
Diamonds Are Bullshit - danielpal
http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bullshit
======
kyrra
(person I know) worked for GE (General Electric) on their industrial diamond
production process back in the 90's, and I got to hear lots of fun stories
from this.

Diamonds that are man-made[1] are stronger (fewer imperfections) than those
that are mined from the earth. Because of this, industrial diamonds tend to be
man-made. (for reference, industrial diamonds when cutting hard materials,
such as metals).

While working on these diamonds, GE decided to start investigating making
consumer level diamonds that could be sold for jewelry. They were able to
produce diamonds that would have excelled when compared to natural diamonds
(when it comes to the 4 Cs). One of the fun things was they could add various
gases to the manufacturing process to create diamonds of various colors. There
is still a decent cost associated with producing diamonds this way, so they
probably would have still been expensive, but not at the levels that De Beers
was charging at the time.

At this point GE started to look into what would happen if they would have
actually gone down this line, selling consumer-level diamonds. After a little
investigation, the GE lawyers and upper-management decided to kill off the
idea as it would not have been worth the hassle. De Beers started a small
campaign that was discrediting man-made diamonds, and it would have gotten a
lot worse if GE even tried to enter the market. GE decided it was not worth
the hassle, and killed the consumer-level diamond project.

De Beers has created an artificial market and they are doing what they can to
prevent anyone else from entering their market. Most companies don't want to
deal going up against them, so they just leave De Beers to run around gouging
consumers.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_diamond#High_pressure...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_diamond#High_pressure.2C_high_temperature)

~~~
maratd
> so they just leave De Beers to run around gouging consumers

That's kind of missing the point. If diamonds were 5 bucks a piece, women
would no longer be interested in receiving rings bejeweled by them.

A woman wants a man who is financially secure. If you can't afford a shiny
rock, you can't afford what's coming after it either, so there's no point.

~~~
enraged_camel
It doesn't have anything to do with financial security. Look, if your man is
spending three months worth of salary on a piece of shiny rock, he is
exercising poor financial judgment and that is a signal _against_ future
financial security.

Women want diamonds not because of any symbolic reasons ("Diamonds are
forever!") but because of reasons that are much more practical: they want to
be able to show off the diamonds to their group of (female) and boost their
social status among them. At the end of the day it is nothing more than a way
of saying "I am better than you!"

This is why many women will accept, at the rational level, that diamonds are
horrible and stupid and even evil (since they fuel all kinds of violence in
Africa, where they are mined). But most of them will not be able to bring
themselves to accept substitutes such as sapphires, rubies, or emeralds.
Because that would make their female friends think that the guy does not value
them as much (or that they weren't able to find a guy who finds them worthy
enough for a diamond).

Social status. That's what it is all about.

~~~
jenius
You absolutely nailed it with this comment. Was reading pieces of the debate
out loud to my girlfriend, who is rather rational and intelligent but for some
reason still wants a diamond ring (and I couldn't really figure out why) -
when I read this and looked over, I knew you got it 100% right. Well done.

~~~
omegant
Then buy used (the diamond) and pay for a nice ring design. But don't tell
her.

~~~
lesterbuck
My grandfather ran a grocery store throughout the Depression, and he
accumulated a large selection of diamond rings from cash strapped customers.
When my father and his brother were getting married, they had their choice of
the rings.

I've always wondered how other diamond rings get recycled or removed from the
market. Diamonds are forever, after all, so why doesn't the price collapse
from being awash in used stones from three or four generations of dead women?

~~~
jrmg
As we found out when looking for a ring, there is (perhaps manufactured)
superstitious social stigma attached to using a used engagement ring. How do
you know it's not from a failed marriage? Many jewelers were confused and
incredulous when we asked about one.

After a certain age is reached though, the stigma seems to go away somewhat.
We got a 'vintage' ring (about 100 years old) in the end - but they're hard to
find; you won't find them in most chain jewelry stores.

Incidentally, the reason you don't see many used bands is different; the
metals are worth so much now that it's more cost effective to melt them down
than to resell them at the depressed price the market demands for used jewelry
compared to new.

~~~
Thrall
> Many jewelers were confused and incredulous when we asked about one.

Bear in mind that it is in the jeweller's interest to perpetuate such
superstitions as it means they can persuade many customers to buy a new ring
instead.

Buying a diamonds as a romantic gesture, the buyer is vulnerable for two
reasons:

1) They're unlikely to have much experience of buying jewellery; for many,
this is the only occasion.

2) They probably feel very strongly about the gesture; it's very important
that they get it right. Overspending pales beside the risk of offending the
love of their life and/or subjecting them to negative judgement by their
peers.

As a result, it is all too easy for jewellers to intimidate the buyer by
telling them exactly what is 'expected' and charging absurd prices for it.

~~~
jrmg
Absolutely - which is why I said the sentiment was perhaps manufactured. We
went to multiple jewellers though, big and small, and either _all_ the
employees were great actors or at least some were genuinely surprised that we
made the request.

Still, 'real' superstition or manufactured one, we didn't fall for it. I
suspect many do though. A web search for "used engagement ring back luck"
reveals the superstition is pretty widespread.

[Edit: Not that I mean that many people actually _believe_ that the used
status of the ring will affect their marriage - I suspect they're more
concerned on how their partner and, perhaps more so, their peers will judge
their decision]

------
steveklabnik
It's linked within the article, but it's worth pointing out that "Have you
ever tried to sell a diamond"[1] is very much worth your time, and has been
discussed here many times.

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4535611>

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1405698>

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1110283>

1: [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-
you...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-
tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/?single_page=true)

~~~
mikestew
Not only is it linked in the article, it is very much a replay of the original
Atlantic article. I didn't see a lot of added value in the article posted
here, so just go read the Atlantic's.

~~~
burgreblast
Yup. I just read the Atlantic article a few days ago. This piece gave me the
feeling the priceonomics author did too.

I'm not much of a fan of simply rewriting content for one's blog.

------
guylhem
I see people talking about various things like the (1) (2) (3) arguments for a
women to evaluate a man : (1) is the ability to provide; 2) is the willingness
to forgo other things (opportunity costs to talk economics) (3) "is
demonstrating to the woman's peers her husband's social standing."
(signalling)

Raynier posted this deep down in a reply which might be lost to you if you
don't read all the comments. It would be a shame to miss it. Read it, along
with the reasoning where he says such criterias would be perfectly valid for
his own daughter: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5404423>

It seems perfectly valid, yet I could not disagree more. We are forgetting a
important (4) : you fund atrocious wars and dictatorships. That's a strong
negative externality.

When you see a diamonds, instead of seeing a shiny rock, you should see part
of a human soul instead, a fraction of a person who died in vain for this
worthless piece of rock you want for your wives or daughters to "sustain the
tradition".

If social convention required 1 pound of flesh taken by the knife on a living
human, would you insist on it, for the sake of the tradition? (I fear many
would - after all, it matches the 1,2,3 requirements)

If social convention requires a diamond, which you know very well will cause
war, death and misery, and if you did not say yes to the previous question,
why are you insisting on it?

It strikes me as illogical, inconsistent. Either you believe that human life
is more important than tradition, or you don't. I can understand diverging
opinions, I can hardly understand inconsistency in a system of belief, so I'm
very sad to see intelligent replies advocating this 1,2,3 argument while
missing the huge downside #4 is.

Maybe someday the sale of things containing "natural diamonds" will be banned
- just like the sale of things containing bald eagles feathers.

IHMO, it should: as much as I love the market and freedom, sometimes
externalities are just too big to be ignored - especially when there is also a
monopolist in action, and perfect substitutes like man made diamonds.

~~~
rayiner
Its' really hard to live life stepping on eggshells worrying about injustices
to other people. At the end of the day, I bet most people on this thread
drive, and there is very little else that humans do that does more violence to
the environment and to other humans than the use of fossil fuels. It goes far
beyond that. If you're an American, your comfortable life exists because of
the American government's willingness to inflict violence on other people to
maintain our status in the world.

It's massively hypocritical to single out diamonds amongst all this.

~~~
guylhem
You talk about oil and injustice, but there is no reasonable cost effective
substitute to oil at the moment, while there are better alternatives to
natural diamonds - man made diamonds - which could easily become cheaper too.

> _"If you're an American, your comfortable life exists because of the
> American government's willingness to inflict violence on other people to
> maintain our status in the world"_

There are few alternatives with our current technology, if the american way of
life is not to be negotiated, so let's leave that aside. In any case, when
north america becomes self sufficient again or even a net exporter of energy,
things will change.

