep even if he leaves became
| the "insurance policy" to replace the legal option.
| rednerrus wrote:
| This thread is a honeypot for Diamond astroturfers.
| SurgicalDoc_UK wrote:
| Branding and emotion is the driving power. In the same way
| there's an emotional element to buying baby equipment (feeling
| like you need brand new clothes, cot, pram etc), there's a
| perception that true love is represented by a pricey diamond
| engagement ring. Having lived in South Africa and then after
| finding out how this industry controls the supply to maintain
| high prices, I specifically asked my fiance for a lab-diamond.
| And I love my ring.. it's just a beautiful and sparkly. I feel
| sorry for the people who still believe in forking out a small
| fortune for a diamond.
| trixrabbit wrote:
| I remember a guy exposing the Canadian diamond industry on
| YouTube. I tried to search for him but he apparently disappeared
| from the surface of Earth.
|
| All I could find is this video :
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An76-kLVvZI
|
| (I think the guy had some conflict of interest since he owned a
| diamond shop or something but still really intetesting research)
| La1n wrote:
| Biggest jeweller is not biggest diamond seller in this case.
| Still this seems like a great initiative.
|
| >Although diamonds have traditionally only been a very small
| share of the 100 million pieces Pandora sells worldwide each
| year, Mr Lacik believes that will be boosted by lower prices.
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| Yeh its more the Ratner end of the market - not Hatton Garden
| Nursie wrote:
| If they can offer mass-market diamonds at prices that hit their
| target demographics, they might well become one of the biggest!
| boatsie wrote:
| I find it ironic that many people in this thread are extolling
| the virtues of lab grown diamonds, as they are nearly
| indistinguishable from natural ones and cost around 50% less. But
| they still cost quite a bit, whereas cubic zirconia is also
| nearly indistinguishable to the naked untrained eye and cost a
| tiny fraction of that cost.
|
| Those who see value in a synthetic diamond over a CZ should also
| see the value some perceive in a natural diamond over a
| synthetic. And those who see value in a CZ over nothing at all
| should see why some value a synthetic diamond and so on.
| boatsie wrote:
| I should also mention that even imperceptible to the human eye
| traits of diamonds like clarity and color, above SI or near-
| colorless affect value and pricing despite the fact that nobody
| can tell with the naked eye in normal conditions whether your
| stone is a F color or I.
|
| Some people just ascribe value to these things, probably in the
| same way others value comics, baseball cards, art, NFTs...
|
| So let people value what they want rather than pass judgement.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Married members of HN, what did you do if you think diamonds are
| utterly ridiclious however due to societal constraints some kind
| of ring is required for your SO?
| mattowen_uk wrote:
| Engagement rings are rings of _ownership_ - They are a marker
| to tell other prospective suiters that the wearer is is 'off
| the market' and belongs to someone else.
|
| If you think you are any kind of forward thinking person, you
| would not be on board with this archaic practice at all.
|
| Also, De Beers invented[1] the concept of diamond-based
| engagement rings back when diamond jewellery sales were at an
| all time low, as a business-saving incentive. There zero
| romance in buying one for your partner.
|
| ---
|
| [1]
| https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/ho...
| whitepaint wrote:
| > If you think you are any kind of forward thinking person,
| you would not be on board with this archaic practice at all.
|
| What if both people want to do it? You are demonstrating a
| vast amount of ignorance.
| mattowen_uk wrote:
| > _You are demonstrating a vast amount of ignorance._
|
| No need for insults.
|
| I'm allowed my own opinion on this. I am also allowed to
| express it, this is, after all, a _discussion_ forum.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Probably best to remove "If you think you are any kind of
| forward thinking person" from your discussion starter if
| soft insults are going to be a problem.
|
| But back to the actual topic, what about the point they
| raise: What if both people want to do it?
| depaya wrote:
| You posted your opinion, a very broad statement
| suggesting it was bad for certain people to believe
| something.
|
| They countered your opinion with their own, stating your
| opinion was ignorant and offered an example as to why.
|
| This _is_ a discussion forum, but you sure seem to have a
| problem with sometime attempting to respond to you. Do
| you not see the irony?
| mattowen_uk wrote:
| I resented personally being called ignorant. That is all.
| emosenkis wrote:
| It's disingenuous to proclaim that this is the only meaning -
| every person and culture that uses rings in this way applies
| their own meaning to it.
|
| That said, when I was deciding whether or not I, as a male,
| wanted a wedding ring, this was exactly the reason that
| convinced me. I got married much younger than average and
| liked the idea of being visible "'off the market' and belongs
| to someone else."
| wodenokoto wrote:
| I remember reading some threads on slashdot about alternative
| materials for wedding rings accompanied with stories of why
| they were more romantic than gold and diamonds.
|
| I really wish I could find them or similar discussion because
| I'd really like to make a push for a non-diamond ring.
|
| But as other replies here mention - if she wants a diamond,
| it's a diamond that she wants.
| slumdev wrote:
| I bought her a diamond ring, and we got married.
| edoceo wrote:
| re-used a ring my grandma had (she was done with it)
| CannisterFlux wrote:
| Explain it to them. If they don't understand or come to some
| compromise, maybe they aren't the right SO to marry. I'm
| married and we don't wear rings at all, we discussed it and
| agreed they were pointless and spent the money on better
| things.
| fogihujy wrote:
| The Missus refuse to wear one. We both have (relatively)
| massive silver wedding bands.
| yason wrote:
| Same here. We both did want a ring of some sort. I wouldn't
| care much about the material as long as it takes all the
| beating from elements that my fingers are subjected to, and
| Mrs would find diamonds or rocks abhorring and wouldn't even
| go for a gold band. So we bought modest silver bands that
| happen to be replicas of some ancient bands found a few
| hundred years ago locally. Mine has been sitting around my
| finger for fifteen years now except during a brief
| enlargening operation.
| Draken93 wrote:
| I did not know that marriage rings with diamonds are so
| important in the US. In Germany it is pretty common to have
| plain gold/silver rings.
| eatbitseveryday wrote:
| I bought a 1.5 carat lab-grown clear sapphire for $900 and had
| it installed into a custom old-school setting made of platinum.
| I said, in many earlier conversations, diamonds are overpriced
| and I wouldn't waste my money on it.
| alienchow wrote:
| My wife told me not to get anything for my eventual proposal
| because she's not going to be wearing it. She preemptively said
| yes before I did anything.
|
| But a ring is still needed for the ceremony.
|
| I bought some small amounts of rose gold and white gold, gave
| it to a custom jeweler and told them to do whatever they always
| wanted to do (but no client ever accepted) using only the gold
| I bought.
|
| They gave me back a rose gold ring, with a gigantic "gemstone"
| made of the white gold I bought.
|
| From far away, the ring made everyone think it had a huge
| diamond on it. It was really funny.
|
| Total cost $1000 including labor, not cheap but at least the
| ring was special. Formally proposed with it and my wife liked
| it.
|
| My wife, as promised, never wore it after the wedding. She
| likes to be not robbed.
| brobdingnagians wrote:
| Lab grown diamond was much cheaper for the size; looks just as
| great; I have no emotional attachment to dirt grown or lab
| grown. I think diamonds are kind of ridiculous since they were
| a PR campaign by De Beers, but they are quite beautiful, and
| lab diamonds are high quality for cheap. Social judgement is a
| real thing and it is nice to just sidestep it with a "good
| enough diamond" (I think social judgment of diamonds is
| completely ridiculous, that is the one reason why I considered
| just not getting a diamond at all so I wasn't in that game).
| But it is nice to never even have to think about it and people
| tend to just say "oh that's a nice diamond" (I went for an
| average "nice" size for my area, not gaudy) and move on, and if
| it was lost or stolen, I could actually afford to buy another
| one...
| prawn wrote:
| Knew my partner wanted a diamond and of a certain cut. Knew I
| wasn't excited about spending a fortune on a diamond. So I
| split the budget midway so half was spent on the diamond/ring
| and half was spent on a trip to propose overseas somewhere
| memorable. Ultimately the happiness of your partner is what
| counts, but this combination made it more palatable for my
| practical self.
| InvOfSmallC wrote:
| Had to buy it. There was a huge fight about me not threating
| her well because of this f'ing diamond.
| ihalip wrote:
| I opted for a moissanite engagement ring from Charles &
| Colvard. There really isn't any perceivable difference between
| moissanite and diamond, except the light reflected by
| moissanite seems a bit more colourful.
| [deleted]
| dcre wrote:
| Bought yellow gold and white gold wedding bands on Amazon for a
| few hundred dollars each.
| cwingrav wrote:
| My SO did not want a traditional diamond gold engagement ring
| due to normative ways, consumption, global diamond trade, etc.
| but it's hard to not buy such a thing number one, and two, u
| have to wear it each day. I bought a polar bear diamond
| (Canadian) which in addition to being mined in a friendly way
| (environment, labor, etc), uses a cut that hides its size. It's
| brilliant in the light and sparkles like no other. Then I chose
| platinum as it isn't as showy as gold and doesn't corrode like
| silver. So overall, it's an amazing ring to look at, isn't
| traditional but so too hides its cost. Rings are for spending
| time thinking about your partner and what they want to be
| shackled with. She really liked it, even though she never would
| have expected it to look like what it is.
| Jiejeing wrote:
| I am curious, is the diamond thing a US-centric trope? I do not
| know anyone here who genuinely cares about that sort of thing,
| generally people want some discreet metal ring. It may be a
| precious ore to symbolize the commitment but otherwise I have
| not seen anything outlandish among my friends or family members
| who got married.
| Draken93 wrote:
| In Germany it is not a thing either. Discreet gold/silver
| rings are much more common. I like it, it is less decadent
| and you can wear the ring every day.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| That's weird, all my SO's friends who are engaged/married
| here in .de got diamond engagement rings. They also wear a
| wedding band, and tend to only wear the engagement ring on
| special occasions..
| nottorp wrote:
| Eastern Europe. We didn't bother with the engagement stuff
| and the wedding rings were plain gold bands. Which we don't
| bother with any more after 20 years.
|
| I've almost never heard of anyone buying engagement rings,
| diamonds or no diamonds.
|
| I do know a nouveau riche (or aspirational nouveau riche)
| couple whose wedding bands have tiny diamonds on them.
| kungito wrote:
| in the balkans it's definitely a thing
| q3k wrote:
| Pretty much, the US makes up ~50% of the global diamond
| jewelry consumer market.
|
| It seems the US-focused De Beers marketing campaign from half
| a century ago is still holding strong.
| bluedevil2k wrote:
| Not US-centric - they're popular in the US and Canada, Japan,
| China and SE Asia.
| rednerrus wrote:
| I just bought a $4,000 diamond ring from a jeweler in India for
| $550.
| 1-more wrote:
| I bought a lab diamond ezpz. Or do Moissanite: SiC is damn near
| the same everything as diamond. Or do any other charming non-
| clear stone.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| If my SO does not find other rocks far more interesting or
| insists on a wedding ring, then we are not on the same page.
|
| Diamonds are carbon atoms arranged in the most boring fashion,
| they are almost meteorite poop, and _real_ ones are covered in
| blood.
|
| There's beauty in imperfection and quirky rocks, they are sort
| of like a metaphore for life.
| eru wrote:
| Get a ring that doesn't have a diamond in it?
|
| Or, buy a ring with a cubic zirconia in it, and don't tell
| anyone. They are almost indistinguishable from diamonds.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_zirconia
| neilwilson wrote:
| Always remember the whole diamond ring thing was a marketing
| putsh by DeBeers in the first place.
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/ho...
|
| So arguably buying a diamond ring has always been a symbol of
| wage oppression and terrible mining conditions in Africa, and
| any right thinking person should boycott it.
|
| Fortunately my SO isn't that struck by sparkly rocks. She
| prefers antique jewellery with character and history. Her
| wedding ring is 150 years old.
| JoshuaEddy wrote:
| Diamond engagement rings date back to 1477, and diamond
| jewelry dates back much further. It was viewed as very
| exclusive/rare. Diamond engagement rings _for the masses_ was
| from DeBeers advertising starting in 1938.
|
| The growth in diamond mine production in the late 1800s
| tremendously increased diamond supply. DeBeers took advantage
| of historical perception of rarity and actual lower cost of
| materials to create a new market.
| Clewza313 wrote:
| No, diamonds were actually kind of second-rate for a long
| time, medieval jewelry tended to favor flashier colored
| stones like rubies, emeralds, etc.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_jewelry
|
| Although to be fair, this was in part because diamonds are
| hard to cut and they don't look good without faceted cuts.
| Diamonds only started becoming popular in the late 1800s
| when South African mines started producing them in bulk and
| modern cuts were developed, and they went mainstream once
| the De Beers marketing engine kicked in after WW2.
| jfk13 wrote:
| Likewise. My wife now wears my late mother's wedding ring,
| after we had it remade to fit her. (Resizing was non-trivial,
| as it is not a simple circle.) It's not hugely valuable, but
| it has a unique character and history.
|
| (Added twist: the jeweller couldn't have it ready in time for
| the ceremony, so we made do with a dime-store trinket, and
| swapped it later.)
| positr0n wrote:
| The most compliments I ever got on my spouses ring is in
| the couple months after our first child was born and her
| fingers were too swollen to wear the original wedding
| rings. She switched to a $10 Target ring with a huge fake
| diamond.
| hiharryhere wrote:
| Likewise. There are some beautiful rings in antique stores
| that are unlike anything really being made today. Different
| craft.
|
| It's also nice to think that the ring has had a life of its
| own already and you get to be another chapter in it.
| KennethPT wrote:
| Alternate view: Almost everything in life is ridiculous when
| you view it with cold logic. It's utterly ridiculous to put
| golden balls on a fake tree in your house every year, but due
| to societal constraints most people in Western societies do it.
|
| Your SO probably doesn't want a logical gift, she wants
| something sentimental that makes her feel that you care about
| her. For some people, that's an expensive rock with no utility,
| for others it might be something different. But applying logic
| to what's ultimately an emotional, illogical affair isn't
| always productive.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Exactly. The ring is not for you and your wife will be
| wearing this for the rest of her life if all goes well. If
| you are unwilling to give her something extravagant because
| you value paper money so much more, then you're not ready to
| go through with the sacrifices that come with a marriage. If
| your wife wants a diamond, but you want to control your wife
| and bend her to your will of not having a diamond, you can
| try and you might succeed, but there will be some resentment
| every time she sees it on her finger and this will not be an
| issue that just fades away. Expect to hear it echoing for a
| long time. Do you want your marriage proposal to be
| associated with an argument, disagreement, or even a
| compromise?
|
| On the other hand, a loving relationship and marriage is
| worth much more than a diamond ring ever could be. When you
| have a caring wife and you both love and help each other
| you'll get an immeasurable improvement in your life.
|
| To conclude, yes it's overpriced, yes there are problems with
| diamond mining, yes DeBeers artificially controls the supply,
| and yes you can find a rarer stone for less, or something
| more exotic, but your wife wants a diamond, so you buy a
| diamond and hopefully live a happy life.
| pydry wrote:
| Rituals do make a lot of sense even if the content of them
| makes no intrinsic sense:
|
| https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-rituals-work/
| tialaramex wrote:
| You should where possible create rituals which do have a
| direct purpose anyway.
|
| Big example of real rituals which have purpose, Key Signing
| Ceremonies. Small example, when I leave somewhere I always
| pat both pockets twice, everything I absolutely need is
| always in those pockets, keys, wallet, phone. And so I
| won't leave them behind.
|
| The weird thing about the diamond engagement ring is that
| it _isn 't_ a powerful symbol of anything. The wedding ring
| is the powerful symbol, and that would conventionally just
| be a metal band. You see those _everywhere_ which is of
| course made more practical by their being a simple metal
| band.
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| > when I leave somewhere I always pat both pockets twice,
| everything I absolutely need is always in those pockets,
| keys, wallet, phone.
|
| After my wallet fell out of my pants pocket into my
| office chair and I thought I'd lost it for 2 days, I
| updated this ritual to do it every time I walk through a
| doorway. That way if I lose something I know exactly
| which room it's in.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > every time I walk through a doorway
|
| Was just about to post this. I didn't start doing this on
| purpose, but at some point I noticed I was.
| username90 wrote:
| Christmas would be insane if you put actual gold in them
| instead of plastics.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I'm entirely against this sentiment, because logic isn't
| cold, it's a way to maximize your comfort and happiness.
| _However,_ useless, expensive gifts are more effective than
| purposeful gifts from a mating perspective - wasting money is
| a sign of wealth, and that 's cold logic.
|
| The ring is basically a sacrifice, which goes with the "blood
| diamond" thing pretty neatly.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Had a good experience through diamond nexus - was able to get a
| custom designed synthetic for a good price.
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| I gave my wife my grandmother's engagement and wedding rings
| gspr wrote:
| America is leaking again.
| kop316 wrote:
| Paraphrased from a previous comment of mine
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26699188):
|
| I 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 (I got it from here:
| https://www.charlesandcolvard.com/ )
|
| - 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.
|
| - 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. I have seen is commenting on how
| "flawless" the "diamond" looks, and the "diamond" must have
| cost a lot due to it looking flawless.
| andjd wrote:
| Interesting. When I went in to a jeweler to get my Wife's
| ring appraised for insurance purposes, the tester they pulled
| out said that one of the (3) diamonds was moissenite. Not
| surprised that those testers are nearly worthless.
| tut-urut-utut wrote:
| Not every society in the world requires a diamond on the
| wedding ring. In large parts of Europe, the wedding ring is
| just a golden ring, maybe a bit bigger or nicer, but doesn't
| cost an arm and a leg compared to other jewellery.
|
| I always found the stories that middle-class people are
| expected to pay 20+K for the wedding ring quite hard to
| believe, but it may be it's true in some parts of the world.
| yrgulation wrote:
| I simply didn't care - bought a meteorite ring instead.
| Everyone is impressed as few know such a thing exists. I even
| tell them it's rarer than diamonds (I don't know that for a
| fact, but it makes a good story for the wow factor).
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| Well meteorite _rings_ are definitely rarer than diamond
| rings.
| Tade0 wrote:
| Not married (yet), but I gave my SO an "engagement iPad".
|
| It was around what you would expect an engagement ring to cost
| you in this region of the world, the lens cover is made out of
| sapphire crystal so the jewelry aspect is there, and should I
| perish in an accident the resale value should give her 2-3
| months of runway assuming she moves in with my family,
| considering we have an infant daughter.
|
| On top of that she very much enjoys the practical aspect of
| this gift.
| tdrgabi wrote:
| It depends on culture. In my country, a gold or silver ring is
| acceptable.
| StavrosK wrote:
| In my country, a simple gold band is also customary. When you
| think "wedding ring", you think "simple gold band". They all
| look the same.
| lewisflude wrote:
| In the UK at least, there is an "engagement ring" that has
| a diamond typically, and then a "wedding band" that is
| typically a gold (or silver) band that goes next to the
| engagement ring on the ring finger, with a similar ring for
| the other partner on the ring finger.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > a gold or silver ring is acceptable
|
| As in not having a ring is 'unacceptable' somehow then?
| croo wrote:
| Not op, but yes. Engagement traditionally is giving a ring
| to your desired future wife. I don't understand your point.
|
| Of course you can ignore tradition but then why marry in
| the first place?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I mean who is it unacceptable to? Who complains if you
| don't have a ring and what do they do about it?
|
| If someone told me they thought it was unacceptable that
| I didn't have a ring I'd laugh at them.
| mavhc wrote:
| Unacceptable to sexists
| simias wrote:
| The conversation is framed from the point of view of
| tradition in some parts of the world. Of course the cops
| won't arrest you if you decide not to get an engagement
| ring. It's like going to work in flip flops, it's not
| illegal, just frowned upon in many circles.
|
| These faux-intellectual "I'm a robot, beep boop I don't
| understand context and I parse conversations like a
| compiler would, semantic error on line 5" conversations
| are probably the least productive on this website, and
| they're unfortunately very common. It's not smart, it's
| just obtuse.
| gspr wrote:
| > Of course you can ignore tradition but then why marry
| in the first place?
|
| I find it strange how many people seem to be able to
| separate a tradition from physical items traditionally
| involved in that tradition.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > I find it strange how many people seem to be able to
| separate a tradition from physical items traditionally
| involved in that tradition.
|
| They're just symbols - I don't think it's strange that
| many people are able to separate them.
| eru wrote:
| > Of course you can ignore tradition but then why marry
| in the first place?
|
| Taxation, adoption, power of attorney, inheritance taxes,
| etc.
| username90 wrote:
| Those doesn't apply in all jurisdictions. There is no
| reason why laws should give special privileges to
| marriages over other forms of relationships.
| eru wrote:
| Yes, different jurisdictions treat marriage differently.
|
| > There is no reason why laws should give special
| privileges to marriages over other forms of
| relationships.
|
| I tend to agree, but that's a normative question and
| doesn't change the legal facts we have to deal with.
|
| (At least not directly. Laws are made by people, and if
| enough people or the right people care for laws to be
| different, laws can be changed.)
| necheffa wrote:
| I got a ring with a different stone.
| gtirloni wrote:
| Just bought it and moved on. I'm happy that she's happy. I
| couldn't care less.
| woofcat wrote:
| Yeah, I'm not understanding a lot of the sentiment here. I
| suppose if you're a fresh grad, or not making a ton of money.
| However if an engagement ring's cost is some barrier to
| getting married... perhaps you're too young to get married?
|
| Life is expensive, and between cars, house, the actual
| wedding, kids, etc. The money I spent on my wives engagement
| ring seems like child's play.