OTOH, for diamonds, there does not seems to be any change in sight. They are a
massive hypocrisy, with the huge negative externality of fuelling wars and
human misery - and they are controlled by a monopolist!

I'm sorry maybe I'm too heartless and an economist in the soul, but I just
can't dig this idea. Diamonds are awful in any way I can see them. And I miss
my life partner because of this _IT WILL BE A GOOD THING_ : better splitting
up early : both the costs and the emotional attachment will be lower.

EDIT: you talk about taking a train, walking, relocating - that's not
acceptable for most people; also it will cause them undue burdens. Replacing a
shiny rock by a purer shinier rock is possible and simple. It just requires
some cultural or legal changes (think bald eagle feathers) which seems already
underway.

~~~
rayiner
De Beers isn't a monopolist and hasn't been once since 2000, when key
producers in Canada, Australia, Russia, India, etc, started selling diamonds
outside the channels.

The negative externality caused by diamonds is tiny in comparison to the ones
caused by fossil fuels.

For individuals, there are reasonable, cost-effective substitutes to reduce
oil consumption. I take an electric train to work and walk everywhere else. I
own a car, but drive it maybe once a month. People choose to drive, they
choose to live in places like Silicon Valley where driving is part of the
culture, they choose to live in suburbs, etc. We could use a lot less oil if
people chose to life in places like New York. But the choice to live a car-
centric lifestyle probably won't engender as much vitriol here on HN as the
choice to buy a diamond engagement ring, even though in the grand scheme of
things it's far more damaging.

~~~
WildUtah
_People choose to drive, they choose to live in places like Silicon Valley
where driving is part of the culture, they choose to live in suburbs, etc._

Not in the USA.

Building anything other than car-dependent sprawl is illegal in the USA. The
few areas grandfathered in before New Deal laws and regulations in the 1930s
are expensive for their scarcity. It's a major driver of NY and SF real estate
prices that you're not allowed to build anything like them anywhere in the
USA.

And if you do move to NY or SF, you're not doing the environment any good. You
just displaced someone else out of the city into car-dependent sprawl. The
only way to use quality and efficient urbanism to improve the environment is
to build more of it and no demand or price increase will do that because, as I
mentioned, it's illegal.

I recommend "The High Cost of Free Parking" by Dr. Shoup, and "The Geography
of Nowhere" by Kunstler if you want to understand more.

~~~
dyno12345
SF is still pretty car-dependent

------
robotmay
One of my favourite customs for propositioning marriage has, unfortunately,
largely died out.

In Wales, and I believe parts of Scandinavia (which opens up interesting
theories as to vikings bringing the custom to Wales), a man would propose with
a spoon: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovespoon>

To me that is infinitely more expressive and thoughtful than purchasing a
transparent rock. Maybe it's because I currently live in Wales, or the fact
that I carve spoons for fun, but there's a romance there which I just can't
see in a ring.

Unfortunately the pressures of society (especially not helped by Disney
fairytale romances) seem to have brought us to the point of no return. My
girlfriend knows that diamonds are worthless, but I know that were I to
propose without one that there would be a part of her which felt like she was
missing something; even if she didn't want to feel that way.

~~~
eli
Forgetting about diamonds for a moment, I think there's something nice about a
ring: a symbol of commitment that everyone can see. Only bummer is that it's
not customary for a man to wear one before marriage.

~~~
henrikschroder
In Sweden, engagement rings are a matching pair of plain gold bands. At the
wedding, the bride adds a (nicer) wedding ring, and the groom exchanges his
engagement ring for a wedding ring.

------
arbuge
"So here is a modest proposal: Let’s agree that diamonds are bullshit and
reject their role in the marriage process. Let’s admit that as a society we
got tricked for about century into coveting sparkling pieces of carbon, but
it’s time to end the nonsense."

Hear hear, but good luck convincing zillions of single women that they'll be
the first generation in living memory to miss out on their carbon.

~~~
jpdoctor
The carbon is a proxy (which is missed in the article, among other things.)

It's social signaling. Or to put it another way: How many $$ can your man
throw away without incurring pauperhood?

~~~
3pt14159
Like coloured feathers on a bird. Could you imagine if the story was just
_slightly_ changed:

"Let's admit that women buying sports cars for their fiancé-to-be is
bullshit."

Hmmmm... Now I want a Z4 Zagato.

But in all seriousness this would have ended in the 70s when feminist protests
started.

~~~
jpdoctor
> _But in all seriousness this would have ended in the 70s when feminist
> protests started._

I started dating in the 70s: I thought it was a period of bizarre contrasts.

But then as time went by, I realized dating has been bizarre since the time we
were all living in caves.

~~~
Zimahl
Let's just all agree that we can send a man to the moon but there will never
be an algorithm that can help you figure out even 1% of the female psyche.

~~~
jamesaguilar
> Let's just all agree that we can send a man to the moon but there will never
> be an algorithm that can help you figure out even 1% of the female psyche.

This was the comment that convinced me that you are a sexist.

~~~
Karunamon
s/female/human/g

Considering the readership of this site will be predominantly male anyways..

(And for the love of pascal would you please stop bandying about the "sexism"
label? It is literally nothing more than a personal attack that adds nothing
to any conversation)

~~~
jamesaguilar
I meant it as a personal attack for the reprehensible views he has expressed
in this thread.

~~~
VexXtreme
How are they reprehensible? What exactly makes them reprehensible? I don't
recall him saying anything an adult internet user should find offensive.

The man is expressing his opinion and if you're bothered by that, perhaps you
should consider turning off your computer and not participating in internet
discussions. There are plenty of places in this world where people won't
offend your delicate sensibilities.

~~~
jamesaguilar
> expressing his opinion

He expressed his opinion that women are inscrutable and more susceptible to
irrational impulses, but failed to provide any rational evidence of the same.
This is sexist. The fact that it's "his opinion" and "his right to express it"
buys him nothing in my book.

> consider turning off your computer

I'm fine where I am, thanks.

~~~
transitionality
You're proving his point with your overreaction.

~~~
jamesaguilar
What point am I proving?

------
joeblau
This article is interesting. I remember in Geology class when our teacher
explained that you could make synthetic diamonds for a fraction of the price
of a real diamond. He then asked all the women if they would rather have a
natural diamond or a synthetic diamond, and almost all of them raised their
hands. He then went on to explain that it was like the difference between
natural ice and ice made in a freezer. He asked the question again and almost
all the women still voted for natural.

That day I realized the power of the diamond marketing engine.

~~~
jld
I did a fair amount of research on this when shopping for my wife, and
couldn't find any decent sized (say, larger than ~1/2 carat) clear synthetic
diamonds. There were some options in yellow or pink, but I didn't find a
thriving manufactured diamond industry I thought I would find.

Regardless, even if I had, manufacturers of gem grade diamonds wouldn't need
to undercut the price of natural diamonds by much. The cartel has done all the
hard work raising the price for them already. Market them at 90% of natural
diamonds and reap the rewards.

~~~
vinhboy
Agreed. Does anyone know a reliable place to buy man-made diamonds? I never
found one during my search.

------
cobrausn
Sure, and we all know it. But from her perspective, you probably waste all
kinds of time and money on other inane bullshit for yourself. So if you
actually cared, you wouldn't mind spending a bit so she gets a shiny rock to
wear around. Why shouldn't she get this one thing?