|
| Also I feel like most women want it, because it's what
| everyone asks of them. 100% it's societal pressure. If you
| tell someone you got engaged, question #1 will be "Ohh let me
| see the ring!"
| float4 wrote:
| > Also I feel like most women want it, because it's what
| everyone asks of them.
|
| To me it feels more like a classic case of mimetism: all
| beautiful / successful / happy / rich people have a diamond
| ring, so most women naturally want one too. It's not really
| about fear, but more about a strong desire to have the same
| object as your role models.
| woofcat wrote:
| Perhaps mimetism. Do you lump say all fashion under that
| category as well?
|
| I think there is an unofficial "pecking order" of
| society. People treat you differently if you roll up in a
| new Mercedes vs a new Honda. If your purse is a Louis
| Vuitton or a Walmart brand. They all functionally do the
| same thing, but society uses these things to lump people
| into camps.
|
| In that same regard, I've seen women who are not
| materialistic seem embarrassed to show off their modest
| ring which is wrong. I think a lot of people treat
| engagement rings in the same way as designer bags, and
| nice cars.
|
| We can say it doesn't matter, but if society ranks you
| differently I think it does matter on some level.
| sneak wrote:
| > _Life is expensive, and between cars, house, the actual
| wedding, kids, etc. The money I spent on my wives
| engagement ring seems like child 's play._
|
| I wonder if your literal children would feel like that if
| you'd taken the same money for a ring that will (presuming
| you proceed with marriage) pretty much never get worn, and
| invested it in an index fund until their 21st birthday.
|
| "child's play" indeed is what I would call this level of
| financial misplanning.
| woofcat wrote:
| >I wonder if your literal children would feel like that
| if you'd taken the same money for a ring that will
| (presuming you proceed with marriage) pretty much never
| get worn, and invested it in an index fund until their
| 21st birthday.
|
| I don't know what culture you're from. But in North
| America engagement rings are worn as every day jewellery.
| So it gets used daily.
|
| >I wonder if your literal children would feel like that
| if you'd taken the same money for a ring that will
| (presuming you proceed with marriage) pretty much never
| get worn, and invested it in an index fund until their
| 21st birthday.
|
| I guess you're presuming that because I spent money on
| one thing... I'm unable to spend money on another thing?
| Do you apply the same logic to everything in your life?
| "I really should have gone with the cheapest clothing
| available as then I could have saved $x towards my
| children's future!"
|
| Regardless my children do in fact have investment
| accounts opened in their names and invested in index
| funds, and I don't regret buying my wife a nice
| engagement ring, our our Audi, or our house, etc etc. I
| hope if you get married you don't put every expense
| through the view point of "If I invested this for 21
| years!" as you'd never take a day of vacation, or enjoy
| yourself. :)
| 55555 wrote:
| Warren Buffet takes this even further. He doesn't spend
| any money on consumption, choosing instead to invest it
| for 21+ years. And then he keeps it invested and refuses
| to give it to his children.
|
| (He's giving it all to charity, though.)
| woofcat wrote:
| Yeah, I just enjoy the logic of:
|
| "How dare you spend what at the end of the day is a
| trivial amount of money on something that your
| significant other appreciates and enjoys. You should be
| eating soylent green and living in a 400 square foot
| home!"
|
| If I were struggling to get by, it would be a fair
| discussion. However the audience on HN I presume to be
| middle class, if not upper middle class it seems like an
| odd argument to make.
| [deleted]
| sneak wrote:
| > _I don 't know what culture you're from. But in North
| America engagement rings are worn as every day jewellery.
| So it gets used daily._
|
| After the wedding?
| woofcat wrote:
| Yes, for the rest of your life.
|
| Edit: As a random google you can get items like this
| which combine the wedding band with the engagement ring:
| https://www.kay.com/diamond-bridal-set-18-ct-tw-
| roundcut-10k...
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| Just to say, thats a great attitude - and that I am happy to
| hear is an option amoungst a sea of 'if you are not on the
| same page your marriage is in trouble' comments
| username90 wrote:
| You are the ideal consumer. Hope you realize why it would be
| bad if everyone was like you.
| zhobbs wrote:
| Can you elaborate? As far as I can tell, effectively
| everyone is like this...
| fsflover wrote:
| "Just used the slaves; I couldn't care less." - I hope such
| general attitude will change as soon as possible...
| pjc50 wrote:
| We bought an antique one, containing two diamonds and a nice
| large amethyst. Because the diamond secondhand market trades at
| such a detriment to new ones this was very affordable.
| warmwaffles wrote:
| Instead of a diamond ring, I went with a saphire ring. My wife
| likes blue and it was all I could afford at the time (~$800).
| She loved it either way and knows we were dead ass broke at the
| time and doesn't complain.
|
| She works as a physical therapist now and wears a silicon ring
| because she bent the wedding ring giving CPR to a patient in a
| hospital a few years ago (patient lived).
| CapmCrackaWaka wrote:
| It's got to be a conversation between you and your spouse - my
| (now wife) said she definitely wanted a diamond. I ended up
| proposing with my great grandmothers ring, that has a small
| diamond. She loved it. Some people will want to go select a
| ring together at diamonds direct. Some won't even care about a
| ring.
|
| As far as friends and family goes, they can get over it. I
| actually have a lot of fun telling people about the current
| scam that are diamonds, if they make any sideways remarks about
| my wife and my preferences. There really is no defending the
| diamond industry, so if they are pushy or too nosy, it's an
| easy argument to 'win'.
| mhroth wrote:
| Ask your partner what they want. Then do that. Your opinion on
| this matter is not particularly important ;)
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| _Your opinion on this matter is not particularly important
| ;)_
|
| Although you should bear in mind there is a correlation
| between the amount spent on getting married and the
| likelihood of divorce.
| tromp wrote:
| Is that a positive or a negative correlation?
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Positive, the more you spend the more likely divorce.
| dagw wrote:
| The more you spent, the richer both of you are. The
| richer both of you are, the easier it is to afford
| getting divorced.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Possibly although that would be fairly easy to filter out
| in a study.
| paulcole wrote:
| Yes, although one isn't necessarily causative of the other.
| 2pEXgD0fZ5cF wrote:
| > Your opinion on this matter is not particularly important
|
| Feeling sorry for the people that go in a marriage with those
| kind of sentiments about their partner, or about
| relationships/marriage in general.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Build a Wall-E type robot to deliver a lab grown one to create
| environmental vibes.
| exhilaration wrote:
| We got Canadian diamonds when we got married. Things may have
| changed in the past decade or so but back then they were a safe
| cruelty-free option.
| lewisflude wrote:
| Not married, but engaged! I ended up buying a diamond on James
| Allen (they allow you to select earth created or lab created).
|
| They allege their mined diamonds are "conflict free"
| https://www.jamesallen.com/education/diamonds/grading-
| confli....
|
| However, my feeling is I don't trust this 100%, and for my SO
| having a "real diamond" meant a lot. For me, in this case, the
| need to get a "real diamond" for my SO trumped my ethical
| stance on where the diamond was sourced.
|
| I think if you are going for 100% ethical purity, then you
| should either get no diamond (many other beautiful, precious
| gemstones if you still want one) or just go for it to make your
| SO happy.
| sharken wrote:
| As long as the concept "real diamond", as in mined the
| traditional way exists, then real change will be slow.
|
| It will be interesting to see if companies will try to market
| "real diamonds" and how the market will respond.
| lewisflude wrote:
| When you buy a mined diamond, you are paying for the story,
| of it being a finite thing, formed in the earth over a very
| long period of time. Lab grown diamonds don't have that
| story.
|
| Separately, the work that goes into cutting/finishing
| diamonds is incredible and there is a huge amount of
| variety between individual diamonds. They are very
| fascinating things.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >When you buy a mined diamond, you are paying for the
| story, of it being a finite thing, formed in the earth
| over a very long period of time. Lab grown diamonds don't
| have that story.
|
| I do not know who the "you" is here, but I would bet most
| people that want to consume diamonds (especially mined)
| as an end user for display purposes want to do so to
| signal their (potential) purchasing power, especially
| amongst their network.
|
| Although, in this day and age, diamond and jewelry in
| general are pretty poor status signals. In general,
| material objects are a poorer show of status than simply
| having vacation pictures from all over the world
| constantly showing leisure time (the more finite and
| expensive commodity).
| lewisflude wrote:
| The "you" here is someone buying a mined diamond. I would
| imagine you're right on status being one of the top
| reasons someone buys a diamond in the first place.
| There's other reasons (aesthetics, tradition), but I
| think the earth diamonds status as a rare expensive thing
| and it's artificial scarcity is what keeps them so
| desireable.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Yes, so my point is it does not have much to do with the
| story of the diamond.
| lewisflude wrote:
| I'd argue that the fact that they're rare, special things
| found in the earth is a big part of the story. At least
| from people I've talked to who prefer earth grown
| diamonds, this is something that's come up multiple
| times.
|
| However, people always turn a blind eye to the part of
| the story that involves cruelty, which is largely down to
| De Beers excellent marketing and creation of artificial
| scarcity.
| Nursie wrote:
| That sounds like industry apologetics, to me. I don't
| know that the population in general are that keen on
| geology.
| lewisflude wrote:
| I don't mean to sound like I'm apologising for the
| industry. I agree with you, the general population don't
| care about the geology of diamonds. But there's
| definitely this feeling that lab grown diamonds are seen
| as this "other" thing that "isn't real" and I think that
| largely stems from this mythical idea of diamonds being
| rare things that are found in the earth.
|
| I think it's quite common knowledge that diamonds were
| traditionally mined before we were able to make them in a
| lab, and because of this it's seen as the default to
| which any other methods of making a diamond are compared.
| Nursie wrote:
| I agree that the general population sees the ones dug out
| of the ground as "real" right now. I think the story
| being paid for is the DeBeers story though, of diamonds
| and marriage being inseperable, I don't think many people
| consider much where they came from, or consider the "rare
| thing dug up out of the ground" part of it particularly
| important in itself.
|
| I guess I'm splitting hairs, yes there is definitely a
| cultural hangup about mined diamonds being "real" and
| made diamonds being imitations, fake, whatever. I just
| don't think many people care that much about the actual
| backstory, they just want a 'real' one. As such I think
| the synthetic diamond industry has a bit of an uphill
| struggle on its hands, but not an unwinnable one if they
| can convince people that theirs are 'real' too.
|
| And to my (very literalist in many respects) mind, they
| are.
|
| (edit - I will add that I have gone out of my way to
| source lab-created stones and silver settings to make
| jewellery for my partner in the past, so far mostly using
| star-sapphires, and she seems to have loved them. I find
| the idea of lab-recreated gems pretty fascinating, and I
| think that enthusiasm helped.)
| lewisflude wrote:
| Semi-related, but here's an interesting fact, De Beers
| (the company that popularised diamonds for engagement
| rings, hoards a huge supply, and creates artificial
| scarcity) has also invested heavily in lab grown
| diamonds:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-29/de-
| beers-...
|
| They've been doing this to try and undercut lab diamond
| growing company's in an attempt to retain control of the
| diamond market in an era where lab diamonds are becoming
| more and more popular as people consider their ethical
| choices.
| sneak wrote:
| > _However, my feeling is I don 't trust this 100%, and for
| my SO having a "real diamond" meant a lot. For me, in this
| case, the need to get a "real diamond" for my SO trumped my
| ethical stance on where the diamond was sourced._
|
| Lab grown diamonds are real diamonds. There is a simple,
| easy, and cost-effective solution to the problem you seem to
| have skipped over here.
| lewisflude wrote:
| I agree with you, which is why I put real diamond in quotes
| here. Lab or earth grown, both are real. Sadly, not
| everyone sees lab grown as having as much desirability as
| earth grown diamonds. While I would be open to receiving a
| lab diamond, I've met many people for whom it would be seen
| as a budget option.
|
| Although through an objective lens they are the same, for a
| lot of people there is an emotional difference between
| buying (or receiving) a lab grown vs earth grown diamond
| which means they can't be treated like-for-like in every
| situation.
| simias wrote:
| Did your SO explain why it's so important for them to get a
| "real diamond"? While I understand wanting a valuable piece
| of jewelry as a token of the value of your relationship, I
| must admit that the extreme fixations on specifically
| diamonds always seemed rather odd given that there are so
| many other beautiful gemstones to chose from. Of course it's
| also cultural thing, I think diamond engagement rings are
| especially popular in America?
|
| This might well be the most successful marketing campaign in
| history.
| lewisflude wrote:
| I'm not in America, but she studied jewellery and has a
| deep interest in gemstones. The story of it being formed in
| the earth over a long period of time is what gives earth
| diamonds something that lab diamonds just don't have,
| purely the story. I think this is largely down to the
| marketing of diamonds which has really embedded itself in
| the culture of jewellery and the rituals around getting
| engaged.
|
| We did discuss the ethical concerns of earth vs lab
| diamonds beforehand, and the decision to go with an earth
| diamond was intentional.
|
| The diamond was a yellow, cushion cut diamond. I agree,
| there are other gemstones that are often overlooked and
| have beautiful qualities.
| sneak wrote:
| Rings also fall under the category of utterly ridiculous. A
| marriage isn't jewelry.
| JackFr wrote:
| Along with being a visible symbol of my love and commitment
| to my wife, I also use my wedding ring to open beer bottles -
| so, you know, not _utterly_ ridiculous.
| madarcho wrote:
| Talk about it. It may turn out that the societal constraints
| don't enforce the conflict mined diamond. And you may find out
| more about what it is that is motivating the choice.
|
| But you can't force things and insist that the whole thing is a
| useless charade. Objectively, sure, but not everything in life
| has to be.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| our rings are platinum, as my wife thinks gold is vulgar
| looking. inscription. No jewels.
| rm445 wrote:
| There are lots of other types of pretty rock available.
|
| I think also if you decide to bow to those constraints, grit
| your teeth and buy a diamond, you can get ones certified to as
| less likely to have murder and slavery involved in their
| extraction. Albeit you'd still be supporting that ridiculous
| market indirectly. Smashing the stigma against lab diamonds
| seems like a great idea.
| djdjdjdjdj wrote:
| As anyone ever would be able to distinguish a real diamond
| from anything else.
|
| Like srsly how often even does someone look longer than a few
| seconds on your ring?
|
| I would bet people can't really determine a difference
| between glass and a diamond
| eru wrote:
| Cubic zirconia is the go-to material for fake diamonds.
|
| It's so close, even the jeweler has to break out some
| equipment.
|
| See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_zirconia#Cubic_zirc
| onia_...
| TekMol wrote:
| Honest question: Why marry in the first place?
|
| Why practice a personal relationship in a way others have
| designed?
|
| Isn't it somewhat contrary to the theme of Hacker News? To me,
| the term "hacking" describes the habit of doing things in a
| more interesting/efficient/fun way than how they are usually
| done.
| lewisflude wrote:
| It's an interesting question! I think a lot of the time when
| both partners feel getting married adds no value, they don't
| marry! I know plenty of older couples who never got married
| and don't regret it.
|
| Some good reasons I've heard.
|
| 1. Legally it's a lot simpler if you're married, if one
| partner dies for the other partner to get control over
| assets/legacy.
|
| 2. For many couples it's a ceremonious way of making a
| commitment that is recognised and understood between
| cultures.
|
| 3. In some cases, it allows for certain benefits/perks to be
| shared (tax, healthcare).
|
| 4. It's fun to have a party and get family together.
|
| I personally don't see Hacker News as one homogenous culture
| with a distinct opinion on what "hacking" is. Being curious,
| rational and experimental, I still think getting married can
| fit into that.
|
| If you were truly trying to optimise every aspect of life to
| be some sort of objective best option, I think getting
| married may or may not be the right option. I do think
| generally we give too much power to "the culture" over how we
| live our lives though and so I do think being sceptical of
| the rituals/ceremonies we're born into is a positive thing.
| toxik wrote:
| I considered marriage and we even filed half the paperwork,
| but I decided against it because it would end up in the
| public records that I am married, and to whom exactly.
|
| So, I didn't marry out of infosec concerns.
| djdjdjdjdj wrote:
| You are not kidding?
|
| While I personally would find this very weird, from an
| infosec perspective, having a relatable backstory should
| make it easier for you in regards of infosec.
|
| With married status you can conceal things probably better
| than not.
| toxik wrote:
| If your threat model includes you disguising as someone
| else, sure.
|
| If your threat model includes crazy people stalking you,
| my decision is justified.
| djdjdjdjdj wrote:
| That is really unfortunate.
|
| At least in germany you can go to the Einwohnermeldeamt
| (citizen Report office) and can request a blockage into
| your data. This should be enough for a stalker.
|
| Are you allowed to decide what happens to your partner in
| case of an emergency? Or to decide for her if she is
| unable to decide anymore?
|
| Also would you save taxes? Here our income is combined
| and divided 50/50. When I earn 100k and she 20k, we both
| pay taxes for 60k which comes to something like 100-200$
| per month or 2-4% in savings.
|
| If it is similar your stalker already hurts you on a
| daily basis.
| toxik wrote:
| Tax difference is non-existent, and you can't block it
| from the public registry.
| hackeraccount wrote:
| I don't want to know if this is true or not.
| djdjdjdjdj wrote:
| You have to if you want to be close to your partner if
| something happens and they are in the hospital.
|
| For me it was a great way to reproduce an image I liked very
| much, an old image of my baptism/christianing (I'm no longer
| part of that Organisation) where all my family was together.
|
| We invited them all and we're planning things to make sure it
| is a great experience for our guests and based on the
| feedback it worked out.
|
| It should be possible to do this without a crazy event but it
| is easier with something people know.
|
| Also I was sick to my stomach for a while week and very
| nervous on the wedding day. I do assume that this experience
| is unique in itself but I'm not sure how significant this is
| in a relationship.
| trapexit wrote:
| This is kind of a lazyweb question because the "why
| marriage?" question has been discussed many times before on
| HN. https://www.google.com/search?q=marriage+site%3Anews.ycom
| bin...
|
| Beyond the social convention that "it's the thing to do" at a
| certain point in a relationship, some reasons are:
|
| - Marriage provides financial assurance for a spouse who will
| defer their career to raise children.
|
| - Some friends and family (particularly those of the spouse)
| will absolutely treat you differently when you're married to
| someone versus in a long-term unmarried relationship.
|
| - Depending on the jurisdiction, spouses have certain rights
| that unmarried partners do not, e.g. with regards to the
| legal system and hospital visitation. I know a couple that
| got married because one of them was an activist/journalist
| and frequently attended protests in which he was at risk of
| arrest.
|
| - In some circumstances, it makes it easier to purchase a
| home together and make other large joint financial
| investments.
|
| - Under some tax regimes, you pay lower taxes when married.
|
| - U.S. citizens living abroad in a low-tax country with a
| foreign spouse can engage in advantageous tax planning.
| 55555 wrote:
| > - U.S. citizens living abroad in a low-tax country with a
| foreign spouse can engage in advantageous tax planning.
|
| Can you please, please elaborate on this?
| trapexit wrote:
| Disclaimer: I'm not a tax advisor and this is not tax
| advice. It might not even be correct. Do your own
| research and consult an attorney about your specific
| situation. For entertainment purposes only and so on.
|
| U.S. citizens must pay taxes on worldwide income,
| regardless of what country they live in. Citizens of
| almost all other countries are not required to do this
| (they pay income taxes to the country where they live
| and/or earn income). It's a remarkably raw deal for U.S.
| citizens abroad, considering that we don't get any
| services to go along with our tax obligations. You'd
| think we could at least pop into the consulate for one of
| those COVID vaccines that are now so plentiful stateside
| that they can hardly give 'em away, but no.
|
| Now, if you're a U.S. citizen and you live abroad in a
| country with no income tax (e.g. Monaco) or low income
| tax (e.g. Bulgaria), and you earn more than the ~$100k
| limit of the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (FEIE), then
| you're going to be paying U.S. tax, because you won't
| have paid enough foreign tax to deduct it all under the
| Foreign Tax Credit. Also all of your non-"earned" income
| is going to be subject to U.S. tax - dividends, capital
| gains, etc.
|
| But let's say you live in Monaco (0%), Bulgaria (10%
| flat), Dubai (0%), Panama (25% top bracket), or the
| Cayman Islands (0%) and your spouse is not a U.S. citizen
| or permanent resident (not a "U.S. person" for IRS
| purposes). If your excess (> $100k) family income is
| credited to your spouse (or a company owned by your
| spouse), and that income is _not_ generated in the USA
| (e.g. not from a U.S.-based business, rental properties
| in the U.S., U.S. stocks, or business trips to the U.S.),
| and you file with status "Married Filing Separately" on
| your U.S. tax return, then your spouse's income is not
| included on your tax return.
|
| Say you do consulting out there on your little island in
| the Bahamas, and your foreign spouse sets up a consulting
| company and hires you as an employee. You get paid a
| salary by the company that is conveniently under the FEIE
| limit and thus pay no U.S. tax. Your spouse gets the
| dividends and pays no tax on them. So long as this isn't
| entirely a paper fiction arrangement wherein you do 100%
| of the work but your spouse gets basically all of the
| money, for U.S. tax purposes it ought to be kosher.
| (Again disclaimer: not a tax lawyer, this could be wildly
| incorrect, consult your own advisor about your specific
| situation)
|
| Your family company's profits get invested into real
| estate (again in low-tax / no-tax jurisdictions) in your
| spouse's name. The passive income from that again flows
| to your spouse for tax purposes, and as long as you keep
| filing "Married Filing Separately", your spouse is
| invisible for U.S. tax purposes and no U.S. tax is due.