Also, how is this any different from fashion? Both are nearly useless raw
materials that have been transformed and shaped into something people will pay
money to own and wear (signaling). For diamonds, you get conflict in Africa.
For fashion, you get sweatshops in Asia.

~~~
stephengillie
If she wants it so badly, why doesn't she buy herself one?

If she doesn't have enough money, then she should work until she does. Or she
should provide something of equivalent value, at which point this becomes a
business negotiation.

------
EvaK_de
I tried to get an impression of how (American) women think about this, so I
went ahead and posted this article in a wedding-related forum. The forum's
population is about 99% female (including me). Usually the tone there is very
civil and opinions are well-balanced. Members treat each other with resepct.

But his time it's completely different: the reactions are crushing! I was
bashed and put down like never before on the web, although I never even
suggested that I agree with the author's opinion. They even went so far as to
scan my older threads. They found one from half a year ago, where I pointed
out another article with a similar topic, and then began to bach me in this
dead topic, too.

Meanwhile it seams that the mods have closed the old thread, and I have
deleted the new one myself since the bashing was getting me down.

What is it that makes american women so aggressive, when it comes to
criticizing diamonds? I don't get it.

Living in Germany, I never quite understood how you can restrict a whole
culture to believe so fiercely that a piece of compressed carbon is so very
meaningful.

Link to the closed thread: [http://boards.weddingbee.com/topic/mens-view-on-
engagement-r...](http://boards.weddingbee.com/topic/mens-view-on-engagement-
rings#axzz2O5MZvUtK)

------
toast76
Trying to argue against engagement rings is like arguing against internet
censorship. Your opinion is tainted before you open your mouth because the
only people who could possibly oppose such things are cheap bastards or
pedophiles, respectively.

If you refuse to buy a diamond, it's because you're cheap or don't love "her"
enough. No amount of hand waving or sensible logic will make up for the fact
that you'll just look like an asshole.

There's no logic in love, just shut up and buy her the damned ring.

~~~
sjtrny
If your other half says that it's because you don't love them enough you need
to get a new partner who doesn't behave like a 10 year old.

~~~
takluyver
You have to accommodate some disagreements in a relationship. Most men aren't
going to disagree strongly enough on this one issue to use the nuclear option
on the relationship.

------
arethuza
When we got married 22 years ago my wife was about to go into law school and I
was living on a pittance doing a PhD - so we didn't spend much money on rings.

These days, although she still has her original engagement and wedding rings
she doesn't wear them. What she does is buy rings every year or two and
designate these as her "official" engagement and wedding rings...

The particularly amusing thing is that she never spends much money (I checked
this morning and the rings she is currently wearing cost £12 and £55).
However, they were bought in interesting places (Marrakech and Krakow) and
_look_ great - in particular her current "engagement" ring (cost £55) - has
huge clear stones. Because she is now a successful commercial litigation
lawyer everyone assumes they are real, although when people ask she tells the
truth. Everyone assumes that because she _could_ afford a real ring her fake
ring must be real.

~~~
estebank
Well, they _are_ real, as long as they really are in her finger they are as
real as any expensive ring or a ring that came with the cereal. :)

------
DanBC
It's a bit weird to see people so against diamonds (something they don't want
and don't need) and happily using dead Africans in their discussion, but when
you start talking about gold or rare earth minerals that shiny gadget isn't
bullshit, it's an important tool. (Never mind that a machine from 5 years ago
is for almost everybody just as capable.)

~~~
3pt14159
The underlying reason that so many are against it isn't really the bleeding
africans; it is the underlying sexist tones of "The man will provide" "The man
must do something that goes against his rationality to make the woman happy"
"It shouldn't matter to the man that De Beers is manipulating the market, the
man will provide" "It should not matter that synthetic diamonds that are not
noticeably different to the naked eye can be made for a tenth of the price"

The real reason isn't the blood diamond aspect. It is the male equivalent of
"get in the kitchen and bake me a pie", except social expectation is for men
to do the things that are expected of them, regardless of the inherit fairness
or rationality.

------
ankeshk
DeBeers today controls 35% of the diamonds. They are not big enough any more
to control and manipulate diamond prices - as they used to before. Diamond
prices are still high, and rising because of the demand.

The demand in countries like India and China is rising. Diamonds and jewelry
is the modern dowry. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry>

Its inherent value is that it shows people that the family is well to do.

Things may change with the advent of artificial factory made diamonds (already
showing up, but not in big quantities). But it won't ruin the diamond prices,
just create two diamond categories. It should follow the trends that the pearl
industry followed after the advent of cultural pearls.

Source: my Dad is a diamond trader.

~~~
Helianthus
It is the demand that I am unhappy with.

~~~
ankeshk
Being a minimalist myself, I know where you come from. Buying something
expensive just to show others that you can buy something expensive seems like
a ridiculous idea to me.

But a big part of the world give a lot of importance to status and social
standing. This is precisely the notion that has made money for companies like
Rolex. And the haute couture fashion industry.

~~~
dllthomas
Look, it's not about the rock, it's about the message: "I would hurt poor
people for you." Romantic.

------
junto
I'd really rather not marry the kind of woman that expected a large overpriced
shiny rock on her hand so that she could show-off to her friends, which once
married is then a piece of (relatively) worthless jewellery that will sit in a
box until she dies and her child inherits it.

Luckily the woman I chose to marry, preferred that our money would be better
spent on putting a roof over our heads and paying for our children's
education.

At the end of the day, the people that sell diamonds being mined out of the
earth, are a bunch of scum, trading on the poverty and blood of (mostly) war
torn Africa.

I would have serious doubts about any woman, that feels that their necessity
for an expensive shiny stone, is worth the suffering of others.

~~~
locusm
What about the precious metals that go into your smartphone? Those same "bunch
of scum" generally are responsible for digging that out the ground too. Love
an idealist, so unpractical though.

~~~
junto
I was specifically referring to the diamond cartel as 'scum'. You are right,
and there are real practical uses for stuff that gets taken out of the earth.
I see no problem with that since most uses could be considered as a net
positive. Diamonds to be a "girl's best friend" though, much less so.

------
rwhitman
Please don't remind me about this. I'm pretty sure every guy knows all this
already and unless you have a super hippy / progressive girlfriend (and even
then..) you will ultimately find out that even the most rational women could
give a crap about the economic / social realities of the diamond market and
still " _need_ " a diamond of X carat in order to impress their family and
friends.

DeBeer's wins. Either you get over it, or you end up heartbroken or with a
very grumpy fiance.

~~~
tsotha
The funny thing is it's not just the guys who realize this. It's the women
too. One day there will be a preference cascade and everyone will look at each
other and ask "Why are we spending so much money on semi-precious stones?" But
until that day...

~~~
rwhitman
There is some really bizarre complex psychology / sociology behind the whole
thing that really needs to be untangled. The De Beers marketers were mad
geniuses that made the world bend to their will in a way that can't be undone

------
evmar
Walmart recently ran a survey about expected costs of engagement rings and
found Americans' expectations have been changing.

[http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2013/02/04/walmart-
surv...](http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2013/02/04/walmart-survey-finds-
two-months-salary-for-engagement-rings-is-a-thing-of-the-past)

(Disclaimer: I work on the tool they used to conduct the survey, which is why
I know about it.)

~~~
mertd
Was it done on Walmart shoppers? That would be a huge selection bias.

~~~
evmar
Briefly, no. You can read more about on our site (it's mentioned at the end of
the article), but: we (try to) survey a representative sample of people in the
US, and external validations have found we do a pretty good job of it
(comparable to a more reputable polling organization).

------
cageface
Actually I consider diamonds to be a very valuable anti-indicator. If I meet a
woman that insists on a diamond worth three months of my salary as a token of
my commitment I eliminate her as a marriage prospect.

~~~
ActVen
Wise move. I did the same and ended up with the love of my life who shares the
same values that I possess. Social pressures will continue to push people
towards things that aren't good for them. The ability to cast these aside when
they don't really mean anything will serve you well for the rest of your life.

~~~
davidtanner
I think you can tell a lot about men's self image and conception of their own
value as lovers by reading these comments.

Congratulations on your successful marriage with a woman _you_ want to be
with!

------
robomartin
> this obligation only exists because the company that stands to profit from
> it willed it into existence

No it does not! It exists because idiots go along with this senseless idea.
It's the same idiots that jump in line like little marketing-driven robots
every Valentina's day and every other holiday. It's almost as if people have
an API call for "time to shop for some senseless shit".

In our own case, no diamond ring, no jewelry at all. We bought a frigging
house, we spent a couple of weeks in the Caribean and a few weeks in Europe.
There is no way a diamond or jewelry can compare to that. Oh, yes, no getting
down on one knee either. What a demeaning way to start a relationship. If you
want to show respect do it with the actions you take every day, not empty
marketing-driven cargo-cult gestures.

As for my own daughter, we are going to teach her that a moron who spends his
life savings on a diamond ring is just that and someone who can't reason his
way out of a paper bag. What a horrible financial decision.

In jest now. Perhaps one could launch a marketing campaign to make people give
programming courses as engagement gifts. Talk about a life-changing gift.

------
tokenadult
There is no reason to be ethnocentric here. There are plenty of world cultures
in which a woman wears a simple gold ring after marriage. On the other hand,
if you want to get into a serious discussion with your significant other, try
violating cultural assumptions about who should pay for the wedding--it isn't
necessarily the father of the bride, as it historically was in Anglo-American
culture. Sometimes what the groom saves in buying jewelry for the bride is
spent on the groom hosting a wedding banquet for all of the bride's relatives
and friends.

------
linuxhansl
Oh man. I had this discussion with my now wife.

The diamond ads even go as far as suggesting what percentage of your income
you should spend on a wedding ring (oh and of course there has to be an
engagement ring).

There is even guilt instilled if you do not spend that much; as if your love
and commitment is somehow measured in the price of the wedding ring.

Don't fall for this bullsh*t.

------
nullc
One of the most awesome things about this is that there is a tremendous profit
reward from diamond consumption brainwashing— so tons of money flows into
doing it.

Profit available from stopping it? Probably none unless you're going to just
replace it with another kind of brainwashing.

Often the truth is simply out competed by manipulation in the market because
the truth belongs to everyone and can't be monetized well.

After seeing my girlfriend's Facebook session plastered with wedding crap and
her recently married friend's Facebook plastered with baby crap it became
clear to me how potentially harmful to society as a whole this grand
brainwashing infrastructure— all of these advertising platforms invading every
moment of our lives— we've built is… and I try to stay as far away from it as
I can. Because that is all I can do: I certainly can't outspend it.

~~~
estebank
I'd love travel companies to start trying their luck with this market...

------
Xcelerate
Diamonds aren't even forever. The conversion of diamond to graphite at room
temperature is a spontaneous process, albeit a slow one.

------
lutusp
I can imagine any number of men saying "How ridiculous that I have to buy a
diamond!" but without extending that thought process to marriage itself.

In that sense, buying a diamond is like graduating from college -- you've
demonstrated a willingness to engage in possibly irrational behavior in
furtherance of a widely revered symbol. This is not to say that college has no
value, only that its value is often much less than the required investment.
Just like marriage.

~~~
sjtrny
We do extend the same thought process to marriage, although not enough of us
as shown by some of the comments in this thread.

On a related note: I don't want gay marriage. I want governments to stop
handing out "you are in a relationship certificates" to EVERYONE.

~~~
lutusp
> On a related note: I don't want gay marriage.

No problem -- if you aren't gay, you aren't required to have a gay marriage.
But ask yourself if you want to deny that right to other people. That's quite
a different thing -- it's not unlike saying, "I don't want black people
marrying white people."

Before you reply saying, "But that's not a fair comparison -- black and white
people are normal, but gay people are abnormal", consider that (a) it wasn't
too long ago that black people were unfairly regarded as abnormal, and (b)
there's no good evidence that being gay is abnormal, as that word is most
commonly used.

Also, why not ask yourself the same question that judges are expected to ask
themselves before making a ruling -- which is "Where's the harm?" How does the
existence of gay marriage hurt you personally? Consider that gay couples are
going to live together anyway (because being gay is not a crime) -- all that
changes is that the rights and traditions of civil unions extend to those
couples.

~~~
sjtrny
You missed the point entirely, maybe you missed the second sentence?

> I want governments to stop handing out "you are in a relationship
> certificates" to EVERYONE.

I want LGBT equality. But beyond that, and looking at the bigger picture, I
think the idea of marriage should be abolished altogether.

------
MarkMc
Here's an idea for a non-profit start-up:

1\. Produce man-made diamonds and sell them at the same price as De Beers
diamonds.

2\. Use the revenue to fund education and health-care in poor African
villages.

3\. Market your diamonds as 'clean diamonds' and label the De Beers diamonds
'blood diamonds'.

Would that work?

~~~
kamaal
Probably if you somehow ensure you don't get murdered by the criminals/mafia.

------
ChrisNorstrom
I laughed when MSN published this article last night
[http://money.msn.com/exchange-traded-fund/diamonds-
investors...](http://money.msn.com/exchange-traded-fund/diamonds-investors-
best-friends) about diamonds being an "investor's best friend" as it was
called on the front page. I can't believe they'd go so low as to publish
bullshit like that.

At least now we know where MSN news is getting it's money from.

------
gkoberger
Logically and financially, sure... but try telling your fiancée-to-be that.

~~~
stephengillie
Try sending her this article. I'd rather be single than marry someone who has
so much more emotion than logic. To put it another way: If the ring is more
important to the woman than I am, then she's not marrying me, she's marrying
the ring. It's a huge red flag to me.

~~~
pyre

      | If the ring is more important to the
      | woman than I am, then she's not marrying
      | me, she's marrying the ring
    

From some women's perspectives the diamond ring is 'proof' of your love.

~~~
stephengillie
A commitment to spend one's life with the other person isn't proof of love?

~~~
svachalek
You're committed to spend your entire life together but aren't willing to drop
a few grand today? Uh-huh.

(Just playing devil's advocate. With the argument I got.)

------
jquery
What "rational" material can fit on a finger, weighs a few grams or less, is
convenient enough to wear everyday, is mostly fungible (yes, diamonds are
fungible at the wholesale level), is durable, insurable, and is worth any
arbitrary amount you can think of depending on its characteristics?

Diamonds are great for their purpose, which is social signaling at a high
level.

------
prawn
If a synthetic diamond is a significant saving and your future fiancée must
have a diamond, maybe just get the "fake" - if they run off to have it checked
or otherwise discover the truth when trying to sell it, you have bigger
problems.

Reality is they want something to gaze at when it catches the light and for
friends to fawn over. Perhaps fight the giant diamond fraud with a sneaky play
of your own?

Your endless research and fretting about whether the microscopic flaws will be
visible will barely count unless you're marrying a diamond grader.

(GF wanted a diamond. I was not so keen to buy one. Split my budget between a
legit stone and surprise trip to propose overseas. Third wedding anniversary
is today. In hindsight, I wonder if I should've looked at synthetic stones and
gone on a longer holiday...)

------
SteveGerencser
I'm in the jewelry business. Don't really care for diamonds at all, I prefer
color. But the real point is that since the mid/late 80s this exact same
argument comes up every year or two. Even using the same, outdated, no longer
true "facts". And it's always in the guise of an enlightened rant.

I tend to think they are usually written by a guy who's girlfriend wants a
diamond and he doesn't want to spend "all that money" on a rock.

Its "fashion" people. It is a "luxury" item. No one has to buy them. Besides,
there are some great clear alternatives out there if someone is set on a
"diamond". White sapphire, white topaz, moissanite, there are even some very
nice CZs out there, but I'm sure those are way over priced as well.

------
RRRA
Honestly, if you feel obligated to offer a diamond you need to reconsider your
value, your ethic, your life and/or your mate.

------
virtualmic
This trend is fast spreading to India. All the traditional jewelers who used
to deal in gold and silver jewelry are now shifting to diamond based ones. Of
course, the main reason seems to be the huge margin as the article suggests.
One group, which seems to be going on the same path as De Beers is Gitanjali
Group [1], who have hired services of almost all famous Indian film industry
actors to promote their products. [1]
<http://www.gitanjaligroup.com/home.html>

------
mullingitover
Always buy a nice-looking but cheap cubic zirconia engagement ring. If she
accepts it graciously, she's a keeper. If she runs out and gets it appraised,
and angrily leaves you, you dodged a bullet.

~~~
3pt14159
The problem with this is that you are essentially lying to her _while you ask
her to marry you_. I wouldn't be able to stomach it.

In my head there are basically three options: 1. Talk rationally and convince
her that no diamond or CZ engagement ring. 2. A small ring that essentially go
unnoticed to a tech person's budget. 3. Do the whole 1.5 to 2.5 Carat thing.

The problem with 1. is that people will think you are an asshole and her
friends may question your commitment. The problem with 2. is that you know
people are going to make assumptions about how well you are doing in life
("Did you see how small that ring was, wow, I thought he was in tech!") and
the problem with 3. is that you are supporting a giant scam that makes
absolutely _no_ sense. "Ohhh, look at that! That stone is huge!" for the cost
of $20 to 40 grand. It isn't even about the money, it is the idea of the whole
thing.

~~~
mullingitover
This is a reasonable point. For me, I'm inclined to believe that if the
relationship is so transactional that the diamond is a required payment, then
the relationship is already doomed.

------
arikrak
While I basically agree with this article, it mainly added some stronger
opinions to an Atlantic article from 1982. It didn't discuss
synthetic/cultured diamonds, which recently became available at 'low' prices.
DeBeers needs to convince people that a cheaper diamond is worse, even though
they're really better quality! Also, how come the internet hasn't shaken up
their hold on the re-selling market? If diamond sellers won't buy back
diamonds from people, why can't people sell to each other online?

------
mattparlane
Gah! The writer needs to read this:

<http://www.its-not-its.info/>

~~~
stephengillie
I used to make posts like this. I'm starting to feel like these words will
merge in the next 100 years, and either form will be correct for all usages.