|
| This is the only way that I know of, short of renouncing
| citizenship, for a high-earning U.S. citizen expat to
| avoid taxation of their worldwide income. You still have
| to file a bunch of paperwork, though. Also, due to a
| stupid quirk of IRS policy, because your spouse doesn't
| have a SSN/ITIN, you can't complete a 1040 in the e-file
| system and you have to file a _paper_ return. Hope you
| FedEx 'd it to the right address, because only a few IRS
| offices will accept courier deliveries.
|
| You must also be careful about how you set things up for
| _estate planning_ purposes. If you both live in the U.S.
| then there is in general no estate tax due when one
| spouse dies and bequeaths their assets to the other
| spouse. If you live in a different country, then it can
| get very complicated! Depending on who owns the assets,
| what country they 're located in, who owned them before
| marriage, whether they were "gifted" to the other spouse
| over time or not, etc., the surviving spouse may owe
| substantial taxes in one country or the other.
| alias_neo wrote:
| So, although the question-asker is being downvoted, your
| response does actually cover interesting discussion topics,
| and to summarise, the answer could be that the systems and
| conventions need to change?
|
| - I believe in the UK (where I live) one has all of the
| legal and financial implications automatically when a
| relationship reaches a certain age (3 years I believe).
| Legally you would be treated the same way as if you were
| married.
|
| - Friends and family; My family certainly feel this way, my
| wife's I'm not sure. I'm "mixed"-culture/race/etc so some
| of my family have different cultural views. My wife and I
| don't feel strongly either way about how our children deal
| with this when they grow up, so perhaps our (millenial)
| generation is changing the "social" side of it already?
|
| - Legally I believe you have all of the rights you
| describe, however, it may be more difficult to prove the
| relationship without a piece of paper. We've had to present
| our marriage certificate for various things relating to our
| child(ren) for example.
|
| - It _should_ have no effect on your ability to purchase a
| home in the UK
|
| - There is a tax benefit for low income couples in the UK,
| but I believe our law doesn't specify "married".
|
| - I don't know how any of this affects UK citizens abroad
| as I've never looked into it.
| maccard wrote:
| Also in the UK, plus one to everything above (with the
| caveat I have no experience in the children area)
|
| For friends and family, the older relatives on both sides
| I believe just assume we're married.
|
| There is one difference, and that is in default
| treatment. If I died/was rendered otherwise incapable of
| communicating my desires, there is now an onus on my
| partner to prove that we are in the relationship she
| claims we are. That exists with marriage too except it's
| "solved" by a marriage certificate.
| Seb-C wrote:
| > the systems and conventions need to change?
|
| I think that in many (most?) countries nowadays, marriage
| is already no more than just a legal status that offers
| those practical points, so I am not sure if anything
| needs to change.
|
| You don't have to get a ceremony/ring/party, go at the
| church or whatever your culture/religion associates with
| the act of getting married.
|
| You can just sign the contract privately, which makes you
| legally married.
|
| Same for divorce, I believe it only gets complicated when
| you fight about children, money and assets, otherwise you
| can both just decide to stop the contract.
| berdario wrote:
| > I believe in the UK (where I live) one has all of the
| legal and financial implications automatically when a
| relationship reaches a certain age (3 years I believe).
| Legally you would be treated the same way as if you were
| married.
|
| That's not true
|
| https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/how-to-
| sor...
|
| The sibling comment mentions family visas, and indeed
| those are not restricted to your married partner, but
| separation is completely different matter
|
| There's a myth about such a thing as a "common law
| marriage" existing, but that's just that: a myth
|
| https://theconversation.com/common-law-marriage-a-myth-
| neari...
| alias_neo wrote:
| Interesting reading, thanks for that. I have learned
| something. I was intentionally liberal with my use of the
| word "believe", because it seems difficult (to me) to
| prove the relationship without that piece of paper. I
| imagine (note I say imagine, this is based on no evidence
| or research),you could challenge it successfully in a
| court of law though, if required, for some reason?
|
| The myth aside, I don't think you have "no" rights, the
| first link says "fewer". It's really hard to prove
| something without an "official" document though so I
| understand how it could be more complicated.
| theluketaylor wrote:
| Not an expert on the UK, but here in Canada common law
| marriage is absolutely a thing. Just filled in my 2021
| census yesterday and one of the selectable marital status
| was "common law" and many government documents refer to
| the status. Common law relationships are generally much
| easier to dissolve, but courts have held them as strong
| as legal marriages, especially if the relationship lasts
| decades and includes children. They form without any
| specific action beyond time spent living together.
|
| property on dissolving:
| https://www.ontario.ca/page/dividing-property-when-
| marriage-...
|
| employment benefits must extend to common law partners:
| https://www.ontario.ca/document/your-guide-employment-
| standa...
| eru wrote:
| Yes, the UK is somewhat special here.
|
| They also apply the same treatment to foreigners coming
| to the UK.
|
| So if you've been living with your boyfriend for long
| enough, the UK will extend him a spousal visa without you
| having to get married.
| dagw wrote:
| _Why marry in the first place?_
|
| From a practical point of view, once kids where involved and
| we started looking at things like inheritance, it turns out
| that many things would be much quicker and easier, legally,
| if we where married if one of us got very sick or died (in
| our particular jurisdiction).
| hackeraccount wrote:
| Why marry in the first place?
|
| Currently my wife is humming the first 4 bars of The Star
| Spangled Banner over and over and over.
|
| The best answer I can come up with is that marriage is a
| constant battle of wills. A never ending struggle for
| absolute supremacy over the will of another person. To take
| an independent human and bend them to your desire or at least
| drive them crazy.
|
| What's more thrilling than that? Also how can you be more
| crushed when that's done to you.
|
| In short marriage is 100% pure adrenaline. Now that
| bloodsports have been abolished it's the purest most glorious
| release for any sadist out there ... also any masochist
| because one way or the other you're gonna get a big swig from
| both cups.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"To me, the term "hacking" describes the habit of doing
| things in a more interesting/efficient/fun way than how they
| are usually done."
|
| I was with computers and sometime electronics for like 40
| years already. That alone supplies me with enough
| "interesting ways". I do not have to have every other aspect
| of my life to be "interesting". I do not sleep on a stool
| either.
|
| There are also many convenient practical aspects of
| registering marriage that are mentioned in other replies.
| Seb-C wrote:
| I have friends who got married with a steampunk-cosplay
| ceremony/party, so a marriage can definitely be HackerNews-
| compatible :)
| redis_mlc wrote:
| > Honest question: Why marry in the first place?
|
| For women, it's a free pension plan and a way to hedge
| against her rapidly declining looks.
|
| If you're a man in 2021, then you should not get married.
| There is almost nothing but disadvantages for men.
|
| (For young men: a marriage contract is not romantic - it's
| not like the movies. It's a business contract that is
| enforced by the state in the US. Make sure you understand the
| impact of signing a contract when the other party benefits
| from breaking it.)
| cyberpunk wrote:
| In germany at least there is quite the tax incentive.. Say
| you earn 150,000k, and your SO earns 30,000, then you pay tax
| at 180k/2(90k) levels instead of 150k levels....
| adrianN wrote:
| Being married has a bunch of tax benefits where I live.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Here it can also help the partner in case of inheritance.
|
| For example, if you haven't lived together for over 3 years
| and aren't married, then unless there's a will the partner
| won't inherit anything. If you have a kid, the kid will get
| most of the inheritance but can't manage the money until
| they're 18.
|
| Been a few cases in the media here where the kid inherits
| lots of money on a locked account while the partner that's
| left struggles to make ends meet.
| lordnacho wrote:
| Caved in and bought an expensive diamond. What really counts
| here is social ideas of what is necessary. You can push against
| but most people will do what's socially the done thing. I
| shudder to think what horrible things we might be able to get
| people to do as a gateway to getting married. Eg the Spartans
| had to murder a Helot to graduate IIRC. What if you had to beat
| up a random person to get married? People would still do it I
| think.
|
| Not long after I got married, I read about Moissanite.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| Synthetic stone with microscopic laser etching, "I had a
| feeling?" on the girdle. (I'm so romantic? Don't be like me.)
| trapexit wrote:
| We opted for a moissanite. Partly because of the ethical
| problems with diamond mining, and partly because my wife didn't
| want to carry something with the replacement value of a small
| car around on her finger. See previous discussions of
| moissanites on HN:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=moissanite+site%3Anews.ycomb...
| wilsonrocks wrote:
| Luckily my wife wanted Peridots but I would not have bought
| diamonds on ethical grounds.
| bluedevil2k wrote:
| What ethical grounds? Based off an article you read a few
| years ago about 1 mine in 1 African country that accounts for
| < 1% of all global diamond supply?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I don't wear a ring at all - don't see why I'd need to. My wife
| wears one because she wants to.
|
| Why do you care what anyone else thinks?
| stilley2 wrote:
| My (now) wife picked out her engagement ring on Etsy. It's an
| antique ring with a sapphire gem. Of course that took away some
| of the surprise from the proposal, but we were of the opinion
| that the fact one wants to get married shouldn't be a surprise.
| And the time/place of the proposal can still be somewhat of a
| surprise, or at least special.
| enriquto wrote:
| If you are on the same page as your partner, you'll have no
| trouble sorting this thing out. In my case I bought a joke ring
| that cost me about 2$ in a toy store.
|
| If you are not on the same page as your partner, you have more
| important concerns than a stupid ring of metal.
| lief79 wrote:
| I proposed with a ring-pop (after going with her to order a
| custom engagement ring (with an inherited diamond).
|
| Now, I do have to keep a stock of ring pops around to
| surprise her with on occasion.
| dotancohen wrote:
| There are many considerations and compromises to be made when
| finding a partner. Compromising on her stance regarding blood
| diamonds might be necessary when finding a partner who shares
| your other values.
| paholg wrote:
| I think it's safe to say that if I were marrying someone
| who required a blood diamond, we'd be on different enough
| pages that we should not get married.
| kijin wrote:
| Few people outside of a satanic cult would actually
| require a blood diamond specifically. But people do have
| different tolerances to the risk of getting a stone that
| isn't as "conflict-free" as the jeweler says it is.
| tda wrote:
| I did exactly the same, engagement ring was made of plastic
| with some fake shiny stone! Though for our wedding rings we
| did get real gold with no stones.
| shakna wrote:
| > In my case I bought a joke ring that cost me about 2$ in a
| toy store.
|
| I love it.
|
| My ring was a spinner, which people find far more interesting
| than some pretty stones in it. It cost about $10.
|
| Hers was one with a fingernail-sized stone the colour of her
| eyes, that cost a few hundred.
|
| The metals matched on eyesight, which was good enough for us.
|
| The rings represented what we expected from our marriage - to
| join us, the way we were, rather than some showy way of
| expressing our love. We're no longer in the age of selling a
| ring to get by if a marriage falls apart or something else
| happens.
| klmadfejno wrote:
| Moissanite ring for < $1,000. Upper middle class, northeast
| coast american. Nobody in my social circle thinks rings are
| important, including SO.
|
| Observationally, younger couples who have been dating longer
| tend to care less about rings. Older couples who have been
| dating less seem to care more.
| lief79 wrote:
| My wife understood my concerns, and she really wanted a diamond
| that was left to her by her grandmother. Easy compromise with a
| custom ring.
|
| ( I also managed to accidentally end two relationships that
| were already going in the wrong direction by casually
| mentioning my concerns about diamonds. At least I noticed how
| it was being interpreted the second time. 8-/ No complaints
| with how that accidentally played out. )
| fy20 wrote:
| Engagement ring had a diamond, but pretty basic. Think I paid
| EUR250 six years ago (which wasn't even 3 days salary, let
| alone 3 months). Wedding rings are just white gold.
| dagw wrote:
| My mother had inherited a bunch of jewelry from her mother,
| among which was her engagement ring. It was a really nice ring
| that was just sitting in a box, so I asked if I could have it
| and used that.
| djdjdjdjdj wrote:
| What social constraint requires a ring?
|
| We bought the cheapest gold rings we could fined. 757 gold due
| to the internet saying that below that, your ring will loose
| material.
|
| We wanted wolfram but it's bridle, ring size can't be changed
| and gold was just the easiest at the end.
|
| I think we paid 700$ for both.
| JCM9 wrote:
| The diamond industry managed to convince consumers that diamonds
| are rare, highly desirable, and something that traditionally one
| gives as an engagement ring. None of those are particularly true.
|
| They're nice gems but true traditionalists generally prefer other
| gemstones. It's about time the world moves on from the mined
| diamond charade.
| adonovan wrote:
| This is bad journalism. The article says:
|
| "Pandora also emphasized price as a consideration behind its
| decision. Lab-made stones cost about a third of mined ones and
| the switch will make diamond jewelry accessible to more
| consumers, it said."
|
| In other words, this is a cost-cutting measure that happens to
| have environmental and ethical benefits: everybody wins. But
| somehow the headline is "Jeweler Pandora Takes Ethical Stand
| Against Mined Diamonds".
|
| It can't be both an ethical stand an a convenient way to increase
| profits.
| bagacrap wrote:
| Did they change the headline? I see the rather bland "Pandora
| says laboratory-made diamonds are forever"
| whytai wrote:
| > It can't be both an ethical stand an a convenient way to
| increase profits.
|
| Why not?
| groone wrote:
| Diamonds are not forever. They burn in a fire like any carbon.
| detaro wrote:
| Which is IMHO a really fun example of how how unintuitive these
| things can be. It's a really really hard rock, shouldn't it be
| really stable? But it just doesn't work like that.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| I think this is a lot less significant than it seems at first
| glance:
|
| > Although diamonds have traditionally only been a very small
| share of the 100 million pieces Pandora sells worldwide each
| year, Mr Lacik believes that will be boosted by lower prices.
| Nursie wrote:
| I think it's significant in that diamonds may now make up a lot
| more of the lower end of the market. This has the possibility
| to change their image from one of remote inaccessibility to one
| of availability to the masses.
|
| What the eventual fallout will be, who knows.
| duckfang wrote:
| I got my wife a ring made of YAG and platinum setting. I got a
| custom cut, and designed the ring myself.
|
| The YAG (yttrium aluminum garnet) is
| https://www.stagandfinch.com/product-page/Paraiba-YAG
|
| It looks like nothing else out there.. And she's happy that we
| didnt contribute to the slave and blood diamond trade.
| technics256 wrote:
| A bit off topic, but does anyone have a good reputable source for
| artificially made diamonds?
| Nursie wrote:
| Sounds like you can ask at Pandora!
|
| The article also mentions -
|
| "The largest US producer, Diamond Foundry, says its process is
| "100% hydro-powered, meaning zero emissions"."
|
| So they might be worth a look.
| joeblau wrote:
| Random diamond story! As a freshman in college, I took a geology
| class and our teacher asked all of the women in our class to
| raise their hand if they would rather have natural or human-made
| diamonds. Most of the women (over 80%) raised their hands for
| natural. The reasons they gave all seemed to tie back to branding
| and natural diamonds being "real."
|
| Then our teacher gave another analogy. He asked if people would
| rather have natural ice or human-made ice in their water. He
| broke down that the human-made ice could be frozen in a freezer
| to a custom size/shape, be a lot cleaner, consistent in how you
| make it, and chemically no different than H20 than naturally
| occurring frozen water. As you looked around the lecture hall,
| you started to see people's brains unlock. He went on to explain
| cost efficiencies, ethics, challenges with conflict diamonds, and
| how you could make a perfect diamond at a fraction of the coast.
|
| After a 30 minute lecture, he asked the question again.
| Surprisingly, the majority of the women still wanted natural
| diamonds although the number was less than the original amount
| that raised their hand. That was the point where I realized the
| strength of diamonds product branding.
| judwaite wrote:
| Branding and artificial scarcity
| Kalium wrote:
| I find it helps to remember that diamonds are a status symbol
| and a form of conspicuous consumption. People often want as
| much of that expensive, visible status and commitment signal as
| they can get.
|
| Part of the significance of the gesture is the level of painful
| expense involved. So making the item much cheaper also cheapens
| the gesture.
| notyourday wrote:
| > Part of the significance of the gesture is the level of
| painful expense involved. So making the item much cheaper
| also cheapens the gesture.
|
| Call it what it is: diamonds are a down payment from a man to
| a woman for access to sex. The higher the price, the higher
| the value he assigns to it.
| Kalium wrote:
| Nope. Nope nope nope nope.
| globular-toast wrote:
| Stunning argument.
| Kalium wrote:
| There's no need to flatter blatant sexism with the
| dignity of honest argument. Indeed, there is nothing to
| be gained by doing so.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| > There's no need to flatter blatant sexism with the
| dignity of honest argument. Indeed, there is nothing to
| be gained by doing so.
|
| If you think it's so out of line then why engage on that
| same level by replying with a bunch of "nope"?
|
| I fail to see how his comment is blatantly sexist. If
| anything it's insulting both sexes equally and craps on
| the institution of marriage more than anything else.
|
| Yes, his comment was unnecessarily cynical and we all
| know how well that goes over here when not directed at an
| approved boogeyman (BigCo, Congress, etc) but you can
| easily walk that cynicism back by replacing "down
| payment" with "signalling commitment" and "sex" with one
| of the other upsides to a stable marriage and the meaning
| is unchanged.
| bena wrote:
| Yes, if you change everything about the statement, it's a
| different statement. No one is going to argue that.
| globular-toast wrote:
| What's sexist about it? 85% of engagement rings are
| bought by men, for women [0]. Are statistics sexist?
|
| [0] https://www.jewellermagazine.com/Article/8591/Women-
| spend-mo...
| dijit wrote:
| Jarring worldview to hold.
|
| Buying rings isn't the problem- you stated "the value of
| a ring is how much a man is willing to pay for access to
| sex".
|
| Without a further breakdown of why you think that's a
| reasonable statement to make it just sounds weirdly
| myopic.
|
| People pay more because of status "I am a good provider
| and I can prove it", or because the woman wants to feel
| valued.
|
| It doesn't go back to sex, not for a long time, in fact
| sex is very far removed from the idea of modern day
| marriage in the majority of western countries.
| globular-toast wrote:
| There is a name for a relationship that begins without
| sex. It's called a business partnership and I can assure
| you they don't involve diamond rings.
|
| Give me one reason why a man would enter a sexless
| marriage.
| Cd00d wrote:
| I think it's unfortunate for you that you view _any_
| relationship devoid of sex as a business transaction.
| dijit wrote:
| I wouldn't marry a person who _only_ had sex with me
| though, so your logic is largely flawed.
| notyourday wrote:
| In the alternative universe women who can't afford
| diamonds, buy diamonds for men. In the same alternative
| universe, the families of men look at the Cs of the ring
| and judge if "she is good enough for him". In the same
| alternative universe, men get together, pull out their
| diamond rings and discuss if those rings are worth the
| sacrifice. And in the same alternative universe the
| commercials on TV are "She went to Jared!" and "Give him
| the gift of Pandora"
|
| Alas, in our universe it does not happen.
| Loughla wrote:
| >In the same alternative universe, the families of men
| look at the Cs of the ring and judge if "she is good
| enough for him". In the same alternative universe, men
| get together, pull out their diamond rings and discuss if
| those rings are worth the sacrifice.
|
| You might need to take a break and take a walk away from
| media. Do you honestly think this is a thing for all
| women? Do you honestly believe life is like a television
| sitcom or romantic comedy?
| notyourday wrote:
| > Do you honestly think this is a thing for all women?
|
| Do those women care about diamonds?
|
| > Do you honestly believe life is like a television
| sitcom or romantic comedy?
|
| Pandora would not have been a company with a 75B market
| capitalization if it was selling niche luxury goods. LVMH
| is only 4x its size.
| mNovak wrote:
| The amusing factor to all of this, is that 99% of people
| can't visually tell the difference between a $100 and $10,000
| ring. As a status symbol, it effectively works on the honor
| code, or based on someone directly reporting its cost! Sort
| of like fancy wine or art.
|
| e.g. people will make a judgment on the 'realness' of your
| ring and it's validity as a status symbol, based if it's
| inflated value is perceived to be within budget, and if
| challenged you would have to stand ground by declaring it's
| cost.
| lettergram wrote:
| While I personally don't think natural diamonds are any more
| valuable than synthetic. I understand the scarcity and way it's
| used to show status (similar to cars, we don't need great
| ones).
|
| That being said, what I actually took away from that comment...
| was that the teacher in geology class was presenting
| effectively political argument as opposed to teaching.
| Explaining the process of fine, but given what you described --
| I bet no one changed their mind about synthetic vs real. Most
| knew what the "correct" answer was. I think everyone kinda
| knows about synthetic diamonds, they just don't care. Same way
| plastic bottles are better for the environment, yet are still
| used widely.
| Loughla wrote:
| >I think everyone kinda knows about synthetic diamonds, they
| just don't care.
|
| I 100% disagree. The stigma around cubic zirconia and 'fake'
| jewelry is real and alive, and absolutely carries over to any
| kind of man-made gems. I also don't think most people have
| any idea at all about the issues in the gem trade. Source: My
| highly educated co-workers who were astounded to read about
| conditions in emerald mines after Elon Musk got popular.
| vel0city wrote:
| Cubic zirconia (Mohs 8) is less hard than diamonds (Mohs
| 10) or Moissanite (Mohs 9.25). For something that gets a
| lot of wear, the CZ will get scratched up and have its
| edges rounded off more over time than diamonds or
| Moissanite. But, if its something that only gets occasional
| wear this is likely not going to be too much of an issue.
| Just don't go banging your stone on a pile of diamonds.
|
| CZ also has a lower refractive index and less dispersion
| than either diamonds or Moissanite.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| what does elon musk have to do with emerald mines?