This kind of errata in our language doesn't help us do anything and it just
causes confusion and frustration.

~~~
seanc722
Agreed. English is already just a mash up, I could care less about grammar so
long as what you are trying to say is getting across to me. Certain areas
require a comma or period otherwise can be read wrong but I have never had a
problem with their, your, its, or any other such words confusing me into not
understanding what the writer is trying to say...

Reminds me of growing up "Ain't ain't a word!"

~~~
gertef
> "Ain't ain't a word!"

Fixed: "'Ain't' ain't no word!"

------
kkshin
I just went through the process of whether I would purchase a diamond
engagement ring for my fiancee or not. Rationally, it made absolutely no sense
to me for the following reasons:

1) The idea of "blood" diamonds as well as the fat that the industry marks up
diamonds to a ridiculous notion without translating any of those benefits to
the societies it exploits. 2) There is no tangible benefit to a diamond ring
that CZ or similar gem would not provide.

That being said, my fiancee very strongly wanted a genuine diamond ring. When
I explained my viewpoints and she understood and said that she did not want to
force me to purchase a ring that I felt very conflicted about. At no point was
our relationship in jeopardy over the issue. Even so, I knew that she really
wanted a rock and it took me a while to figure out what to do.

In the end I decide to get her a ring because it was what she really wanted,
even though she was wiling to suppress her desires to respect mine. I wanted
to respect her wishes as well. If she had threatened or had gotten upset over
the matter, I might have not reached this conclusion. Maybe she's just a super
shrewd negotiator.

For me, the biggest blocking point is the human hardship that goes behind the
diamond industry, and I was able to somewhat subdue this by seeking out a
conflict free diamond provider. There are a couple around and if this is your
biggest blocking point as well you should look into it. Artificial diamonds
were not an option for me, because at the moment they are not able to provide
colorless diamonds afaik.

~~~
utopkara
Don't refrain from buying because diamonds are hard to extract, and people
have to work hard for it. But, because the whole trade is dirty, and you don't
want to take part in it. All diamonds are dirty because of the conflict
diamonds, there can be no non-conflict diamonds. By purchasing diamonds, you
are helping to keep the prices up and funding the blood diamonds as well.

~~~
kkshin
I don't agree with your statement. Its equivalent to saying that I shouldn't
consider buying ethically raised meat because its the same industry that
factory farms are part of. One can identify the ethical quandaries and support
producers that choose to eliminate them.

~~~
utopkara
If ethically raised meat did not have a strict shelf life, could cross many
borders, and fundamentally different regulatory areas, could be displayed as a
status symbol to reinforce the perceived value of all meat, I would say the
same thing about it too.

------
Gravityloss
I guess that could be used as a filter - I certainly wouldn't want to date
someone so gullible who wants a diamond ring. Is it really so pervasive? I'm
not American but it's hard for me to believe.

Here in Northern Europe, I know many couples have abandoned the idea of gold
wedding rings because of the huge environmental damage that comes with gold. A
titanium ring is kinda cool too. Someone can buy 5 euro hematite rings, and
their marriage's been just fine, with children.

In the future, the price of diamonds and gold could go down because of such
trends spreading further. They will be replaced with some other, possibly just
as symbolic things. Wouldn't it be much more awe inspiring to say in a ladies
dinner table conversation that your fiancee is going to donate tens of
thousands of dollars to a children's education project in Peru that you
picked, as a symbol of his love for you? Instead of a useless rock that
doesn't hold its value...

Maybe such symbols of richness are not so important here as the society is
more egalitarian and there are more safety networks and springboards for
children's success than just your own / family / spouse's money - couple
selection is a lot about what it's actually like to live with someone.

------
itsprofitbaron
On a previous Priceonomics blog post[1] in the HN discussion 'startupfounder'
suggested that we needed a "Warby Parker for Diamonds"[2] which I disagreed
with[3] my disagreement is also relevant with this Priceonomics post because:

 _"Diamonds are bought, not because of what they are but what they represent.

The whole point of diamonds is to capitalise on what they're representing
rather than their actual worth.

Their value is created through the likes of "diamonds are a girl's best
friend" which is why the price is high for them. Hence the advertisements have
been developed around the whole perceived value of diamonds ala. "diamond's
are a girls best friend" because when you present a woman with a diamond
you're presenting her with a promise - a promise that you will look after &
take care of her. Which is something that most women want."_

[1] <http://priceonomics.com/mattresses/#industry>

[2] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4522922>

[3] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4523062>

------
cpursley
It's nice to be married to a woman who agrees. And a jewelers daughter at
that!

~~~
bgutierrez
I'm interested in hearing more of her perspective. Does she agree _because_
she is a jewelers daughter and has a better view of the industry?

~~~
cpursley
That and she's not that materially minded (at least that what she tells
me....)

------
jasonhanley
What do people think about BlueNile? Diamond prices there are about 50% of
retail -- perhaps a bit closer to the true "market" value?

~~~
jld
I used Blue Nile to buy my wife's engagement ring and was very happy with the
service/quality. The online customer care agents actively pushed me to buy the
lowest quality diamond that would appear 'best', as there are many levels of
quality that can only be seen under a loupe by a jeweler. All of these grades
will appear to be equivalent to the untrained/unaided eye.

She needed to get the ring resized later and it was very easy. Returned via
FedEx and had it back a week later.

------
jami
If you're looking to marry a woman who is the equivalent of a diamond -- a
pretty thing to have with you always (well, until she gets old and decays, on
a much shorter time scale than the diamond) -- and she wants a diamond, give
her the dang diamond. You're not marrying her because she's already thought
about blood diamonds and wondered why diamonds are still expensive when they
can be made in the lab from a very abundant element. You're marrying her
because pretty! Shiny! Shoes!

If you want to marry someone intelligent, you may find that she considered the
content of this blog post long ago and is astounded at its popularity on
Hacker News, and she would prefer a ring from a bubble gum machine, or one
made from ash from that volcano you hiked together, or an heirloom or
something.

When I decided who to marry, I kept in mind that intelligence decays much less
reliably than looks. But your mileage, gentlemen mostly it seems, may vary.

------
xsace
Thanks god in Europe the social pressure is not as strong as it seems to be in
the US, reading from the comments of you guys

------
ck2
Diamonds are 100% marketing in it's purest form - take a meaningless rock and
make it more valuable than anything else.

With enough money you could create a counter-marketing campaign over a decade
to stop their attraction but I suspect they will find a way for horrible
things to happen to you with that kind of profit involved.

------
Swannie
I heard the suit is making a comeback! Forget diamonds, a Suit is a real
investment in yourself!

------
Tsagadai
Spend some time with monkeys or apes and you will no longer be surprised by
the "insights" in this article. Pieces like this are written periodically but
they say nothing new, original or intriguing. Diamonds are a status symbol in
many cultures much like a tree full of fruit is a status symbol if you are a
gibbon.

What is really interesting in this type of discussion is the way people build
up massive internal models to describe and explain concepts that really are
very simple and repetitive in nature. It highlights the way many of us are
driven and controlled by our tendency to seek a narrative in data and to see
complex patterns in place of a simpler pattern.

------
kjackson2012
It doesn't just pertain to diamonds. It's the same thing with expensive
clothes, bags, shoes, wines, cars, gadgets, etc. It's just a way to flaunt
one's wealth. It's unfortunately a side effect of our consumption-oriented
society.

------
Mz
I am late to the party. I was hoping to see more discussion of the brilliant
marketing and people trying to take away some tips on how to grow their own
businesses. Nope. Precious little discussion of marketing. De Beers was
extremely brilliant. Everyone's short hairs seem to be caught in this vortex,
contrary to the usual HN discussions.

I will note that I think there is validity to the idea that willingness to pay
a high "bride price" of some sort has actual value. But it's after midnight
and this conversation is essentially dead already. So I think I will not waste
my time elaborating. No one will read this comment anyway. :-)

Later.

------
penguat
This is unfair to bullshit. Bullshit has intrinsic value as a fertilizer.

------
Killah911
Amen! Married nearly a decade and no diamond ring exchanged. My wife and I
both agrees on the Diamonds are Bullshit philosophy and decided not to burden
our broke selves with even more debt, thereby ensuring marriage problems down
the road.

It takes quite a bit of work to get over a good marketing campaign, it creates
peer pressure which can from friends/coworkers who all wonder if you're really
married/engaged since you don't have a ring on. Screw peer pressure, yet
another sign we were right for each other.

------
namenotrequired
This brought an interesting discussion with my girlfriend - turns out where
she is from (Brazil) they don't do diamonds in wedding rings. One less thing
to stress about in the future!

~~~
GFischer
I live in Uruguay, and wedding rings here (and in Argentina, and I guess
Brazil too) are usually gold or gold-plated, without diamonds.

~~~
namenotrequired
Yeah, that's what she told me too :)

------
fosap
While De Beers business plan was/is genius, i think Swaroski topped it. While
De Beers sells useless rocks for top prices, Swaroski sell glass imitates of
these for similar prices.

~~~
alan_cx
It gets better. Mrs Me used to work for Swarovski, who sell "crystal", which
basically differs from glass by lead content. Except, the lead content has
been regulated down and now their "crystal" is essentially just fairly high
spec glass. Had this "crystal" been invented today, it would be called glass.

------
edepstein
You might want to see my updated book "Have You Ever Tried To Sell A Diamond"
<http://amzn.to/ZA9dhC> \--Thxs Edward Jay Epstein

------
kdazzle
I don't think diamonds are really bullshit. People tend to add meaning to
things that would otherwise be meaningless, and that meaning is compounded by
the meaning added by the many peoples in society. I think that's pretty
valuable, even if you try to deconstruct the dubious premises.

I mean, hey, look at language. That's pretty dumb. It was made by a bunch of
poor dudes sitting in caves and squawking at each other? Who would buy into
that shit, am I right?

------
ars
You don't have to buy your diamond at a jeweler - in fact you shouldn't unless
you like wasting money.

There are plenty of diamond exchanges online. You buy the diamond and the
setting separately, and then bring them to any jeweler to set it.

Also, you can buy moissanite instead - it's cheaper and hard to tell apart.
Much better quality than cubic zirconia.

Because of a stupid patent you can't buy pre-made moissanite jewelery, instead
you buy the stone and the setting separately.

------
tn13
So true. I spent more money on my marriage than on my masters degree. Fuc __
__.

My wife has more gold and diamonds than money my family ever owned otherwise.
All that stuff doesn't suite her, is locked up in locker rooms of some bank
364 days a year. (And yeah I pay for that fucking locker as well).

Any discussion of selling it would lead to a WWII like situation in the home.
The cost of Gold might be skyrocketing but when you actually try to sell gold
ornaments or diamonds it is a different game altogether because when I walk to
sell the gold not one wants to buy it unless they know me or I pester them. So
this is what happens when I met a jeweler to sell a gold chain my mother had
made for me when I was 2 years old. Gold typically 15 times most costlier than
that time. so I was expecting at least 1000% ROI.

1\. I need to first determine if this is real Gold and how pure it is. For
that you will have to pay me X. 2\. This chain is old and I cant sell it the
way it is, it needs to be melted and converted into something else so I will
lose Y value in the process. 3\. Making a new ornament out of this will lead
to more loss of metal during melting and hence I will lose Z.

Then later he tells me that the gold is not "as pure" as I thought it to be.
So eventually I make only 200% profit over period of around 12 years. (not to
mention the feeling of getting cheated).

Scenario of diamond seems to be lot more similar to that of Gold.

Only if women had little brains.

~~~
gertef
gold jewelry price is for the art, not the mass.

~~~
tn13
No boss. I am talking about India. I am otherwise poor by any world standards
but I have to buy gold.

------
lelandbatey
Indeed, they are a scam. A trend I've observed is to create an item or have an
item created with immense personal value (though not necessarily much
"material value"). The most common examples of this I see are custom and hand
made rings of various cheap materials with interesting and personal designs.

That's the kind of thing I think is a good idea.

------
MarkMc
One day it will be possible to cheaply manufacture man-made diamonds that are
100% indistinguishable from natural diamonds.

You might think such a development would destroy De Beers, but I'm not so
sure. Perhaps girls would simply switch from wanting a 'diamond ring' to
wanting a 'diamond ring with dug-out-of-the-ground certificate'?

~~~
ankeshk
Your thought is correct: factory made diamonds will just create a new diamond
category. We have seen this before in the pearl industry with the advent of
"cultural" pearls. Cultural pearls have not reduced the prices of natural
pearls one bit.

------
bitwize
Spending lots of money on things of little value means you've got the money to
spend. Don't underestimate how attractive this is to women.

Even if everybody knew diamonds were BS, they'd still be the premier
engagement ring jewel. Nothing says "I love you" like throwing $6000 out the
window like it was nothing at all.

------
brokentone
Interesting post, which sums up as so: "Nearly every American marriage begins
with a diamond because a bunch of rich white men in the 1940s convinced
everyone that its size determines your self worth." - I get the correlation
with rich and men, but is the race baiting language really necessary?

------
lectrick
It's unfortunate that there are few women who would appreciate my progressive
view of these, even if I would gladly pay double for a really nice vacation
and a nominal ring instead (and let's face it, it's the actual decision that
matters the most, anyway)

------
xp3ll3d
Tthere is a popular company that sells "diamond simulants"
<http://www.secrets-shhh.com/>

The prices are less than 1/4 of a "real" one, and they look much better
(clearer, not cloudy, less imperfections).

------
webmonkeyuk
I think the author of the article is way off the mark. An engagement ring
isn't any kind of a financial investment (unless you think the wedding's
unlikely to happen and you want to sell the ring/diamond). It's a token of
committment/love.

~~~
transitionality
Why spend thousands on a mere token if the only value is one of sentimental
association?

------
alan_cx
Must have missed that Bond film.

------
RileyJames
Great article. Great argument to save me a fortune. If retailers only buy back
diamonds at wholesale prices why isn't there a secondary market for diamonds?
Wouldn't peer to peer trading of diamonds balance the market.

------
dreeves
Late to the party but I can't believe no one has linked to The Onion's baby
skull video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKccr8g1xCU>

------
fatjokes
Articles like this are bullshit. Not in the sense that they're untrue, but in
the sense it won't change a thing. Men buy diamonds because women want them.
Women want them to show off to other women.

~~~
vijayr
I disagree. I knew diamonds are annoying before reading the article, but I
learned so much more reading it. It is possible that some woman might read
this and _not_ insist on a diamond ring with her boyfriend, and take gold or
something more valuable instead. If this happens even in one case, it is worth
the time the author(s) spent on the article.

Even if nothing changes as far as diamonds are concerned, it is _still_ worth
writing this article - imagine someone landing on this article and he/she
hasn't heard of priceonomics before - they will read through their excellent
_other_ posts and learn a thing or two.

And lastly, look at the intense discussion at HN on this article. How many
articles do that?

This is an awesome blog, consistently writing high quality articles. Thanks
for writing this guys.

------
jjolis
My uncle Jack Jolis, a diamond dealer/consultant who has worked for forty
years in every part of the globe where diamonds are mined, bought, sold and
cut, written for WSJ and testified to congress on diamonds, had this comment.
His words: 'Well, one man's "bullshit" is another man's "eye of the beholder"
sort of thing.

It is true that of the three aspects that originally made diamonds "above the
rest" and therefore desirable, i.e., their rarity, unparalleled hardness, and
beauty, the first two don't really apply anymore and the third is increasingly
iffy as technology marches on -- but the same could be said of other objects
to which we ascribe great value, i.e., "fine" art, which began as sublime and
evocative interpretation of life, divinity and transcendence, but which these
days more often than not is just a hodgepodge of "Emperor has no clothes"
random splotches, un-made beds and (literally) piles of shit, but to which we
nevertheless still ascribe great value. So go know.

In any case, the "death" of diamonds has been predicted before, and by better
writers and more thorough reporters than Mr. Dhar, here, c.f.: Edward Jay
Epstein "The Rise And Fall Of Diamonds", 1982, -- and yet Cecil Rhodes' babies
are still going, stronger and more lucrative than ever.