| Loughla wrote:
| There was the story about Elon Musk's family ties to
| apartheid and an emerald mine in like 2017-2018. That's
| where that comes from.
| the_local_host wrote:
| Equivalent is not as good when what matters is what other
| people think.
|
| Even if the person displaying a luxury artifact agrees that
| some other artifact is equivalent, if the people they're
| displaying it to don't also agree, then there is a difference
| that's relevant to the purpose of the artifact, which is to
| advertise your wealth.
|
| Though the topic at hand is diamonds, which are strongly
| associated with wedding proposals, this principle applies
| equally to sports cars, guitars, etc.
| literallycancer wrote:
| You could just use an artificial stone and no one would know.
| If you just care about the signal, buy good replicas of
| things you could plausibly afford, how hard can it be.
| the_local_host wrote:
| Not everyone is comfortable with the risk that the truth
| might eventually come out.
|
| What some intrepid manufacturer should do is create custom
| diamonds that are actually _more_ expensive than natural
| diamonds, with some subtle structure that cannot be found
| in nature. That solves the problem of immoral sourcing, and
| better suits the purpose of displaying wealth.
| [deleted]
| GrumpyNl wrote:
| Its all about marketing. Look close around you and look at the
| money spend on bottled water.
| faeyanpiraat wrote:
| This might have been the wrong way to run this experiment.
|
| The fact that the participants publicly shared their opinion,
| and then they would also publicly had to signal that they were
| wrong could simply be such a big psychological factor, that the
| topic at hand did not matter.
|
| It would've been better to vote anonymously, or even better ask
| one class at the beginning and a different class at the end of
| the lecture, then share the statistics with both classes at the
| next lecture.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| On the other hand (pun not intended) diamonds are primarily
| used this way in engagement/wedding rings, which is a social
| signifier, so asking this question in the context of social
| pressure is arguably a better estimate of how people would
| behave for a form of conspicuous consumption.
| mariodiana wrote:
| A natural diamond is nature's NFT.
| veltas wrote:
| Diamonds are precious partly because they're rare. If you find
| a way of 'making' a diamond it loses some of that value. It's
| interesting to me that someone would even try making a
| comparison between a precious stone and something like
| water/ice which is mostly desired for utility and not any
| sentimental reason.
| AlanSE wrote:
| But the rarity leads to intensive mining and human rights
| abuses. There's a good kind of rare (like say, an original
| painting, bought from the artist) and a bad kind of rare.
|
| Sentiments can change. Diamonds will not become unemotional,
| but the emotional reaction will likely go into reverse soon.
| JCM9 wrote:
| They're actually not all that rare. Big Hope Diamond stones
| yes, but your run of the mill variety that 99.9% of people
| have are not all that rare. The "rarity" comes mostly from
| the the tight grip a small number of companies have over
| mining and production of raw stones. You can make tap water
| "rare" if you run the waterworks.
| caf wrote:
| It also comes from selling them as "this is a sentimental
| item that you should keep forever" and "these are bought as
| meaningful gifts so it would be gauche to buy one second
| hand" to limit the size of the secondary market.
| caf wrote:
| The "rarity" is mostly marketing too.
| ErrantX wrote:
| Your comment proves the point on marketing; diamonds are not
| actually that rare, a lot of the scarcity is marketing plus
| control of supply by De Beers & others.
|
| In fact, Diamonds are some of the most common gems in nature!
|
| https://www.gemsociety.org/article/are-diamonds-really-rare/
| ddorian43 wrote:
| Thats the point you should've realised that people aren't most
| of the time rational but emotional.
| tom_mellior wrote:
| > our teacher asked all of the women
|
| Sounds like a pretty sexist thing to do. The same question can
| be asked without putting women on the spot. "If you were to buy
| a diamond, what would you rather choose?"
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| My initial instinct agreed with you,but I then wondered if
| there would actually be a relevant gender difference in
| answers.
|
| In western culture, still today I think,majority of men would
| be buying and majority of women would be receiving diamonds.
| It would be interesting if this affects answers. Would a
| buyer go for more practical cheaper option while receiver
| goes for more expensive traditional options? Or a different
| split completely , or none? I think it'd be a fascinating
| exercise.
| vulpesx2 wrote:
| Same reaction. I've anecdotally asked this same question:
| "man-made or natural diamonds?" to my friends in the past -
| mostly because I can't get past the ethical concerns, but
| wanted to understand the other side.
|
| I found majority of my men friends argued it's the same
| diamond without the ethical concerns if you go man-made,
| while majority of my women friends chose natural (reasons
| included social pressure, the story, and so on).
|
| Anecdotes aren't proof. But perhaps there is something to
| looking at this from a gendered (proxy for giving vs.
| receiving?) lens.
| frockington1 wrote:
| As a male giving a ring, I bought a real one. Logic was
| that it was cheaper and better quality once you get over
| ~1-1.25 carats. If lab made wants to compete more
| meaningfully they'll need to get better at the engagement
| ring size diamonds which I'm sure they will with time
| aquadrop wrote:
| They are both real.
| tom_mellior wrote:
| I would expect there to be a gender difference in the US,
| due to the social influence of marketing. But I don't think
| highlighting the difference would help the discussion in
| any way.
|
| If the professor is making an argument that one choice is
| clearly the rational choice, and then highlights
| differences in how different groups make that choice, then
| they are directly implying that some groups are more
| irrational than others.
| bildung wrote:
| _> In western culture_
|
| This phenomenon has to be more localized than _Western
| culture_ (the worldwide diamond consumption hints at it
| being US-specific?) - I for example don 't know anyone who
| even contemplated buying one for proposing. Granted, this
| is purely anectotal, but over extended family and workplace
| colleagues this includes a bunch of milieus.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Sure; there's definitely going to be a significant time
| variable then if we want to start getting specific.
| mNovak wrote:
| Yes I do think it's an american thing to buy a separate
| engagement ring, having a prominent diamond, in addition
| to wedding rings (which often don't have diamonds).
|
| My family in Europe doesn't have the whole engagement
| ring concept.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| This doesn't help the discussion.
| Siira wrote:
| Well, there are (lots of) statistical regularities that
| disfavor specific groups of people. And any one individual
| could have answered "no," and thus avoided showing themselves
| as an idiot who values rocks just because a monopoly prices
| them exorbitantly.
| slightwinder wrote:
| Its more the marketing that is sexist. Marketing for Jewelry
| (and especially diamonds) usually aims at woman, not men. Men
| more likely would choose the cost-saving option, because for
| them there is not much awarness around the pricing of such
| meaningless "decoration". And this would kinda sabotage the
| purpose of the question.
| Sakos wrote:
| He asked that way because it's irrelevant what the man would
| choose in the case that he's buying it for a woman (which is
| generally the case). If a majority of women prefer "real"
| diamonds, there's no way he's going to use his preference
| over hers for something this important. Women's preferences
| determine diamond buying behavior on the market. If you want
| to make a difference, you have to start there.
| aliyfarah wrote:
| Thanks for the story, that was a very good analogy by your
| prof.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > that was a very good analogy by your prof.
|
| Sounds like it wasn't because it didn't convince many people!
| myfavoritedog wrote:
| Because people are rational and can be convinced to abandon
| notions of value deeply ingrained since childhood because
| of a nice analogy during a single lecture?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| If an analogy doesn't help you look at a situation any
| differently... is it a good analogy?
| aliyfarah wrote:
| To each their own...it helped me look at lab diamonds
| differently. I've always assumed they were somehow
| chemically inferior to the real ones, maybe compromised
| tensile strength or something.
| filleduchaos wrote:
| By this logic there are no good analogies because there
| will always be someone that will refuse to look at the
| situation differently for whatever reason.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| This is great, I want to go back a decade and relive an
| argument I had about this with a co-worker who was ring
| shopping for his now wife.
|
| I was trying to explain to him that diamonds are worthless,
| they have little resale value because they're not fungible, the
| rarity is being manipulated, and man made diamonds are
| indistinguishable without a special tool.
|
| His position was that he can't get his fiance a "fake diamond"
| and I said just because it's man made doesn't mean that it
| isn't real. We went back and forth a bit, and started to get
| heated, and eventually I said "If I make a sandwich it doesn't
| mean it's not a real sandwich!" which made our other co-workers
| laugh hysterically and repeat for years. Ice would have made
| the point much better than a sandwich, but I suspect I wouldn't
| remember the story.
| lelanthran wrote:
| You heard a different question to the one the women heard.
|
| You heard _" Do you want this man-made item that is
| functionally identical to a naturally occurring item"._
|
| The women heard _" Do you want the jewelry that symbolises your
| love to be real or fake?"_
|
| Functionally, there is almost no difference in an item
| containing a diamond and an identical one containing worthless
| rock.
|
| But, you know, jewelry derives almost all of its value from
| being expensive and rare. Jewelry that is neither expensive nor
| rare stops being jewelry.
| moistbar wrote:
| > Jewelry that is neither expensive nor rare stops being
| jewelry.
|
| Costume jewelry is usually neither expensive nor rare, and
| yet it remains popular with certain demographics.
| samatman wrote:
| Sure but, please, let's show some context sensitivity.
|
| An engagement ring is emphatically not costume jewelry, and
| if you don't understand that "real jewelry" is an important
| sense the antonym of "costume jewelry", well, now you do.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > > Jewelry that is neither expensive nor rare stops being
| jewelry. > > Costume jewelry is usually neither expensive
| nor rare, and yet it remains popular with certain
| demographics.
|
| Okay, let me clarify: Jewelry that is neither expensive nor
| rare stops being jewelry, it becomes costume jewelry.
| kixiQu wrote:
| "Fine jewelry" and "fashion jewelry" are the category
| names, typically.
| gandalfian wrote:
| Didn't ice cubes made from icebergs command a premium price
| once? Don't know if it was deserved.
| rags2riches wrote:
| My ice cubes are also made from icebergs. They just melted a
| long time ago!
| coward76 wrote:
| Would you rather buy a Banksy NFT Or JPG of a Banksy they are
| the same image at a fraction of the cost?
| onion2k wrote:
| The NFT is a pointer to the image, not the image itself.
| Owning a copy of the JPG is actually closer to owning the
| art.
| rndgermandude wrote:
| JPG of a Banksy
| user-the-name wrote:
| Given that NFTs are a scam that only exist to make fraudsters
| rich while helping pollute the planet, I would take the JPG
| every hour of every day.
| smabie wrote:
| I'll take the NFT.
| myfavoritedog wrote:
| You can turn around and resell a Banksy for something
| comparable to what you just paid.
|
| Try doing that with a diamond. You walk out of the diamond
| showroom with it, and its resale value plummets to the value
| of the base metals, the work of the setting, plus a small
| fraction for what you had just paid for the diamond.
| zaroth wrote:
| A certified laser etched diamond is a mass produced item
| that is pretty easy to authenticate. The brand name store
| selling it to you is invisible once it's on your hand.
| There's no such thing as a "used" diamond.
|
| So the diamond is worth whatever it can be bought / sold
| for online. If walking out of the store drops it's value,
| you're donating to the store.
|
| Buy an exactly equivalent stone elsewhere if the price
| drops too much after you buy it.
| Loughla wrote:
| I think the issue is that there is no really trustworthy
| place to go for used diamonds to ensure you're not buying
| a cheap knock-off or lower grade gem. Most people don't
| understand cut, clarity, and whatever else are the other
| ones. Pawn shops are amazing places to buy SUPER cheap
| jewelry, especially diamonds. The issue is that, unless
| you definitely know what you're doing, it's super easy to
| get taken advantage of.
|
| I wish there was a trustworthy clearinghouse/reseller for
| used jewelry and gemstones. That would be fantastic.
| JoshTko wrote:
| The teacher was fighting another principle of consistency.
| where people want to be consistent with a previous decision.
| There probably would have been more hands raised for human made
| if the professor never did the first voting.
| qw wrote:
| It's mostly about the emotional attachment. If you find two
| identical pens, and one of them was used by a famous writer,
| you would expect a price difference.
|
| There is no difference in the quality of those pens. They both
| work the same, and using the writer's pen will not make you a
| better writer by itself.
|
| I personally would not buy a natural diamond because of the
| ethical issues, but I do understand the students who feel there
| is a difference.
| vagrantJin wrote:
| "Okay class, child labour, a few thousand poor people dead,
| terrorist groups starving hundreds of thousands, destroying
| schools and libraries. That is where diamonds come from. How
| many would still want a natural diamond because diamonds are
| forever?"
|
| The elephant in that lecture hall was probably the hypocrisy.
|
| I think if you still raise a hand after hearing all that, the
| issue isn't branding at all. It's narcissim, that people have
| to die so you can maintain the illusion of...of what?
|
| That's the difference.
| arein3 wrote:
| It's not that simple.
|
| Almost everyone buys clothes, electronics made with child
| labor.
|
| I think you might have clothes made with child labor as
| well.
|
| Why do you draw the line at diamonds?
| i_haz_rabies wrote:
| It is very difficult, and expensive, to completely avoid
| these products (clothes and a phone being necessities,
| more or less, in our society). Not saying it's justified,
| but it is understandable that even contentious people
| give up when it is nearly impossible to know for sure if
| something was made by slaves. Which is a terrible state
| of affairs... this information should be easy to find.
| arein3 wrote:
| You could buy second hand clothes and electronics if you
| care that much, but you don't.
|
| The author is outraged at the hypocrisy, without
| realising the value of diamonds is that they are scarce.
| If you can produce them artificially, they are no longer
| in the same league with the scarce ones.
| i_haz_rabies wrote:
| Unnecessary ad hominem aside, second hand items are just
| as likely to have been made by slaves as new ones. The
| point is that our marketplace is full of the products of
| slave labour and almost no reliable information about it.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > You could buy second hand clothes and electronics if
| you care that much, but you don't.
|
| This is a thing that people do, so it's not fair to
| assume that the parson you're having the discussion with
| is a hypocrite.
| bluedevil2k wrote:
| Your comment shows your understanding of the diamond
| industry comes from a few articles you read on the
| internet, like an anti-vaxx person crying foul about
| vaccines. The facts, about 50% of the diamonds in the world
| come from Western countries like Australia, Canada and
| Russia. Another very large percentage come from stable
| African countries like Botswana and South Africa. There's
| no child labor in any of these countries, no terrorists,
| not thousands of dead people, not the terrible working
| conditions you read 1 article about a few years ago by a
| writer in the Congo or the Blood Diamond movie with Leo.
|
| Botswana has used the opportunity of being so diamond-rich
| to require that diamonds be cut/polished in the country,
| enabling hundreds of their citizens to learn a new high-
| paying trade. Many countries require the sale of their
| stones happen inside the country rather than having all the
| stones immediately shipped off to European trading floors.
|
| The real hypocrisy is people complaining about an industry
| they really know nothing about.
| EricE wrote:
| https://danwin.com/2010/08/how-de-beers-diamonds-won-
| over-th...
|
| You sure you want people to really know about "the
| industry"?!?
|
| I view Debears as industrious as the Casinos. They
| produce nothing but feelings created by predatory
| practices at an astonishingly high price.
| bluedevil2k wrote:
| You're just proving my point further - you provided a
| link to an article more than a decade old that has links
| to articles even older than that. I would _really_ like
| people to learn about the industry because it would cut
| down on the inane comments in HN stories like this. The
| fact that you _still_ hold DeBeers accountable shows your
| lack of knowledge - they don't advertise any more AND
| they don't have a monopoly AND they're not even the #1
| diamond producer any more.
|
| "Produce nothing but feelings" -- that's called
| advertising. Same as Coke, BMW and Tumi.
| literallycancer wrote:
| Stable countries like South Africa where getting
| carjacked is not even noteworthy. Good joke.
| bluedevil2k wrote:
| South Africa - a parliamentary republic with three-tier
| system of government and an independent judiciary,
| operating in a parliamentary system. All bodies of the
| South African government are subject to the rule of the
| Constitution, which is the Supreme law in South Africa.
|
| That sounds more stable than many South American
| countries, even Russia.
| whatever1 wrote:
| People value (perceived) scarcity. They are not willing to
| pay for a reprint of painting (that might have better
| quality compared to the original), but they are willing to
| bid on the original.
|
| Does it make sense? No, but humans are emotional animals
| that seek for differentiation.
| clpm4j wrote:
| Among my friends I've been surprised to find out how many
| believe that diamonds are genuinely scarce and that mined
| diamond engagement rings qualify as an investment asset.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Don't apply logic to fashion choices. Why do some sneakers
| sell for thousands? It is all about the attached backstory.
| Two identical shoes, but one was owned by a celeb. The
| backstory, the notoriety of owning the embodiment of that
| backstory, is the value. Some people want to own something
| 'from the earth'. Some would even pay _more_ for an object
| that people suffered to produce. Lots of people certainly
| pay more for objects that come from animals suffering.
| Blood diamonds are no different than ivory or tiger parts,
| the backstories of which are so valuable that we enact laws
| to destroy their market.
| freeflight wrote:
| _> Why do some sneakers sell for thousands? It is all
| about the attached backstory. Two identical shoes, but
| one was owned by a celeb._
|
| It's mostly artificial scarcity, even sneakers that
| weren't personally worn by a celebrity sell for thousands
| when they are of a limited run with particular high
| demand.
|
| Throw in scamming as a service, the FOMO marketing that
| has become ever-present, and the result is brands being
| able to charge absurd prices for mundane items.
| hobs wrote:
| >Don't apply logic to fashion choices
|
| Fast fashion is literally harming the earth, screw
| everyone who says that and thinks about that, I
| absolutely reject it and we SHOULD apply logic to fashion
| choices that directly harm us and our planet.
| ModernMech wrote:
| You can say the same thing about fast technology. There
| are mountains of discarded gadgets from just last year
| filled with toxic materials that first had to be mined
| from the Earth, and now are polluting the Earth.
| [deleted]
| Anthony-G wrote:
| I totally would say the same thing. That's why I support
| all steps that make it easier for devices to be repaired
| and re-used.
|
| My hi-fi system is 30 years old. My Squeezeboxes (audio
| players) are 15 years old. Laptop (running LXDE) is 13
| years old. TV is 10 years old (only 720p but free of
| "smart" aka tracking features). The mobile phone is about
| 7 years old; this one _is_ due for replacement and while
| I usually buy second-hand, I am considering a Fairphone
| 3. The most recent device I bought (a year ago) was an
| Apple TV which I'd hope to be using for at least another
| 5 years.
| sodality2 wrote:
| > Two identical shoes, but one was owned by a celeb. The
| backstory, the notoriety of owning the embodiment of that
| backstory, is the value.
|
| So the value lies with the fact that it was made by
| slaves?....
| offtop5 wrote:
| It also factors into how someone grew up.
|
| I'd rather toss 10k into a couple emergency fund then waste
| it on a ring. Most marriages collapse due to money. I
| recall in my younger days I was with a girl and she dragged
| me to Brooks Brothers. As a child of poverty and evictions
| I couldn't understand why anyone who need to spend this
| much money on a shirt.
|
| Even making well into the 6 figures I shop at Old Navy.
| Hell, my favorite partner thus far was making 200k or so,
| and she still used an IPhone 6.
|
| Maybe whenever I meet someone new I'll ask on the first
| date, would you rather have 10k saved in an emergency fund
| or a shinny conflict rock ? Her response will tell me
| everything I need to know.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >Maybe whenever I meet someone new I'll ask on the first
| date, would you rather have 10k saved in an emergency
| fund or a shinny conflict rock ? Her response will tell
| me everything I need to know.
|
| I don't know about asking that on the very first date,
| but it is very reasonable (essential even) to make sure
| your priorities and your partner's priorities match up.
| ipaddr wrote:
| People buy expensive clothes because it makes others
| think they have money. By wearing a brand she is mentally
| leaving the proviety behind.
|
| I don't think you have mentally left that state of mind.
| Thinking you need $10,000 in cash and telling everyone on
| the first date tells them this guy will never save more
| than 10,000 and he is cheap with his money. Might work
| for some but perhaps you are putting out a negative
| signal.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| > I don't think you have mentally left that state of
| mind.
|
| All of those people in 2008 who lost their houses in my
| neighborhood had the left that state of mind.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| I agree it wouldn't be a good signal for most women early
| on.
|
| I remember, a few months in a relationship, lightly
| making fun of some of her "cheap" behaviours (which I
| really appreciated) and her getting very offended. At
| that point I realised I never communicated I was a
| massive cheapskate and I asked her if she thought she was
| more frugal than me. It turns out she thought so!
|
| I think I definitely proved I won the frugality contest,
| but I learnt over time to mask this to appear more
| interesting and charming.
|
| Money is not the only resource that count and that's
| worthy of optimising for; time and reputation are
| important as well.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| That's a dangerous mindset. I know too many people who
| can't wait to get into more debt, then complain when they
| can't afford things. I'm thinking of specific people that
| have more expensive versions of everything I own, while
| making less money than me, then saying "it must be nice"
| when they see me go on vacation or go out to dinner
| without considering the cost.
|
| Plus I think you're being a bit unfair about his first
| date comment. It seemed like it was more of a quip to
| explain his position, than an actual plan
| offtop5 wrote:
| >he is cheap with his money
|
| Exactly, anyone I'm with needs to understand the
| difference between my money and their money. I've had no
| problem dating plenty of fantastic girls who have their
| own careers( real life only and I tend to date a few
| years older ). That's by far my number one priority when
| meeting someone, have your own life together first.
|
| $10,000 was a random number, maybe the pre-marriage
| emergency fund needs to be $50,000, 100,000 ? In my mind
| having that money saved up says when life happens, and
| life will happen you'll be okay.
| vagrantJin wrote:
| I hear your point. How we grow up is important on how we
| make decisions but we can't turn a blind eye on
| individual facualty. If killing koala bears to make
| purses or minks for fur coats puts people in their
| feelings, I don't get how a blood diamond escapes the
| conversation of morality.
|
| I don't think it's a radical claim that most want blood
| diamonds _precisely_ because lot 's of people suffered
| and possibly died for it.
|
| That's the elephant in the room.
|
| The sadistic narcissism of which I speak.
|
| > Maybe whenever I meet someone new I'll ask on the first
| date, would you rather have 10k saved in an emergency
| fund or a shinny conflict rock ? Her response will tell
| me everything I need to know.
|
| Haha. I doubt her answer is going to deter you from the
| path you intended. You'll probably still be mesmerized so
| maybe this is 29th date, watching netflix after getting
| laid type of talk.
|
| Is money the cause or symptom? Unrealistic expectations
| of overflowing love clouding rational judgement of
| lifelong partnerships? I feel money is too simple an
| explaination - as if the foundation of the marriage was
| money in which case it was dead before it even started.
| falcor84 wrote:
| >Most marriages collapse due to money.
|
| Some studies on factors leading to divorce do put 'money'
| (and particularly attitudes regarding money) as the
| biggest single factor, but I'm not familiar with any
| study (let alone a consensus) that it's a leading factor
| in 'most' divorces.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| Money, Children and Infidelity.
|
| Children also includes weirdly a large subset on how to
| raise children (when marrying someone of a different
| faith)
| ask_b123 wrote:
| Is this a book or a set of books or a study? Could you
| please tell me who is the author?
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| These were the most common before no-fault divorce became
| the common cause so they used to come from court filings.
|
| In these days, some of them come from marriage counseling
| statistics undertaken during divorce (some states require
| it before disolving a marriage).
|
| There is some specific research from small N groups where
| N=52 for example
| (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012696/)
| ask_b123 wrote:
| Oh! Money, Children and Infidelity are factors, instead
| of studies or a book. I think I was confused because the
| words were capitalized.
|
| Thanks for the link as well, I found it interesting. :-)
| kingsuper20 wrote:
| I'd say it's more like:
|
| "Okay class, a very small percentage of diamonds are made
| via child labour, a few poor people dead, terrorist groups
| etc while most are made via modern mining practice. That is
| where diamonds come from. On the other hand, a successful
| marketing campaign has occurred declaring that all natural
| diamonds are made by torturing children. It may well be
| that your iPhone's supply chain causes more misery. How
| many would still want a natural diamond because diamonds
| are forever?"
| GordonS wrote:
| I personally fully agree, but unfortunately not everyone
| thinks as logically as you or I.
|
| I talked about this with my wife recently, and even though
| she had a vague idea of the horrors that mined diamonds
| bring, she'd still continue to buy/want mined diamonds. She
| sees mined diamonds as more "real", and finds it difficult
| to believe that _her_ diamonds in particular would be part
| of the problem - as if it somehow would only affect
| diamonds purchased in dodgy, back-room deals. She seems to
| think it 's OK because "everyone else does it". No amount
| of discussion of verifiable facts seems to change that
| view; indeed, she got quite annoyed with me, and didn't
| want to discuss it any further.
|
| A large part of the problem is _conditioning_ , through
| both advertising and tradition. In the west, we are
| conditioned from an early age to believe that "diamonds are
| a girl's best friend", that women should accept nothing
| less that a "real" diamond, and that men should spend some
| silly multiple of their salary when buying such a diamond.
| Diamonds are synonymous with luxury.
|
| What we really need is a big, _sustained_ campaign against
| mined diamonds, really putting the horrors in the faces of
| potential customers, so they have to accept the damage
| mined diamonds cause,and accept that they are part of the
| problem. Such a campaign probably needs to be fronted by
| celebrities - inspirational figures that people will listen
| to.
|
| I whole-heartedly applaud Pandora for making the first move
| here - hopefully this will help to break the stalemate and
| be the start of a much bigger movement.
| kqr wrote:
| There's also a common line of reasoning that roughly goes
| "well _this_ particular diamond has obviously already
| been mined, so no additional harm is caused by me wanting
| it. "
|
| Obviously you and I see that even that line of reasoning
| alone jacks up demand for an awful business, but not all
| people have the capacity to reason that abstractly about
| how their behaviour plays a part in a very big aggregate.
|
| ----
|
| My wife did get this after some discussion, but we got
| stuck with a different problem: we asked virtually every
| local jeweller to create something with a lab-created
| diamond (or even a different shiny rock entirely) and all
| of them -- to our astonishment -- refused.
|
| They only work with mined diamonds from the suppliers
| they have long-standing contracts with and can ensure are
| as ethical as they come. I'm sure they have their reasons
| but that was very frustrating.
| GordonS wrote:
| > I'm sure they have their reasons
|
| I would _guess_ it 's profit, with mined diamonds being
| more expensive than engineered ones?
| alistairSH wrote:
| Were these chain jewelers? Did you bring the stone, or
| want to include that as part of the purchase?
| r0ze-at-hn wrote:
| > we asked virtually every local jeweller to create
| something with a lab-created diamond (or even a different
| shiny rock entirely) and all of them -- to our
| astonishment -- refused.
|
| ooooo now there is a signal. Putting in the time and
| effort to find/get a jeweller to make me a custom ring
| with a lab-created diamond when no one will. Unique,
| expensive. Not something he can just order from the
| internet.
|
| Because lets just cut to the chase. The diamond is all
| about the story, the signal and what it represents, not
| what it is.
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| That's interesting - when I bought an engagement ring for
| my wife the one and only jewelry store I went to was
| happy to order me a bare ring, give me the size range of
| diamonds that would fit it, and then install the 3
| synthetic diamonds I ordered from Gemesis. It seemed like
| installing diamonds that folks already owned into new
| rings was something they did relatively often. Maybe
| you'd have better luck approaching it that way - "I
| already have a diamond, what rings can you sell me that
| would fit it?" rather than "source me a synthetic diamond
| and put it in a ring for me".
|
| Although it looks like Gemesis, the company I bought the
| synthetic diamonds from, has pivoted and rebranded as
| Pure Grown Diamonds, and sells wholesale rather than
| retail now.
| [deleted]
| Nick87633 wrote:
| I've had jewelers make custom jewelry with stones I
| brought. Maybe you haven't found the right one yet.
| adamhp wrote:
| I had a similar conversation and I think you're spot on
| with "conditioning". I don't even think it is about
| luxury, necessarily. It's literally just how middle
| class+ white women grow up in the United States. I can't
| necessarily fault someone for making those kinds of
| emotional choices after being bombarded with that idea
| their entire lives.
|
| Totally agree with your campaign idea too. I think a lot
| of it is social signaling and if there was enough of a
| big movement against them, diamonds would be "canceled"
| pretty quickly. Social pressure is one of the great
| guiding forces we have (for better _and_ for worse).
| seiferteric wrote:
| Markets tend to abstract away responsibility. Just look
| at rhino horn, elephant tusk buyers in Asia, I am sure
| it's a similar story. Most people think that if they are
| buying from a reputable company that it must be okay,
| some companies even market that (Brilliant Earth) and
| even they get in trouble though since the diamond market
| in general is shady.
| hyperpallium2 wrote:
| The solution is simple: make man-made diamonds more
| expensive than mined.
| GordonS wrote:
| This is actually a great idea - either to make them more
| expensive, or to pressure governments to ban them
| outright, like has been done for ivory.
| swat535 wrote:
| > I personally fully agree, but unfortunately not
| everyone thinks as logically as you or I.
|
| Yes they don't because of marketing.
|
| If we want to really change this, the narrative, the
| media and marketing has to change from: Earth Diamonds =
| Status of eternity and "foreverness" to Earth Diamonds =
| Status of child abuse.
|
| With massive campaigns from media and celebrities, people
| can be shamed into changing their behaviour.
|
| We need to stop treating women as children and objects to
| be "bought out" with diamonds and gifts. The days of
| women needing men to "provide" for them are long gone.
|
| But I digress.. more to your point, just because
| something is a tradition, it doesn't mean we should throw
| our hands up and accept the status quo.
|
| Change requires bravery.
| [deleted]
| bsanr2 wrote:
| More fundamentally: we're conditioned to privilege our
| ambitions (or maybe just grand ambitions in general) over
| things like concern for the horrific-yet-ultimately-banal
| suffering that enables them, or for building and
| maintaining a stable and sustainable "floor" for human
| existence. We pour funding into tech startups that
| promise to maybe change the world when we _know_ that we
| can move the needle (often for a fraction of the cost) by
| spending on basic needs and not looking for a direct ROI.
| It doesn 't matter that people are starving, homeless,
| wallowing in practical and spiritual squalor, because _we
| 're going to Mars, damn it._
|
| In the end, we just can't seem to take our eyes and minds
| off the shiny things, even knowing that we're merely
| gazing at the glare of hubris.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| > we know that we can move the needle (often for a
| fraction of the cost) by spending on basic needs and not
| looking for a direct ROI
|
| Based on San Francisco's experience, I'd say spending
| other people's money isn't enough to do much about the
| homeless issue. Further, I suspect a startup that moves
| the economy upwards results in citizens with more
| disposable income to donate to good causes. Ideally, the
| competition for those funds leads to increased
| effectiveness from those good causes (because I'm not
| going to donate to someone who doesn't efficiently get
| food to the mouths of the hungry so to speak).
|
| Also, the "shiny things" often bring tangible and less
| tangible benefits (e.g. technology advances, societal
| celebration of science & engineering), whereas quite a
| bit of our social programs seem like money pits with no
| real outcome other than feeling good about burning all
| that time and treasure (see above re: SF and the
| homeless). I'm reminded of people who protested going to
| the Moon, arguing instead that the funding should be
| spent on welfare programs. The difference is that going
| to the Moon is a quantifiable win and also brings
| interesting benefits to society, and there is an end
| state where the job is done. Welfare, as it is currently
| structured, does nothing to actually solve the problem of
| systemic poverty so its job is never done. It's not even
| clear if increasing or decreasing funding really does
| much about the problem.
| tzs wrote:
| Partial solution: change product labeling laws /consumer
| protection laws/trademark laws/etc to have an exception
| for diamonds that allows all diamonds regardless of
| origin to be labeled as natural and/or mined diamonds.
| exoque wrote:
| >In the west, we are conditioned from an early age to
| believe that "diamonds are a girl's best friend", that
| women should accept nothing less that a "real" diamond,
| and that men should spend some silly multiple of their
| salary when buying such a diamond.
|
| In the west, the US or the anglosphere? Because I only
| know this from Hollywood movies.
| GordonS wrote:
| The west. I'm from the UK, and this mindset is common
| here. I've discussed this topic with others from various
| other European countries, and it seems to be widespread.
| EricE wrote:
| Ha - Hollywood/Debears infected post-war Japan too:
|
| https://danwin.com/2010/08/how-de-beers-diamonds-won-
| over-th...
|
| The scope of their mass brain washing is indeed
| staggering. Heck I have a good friend in the jewelry
| business and we still get into heated discussions about
| how he feels there is nothing wrong and how he is
| providing value as an agent of Debears brainwashing. It
| is pretty disgusting.
| sopooneo wrote:
| My guess is that we need a sweeping, emotion-fill,
| romantic story _toward_ something else, not just away
| from the current diamond-status quo. There certainly is a
| quiet satisfaction, and clear conscience, in avoidance of
| evil. But no _joy_ in the act of NOT.
|
| A normal person who repeatedly throws aside a full heart
| in favor of _facts_ will not wake up singing for many
| years. There needs to be a new song to replace the old,
| something as emotionally _filling_ as DeBeers shadow
| demons dancing to a swelling string section.
| username90 wrote:
| That will be hard, women are much more conservative and
| care more about traditions than men.
| bongoman37 wrote:
| Interesting that you are downvoted when what you are
| saying is quite true.
| xmprt wrote:
| It's downvoted because it's not true. There are tons of
| traditions that men follow too. Gender norms just lead to
| men and women following different traditions.
| waterhouse wrote:
| How about this: Industrially created diamonds represent
| science and human achievement. After many years of
| engineering, we can take carbon, crush it at super-high
| pressures and temperatures, and make a diamond out of it
| --one that is _more_ crystal-clear and perfect than what
| you get when this process accidentally happens in places
| in the earth 's mantle. Humans have wanted to do this for
| millennia, and now we can!
|
| You can iterate on the above.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_diamond would be
| a starting point for getting more specifics. Hmm, it
| says: "A third method, known as detonation synthesis,
| entered the diamond market in the late 1990s. In this
| process, the detonation of carbon-containing explosives
| creates nanometer-sized diamond grains." Fuck yeah, my
| diamond was made with high explosives! Might prefer one
| of those because of the awesome factor.
| rmah wrote:
| This is quite insightful. I never thought of it this way
| but I think you are correct.
|
| If I could rephrase it a bit more clinically, the
| signaling of fitness (wealth, social status, etc) is
| important to the human mating rituals. And diamonds are
| integral to that in a some cultures. That underlying need
| is probably innate will not change. Therefore, as you
| said, you can't just say "NO", it needs to be replaced
| with something else.
| aksss wrote:
| Dude.. people don't think about who's making their Nikes
| or Apple products or tshirts. They buy these incidental
| products with zero concern for the people producing them.
| How noble are _we_ , talking about refusing to buy blood
| _diamonds_ when the very MEMS mic in a household device
| probably vibrated to the scream of people watching a
| friend jumping out a factory window.
|
| Getting people to care about who's winning and losing in
| a production lifecycle seems like something that doesn't
| get fixed initially with the diamond-buying crowd when
| the shoe-buying consumers don't even care.
|
| I think what I'm struggling to get at is that the
| diamond-buying population at least have these earnest
| "noble ideals" of love, unity, etc represented by this
| product for which at some low level the sacrifice and
| blood may _add_ value (god knows what unconscious
| calculus is at work in the mind of a grown princess).
| Compare this to a pair of crap tennis shoes that you're
| going to throw away, where they are completely
| utilitarian, replaceable, and you have zero emotional
| investment in what they represent. The suffering
| represented by the product offers nothing other than the
| blatant profit of the consumer. And we can't wrest the
| shoes from the consumer's hands no matter what is said
| about the abysmal conditions that produced them.
|
| All of these conditions in the production of these
| products are known. Nobody can claim ignorance in the
| first world. If the population at large hasn't had a
| moment of moral clarity by now, I'm not sure I'd hold my
| breath any longer. Either systemically the culture needs
| to be more open to moral awakenings (a hard sell in a
| world defined by deconstructionism) or a new and
| acceptable critique of globalism at a policy level needs
| radical change.
|
| Just my .02 but I've been hearing the same convo about
| diamonds since I was a kid and it's as sad as hearing the
| rationalizing of any addict.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > How noble are we, talking about refusing to buy blood
| diamonds when the very MEMS mic in a household device
| probably vibrated to the scream of people watching a
| friend jumping out a factory window.
|
| The suicide rate in those factories is greater than zero
| but is not high at all. You picked the wrong analogy.
| WhompingWindows wrote:
| I don't think your metaphor of a famous writer's pen is apt.
| For that to work, we'd have to be able to reproduce writer's
| pens in a lab for less money and less ethical violation.
| Probably a better analogy would be using some rare squid ink
| vs. using manufactured chemical ink.
| MereInterest wrote:
| That an emotional attachment exists explains why a difference
| can exist, but doesn't explain why the attachment points in
| the direction that it does. Lab-grown diamonds could just as
| easily be the ones with emotional attachment, perhaps
| emphasizing how much hard work, research, ingenuity, and
| dedication went into making that diamond as a symbol of the
| hard work and dedication one is willing to put into a
| relationship. That the emotional attachment is specifically
| toward mined diamonds shows the strength of marketing.
| Nursie wrote:
| That's a good point, the difference doesn't have to be in the
| item itself, BUT -
|
| Does anyone, other than geologists of course, really care
| about the back-story of the diamond, how it was created and
| how it was mined? Or are they just hanging on to an idea that
| some of them are "real" and some "not real" for the purposes
| of social signalling?
|
| If the latter, I would consider this much more changeable
| over time.
| hrktb wrote:
| The people in these stories don't buy diamond for their
| mechanical properties or bore tunnels, so everything
| surrounding the diamond itself is what matters.
|
| How it was mined, where it came from, which company sells
| it and how all of that is marketed to the world (not even
| really to the owner) is the value of all of this.
|
| It's like sending a unicef postcard, what matters the most
| would be the effect on the receiver and how the sender
| feels about it. The object itself isn't on the front stage.
| Nursie wrote:
| > How it was mined, where it came from
|
| I've never met anyone that cares about that at all,
| beyond 'conflict-free'.
| coddle-hark wrote:
| > Does anyone, other than geologists of course, really care
| about the back-story of the diamond, how it was created and
| how it was mined?
|
| Yes, very much so, as is the case with all lifestyle
| products. People want to believe that they're buying
| something special.
| Nursie wrote:
| Really?
|
| I've never met anyone that talked about it at all. Maybe
| I don't have conversations about diamonds very often, but
| people only ever seemed concerned that they were 'real',
| and latterly that they were conflict-free.
|
| > People want to believe that they're buying something
| special.
|
| What if it turns out they're not?
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| > _What if it turns out they 're not?_
|
| Buyers remorse or post-rationalization.
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| Jewelers provide certifications when buying diamonds.
| They'd be a) on the hook if they sold counterfeit
| products, and b) they wouldn't be able to sell anymore
| because of a tarnished brand.
| shawnz wrote:
| I don't think the suggestion is that they'd sell
| counterfeits. The suggestion is that even the real thing
| has no special differentiating properties. The
| authenticity certificate is just a tool to achieve better
| signaling, nobody cares what it says as long as it says
| "authentic".
| Nursie wrote:
| What I meant was what if it turns out diamonds are not
| special after all?
|
| Lab grown diamonds are diamonds. Whether one comes out of
| the ground or from a lab, maybe they aren't that special.
| humanrebar wrote:
| Someone should pay celebrities to wear specific jewelry
| with lab created stones to galas and awards ceremonies.
| Then resell the pieces, or even just the stones, at a
| premium since they were worn by <insert story here>.
|
| Then folks would be buying something ethical and _more_
| glamorous. Maybe philanthropic donations could be
| associated to revitalize areas hurt by the diamond
| industry to further tell a story for the celebrities and
| consumers.
| rstupek wrote:
| Funny you mention that since that's how diamonds became
| the thing women desired in the first place
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| They would need a catchy name, though...
|
| Something like Naturally Famous Treasure, or NFT for
| short?
| [deleted]
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| I think the white collar internet kind of distorts the
| picture because it tends to heavily reward things that
| signal compliance with rule of law.
|
| There are a lot of people who would consider a car,
| diamond, piece of art, etc that has "a decently long chain
| of people had to stick their neck out doing criminal
| things" in its provenance to be a more interesting than an
| equivalent "produced in a high tech factory".
|
| I think even with synthetic diamonds being 100% on par in
| every way there will still be a market for ethically and
| legally gray diamonds because people want to know they're
| buying something that someone toiled and/or took risks for.
|
| I'd say price will probably be the determining factor but
| luxury status symbol markets don't work that way.
| Haemm0r wrote:
| "Does anyone, other than geologists of course, really care
| about the back-story of the diamond, how it was created and
| how it was mined?" Yes of course. Everybody can buy a ring
| with a diamond, but if they sell you a story with it you
| can tell, it is even better :)
| Nursie wrote:
| > Yes of course. Everybody can buy a ring with a diamond,
| but if they sell you a story with it you can tell, it is
| even better :)
|
| A story about geology and how it was dug up? The same
| story as literally every other diamond wearer?
| [deleted]
| pbuzbee wrote:
| The root of it, I think, is that mined diamonds are the
| standard for engagement rings. Culturally, having a mined
| diamond is (for many/most Americans) table stakes for what an
| engagement ring should be.
|
| Getting a lab grown diamond or an alternative stone for your
| girlfriend can feel like you chose saving money or your
| personal views on diamond ethics over getting her something
| that meets those table stakes. It doesn't matter if it's
| technically superior (I rarely hear people discuss the quality
| of their diamonds anyway, beyond weight occasionally). What
| does matter is that you chose to give her something different
| than the standard, and the ring will always feel like it has a
| little asterisk on it marking this.
| petre wrote:
| > The reasons they gave all seemed to tie back to branding and
| natural diamonds being "real."
|
| Forced child labour used to extract natural diamonds in some
| parts of the world is also real.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_the_diamond_in...
| [deleted]
| me_me_me wrote:
| Or that some people are small minded without insight of how
| their decision shape the world around them.
|
| Be it diamonds, sports cars, etc doesnt matter.
| guerrilla wrote:
| They were just given the insight, so that's not it. It's more
| that they don't care.
| creamytaco wrote:
| That doesn't bode well for your marriage. I would ditch her now
| before it's too late .. later.
| oconnor663 wrote:
| Diamonds are a prestige thing, like fancy watches. It doesn't
| make sense to lecture a fancy-watch-wearer about how cheap
| electric watches can actually tell time better. They know, and
| that's not the axis that matters to them.
| eplanit wrote:
| You could make the same analogy with CGI vs. human-drawn
| imagery. Yes, you can draw much more precisely, and generates
| millions of copies of that precision, etc. with CGI. But, does
| a CGI rendering really have the same 'value' as seeing
| something drawn entirely by hand? I guess some would say 'yes'
| -- and I'd direct them to the factory-made diamond counter.
| Others, though, would value the _human_ involvement (not to
| discount the programmers who wrote the CGI software) -- even if
| that includes people toiling in mines.
|
| It's not surprising that the 30 minute lecture didn't sway too
| many minds -- I think the professor didn't 'get it' in his/her
| own way. People aren't just buying collections of atoms (though
| they actually are).
| xenocratus wrote:
| I think the question might be a bit misleading. "Would you
| rather have X?" isn't the same as "Would you rather your spouse
| buys you X?". I'd prefer having a natural diamond too, for the
| same reason I'd prefer having a piece of ember with an insect
| that was trapped there naturally millions of years ago as
| opposed to a man-made one that was produced last month. By no
| means would I buy a natural diamond or support the mining
| system behind it, but there's no denying that I'd find it more
| interesting and somehow awe-inspiring.
| heliodor wrote:
| The current narrative is more along the lines of, "How much
| work should your fiancee spend on declaring his commitment to
| you?" The societal answer is at least two months. Salary is
| the convenient measure for this. The ring is the
| communication medium.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Which is super stupid, especially since there is a negative
| correlation between amount spent on rings and weddings and
| the success rate of a marriage:
| https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/wedding-
| co...
|
| I got my wife a custom designed ring with a fairly large
| moissanite stone for ~$1,200 all in, and we spent about
| $2,000-$3,000 on the wedding itself. My wife actually would
| have been upset with me if I had gotten her a real diamond.
| Not so much because of concerns over conflict (though she
| did care about that) but because she felt that spending
| that much on a useless stone was outright stupid.
| rndgermandude wrote:
| >The societal answer is at least two months.
|
| Might be an American thing? My parents spent about 1 month
| worth of my dad's salary on two wedding rings a long time
| ago. My dad actually wanted to buy a far more expensive
| ring for my mom, but she insisted to keep it simple and
| "cheap" and "unproblematic" to wear. Same story in the rest
| of the family.
|
| Friends (usually a lot younger than my parents) spend even
| less on rings, I'd estimate 400-600 EUR per ring from what
| I keep hearing.
|
| I've heard about that two months rule before, in American
| TV shows and movies, never thought about it. Now I wonder
| if it's really an American thing, or if people around me
| are just cheapskates :P
| dboreham wrote:
| It's an American rich person thing.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| It's the opposite in my opinion. The richer the social
| circle, the less people care about stuff like diamonds or
| 2 months salary (which I never even heard of outside of
| online discussions). A diamond ring is barely a notable
| expense for a dual six figure earning couple.
| astura wrote:
| >(which I never even heard of outside of online
| discussions).
|
| Here's some ads from the 1980s advocating for two months
| salary -
|
| https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/media/images/74843000/j
| pg/...
|
| http://cdn.cavemancircus.com//wp-
| content/uploads/2020/08/dia...
|
| https://yourdiamondteacher.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2018/03/De...