There is certainly nothing intrinsically valuable about diamonds -- but then
what does have "intrinsic" value? Even gold is largely "valuable" because of a
near-universal belief and agreement that it should have value, and has done so
since the dawn of recorded time. If everyone in the world suddenly decided
that gold (or diamonds, come to that), no longer had any value, well, that
"value" would certainly disappear -- it has happened before, to other
"valuable" commodities, such as tulips in the early 17th century and other
evanescent enthusiasms throughout history. But some consensuses seem to be
more permanent and on solid ground than others -- and I suspect that diamonds
and other precious stones are more in the "gold" class than in the "tulip" and
"piles of arty shit" class....

So are diamonds really "forever"? Maybe not, but probably so. They've survived
the emergence of synthetics without so much as a hiccup, and they've even
survived the disappearance of DeBeers as a controlling agent (DeBeers,
although still an important factor, no longer has anything like any
monopolistic control -- it is just one of 4 or 5 other "important players" in
the business), and the diamond industry even laughed off (with my, ahem, small
contribution) the "blood diamond" non-scandal, so I'm pretty confident that
they (diamonds) will carry on through such iconoclastic pinpricks and nitpicks
as may appear on W's "Interwebs".

So, "bullshit" diamonds well may be, but tell me -- when did being "bullshit"
ever stop (or even slow down) anybody or anything, especially in these days of
ascendancy of the likes of Justin Bieber and Dennis Rodman? Nevah hotchee, GI
-- in fact, I'd say that bullshit is one of our great growth industries as we
move heedlessly into the 21st Century, so if diamonds really are "bullshit",
then this article can only constitute yet another boost for the industry.'

~~~
martinced
+1 great comment...

Especially the '"emperor has not clothes" random splotches' part ; )

There are however great differences between gold and diamonds: liquidity of
the market and buy/sell price. As TFA points out you're getting scammed
everytime you buy a diamond and you're getting super-scammed everytime you buy
one. Not so much with gold: you buy gold at price X, you sell it 6 months
later when it took 3%, you're still making a benefit (even with the margin
taken by the professional vendor / buyer). With diamond if you buy one at
$2000 you're lucky to be able to sell it at $600.

The other difference is can we can synthetize diamonds now. Gold not so much:
the only way we know how to create synthetic gold is to start from an even
rarer metal (which is hence guaranteed to be always more expensive than gold).

Unless a major discovery in physics --so important that the world as we know
it would profoundly change-- we can't create gold.

If suddenly we could synthetize gold from a lower-grade metal, it means we
could also synthetize silver and then copper etc. The implication in various
industries would be more than major: it would be a revolution.

Now my great-grandmother gave me a nice, never mounted, one-carat diamond that
I've tested and that is true: it got hidden in Europe during WWII so that the
nazis wouldn't confiscate it. I love it because I know it's a real one
(tested) and I know it's history. So it's "sentimental" and one day my SO
shall wear it and one day my daughter... And then my daughter's daughter.

If all goes well ; )

I don't care much that it would take me anywhere from $5k to $12k to buy one.
I know that if I were to sell it I wouldn't make anywhere near as that and I'd
regret it anyway.

------
gfodor
Ah, another thread full of bitter men who do not want to buy a diamond because
they are "worthless."

I bought the girl a diamond because she wanted a diamond. It makes her happy.
She says it makes her smile every day. That's "worthless", huh? If that is
worthless then find me something that makes her so happy that isn't worthless
and I would have bought that instead. But there is no such thing, for her. For
some girls, yes, they do not want diamonds. (But I assure you, there is
something they want that you will label as "irrational" and "worthless", too.)
But many girls do, and men buy them for them not because they are stupid and
irrational but because they are in love and because it will make the person
they love happy. Life is too short to view every dollar spent as an investment
and every purchase justifiable onto some balance sheet or long-term plan based
upon prudent thinking. What do we work for, after all, than to earn the
ability to do what we want with our money? And what better way to use that
money than to make those we love happy?

The bottom line is diamond rings and all that nonsense will continue to be a
thing as long as it makes girls happy to have one. It could be it makes them
happy because it reminds them of their husband's commitment. It could be
because it reminds them of the time in their lives of their engagement. It
could be because it is just shiny and nice to look at. It could be because it
might be the nicest thing they own and the biggest sacrifice a person ever
made, just to make them happy. According to this thread, the only reason a
girl wants a diamond is because she is a selfish person who wants to wave it
around her friends and show she is better than them. That's a very sad
perspective and shows a lack of understanding.

If you want to figure out how to get diamonds to go away you need to figure
out something that will have the same effect on women that diamonds do, or you
need to somehow convince millions of women to no longer feel the way they do
about diamond rings and the meaning behind them. Getting up and yelling about
it being a poor investment and irrational and all makes it fairly clear you do
not understand why women are so obsessed with diamonds in the first place.

The only reason the focus is on diamonds is because of the high price tag, not
because there is some inherent moral argument being made about the nature of
purchasing things irrationally because you simply want to do something nice
for someone you love. I'm sure you have plenty of things you want that you
don't need, but somehow you are able to compartmentalize them because they are
a) not as expensive as a diamond or b) serve some "function" beyond being a
shiny rock. Good for you. But really, if you want to argue about ethics and
morals in consumer choices, the price tag a person pays relative to the
"intrinsic value" of the object so desired should not be a part of the
equation. To me, I don't give a damn what the "intrinsic value" of a diamond
is on the market, I give a damn what the "intrinsic value" of a diamond
(specifically _the_ diamond I purchased) is to the person I gave it to. And in
my case you will hardly find a larger gap between price and intrinsic value
(in my favor) than probably anything else I've purchased.

~~~
okamiueru
Alright, I'll bite.

See, when you say you see a "thread full of bitter men", I cant help but feel
you are expressing some kind of bitterness yourself. At least, I don't share
your dismissive feelings towards the concept that a ring should symbolize more
than monetize (yeah, strawman right back at'ya :) ). You know... when
something is _really_ important, yet no argument is provided to back it up.
"Makes her smile", is a positive side-effect, yet not a rational reason that
can counter what is bad about diamonds. The whole notion that affection and
devotion should be demonstrated through financial sacrifice (and I don't use
sacrifice in the terms of "something given up or lost", but "destruction or
surrender of something for the sake of [deity]") is a cultural irrationality
that you seem to have a very positive look on, and good for you!

If someone looks at his/her ring, and feels negative emotion because this
ring, which is meant to symbolize the "let's share a life together" between
two people, is only made of plain gold, and not something which was more
expensive to obtain... It's a good thing for me that I find this cultural
irrationality an unattractive red flag.

Have a nice day.

~~~
gfodor
I'm sure you have your own "unattractive red flags" yourself. So do I. We are
human, after all. Relationships are about compromise, understanding, and doing
things for the other person to make them happy that we may not understand or
agree with. This is one of those things. The only reason people in this thread
get so bent out of shape on this particular decision (ill speculate) is
because of the amount of money involved. Other similar things do not get
nearly as much scrutiny. This tells more about an obsession over money on the
part of that person than it does about the girl wanting the ring. If your
partner doesn't want one, great, but why does it seem fit to say on this
particular thing to cast such judgement and provide such passionate
explanations as to why you refuse to spend money on this, no matter what she
wants?

Basically these threads boil down to money, not ethics, not morals, not
character, not de beers, or any of that bullshit. It's only an issue because
of a high price tag. There are millions of other issues that have thorny
ethical consequences but the reason this thread is so filled with passionate
arguments judging other people is because of the amount of money involved.

------
cateye
How does this story relate to this?

Lev Leviev - Cracked De Beers:
<http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/0915/046.html>

------
yogrish
Previous HN Thread on why Diamonds are worthless.
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4535611>

------
locusm
Blood diamonds are no different to blood coltan.
<http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/blood-coltan/>

------
Skoofoo
What are some cool alternatives to a diamond ring? I want to get a ring with a
carbon nanotube "gem", but there doesn't seem to be a practical way to acquire
that.

~~~
JulianMorrison
Amber with fossilized critters. It's lifeforms, and they're extinct. Even when
we have nanotech, nobody is going to be making new ones.