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| I saw some ads for three recently.
|
| Oh, they are being sneaky and getting into news too:
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/13/why-you-dont-need-to-
| spend-t....
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I'm sure the jewelry businesses were peddling it, but I
| don't recall it ever being mentioned amongst people as if
| it were a cultural thing. Then again, maybe women talk
| about this kind of stuff, whereas men don't.
| andrewzah wrote:
| I have not once heard this being mentioned as a metric.
|
| Most people I know don't really care at all (I'm 25 for
| reference), since they generally don't have the money to
| waste on such frivolous purchases.
| literallycancer wrote:
| Rich people don't work. Seems more like some sort of
| "aspirational spending".
| klmadfejno wrote:
| I'd say more of a generational thing
| [deleted]
| astura wrote:
| It's a marketing thing, it was made up by the industry.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27371208
|
| >These two achievements - making the diamond ring an
| essential part of getting married and dictating how much
| a man should pay - make it one of the most successful
| bits of marketing ever undertaken, says Dr TC Melewar,
| professor of marketing and strategy at Middlesex
| University.
|
| >"They invented a tradition which captured some latent
| desire to mark this celebration of love," he says. Once
| the tradition had been created, they could put a price on
| it - such as a month or two's salary. And men, says
| Melewar, would pay whatever was expected because it was a
| "highly emotive" purchase.
|
| Of course, it's all optional, jewelery purchases are not
| a mandatory part of getting married, I (heterosexual
| woman) have been married for a decade and neither of us
| purchased any sort of jewelery.
| samatman wrote:
| As an alternative, let me share an observation.
|
| People don't often change their minds right away. Specifically,
| there is a huge amount of neural reconfiguration which happens
| when we sleep, which is why we "sleep on it".
|
| The interesting question, which is impossible to answer, is how
| those women felt about lab-grown diamonds by the time it was
| important. I'd guess that nearly all of them became more open
| to the idea, and that more changed their minds later than had
| revised their opinion immediately after the lecture.
| grw_ wrote:
| The economics behind diamonds are better explained by an
| sociologist, not a geologist- the high cost and useless-ness of
| the gift are a feature not a bug! The burning of significant
| amount of wealth is a costly signal of commitment to the
| receiver. I heard from a friend who worked at a diamond company
| (and as such could purchase stones with significant discount to
| market price) that his fiancee had specifically rejected the
| idea of receiving a stone from his company on the grounds that
| it being 'discounted' devalued the gesture.
| rjsw wrote:
| Even if she could get a larger stone for the expected amount
| that the guy should spend ?
| grw_ wrote:
| yes, I should have mentioned it was explicitly put to her
| in those terms
| gruez wrote:
| >the high cost and useless-ness of the gift are a feature not
| a bug! The burning of significant amount of wealth is a
| costly signal of commitment to the receiver.
|
| So basically... proof of work?
| xeromal wrote:
| I love this
| 988747 wrote:
| More like "sunk cost fallacy".
| savanaly wrote:
| No, they're really different. Just because the sunk cost
| fallacy has something to do with spending money doesn't
| mean it applies whenever money is spent in an unwise way.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost
| 988747 wrote:
| But buying a wedding ring is not only about showing off,
| it is an old method of psychological trickery that is
| supposed to make relationships and marriage more durable.
|
| It used to be "sunk cost" for a man, since until recently
| it was expected that if you break the engagement your ex-
| fiance would keep the ring (right now in most of the
| states law require it to be returned). Expensive wedding
| party is another sunk cost.
| mNovak wrote:
| >> right now in most of the states law require it to be
| returned
|
| Is this true? That would be very surprising, as it is
| essentially a gift, or at the very least, joint property
| subject to divorce adjudication like anything else.
| jogjayr wrote:
| > The burning of significant amount of wealth is a costly
| signal of commitment to the receiver.
|
| So why not buy something practical and expensive? Like a
| house or a car?
| andrewzah wrote:
| You're thinking in terms of real people, not what weird
| things rich people do with their money. The uselessness is
| part of the point.
| freeflight wrote:
| _> The uselessness is part of the point._
|
| Reminds me of these outrageously expensive dishes some
| places are selling, where they put gold on the food, and
| other expensive ingredients that don't fit, all for the
| sake of creating the most expensive burger/steak/pizza
| whatever.
| astura wrote:
| Because houses and cars are useful, the GP pointed out that
| being uselessness is the entire point
|
| >the high cost and useless-ness of the gift are a feature
| not a bug
|
| The other thing is the marketing says diamonds are
| "forever," presumably like your love, but houses and cars
| require expensive maintenance and are easily damaged. Not
| good if you're buying something symbolic.
|
| Not that I personally agree, far from it, we didn't make
| any jewelery purchases when we got married.
| jogjayr wrote:
| > The other thing is the marketing says diamonds are
| "forever," presumably like your love, but houses and cars
| require expensive maintenance and are easily damaged. Not
| good if you're buying something symbolic.
|
| Definitely some symbolism there. Relationships (romantic
| and otherwise) are indeed more like houses and cars -
| innately valuable, easily damaged, and requiring regular
| maintenance - than diamonds.
| astura wrote:
| Right, I agree (and that's why I'm not "into"
| diamonds/useless trinkets) - but that's a realistic take,
| not the sort of thing people who are buying/receiving
| diamonds want.
| grw_ wrote:
| For houses it's completely plausible that the motivation is
| for the asset to appreciate in value and even if the
| marriage ends in divorce, both parties end up being able to
| extract some value from it. For a retail diamond the
| purchaser is likely to see zero value recovered from it
| whether divorce happens or not.
|
| For cars, I suppose my hypothesis would say cars likely to
| depreciate very quickly (such as high-end SUV) are more
| suitable as engagement gifts than practical (prius or
| such), which fits roughly with my observations in real
| world
| Angostura wrote:
| NFTs suggest that there will never be an end to the appetite
| for making things 'special'.
| gmadsen wrote:
| I has nothing to do with branding. It is entirely about price
| and false scarcity.
|
| traditionally it was an important gesture that the man was
| investing a large sum of money into his soon to be wife
| CivBase wrote:
| I never understood the idea behind a wedding ring being an
| "investment". It's not like you plan on ever selling it. It's
| purely an expense. If you wont sell it, then a ring's value
| is only in its aesthetic and any sentiment attached to it by
| the wearer - neither of which seem to be strongly related to
| the initial purchasing price.
|
| Of course, people often sell their rings if they get
| divorced... but wouldn't that make actually an expensive ring
| an incentive to separate? The whole gesture makes very little
| sense.
| gmadsen wrote:
| The gesture, is that the man is willing to spend that much
| money, and because of that, is serious about the woman,
| sort of like a purchase. Its not an investment in the sense
| of producing or keeping value.
|
| Of course, times are very different now, and it is quite an
| antiquated idea.
| CivBase wrote:
| So like an escrow for a marriage proposal... except it's
| held by the person to which the offer is made and is
| never closed out if the offer is accepted. I still can't
| say I get it.
|
| Rings I get. They are a symbol of commitment, a
| sentimental memento, and just a nice accessory. But the
| idea that the cost to purchase the ring is somehow a
| reflection of that is still silly to me.
| lhorie wrote:
| > That was the point where I realized the strength of diamonds
| product branding.
|
| Here's another interesting twist that further shows how
| powerful branding and marketing really are: Spence Diamonds is
| a diamond retailer in Canada that advertises extremely
| aggressively via radio ads. A few years ago, it started a huge
| campaign for lab grown diamonds, portraying them with
| adjectives such as "artisan-made" (going as far as comparing
| them to Michelangelo art). And what do you know:
|
| > While still offering mined diamonds, Spence has found that
| when its customers are given a choice, 80% of them choose lab-
| growns over mined diamonds[0]
|
| [0]
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2019/05/12/spence-d...
| washadjeffmad wrote:
| I went through this not that many years ago buying a ring for
| my SO. My biggest mistake was including her in the decision.
|
| She described what she wanted exactly- nothing gaudy or
| ostentatious, just a singular, tasteful stone on a plain band.
| Couldn't be simpler, could it?
|
| Finding stones that met her criteria was easy. Some were
| natural diamonds, some lab grown, many moissanite. From the
| outset, she said the meaning of the ring was what was most
| important and that she didn't want to pick it out herself
| (after effectively picking it out herself). We'd talked about
| moissanite a lot over the years, and she'd approved of the
| idea, and the same with lab grown diamonds. We're college
| educated adults with backgrounds in the sciences, so we weren't
| on uneven footing with comprehension.
|
| When I showed her what I'd picked out, it quickly devolved into
| a lot of uncharacteristic tears and shouting. It took a few
| more tries, and then she explained. Apparently a lab grown
| diamond meant my love for her was also artificial, a budgeted
| ersatz stand-in for the real thing, and me saying we could
| spend more on a larger stone or matching set further belied my
| ignorance. No, she wanted me to have picked out an allegory for
| our love: a "perfect" diamond. She then sent me the details of
| the stone she actually wanted.
|
| After a little "wait, where's this coming from and why did you
| let me spend weeks searching if there was only one right
| answer", I ended up spending twice our decided budget on a
| "natural" diamond with the same characteristics as the lab
| grown (except the diamond's clarity was lower, because lab
| grown clarity is always perfect), which wasn't any object, but
| now the ring is marred by the memories of arguments, and she
| doesn't really love it. Lesson learned.
|
| I don't know what kind of spell the diamond people cast on
| otherwise reasonable women to make them able to reduce the
| totality of a life and experiences shared together into a
| single crystalline bet, but they need to package it and sell it
| to the military.
| amalcon wrote:
| I brought my now-spouse along for ring shopping, on her own
| theory that she'd be wearing the thing and should therefore
| have some input. She was actually more opposed to mined
| diamonds than I was at the time. We talked about this
| extensively, and considered both lab gems and corundum gems
| (ruby/sapphire).
|
| We went through over a dozen jewelry stores, each of them
| pushing mined diamonds so hard that it angered us. The
| eventual solution wasn't even that we found an amenable
| jewelry store. We ended up obtaining a ring via a private
| transfer from a family member. While the ring contains a
| mined diamond, it has quite a bit of sentimental value and
| didn't really put price pressure on the public market. It was
| a good solution for us, but obviously not scalable!
| throwaway_isms wrote:
| >While the ring contains a mined diamond, it has quite a
| bit of sentimental value
|
| If I said it once, I have said it a million times, if your
| SO insists on a diamond from the ground as opposed to a
| lab, say fine, but I am getting my shots flying to Africa
| and will mine it myself. It won't matter if you bring back
| a opaque brown rock, with 0 marketing your SO would wear it
| with pride and most others would be jealous when they hear
| the story behind it.
|
| It goes hand in hand with your obtaining a stone from
| family and the sentiment of it. My Mom has 5 boys and my
| Dad gave her a ring with 5 diamonds, and she has made 1
| available to each of us for an engagement ring, which she
| would replace with the birthstone of each son. As you say
| its not scalable, and no one ever marketed the idea, but
| the sentiment is extremely powerful.
| eloff wrote:
| > but I am getting my shots flying to Africa and will
| mine it myself. It won't matter if you bring back a
| opaque brown rock, with 0 marketing your SO would wear it
| with pride and most others would be jealous when they
| hear the story behind it.
|
| That's a great idea, but I don't know of any place you
| could do that in real life. Diamonds can be very valuable
| depending on size, color, clarity etc. Diamond mines have
| heavy security around their miners to ensure a tiny
| little diamond doesn't go missing.
|
| There is zero chance they'd let a tourist in.
|
| Someone I know smuggled a diamond purchased in South
| Africa for their spouse and the diamond and story behind
| that were both well appreciated.
| make3 wrote:
| for most people what you describe is even more expensive
| and impractical than buying a mined diamond
| jschwartzi wrote:
| My experience was different. I ended up going to one of the
| Shane Company stores on the west coast and the salesperson
| didn't push diamonds at all. She showed me damn near every
| red/pink sapphire in the store until I found one I wanted
| to present. And when it turned out my wife didn't like the
| color as much as I thought they bought the old stone back
| at full-price and sold us a new one in a color she loves.
| inetsee wrote:
| I was fortunate in this regard. My wife inherited her
| mother's wedding ring. When it came time for us to get
| married, we took that ring to a jeweler who mounted the
| diamond in a setting that my wife picked out. The ring has
| great sentimental value for my wife at a modest cost. We
| never had to have the conversation about a mined diamond vs
| a synthetic diamond.
| symlinkk wrote:
| I don't see what's so hard to understand. The entire point of
| buying a ring is that you're showing her how much you care by
| spending a bunch of money on something special. Instead, you
| decided to save money and get something that's not as
| special, and that hurt her feelings.
| meshenna wrote:
| > showing her how much you care by spending a bunch of
| money on something special
|
| If this is what the other person expects out of a
| relationship it's time to jump ship ASAP.
| robrtsql wrote:
| You conveniently left out the part where they discussed it
| and she said that it didn't need to be 'natural'.
|
| There's nothing wrong with wanting a 'natural' diamond. But
| to mislead your partner as part of some sick test, and then
| make them feel like dirt for not having passed?
| symlinkk wrote:
| > But to mislead your partner as part of some sick test,
| and then make them feel like dirt for not having passed?
|
| Women do this all the time. I agree it's not a good
| behavior.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| The point is that its fucking stupid and a corporate mind
| game that is trivial to see through.
| kbelder wrote:
| So, tell her that. You didn't need to be in a
| relationship anyway.
| mNovak wrote:
| Just chiming in to say that you can in fact be up front
| with your SO about your opinions on pretty rocks as a
| symbol of your relationship, and continue to have a
| happy, healthy relationship.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| Yep, exactly what I did
| Frost1x wrote:
| >I don't know what kind of spell the diamond people cast on
| otherwise reasonable women to make them able to reduce the
| totality of a life and experiences shared together into a
| single crystalline bet, but they need to package it and sell
| it to the military.
|
| The militaries of the world invented it, it's business that
| bought it. Much of this diamond/marriage symbolism stems back
| to the late 1940s post WWII with DaBeer's engagement ring ad
| campaigns.
|
| WWII involved a lot of R&D in psyops and effects of
| propoganda. Sure, these strategies always existed but it
| became part of scientific research, was refined and
| weaponized to manipulate perceptions of people using non-
| kinetic approaches to try and avoid or minimize kinetic
| warfare. After the war in the mid 40s ended, where do you
| think all that expertise in propoganda from military went?
| Business marketing and advertising sprouted from much of this
| expertise. Marketing and advertising always existed before
| then but there was a dramatic shift in how things were sold
| creating armies of refined snake oil salesmen.
|
| In the late 40s, DaBeers ran a massive ad campaign employing
| such propoganda that shifted culture into associating diamond
| rings with marriage. There had been dowries and other
| exchanges of wealth and power in marriages before (it's often
| been a basis for marriage) that but DaBeers managed to shift
| that in culture in the west to the diamond ring. It's now so
| deeply ingrained in culture and people's perceptions that it
| can make otherwise rational people irrational.
|
| Do not ever underestimate the power of propoganda in its
| various forms. Pyschogical manipulation runs rampant in
| business marketing and these are the effects. We've
| culturally accepted it for a variety of reasons. I question
| if we should continue to accept these practices in business.
| [deleted]
| nickik wrote:
| This is partly a myth. More important was the non legal
| enforcement of engagements. Many couples in the past would
| start to have sex when engaged. If the engagement is not
| legally secure, the diamond basically serves as signal.
| That why 3-month salary make sense.
|
| If I buy a 3-month salary worth diamond I'm probably not
| gone leave you after a month.
|
| Its an easily portable high value item that also serves as
| signaling for the person wearing it. It makes more sense
| then livestock in the modern world.
|
| Marketing had something to do with it, but its more complex
| then that.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| > Its an easily portable high value item that also serves
| as signaling for the person wearing it. It makes more
| sense then livestock in the modern world.
|
| Jewelry is not a great value store, unless you're fine
| with selling it at a significant loss. Diamonds
| specially, unless they're rare, seem to magically lose a
| lot of its value as soon as they print your receipt.
|
| To be honest, I find the whole love-engagement-sex-
| wedding handling retrograde and inappropriate for the
| current times.
| wahern wrote:
| To the incredulous: the argument is that expensive
| engagement rings helped fill the cultural gaps left by
| the repeal of Breach of Promise to Marry laws. The
| supporting evidence is an apparently strong geographic
| correlation between repeal of these laws and increases in
| high-value diamond engagement rings, the latter beginning
| _after_ the start of the repeal movement yet _before_ the
| infamous De Beers marketing campaigns.
|
| For the overview:
| https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/the-
| str...
|
| The original research paper: Margaret F. Brinig, Journal
| of Law, Economics, & Organization Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring,
| 1990), pp. 203-215 (13 pages),
| https://www.jstor.org/stable/764797
|
| Wikipedia page on Breach of Promise to Marry:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_promise
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| > My biggest mistake was including her in the decision. >
| When I showed her what I'd picked out, it quickly devolved
| into a lot of uncharacteristic tears and shouting.
|
| I do not think you would have had a better experience if you
| did not include her.
| rhacker wrote:
| Married about 12 years (together 16). I bought my then
| future-wife a ring for $200. She didn't care it was small or
| that it was a tiny fraction of my salary - we both wore our
| rings for everyone else for a year or so... My personal do-
| over would be to have purchased an even cheaper ring (or none
| at all) so we could buy more useful things, and she would
| agree.
|
| In any case, the spell doesn't work on everyone.
| graycat wrote:
| IMHO that she is looking really hard for _allegories_ ,
| symbols, representations, of your love is a really good sign
| for a successful marriage, one that will hopefully really,
| without doubt or question, last "for better or worse, for
| richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, forsaking all
| others, 'tell death do you part". So when the two of you get
| old and wrinkled, not see or hear so well, have joint pains,
| the children have moved away and you don't see the
| grandchildren often enough, you will still have your love for
| each other that you celebrate with the diamond, the
| accomplishments of your lifetime together, the stability of
| your marriage, your home, big times at Thanksgiving, the
| Holidays, your wedding anniversary, your birthdays, the
| birthdays of the kids and their graduations, accomplishments,
| marriages, births and children, the friends you have made all
| along, the memories in your home, etc.
|
| Again, IMHO, one of the biggest problems in life is solving
| the problem of being alone, and for nearly everyone the best
| solution is a really good marriage.
|
| Here is a secret scorecard:
|
| You give knowledge of yourselves to each other, that is, keep
| your spouse well informed on your thoughts and feelings.
|
| You really care about each other.
|
| You respect and respond to each other.
|
| Neither of you tries to manipulate, fool, or exploit your
| spouse.
|
| You can trust each other.
|
| IMHO, it is good to do well on this scorecard.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| You generalize and project your own life preferences on
| others. Please don't tell what is best for me. There is no
| problem to solve whatever.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| Its amazing how much society can make people believe such
| stupid illogical things
| amiga wrote:
| Where do you draw the line between marketing vs flat out
| lies? There's a conflict of interest between consumer and
| sales person.
|
| I just tire of the subterfuge.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| I would have immediately ended it right there, but that's
| probably why I'm single. Every time I was in a relationship
| long enough to discuss marriage, I made it clear that there
| is no way I would ever buy a diamond. Only one was actively
| on board with it, because she liked the idea of picking out
| an alternative gem.
| danbruc wrote:
| Take the money and have a nice honeymoon, buy two $5
| seashell necklace at the beach. There are so many ways to
| spend hundreds or thousands of dollars that are way better
| than investing them into small chunks of metal.
| dragontamer wrote:
| I went to a wedding and the two friends tied a knot as
| per middle-age European tradition.
|
| The knot was then packaged inside of a chest, as a
| reminder of the promise they made on their Wedding Day.
| And as far as I know, they still have that chest with
| them, and the Knot is still tied.
| aksss wrote:
| Some wise older friends of ours literally wear hose
| clamps as wedding rings. Adjustable over the course of
| their lives.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| _Take the money and have a nice honeymoon, buy two $5
| seashell necklace at the beach. There are so many ways to
| spend hundreds or thousands of dollars that are way
| better than investing them into small chunks of metal._
|
| Agreed, but I was OK with spending the money, what really
| bothers me is how worthless diamonds are. Metals have a
| relatively free market, many uses, and are fungible, so
| the pricing is more in line with reality.
| mNovak wrote:
| The gold in a typical engagement ring is worth something
| like $50-100. Not sure what you spent, but the same
| people peddling mined diamonds are also massively up-
| charging on the band.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| It's from birth at this point. Generational indoctrination.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| Look at it as a proof of work. What matters is you burned a
| certain chunk of your life for her.
| lupire wrote:
| But why wouldn't she want a larger fancier diamond for the
| same work?
| AareyBaba wrote:
| Because it has to be mined.
| PicassoCTs wrote:
| Its crypto, but with carbon..
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| and most electricity going into mining crypto comes fron
| coal
| steelframe wrote:
| It's proof of capability. Sort of like peacock feathers.
| "Look, I can carry around this obscene tail and still not
| get eaten! How's them genetics?"
|
| For humans, it's, "I have excess resources I can afford to
| burn according to the socially-accepted ritual or test, so
| when you bear my offspring, you can be sure I will also
| have excess capacity to provide for both you and your
| offspring."
|
| A female may have second thoughts about choosing you as a
| mate if you appear to cheat at the test or don't do the
| test right.
| chaostheory wrote:
| This is the best and most succinct explanation.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| That makes it worse.
| xeromal wrote:
| Not really. If that's what that person values and you
| want that person, that's what you're gonna have to do.
| Being a relationship means doing things you don't agree
| with sometimes.
| RobertKerans wrote:
| Well, if you ever want an example of advertising working...
| (I realise it plays enormously on preexisting traditional
| cultural notions of value, but still, as mentioned, de Beers
| did quite the job). I had similar conversations pre-
| engagement, but felt forced into a real diamond once the time
| actually came.
| jbay808 wrote:
| "Real diamond" as opposed to zirconia, or did you mean
| natural diamond (as opposed to a real artificial diamond)?
| RobertKerans wrote:
| Natural, as in what would commonly be referred to as a
| real diamond (yes, I realise they're they're chemically
| and structurally the same).
|
| Edit: As I said in another reply, there's nothing
| illogical about it. If value is placed culturally and
| socially on natural diamonds, then they are valuable,
| regardless of if that value is "artificially" created via
| advertising of whatever. Lots of stuff is quite stupid if
| you look at it objectively, out of context. Doesn't mean
| it isn't true in context.
| [deleted]
| Judgmentality wrote:
| I truly mean this to be thoughtful and not antagonistic,
| and your notion of value being subjective is accurate.
| But I think I can somewhat snarkily summarize a lot of
| the doubt some HNers are feeling (I'm not saying I agree
| or disagree): it's basically saying diamonds are like
| NFTs.
|
| EDIT: Just did a ctrl-f for NFT and I guess I wasn't the
| first to say that, although those comments are much lower
| on the page.
| RobertKerans wrote:
| Oh, sure, not to going to disagree! I don't think it's
| being sarky to compare the two (although NFTs have
| slightly different cultural precursors), no offence
| taken. I _also_ think that in this case many commenters
| [being human] have equally subjective notions of value (
| _edit: which are also correct in context, I 'm not just
| having a pop_) but would just like to pretend that they
| do not, that they are being "rational".
| MadSudaca wrote:
| Your mistake was not knowing enough about evolutionary
| biology. I suggest you read about Signaling Theory.
| intergalplan wrote:
| Now try a "used" diamond.
|
| _shudders_
| slovette wrote:
| Haha. Could you imagine the horror of a USED DIAMOND!
|
| It reminds me of the scene in Lord of War about the
| atrocity of a "used gun".
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Now try a "used" diamond.
|
| The _right_ "used" diamonds are often received better than
| fresh natural diamonds by recipients. But that depends a
| lot on the "origin story".
| danbruc wrote:
| _Apparently a lab grown diamond meant my love for her was
| also artificial [...]_
|
| Why then a ring [with a diamond] at all? It's nothing special
| at all, just what everyone does. Almost the definition of
| replaceability and arbitrariness. There is no connection
| between the relationship and a random ring with a stone you
| buy at some random jewelry store. Why not something
| individual, specific to the relationship? Every $1 toy ring
| used as a wedding ring is more personal and telling than any
| thousands of dollars ring with a diamond.
| dkarras wrote:
| It is not a rational argument, result of some cultural
| indoctrination. Media, friends, peers... Everyone is
| susceptible to such influence to some degree but not aware.
| Still, must be sad to witness.
| Scheherazade wrote:
| Yes, seeing an otherwise healthy, and free-thinking human
| being turn through their behaviour into almost a sub-
| sentient machine running pre-programmed scripts, would
| errode a bit of the soul in almost everyone. As some of
| their childhood naivete is forever extinguished. At least
| now they've gained through this experience a deeper
| perception of the true nature of reality.
| [deleted]
| shuntress wrote:
| Depending on how long ago this happened, you may either
| already know this or have since worked through it but this
| was probably not really _just_ about the ring.
|
| I think the comments attacking your partner may be assuming
| that this "uncharacteristic tears and shouting" was some sort
| of irrational hysteria rather than the boiling-over of
| simmering problems.
|
| Maybe I'm the one reading too far into it though.
| RobertKerans wrote:
| Nah, I don't think so. + it's not an irrational reaction,
| can't logic out of it.
| astura wrote:
| >When I showed her what I'd picked out, it quickly devolved
| into a lot of uncharacteristic tears and shouting. It took a
| few more tries, and then she explained. Apparently a lab
| grown diamond meant my love for her was also artificial, a
| budgeted ersatz stand-in for the real thing
|
| I'm wondering how, if you picked it out, she even knew the
| diamond was lab grown? Did she start grilling you
| immediately? Or did she get the microscope out? Maybe I'm a
| total moron but I can't tell the difference by just looking
| at it.
| bevesce- wrote:
| Is this an American thing? I'm polish and this whole
| discussion is just mind boggling. I don't know anybody who
| would had such high (monetary wise) demands
| icoder wrote:
| It seems it is, I'm Dutch and also don't recognise this at
| all (but not married yet, so who knows). It does remind me,
| again, how many HN and Reddit discussions so often are by
| default seem US-centric, until stated otherwise. I am very
| much willing to accept though that the fact that this
| annoys me a bit is my own problem.
| pvarangot wrote:
| It's more of a white people that watch movies thing I
| think. So yeah mostly American but you see pockets of it on
| different cultures, one of the common threads that I find
| is that people that like this also like their houses to
| look as if they were designed for the set of a romantic
| comedy.
| xeromal wrote:
| Nah, there's rings from my ancestors that predates movies
| and we're from appalachia. It ain't much but an expensive
| valuable is a tradition that predates movies by a mile
| bobthechef wrote:
| Yep, to a large degree, at least. American thinking is
| thoroughly colonized by powerful corporations. In the
| absence of a real culture, you are left with consumerist
| zombies. So when Washington comes knocking at your door to
| "liberate you" and "spread freedom", just know that this is
| a large part of what they mean.
| AareyBaba wrote:
| Yes it is American. Getting down on your knees to propose,
| the engagement ring, the bachelor/ette party, the white
| wedding dress, the bridesmaids in matching outfits and
| flowers, the handwritten invitation cards, the tiered
| wedding cake, the wedding photographer, the reception
| dinner. It's the cultural script that little girls and boys
| learn to follow. .
| r-bar wrote:
| I believe it is more of an English speaking world thing.
| The tropes of the white wedding come from people emulating
| English nobility.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_wedding
| [deleted]
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| I avoided this by discussing the size of the diamonds in dead
| slaves rather than carets. Once I realized it didn't bother
| her to consider the dead slaves, I knew the "natural" diamond
| was what she wanted, so that's what she got. She may have
| genuinely believed it when she said the size of the stones
| didn't matter, but you can't deny how good she felt when
| other women fawned over it and were jealous that her stones
| were bigger/shinier.
|
| It's all about status signaling. The whole concept of the
| ring is a literal status symbol, signaling you're off the
| market. We can get upset about this particular status signal
| all we want, but it's not as if it's any less moral than any
| other status signal we participate in. That new phone was
| made by slaves. The car was built by raw materials mined in
| awful ways, possibly with slave labor. We can't go down this
| rabbit hole with everything in our life. I recommend making
| small nudges when we can in our own lives, but try not to get
| too worked up over any of them, it's not good for your mental
| health.
| hnfong wrote:
| When looking for a mate, animals often engage in so called
| "irrational" behavior to signal to the other party of their
| readiness and seriousness for mating. This is how, for
| example, peacocks get their ridiculous plumage.
|
| And thus, when somebody "irrationally" buys a "worthless"
| ring for a hefty amount, it signals to some extent that one
| is serious, committed and financially capable of the proposed
| marriage.
|
| It's often not that the partner wants the expensive thing,
| but more that they want a _proof_ that the marriage is worth
| more than that expensive and useless thing, which they want
| _precisely because_ it 's useless objectively and the
| purchase is "irrational".
|
| It's basically a trolley problem of "do I value my partner
| more, or my hard earned $XXXX more?" The forced irrational
| choice makes the game rational on a meta level. I don't
| disagree that the game kind of sucks, and there are other
| ways to build trust and understanding regarding the level of
| commitment between partners, but I consider the ring thing to
| be the "easy" way to do it. (which is why it's de-facto
| standard in many cultures)
|
| I think the hatred against capitalism and marketing is
| slightly off the mark here, since capitalism is merely
| supplying these expensive things to satisfy the somewhat
| "biological" demand in our mating rituals. Capitalists might
| be unscrupulous, but somebody had to do it.
|
| (Disclaimer in case it matters - I'm male, happily married to
| my wife, and bought a non-diamond ring as an engagement ring.
| I don't think this necessarily applies to any gender in any
| specific case, but generally speaking so far as humans are
| animals, the biological aspect dominates)
| bobthechef wrote:
| I wanted to say you've committed the naturalistic fallacy,
| but actually, you've also misrepresented the meaning of
| mating behaviors in essential ways and made a few tacit and
| unwarranted jumps in between.
|
| Humans are rational animals. Yes, obviously we have natural
| inclinations (they aren't irrational, btw; they have a
| purpose and only when the inclination is disordered,
| deficient, excessive, or we behave in ways opposed to the
| good when moved by the inclination can we speak of
| irrationality). However, we can make errors in judgement
| when interpreting signs and relating these signs to our
| inclinations. Marketing is often actively engaged in
| confusing people when it comes to what things mean. And
| when we get the meanings of signs wrong, we relate things
| erroneously to our natural inclinations. So this very
| recent practice of buying extravagant diamond rings beyond
| our means is the product of psychological manipulation and
| deceit that exploits vice and inclination by effectively
| lying about what an overpriced diamond ring signals.
|
| It would be an error to assume that a woman from a culture
| that values thrift would react positively to such a gift,
| much less demand it. She might be left thinking that the
| man is financially irresponsible. Most cultures do not make
| spending obscene amounts of money on a ring a common
| practice. The engagement ring has historically been a
| symbolic gesture, not a demonstration of irresponsibility,
| immodesty, profligacy, and vanity.
|
| In the case of peacocks, they ARE their plumage. Their
| plumage is not a sign of seriousness, but a sign of fitness
| and health and shaped by inherent traits and female
| selection (her interpretation or recognition that the
| better the plumage, the better the health), not male
| initiative. The peacock also isn't willing his plumage.
|
| You can just as easily construe the ring as a test of your
| potential wife's character. If she refuses to marry you
| because you haven't spent _a fourth or more of your salary_
| on a ring, then good riddance. Who wants to be saddled with
| a fraudulent, vain, and vapid creature like that. She would
| make a terrible mother.
| Aunche wrote:
| I agree, but at the same time, we're much more intelligent
| than penguins, so it's a shame that we also signal
| commitment with a fancy rock. Something like a work of art
| or rare book would serve the same purpose but would have
| more personal meaning.
| chaostheory wrote:
| If we're talking about the animal kingdom POV, then an
| expensive diamond is physical proof of the male's
| resourcefulness and ability to provide for young. I would
| argue that if the diamond was displaced as this proof then
| it would shift to another physical object that's publicly
| displayed such as a house or car.
| akomtu wrote:
| The spell is called herd mentality. People don't like to be
| losers, so women wear shiny stones and men drive cool cars.
| Both want to send the message "I'm not a loser". Appeal to
| science has no bearing on the herd opinion. Your gf was
| basically terrified that her friends would laugh at her lab
| grown diamond and her weak scientific arguments won't raise
| her ingroup status. Edit: I'd add a snarky observation that a
| diamond is essentially a notarized letter of "love" where the
| shop gets paid as the notary and your gf gets the proof of
| your deposit. The stone itself isn't worth much.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Spouse was the same way.
|
| There is a right answer. She absolutely will not tell it to
| you.
|
| If you guess wrong that means you don't love her.
| jliptzin wrote:
| I sincerely wish you good luck in your marriage, you're going
| to need it.
| fisherjeff wrote:
| That seems a little harsh? Even people in the best
| marriages sometimes have emotional, irrational
| disagreements
| akarma wrote:
| Many women won't directly tell their partner "I want you to
| spend a couple months' salary on a beautiful diamond"
| because it's tasteless to request and it removes all the
| meaning behind the man doing so, but they'd also be
| disappointed if the man didn't do so unprompted. People and
| their emotions are complex like that.
|
| I don't think there's any glaring issue with either party
| above, but it's like you expect all women in your life to
| be like many people on HN -- hyper-rational, utilitarian
| devs who would never want a mined diamond because a cheaper
| artificial one with better clarity exists. It's not wrong,
| but it's not right - there is no right answer here.
| Traditional ideas of romance are a powerful force.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| there's nothing rational about HN's brand of rationalism
| - which is really just materialist reductionism. In this
| thread alone are dozens of people completely blind to the
| concept of social signals, thinking instead about price,
| clarity and the vague notion of distant moral dilemmas.
| Beyond basic survival requirements, social signals are
| one of the most important concepts in human society! To
| exclude them from your considerations is deeply
| irrational in the unique way that developers often are.
| totalZero wrote:
| Yeah, I agree. I'd go even further and say that although
| the tech conversations on HN are substantive, the vast
| majority of non-tech conversations are devoid of social
| awareness (in the same way as a bunch of developers who
| don't get out much). For example, sometimes people here
| don't register deference as a prosocial aspect of
| cooperation. When you say "I'm no expert, but..." on HN,
| people take it literally.
|
| If you want to get a ring for your significant other, the
| whole point is to buy something unnecessary as a symbol
| of the organic constance of your love. Nobody _needs_ a
| diamond ring. If you tell a woman that her diamond came
| from a lab, you should accompany that fact with a better
| narrative than "this was the most economical rock
| available within your preference constraints."
|
| She wants to love her ring, so give her a reason. Tell
| her that you wanted to buy her something big without
| feeling like it was an extravagant use of your shared
| nest egg. Explain why gem clarity is so important to you,
| because your vision of the future as a couple is unmarred
| by doubt. Talk about how lab-grown gems are a more
| ethical trade and symbolize a desire to avoid unnecessary
| conflict in your relationship. Remind her that even a
| diamond is not forever, so if she wants another ring next
| year you'd be happy to propose again with a superior gem.
| drdeca wrote:
| > When you say "I'm no expert, but..." on HN, people take
| it literally.
|
| I'm not understanding this. What other way to take this
| is there? "I'm no expert, but" is indicating that -- oh,
| I think I see what you mean by the non-literal meaning,
| maybe.
|
| The literal meaning would be a disclaimer as to how much
| others should take one's perspective into account / how
| much others should trust/believe what one is saying,
|
| whereas the non-literal meaning would be indicating that
| the situation is kind of sarcastic or something, either
| because one is well versed in the topic, and therefore
| should be considered credible, or because the thing being
| said is obvious and usually shouldn't even need to be
| said.
|
| Is that right? Is this the distinction you meant?
|
| edit : I'm sure I'm kind of serving as an example of your
| point by saying this, but, whatever, I don't regard that
| as a problem.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| the non-literal form is showing humility. It's not
| sarcasm - even if you are a literal expert (as in SME) on
| the topic it's acknowledging that you are still aware of
| your own fallibility - as the parent said.
|
| I don't think I've ever met anybody in real life that
| interacted the way HNers do. I always assumed it was a
| social affect where everybody pretends to be a robot
| because that's the culture of the site, in the same way
| people form pun chains on reddit. Is this an American
| thing, or maybe just a software engineer thing? I mean, I
| work in the software industry as a developer (granted, in
| the UK) so I figured I would've run into it by now if it
| were industry specific.
| drdeca wrote:
| Thanks for the clarification. I don't know that I've seen
| experts in a topic say that they aren't experts in the
| topic as figurative speech for humility. That sounds like
| it would be confusing?
|
| Well, I believe I've seen experts saying that they aren't
| an expect in the particular sub-topic in question, even
| if they are an expert in (another sub-topic of) the same
| general topic. Like, saying that there are people with
| more expertise than them in the specific sub-topic at
| hand. And maybe they might phrase this as "I'm not an
| expert" without specifying the specific subtopic, before
| commenting on a question of the specific sub-topic. This
| doesn't strike me as figurative though. Perhaps I've just
| been misinterpreting though, and they mean "I'm not an
| expert" figuratively, rather than literally meaning "I'm
| not an expert in this specific sub-topic"?
|
| I think the "everyone pretends to be a robot" is,
| partially a software engineer thing? (Or, rather,
| correlated with the sort of person who would enjoy
| programming-ish stuff. ) Not literally pretending to be a
| robot. Rather, a combination of naturally acting in a
| certain way that could be described as analogous in some
| ways to a robot, and an imitation (and sometimes
| exaggeration) of behaviors which one has seen in oneself
| and in others who one kinda "identifies with", or
| aspiring towards an ideal or idea which has been
| constructed around those kinda of behaviors (possibly
| with this idea including things that aren't really
| naturally part of the behaviors, but by accidents of
| chance and misunderstanding, became part of a cultural
| idea ).
|
| I've previously told someone that I don't really ever
| "feel like a robot", but I do often "feel like the sort
| of person who would sometimes 'feel like a robot' " .
| [deleted]
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| Except this particular social signal was entirely made up
| by a corporation. Social signals that cost significant
| resources for something worthless are stupid.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| > Except this particular social signal was entirely made
| up by a corporation.
|
| They didn't make it up, they just made a display of
| wealth (and therefore social status) associated with
| their product. Brands do that all the time but the signal
| has always existed.
|
| The advertising serves to put the association between the
| product and wealth into the common knowledge -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic).
| Or in other words, everybody knows that everybody knows
| that rings are expensive.
|
| > Social signals that cost significant resources for
| something worthless are stupid.
|
| No, you just don't understand social signals, which was
| my point. The "costing significant resources" part is the
| whole idea. Wedding rings and fresh kicks aren't
| expensive because they're valuable, they're valuable
| because they're expensive. If you want to understand the
| idea, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_
| theory#Honest_signa.... It makes perfect sense (ie, it's
| rational).
|
| It's equivalent to saying, "I am willing to burn all of
| this valuable money to prove that I value you".
|
| If we only bought things that were of purely-material
| value, we'd stop at food, weather-protective but un-
| aesthetic clothing, and basic shelter. Everything beyond
| those is social (or hyperreal).
| AriaMinaei wrote:
| >> Social signals that cost significant resources for
| something worthless are stupid.
|
| > No, you just don't understand social signals, which was
| my point.
|
| I don't think OP denies the utility of signaling, only
| that as an intelligent human being, one must not feel
| absolutely helpless in accepting and perpetuating all
| instances of signaling that their peers do.
|
| There are many different cultures with strong means of
| signaling one's devotion to a partner, without having to
| essentially burn a small fortune to enrich an
| exploitative industry. It doesn't even have to be non-
| materialistic. Many cultures have the gold ring/necklace.
| It's a signal of a fortune spent, and a retained safety
| net because gold is tradable.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| I can understand disagreeing with social signalling, but
| this comment tree is rife with people dismissing social
| signals as irrational, or completely missing the plot by
| pointing out that you could get a synthetic diamond for
| much less money. It just speaks to ignorance rather than
| disagreement.
| akiselev wrote:
| _> Beyond basic survival requirements, social signals are
| one of the most important concepts in human society!_
|
| These social signals _are_ a core human survival
| mechanisms since at least the birth of agriculture. When
| the climate turned for the worse or food was scarce,
| nomadic tribes just migrated to an environment with
| better conditions. In an agricultural society, clans had
| to develop a different mechanism that took advantage of
| agriculture 's strength: large surpluses around harvest
| time that couldn't easily be stored through the winter.
| This is where the concept of banquets was born and
| there's archaeological evidence of hunter-gatherers and
| farmers participating in them together in the Early
| Neolithic, when agriculture just getting started.
|
| Instead of moving to find food, humans adapted to create
| strong social bonds between clans by elaborate social
| signals. Banquets, parties, and feasts were fundamentally
| saying "we've got a surplus now and we'll share it with
| you with the understanding that you'll share your surplus
| when you have one." Dowries and marriages were just a
| formalization of that unspoken social contract. Today
| someone might throw a big wedding or party as a show of
| status but back then, they were grand events because all
| of the best food spoiled quickly and it served zero
| purpose to hoard it.
|
| That said, what the diamond ring industry has evolved
| into is something quite new.
| samatman wrote:
| > _This is where the concept of banquets was born_
|
| Good post which I don't mean to detract from, but this is
| certainly not true.
|
| Even before sapiens, erectus and neanderthalensis were
| big game hunters. Sapiens in particular developed the
| tools for mass killings of migratory herds of large
| animals, and the ability to set fish traps for harvesting
| spawning runs.
|
| Both of these left early hunter gatherers with abundant
| surpluses of meat at certain times of year, so much that
| preservation was the limiting factor in getting those
| calories into bodies. We know the response of the Tlingit
| people to this bounty from very recent history: they
| would throw huge banquets called potlatches.
| saberdancer wrote:
| It's like typical "I don't need anything for my
| birthday". Even the most rational people tend to get
| disappointed if they really get nothing.
| toast0 wrote:
| I try to tell people I don't have a birthday anymore.
| Because if I tell people not to get me anything,
| sometimes they hear please get me something. Ugh.
| zingplex wrote:
| I normally just tell them "it was a few weeks back". This
| gives a full year for them to forget about it and has a
| sufficiently vague period of time that they can't nail
| you next year should they remember.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| > I try to tell people I don't have a birthday anymore.
|
| Never thought of that. I'd imagine the ensuing
| conversation is even more problematic though? "What do
| you mean you don't have a birthday? That makes no sense!"