------
chenster
Everyone wants an iPHone, iPad, i-this, that, and most of them really don't
have any use of it. Is that a bullshit too, I suppose? Or marketing is the
bullshit?

~~~
transitionality
It's true that most iPhone purchases are due to marketing, but an iPhone
delivers exactly what is promised. A diamond doesn't. Diamonds are neither
particularly rare, nor last forever, nor a good investment, nor a part of any
organic tradition.

------
antidaily
Shelby Gem Factory, man. She'll never know the difference.

------
kaipakartik
Its all about social status and peer pressure. Most marketing tends to revolve
around this. Of course creating a need where there isn't any works as well.

------
cajuntrep
I felt this way when shopping for a diamond. I thought it was bullshit. Plus,
I figured the diamond salespeople were full of shit as well.

------
rayiner
HN, meet Pricescope: <http://www.pricescope.com/forum/>

------
sc0rb
I know this and my girlfriend knows this yet I'm still shelling out more than
£4000 (pounds) at Tiffany -_-

------
swang
Priceonomics can't seem to keep their blog up whenever they get a new update.
Can someone post a cache?

~~~
omarish
Hey swang - this is the first time I've heard of this issue. Are you getting
an error code from the blog? Let me know here or email me,
omar@priceonomics.com.

------
fr0st
A woman's reaction to this blog post:

me: [http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-
are-b...](http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-bullshit)
Friend: that shit is way too long me: way too long for a woman to read Friend:
haha when you start bleeding out of your penis every month, then we'll talk
me: hm

------
Evenjos
I'd rather him buy me a house, a vacation, or a Ferrari. Rings are just
annoying.

------
robot
The brand value of diamonds are very high. So it is valuable. Like coca-cola.

------
newobj
Did a single woman comment anywhere within this thread?

------
jellicle
Why are diamonds bullshit but bitcoins not bullshit?

~~~
drivebyacct2
Because I made over $1000 holding Bitcoins for a few months?

Honestly, I'm not even sure what that question means?

------
noiv
All women discussing here, please raise your hands.

------
drivebyacct2
Maybe I'm spoiled as a nerdy (and interested in nerdy) gay guy, but I pity
those in this thread saying that their fiancee wouldn't listen to reason about
this. It slays me that "tradition" is so important to people that they will
waste such vast amounts of money and prop up such a gross, violent industry in
the face of reason.

~~~
rayiner
It irks me a little bit that the issue is painted as one of "reason" versus
lack thereof. There is a rationality in adhering to social convention.

My wife is a diamond nerd, as well as one of the most rational people you'll
ever meet, and she'd explain it this way: the diamond is a test that serves
various useful purposes from the perspective of the woman:

1) It demonstrates the man's ability to provide; 2) It demonstrates the man's
willingness to forgo the other things he could buy with the money for a gift
for her that does not directly benefit him in any way; and 3) It demonstrates
to the woman's peers her husband's social standing.

An important thing to remember is that women take on a huge opportunity cost
in getting married and having kids. My wife and I just had our first baby.
Pregnancy and childbirth is a barbaric process and a woman will never be quite
the same after. Taking care of an infant is tiring, stressful, boring, and
thankless--and no matter how enlightened the husband is and how willing he is
to help out, because of the baby's hard-wired inclinations the buck will
always stop with the wife. Finally, if the woman is educated and has a career,
that career will be permanently compromised by virtue of getting married and
having kids. With all this in the background, it is evident that the social
convention of the ring conveys valuable information to a woman considering
getting married and bearing these costs. Re: 1, all else being equal a man
that can provide more is more valuable than a man that can provide less. Re:
2, all else being equal a man that is willing to forgo things for himself is
better than a man who is not; Re: 3, all else being equal a woman's social
life will be positively affected in a tangible way by marring a man of higher
social standing than of a lower one. It is totally rational for a woman to
ask: "I'm willing to give up all this, what are you willing to do?" The ring
is just a way to demonstrate this commitment in a way that is universally
understood and spares everyone the awkward conversation of laying all the
chips on the table.

Now, these elements are less important in 2013 than they were in say 1813. But
at the same time to an extent they are not diminished in importance, but
rather culture has shifted to downplay the uncomfortable truths at the root of
these elements. For example, we like to downplay how much women really give up
by being the child-bearers. But for an educated woman, if having kids cuts the
probability of attaining a high position on her career by half,[1] the choice
to have kids could mean millions of dollars in lost income over a lifetime.
It's totally rational for a woman thinking of making such a compromise to
demand from her potential husband a gesture showing that he is willing and
able to take the other half of the bargain. But all this is something that we
don't say in polite company, because we have fully bought into the mythologies
about marriage that are in vogue at the moment: that it's just about "love"
and all that matters is a mate that makes you "happy" and that it's an
arrangement that is costless to enter into and exit out of.

There is, of course, nothing inherent about diamonds that makes them the only
option for this kind of signaling. Indeed, in other cultures a cash gift is
the norm instead. But the value of a signal is in its standardization, so to
speak, and it just so happens that the diamond is the standard signal in
western culture.

[1] Less than 20% of women never have kids, but about half of very high
achieving women (executives, etc) never have kids.

~~~
clicks

        1) It demonstrates the man's ability to provide; 2) It 
        demonstrates the man's willingness to forgo the other 
        things he could buy with the money for a gift for her 
        that does not directly benefit him in any way; and 3) 
        It demonstrates to the woman's peers her husband's
        social standing.
    

To play devil's advocate here: If you substitute 'ring' with 'a $3k donation
to redcross' you could still potentially qualify all of those 3 conditions.
The pertinent question is: why spend a large amount on a rock with possible
associations of slave labor that is of absolutely zero functional value when
you can ... well, spend the amount on anything else of value, and indeed still
meet those 3 qualifications.

~~~
rayiner
It doesn't qualify (3), which is a very important one.

I've got a daughter. She's only 4 months old, but I've had occasion to think a
bit about this. I would not want her to marry someone who wasn't willing to
give her a ring? Why? Reasons (1) and (2) I mentioned, sure, but also reason
(3). It is the mark of a sensible man that he cares what other people think
about him. People who buck social conventions sometimes become trend-setters
and are incredibly successful for it, but more often just make life harder on
themselves and the people that depend on them. Do I want my daughter to be
with a man that is willing to create headwinds for himself out of foolish
principles and refusal to conform? All else being equal, no (although I don't
have any illusions about how much of it is up to me!)

~~~
pifflesnort
> _It is the mark of a sensible man that he cares what other people think
> about him._

A sensible man only cares what other people think about him _when it is to his
benefit_ to do so. A foolish man cares what other people think about him _all
of the time._

> _People who buck social conventions sometimes become trend-setters and are
> incredibly successful for it, but more often just make life harder on
> themselves and the people that depend on them._

In my experience, people who believe in marking the checkboxes of life have an
awfully hard time discerning the difference between falling off the beaten
path, and taking a shortcut.

> _Do I want my daughter to be with a man that is willing to create headwinds
> for himself out of foolish principles and refusal to conform? All else being
> equal, no_

It seems _exceptionally_ foolish for you to rely on abstractions and proxy
signaling (eg, buying a diamond) to discern the attributes of the person your
daughter would be considering marrying. One would hope that the evidence for
those attributes ought to be entirely apparent to her before that point.

~~~
stephengillie
_Therein lies the best career advice I could possibly dispense: just DO
things. Chase after the things that interest you and make you happy. Stop
acting like you have a set path, because you don't. No one does. You shouldn't
be trying to check off the boxes of life; they aren't real and they were
created by other people, not you. There is no explicit path I'm following, and
I'm not walking in anyone else's footsteps. I'm making it up as I go._ \-
Charlie Hoehn

------
lwat
If it's good enough for Priscilla Zuckerberg (née Chan) it should be good
enough for anyone: A ruby engagement ring!

[http://www.yourengagement101.com/files/2012/05/mark-
zuckerbe...](http://www.yourengagement101.com/files/2012/05/mark-zuckerberg-
engagement-ring-rubis.jpg)

~~~
khuey
She didn't change her name.

------
uribs
Isn't it much better to get very expensive gold jewelry instead of diamonds if
one wants some?

That's also shiny and should keep its value much better (since gold requires
nuclear reaction to make).

~~~
gamegoblin
I remember reading an article about a guy who stole a lot of money, then used
it to buy diamonds. He got caught. The people he stole from thought "oh, not
too bad then. We'll just sell the diamonds to recoup the money." But
apparently no diamond vendors would buy them at anywhere near the price the
thief did because diamonds are already marked up so much.

~~~
webosb
got a link for the article?

------
bluedanieru
Everybody knows diamonds are worthless rocks priced in blood. The reason they
retain the status they have is your girlfriend doesn't give a shit.