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| No, just respond with "I stopped caring".
|
| Maybe could also tack on that you count winters to tell
| your age.
| astura wrote:
| Um, no, I've never gotten disappointed. I've been married
| for a decade and the hubby and I don't do material gifts,
| ever.
|
| I'd be much more disappointed in some useless trinket I
| don't need and would feel obligated to keep.
| willcipriano wrote:
| I don't get disappointed. The best gift you can get me
| for my birthday is remove the obligation for me to get
| you one on yours. Saves so much mental energy and time.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| Same, even though I've been bit by it.
|
| After rationally agreeing not to get anything (because we
| were about to move overseas on a couple of luggages and
| didn't want extra stuff) my SO got me 3 (3!! usually it
| was one per event) gifts and I was empty handed.
|
| And I had to resell / returns some of the items as we
| were moving anyway and we could just buy better quality
| stuff later on, without having to pay for the move.
| 64StarFox64 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_(essay)
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| Nope. I dont want or need more shit.
| scottLobster wrote:
| Did you miss the part where she gas-lit him? She agreed
| with all the points about moissanite/etc and then got
| bent out of shape when he took her at her word. Clearly
| all that was a "test" that he was supposed to "pass". I
| rarely see happy marriages with that kind of behavior as
| a baseline. God forbid he get her Carnations and a nice
| dinner for Valentine's day, she'll likely ignore the
| dinner and focus on why he didn't get her roses instead.
|
| It's also a weird interpretation. My response would have
| been something like "moissanite has better visual
| properties, is free of all slave/conflict concerns, and
| saves us money for the honeymoon, so our love shines
| brighter, is built on a pure foundation, and will give us
| experiences we'll never forget".
|
| More over it's extremely materialistic. Someone who loves
| you is pledging their life to you. Assuming the ring in
| question is fundamentally tasteful, is it too much to ask
| to focus on the life pledge instead of the $$ value of
| the symbol?
|
| But I guess I lucked out. My wife rarely takes off her
| vintage ring with syntehtic rubies and a couple of tiny
| real accent diamonds on yellow gold (because that's what
| it came with). I knew her aesthetic tastes and got her
| something that matched those tastes, and it's unique
| enough that it stands out amongst her sisters/friends.
| And it certainly wasn't two months' salary, which she
| well knows. We didn't have that amount in savings at the
| time.
| akarma wrote:
| I didn't view it as gaslighting, I viewed it in the way I
| said it: she may have not wanted to demand a 'genuine'
| diamond, so she left it open-ended. What woman wants to
| demand that when asked for preference? Demanding it would
| remove the sincerity and meaningfulness of the man's
| gesture.
|
| On the note of carnations for Valentine's Day, I'd view
| it in much the same way. Unless she's told you how much
| she adores and prefers carnations on Valentine's Day,
| roses are the best bet.
|
| My partner and past partners have always fit that type,
| and I don't think either is lucky or better or right. I
| personally enjoy the tradition and the unspoken symbolism
| in the gifts, and striving to make her happy without it
| being spelled out for me.
|
| I'm happy you have someone who makes you feel lucky, and
| who matches your preferences for communication and a
| relationship -- finding that is possibly the greatest
| feeling in life. I simply aim to point out that either
| are valid, normal preferences and dynamics, as opposed to
| one being gaslighting.
| Izkata wrote:
| > Unless she's told you how much she adores and prefers
| carnations on Valentine's Day, roses are the best bet.
|
| Um, she _did_ say with regards to the gem, that 's the
| confusing part.
| akarma wrote:
| A woman saying she doesn't mind carnations, and that she
| thinks carnations are fine, is not nearly the same as
| saying she adores them and prefers them for the occasion
| of Valentine's Day.
| mNovak wrote:
| When the stakes are that high however, this is the
| definition of poor communication. No one's a mind reader,
| and how many other unspoken expectations are there?
| raverbashing wrote:
| He should have explained about DeBeers. That would have brought
| the number of raised hands down.
|
| The ice analogy is a bit faulty because no one is eating their
| diamonds and the impurities are technically advantageous
| (though most people want the shiny "perfect" diamond which are
| much easier to come about artificially).
| slightwinder wrote:
| Aren't the impurities which make them shiny? Or is this also
| just marketing?
| raverbashing wrote:
| No, impurities would make it not white. Pure diamonds are
| shiny the same way (shinier than glass).
| jl2718 wrote:
| "Do you want natural diamonds or man-made diamonds?"
|
| The correct answer is: no.
| evrydayhustling wrote:
| Diamond branding taps into a much more fundamental obsession
| with scarcity, which manufactured objects cannot provide. Scott
| Galloway explores this really well in a recent post comparing
| NFTs to long-standing art world practices: "Scarcity has always
| been a function of bits, not atoms." [1]
|
| I wonder if synthetic diamonds that were organized into
| specifically limited editions would hold more value...
|
| [1] https://www.profgalloway.com/scarcity-cred/
| Nursie wrote:
| Potentially synthetic diamonds could destroy the scarcity
| appeal of natural diamonds.
| evrydayhustling wrote:
| Right or wrong, Galloway's thesis would specifically reject
| that idea. Synthetic diamonds are equivalent (or superior!)
| on an _atoms_ level. But on a _bits_ level they lack the
| history of being formed in the Earth 's crust, which stays
| scarce.
|
| Diamond marketing exploits that to good effect -- most
| diamonds are marked and registered in a database that
| traces its unique history. Doing so makes it _possible_ to
| value the history as unique, and also leads by example in
| investing in the value of that history (they make a big
| deal out of the tech used to confirm authenticity). Since
| the final purpose of the diamond is to demonstrate stored
| value rather than produce it, the target buyer is focused
| on whether others recognize the value, not whether it is
| justified.
|
| On a personal level, I think the history of "real" diamonds
| is almost always horrific and a negative asset! I hope
| companies like Pandora can put marketing power into
| creating scarcity stories for synthetic diamonds.
| an_opabinia wrote:
| > most diamonds are marked and registered in a database
| that traces its unique history
|
| Most engineering projects around cultural products change
| (not necessarily improve) the "registered in a database"
| process. Whereas most value comes from creating /
| enriching a "unique history."
| Nursie wrote:
| > Doing so makes it possible to value the history as
| unique
|
| It may make it possible, but I would dispute that many
| people really care all that much about the story. Sure,
| they care about 'real', but what that means is up for
| debate.
|
| > the target buyer is focused on whether others recognize
| the value
|
| Pretty solidly they don't, hence the abysmal second hand
| values! But you're not wrong - to split hairs I think
| it's whether others recognise how much was spent, which
| lots of people confuse with value :)
| [deleted]
| smabie wrote:
| _everyone_ would prefer natural diamonds to artificial ones.
|
| Why? Because natural ones are more expensive. It's literally
| like asking someone whether they prefer to have $20 or $40.
| mNovak wrote:
| If your partner offers to buy you a $5 McDonalds cheeseburger
| or a $50 McDonalds cheeseburger, which would you accept?
| CivBase wrote:
| Reminds me of when Jamie Oliver tried to convince kids that
| chicken nuggets were bad by showing them how nuggets are made.
| Even after showing disgust at the whole process, all of the
| kids still wanted to eat chicken nuggets at the end.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKwL5G5HbGA
|
| I think it takes a lot more than logic to convince most people
| to change opinions - especially on matters of preference or
| taste.
| tiborsaas wrote:
| > at a fraction of the cost
|
| That might also be the reason. If something is cheaper, it
| feels inferior.
|
| Also with diamonds it's probably a factor that the fiance is
| expected to present serious intents with a deeper monetary
| investment. "Look honey, it's an ethical, clean diamond and
| only cost 1/20th of a dirty one" sad, but feels wrong.
|
| Edit: I also remember a guy at dinner party bragging about
| buying a 5000EUR ring, it goes both ways.
| mrighele wrote:
| > Also with diamonds it's probably a factor that the fiance
| is expected to present serious intents with a deeper monetary
| investment. "Look honey, it's an ethical, clean diamond and
| only cost 1/20th of a dirty one" sad, but feels wrong.
|
| Then he can spend the same money for a bigger diamond ? That
| would give also more bragging rights to the future wife
| (nobody will come and ask if it is a natural or artificial
| one).
| jankassens wrote:
| Maybe the key would be to keep the artificial diamond ring at
| a similar price point. Larger, designer brand, more manual
| labor details, I don't know. Not saving money, but get a
| superior product.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > A Veblen good is a type of luxury good for which the demand
| for a good increases as the price increases, in apparent
| contradiction of the law of demand, resulting in an upward-
| sloping demand curve. The higher prices of Veblen goods may
| make them desirable as a status symbol in the practices of
| conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure. A product
| may be a Veblen good because it is a positional good,
| something few others can own.
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
|
| Also:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good
| anoncake wrote:
| Buy 20 then. I wonder if there's a way to tastefully put them
| all on a single ring.
| tiborsaas wrote:
| A friend of mine lost the fist one so he had to go back the
| same day to the same shop :)
| caeril wrote:
| > I realized the strength of diamonds product branding
|
| No, that's not it.
|
| Diamonds are conspicuous status signaling. It's a very _human_
| , even _animal_ drive. DeBeers gets a lot of hate, and much of
| it deservedly so, but they tapped into and exploited our nature
| - they didn 't create it.
| nailer wrote:
| Quick reminder of options for men looking to get married and
| looking to avoid getting exploited by De Beers:
|
| 1. Man made diamonds. Better clarity and color and larger gems
| for the same price. Or the same gem for a smaller price.
|
| 2. Second hand mined diamonds. Better jewelers, deceased estates,
| auction houses like Sotheby's and Christie's etc.
|
| 3. Other precious stones which are not diamonds.
|
| 4. Not buying a stone or a ring (eg if she doesn't take your
| surname and you don't wish to have traditional gender roles it
| would be unreasonable to expect a gem to be provided).
| natn wrote:
| "Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever"
|
| They're wrong of course. Diamonds are flammable and also
| decompose (slowly) in sunlight.
| username90 wrote:
| Anyone who wants or buys natural diamonds are right wing. If they
| vote left wing that is only social signalling, in heir hearts
| they are right wing.
| feralimal wrote:
| "Both types are chemically and physically identical to mined
| diamonds."
|
| Maybe they've been laboratory made all along?! Lol
| midjji wrote:
| Well unless you light them on fire?
| kwdc wrote:
| Diamonds are cheap. You can tell by their resale value.
| globular-toast wrote:
| A general life pro tip is before buying anything expensive,
| check the resell value. If there is no second hand market, then
| it's a consumable. Aim to minimise all consumption. The cost of
| owning something is the depreciation and the insurance policy
| you take out on it (or just accept the risk). The cost of
| owning a $10k diamond is likely to be far, far higher than the
| cost of owning a $10k violin, for example.
| audunw wrote:
| Good move. The problems related to mining is my main reason for
| not wanting to buy any jewelry with gems. Maybe I'd consider
| buying something from a brand that avoids all mined diamonds.
| The_rationalist wrote:
| Off-topic: Nylene blue made a video where he transform
| (serendipitously) glass beads to very beautiful "jowels" through
| supracritical impacts. I wonder if this paradigm has been tried
| for jewels and if it could make more interesting lab grown
| diamonds.
|
| https://youtu.be/JslxPjrMzqY
| gspr wrote:
| Not to nitpick, but just to make sure this wonderful creator
| gets credit where credit's due: his youtuber name is NileRed,
| and NileBlue (not Nylene blue) is the name of his secondary,
| less serious and less scripted, channel.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/user/TheRedNile
| optimalsolver wrote:
| A great movie that relates to this is Blood Diamond (2006)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz6kAEQl9mw
| intsunny wrote:
| I wonder how well this Reddit-famous commentary about the diamond
| industry has aged:
|
| https://reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8pb8d5/i_grow_diamonds_i_...
| JoshuaEddy wrote:
| The comment predicts a precipitous fall in price. A gem-quality
| diamond price index [1] shows fluctuation but nothing
| precipitous:
|
| Jun 7 2018: 124.79 (day of Reddit comment)
|
| May 4 2021: 124.27 (today)
|
| The reddit comment ignores obvious macroeconomic trends. Growth
| of middle class in China and India are adding to the diamond
| demand (a lot), in addition to general global population growth
| and greater purchasing power.
|
| [1] http://www.idexonline.com/diamond_prices_index
| tda wrote:
| There was an article the other day that talked about the resale
| value of diamonds. Basically jewelers refuse to buy back
| diamonds at any reasonable price (compared to original retail
| value. And refuse to make new rings with old diamond etc. So
| there is very little market for second hand diamonds.
|
| Sounds like a business ready to be disrupted
|
| Edit: Found the article:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/15/fashion/jewelry-diamond-s...
| clajiness wrote:
| > Basically jewelers refuse to buy back diamonds at any
| reasonable price (compared to original retail value. And
| refuse to make new rings with old diamond etc.
|
| I bought my wife's diamond out of an ugly ring I found at a
| pawn shop. I brought it to a jeweler at a mall and had him
| pop it in one of his bands.
|
| I saved a TON of money, my wife got a modern design with a
| really high quality stone, and the jeweler still got some
| business and his ring on another finger.
|
| Win/Win
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| faet wrote:
| Diamond prices are fairly stable, the issue is jewelers mark
| prices way up and most people don't know what a good price
| is. If a diamond goes for $5k wholesale, chances are they're
| looking to sell it for $10-20k. Since most people only buy
| 1-2 engagement rings in their lifetime they don't know what
| is a reasonable price. They "shop around" at three stores
| that are all owned by the same company. So they end up paying
| $15k for a ring. Then if they need to return it they only get
| $5k for it. They overpaid due to the emotion of the moment
| and expect to get something close.
|
| Even in the article you listed there were a number of offers
| all close to each other. ~8-10k is a 'reasonable price' for
| that ring.
|
| Most jewelers I've interacted with are more than happy to buy
| your diamond for a bit under wholesale cost. They're also
| happy to make rings with old diamonds. They make money
| selling settings too.
|
| One issue is the public. There are a number of people who
| don't want a "Used Ring". But, there are a large number of
| diamonds being sold that have been owned previously.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| I feel like if you took and old diamond ring, reset it and
| refinished it, there would be no way to tell that it was
| "used". Maybe resetting it will introduce some flaws that
| weren't there before.
|
| Kind of crazy when people say they want a "new" diamond,
| uh....well all of them are literally millions of years old
| unless it's lab grown.
| 55555 wrote:
| > I feel like if you took and old diamond ring, reset it
| and refinished it, there would be no way to tell that it
| was "used". Maybe resetting it will introduce some flaws
| that weren't there before.
|
| Can anyone who works in the diamond industry respond to
| this? Can anyone tell if a diamond has been made into a
| ring before? Would it damage the diamond to remove it
| from the ring? This sounds like an opportunity to plaster
| signs that say "WE BUY DIAMOND RINGS" all over and buy
| them back from consumers at a discount from wholesale.
| faet wrote:
| Not in the diamond industry. But, most diamonds are
| etched with a serial number. GIA etches a report number
| you can look up online for instance. Similar to a VIN you
| _could_ probably google it and see if it 's been
| listed/sold elsewhere. Unlikely though as the turn around
| on diamonds is very low.
|
| The easiest way is to determine through the setting.
| Styles change. If it's a setting from the 50s that isn't
| made anymore it's probably old. If it's a setting from a
| company that is < 10 years old it's got a better chance
| of being new.
|
| Diamonds are not damaged when swapping settings. They are
| often removed and reset if a prong breaks for instance.
|
| Most people just don't want to buy from estate sales or
| auction. So, jewelry stores will do that, clean it up,
| put it in a new setting (or leave it as is), and resell
| it as 'new'.
| bluedevil2k wrote:
| This is all correct! I've worked in the diamond business
| for almost a decade now and see people complain on HN and
| Reddit constantly about diamonds all while barely
| understanding the industry at all. The common complaint of
| "you can't sell them for what you paid" is a dumb complaint
| because they don't understand the HUGE markup the stones
| receive at retail.
|
| Here's the profit margins that the stones receive along the
| way: - Miners selling to cutters - 10-15% profit - Cutters
| selling to wholesalers - 3-5% profit - Wholesalers selling
| to retail - 10-20% profit - Retail to consumers - 100-200%
| profit
|
| Everyone on these threads is always mad at the miners and I
| never see any anger placed on the Jared's, Kay's, Zale's of
| the world (all owned by the same company btw).
| bkor wrote:
| > The common complaint of "you can't sell them for what
| you paid"
|
| You and the other person gives loads of reasons why
| people giving that complaint are entirely right. The
| marketing is (partly) that it is valuable. In practice
| you'll not be able to resell it for a similar value.
| bluedevil2k wrote:
| I was hoping the takeaway would be "don't buy diamonds
| from retail". BlueNile is the best option here in the US
| for buying diamonds, usually around a 10-15% markup over
| wholesale.
| nickik wrote:
| Never understood diamonds. Practically in the real world, how
| would you know the difference between a diamond and a simply
| piece of glass or the cheapest possible fake diamond?
| irrational wrote:
| Years ago the natural diamond in my wife's wedding ring fell out
| somewhere, so she stopped wearing the ring. When our 25th
| anniversary was coming up I asked her if she wanted to get a new
| ring. Our 20-something year old daughters got wind of this and
| said under no circumstances could we get a natural diamond. I'd
| never paid much attention to the issue since I hadn't been in the
| market for a diamond in the 26 since years since I purchased one
| for the first ring (a ring that only cost $600 since I was a poor
| college student, no wonder the diamond eventually fell out).
|
| I did some looking around and learned about Moissanite. The women
| on r/moissanite were especially enthused about it. From there I
| learned that you could design and purchase Moissanite jewelry
| directly from China. I had my wife look through the rings of one
| of the stores on Alibaba and choose one that she liked, except
| the color was wrong (she wanted rose gold instead of platinum).
| So I reached out to the company and asked about the possibility
| of getting it made in rose gold. I was assured it was no problem.
| I told them I wanted solid rose gold and not plated. They said
| the price would be higher, but no problem. I sent my wife's ring
| size and a few days later they sent back CAD mockups of what the
| ring would look like with measurements. I had them enlarge the
| bottom of the band and we came to an agreement on what
| cut/color/clarity/etc. all of the side moissanite stones would
| be. Then we started working on the main stone. We came to an
| agreement on size (2 Carat), color, clarity, style, etc. We could
| specify everything about the stone from the height of the crown
| to the width of the edge to the way the stone was cut to the
| bottom point - frankly we had to read up a lot of how stones are
| cut and what the different options are to know how to
| appropriately respond. About a week later they had finished
| cutting the stone and sent us videos of it under different light
| conditions so that we could approve it. Then they manufactured
| the ring and sent us videos of it to approve. After approval and
| final payment we received it in the mail about 3 days later.
|
| Frankly my wife loves the ring. It really is gorgeous and
| everyone thinks the Moissanite is a real diamond.
|
| My favorite part is that the entire thing only cost me $700. 10
| out of 10 I'd definitely do it that way again.
| detaro wrote:
| Very cool, and nice to see the customization worked out.
| nailer wrote:
| > Laboratory-made diamonds are today all but indistinguishable
| from the real thing
|
| They are the real thing. A better way of wording this would be:
|
| > Man-made diamonds are today all but indistinguishable from
| their mined counterparts.
| intrasight wrote:
| There must be a Bitcoin analogy in there somewhere.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-04 23:02 UTC)