Also, unlike a fake Coach bag, diamonds aren't actually trademarked. I'm wearing a thing that sparkles, that's all. As long as I don't claim anything beyond that, what's it matter if its CZ, white sapphire, or lab diamond?
It matters because people are shallow and make judgments about the fashion choices of others.
Imagine a woman gets engaged with a CZ/white sapphire/synthetic diamond ring and meets up with her friends. They all learn about the engagement. What happens next? They all ask to see the ring and the details on where it was from.
Now, the woman with the ring might not care if it's fake, and may indeed prefer it out of moral or ethical choice. But that same woman will likely also value the opinions and judgments of some other people, and those people may well have a negative reaction upon finding out it's a fake diamond.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I never fully understood the whole "blood diamond" thing. This issue is people mining them and selling them to finance wars, right? I guess I don't see it as that different from any other country extracting and selling is resources. I have never asked where any diamond I bought was sourced, and I doubt I would get an answer even if I did.
I never fully understood the whole "blood diamond" thing. This issue is people mining them and selling them to finance wars, right? I guess I don't see it as that different from any other country extracting and selling is resources. I have never asked where any diamond I bought was sourced, and I doubt I would get an answer even if I did.
Aren't they illegal in certain western countries?
The point of the OP article is that conflict diamonds that would be illegal in some western countries are being laundered in Surat and coming back onto the market untraceably.
I would not go fake for an engagement ring under any circumstances. It would feel like a lie to me.
Whereas I'd argue it's only a lie if they don't know.
The problem is that even if you personally, and your partner personally, cares and would eater avoid diamonds, that societal pressure still pushes you to buy one for engagement rings...lest your marriage look like a sham.
Those two points go together, don't they? The first goes to lying to your partner, and I agree. But the second is a bit more complex, and goes to what you are saying to society when you wear a stone that you know will fool people. Its similar to using knock off designer things. You give off an impression that does not match the reality, imo.
Edit: to be clear, I don't think this is necessarily that big of a deal, but there is a difference there.
I'd argue the inverse, that someone wearing a REAL diamond in order to impress people with their wealth is giving off a false impression, because someone buying a diamond to demonstrate and store their wealth is an idiot due to the knowledge that lab diamonds exist. However, I bought a 'real' diamond engagement ring which is really beautiful but I bought it because of how great it looked. I investigated lab diamonds and decided the price differential wasn't good enough to make up for the lack of selection (especially in fittings) in my price range. If I was incredibly wealthy, this would not have been the case. For (lets say) $3K a 'real' diamond ring was the best looking thing I could get. If I'd had $30-300 K then I could have someone make whatever I want and do it using a lab diamond.
Although, when it came time to buy wedding bands while my wife got a platinum ring I went for palladium. Looks 95% as good as platinum for 1/10 the price, and mens platinum rings are EXPENSIVE.
Also, unlike a fake Coach bag, diamonds aren't actually trademarked. I'm wearing a thing that sparkles, that's all. As long as I don't claim anything beyond that, what's it matter if its CZ, white sapphire, or lab diamond?
It matters because people are shallow and make judgments about the fashion choices of others.
Imagine a woman gets engaged with a CZ/white sapphire/synthetic diamond ring and meets up with her friends. They all learn about the engagement. What happens next? They all ask to see the ring and the details on where it was from.
Now, the woman with the ring might not care if it's fake, and may indeed prefer it out of moral or ethical choice. But that same woman will likely also value the opinions and judgments of some other people, and those people may well have a negative reaction upon finding out it's a fake diamond.
I object to the idea that Artificial diamonds are "fake". They are identical right down to the molecular level with regular diamonds. The only difference is that regular diamonds have impurities in them. So in a strict sense synthetics are the "real" diamonds.
I get what you are talking about, but first step is to eliminate that fake/real bullshit.
I blame the idea of a Engagement ring as a major contributing factor to the whole blood diamond crap.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
+2
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I never fully understood the whole "blood diamond" thing. This issue is people mining them and selling them to finance wars, right? I guess I don't see it as that different from any other country extracting and selling is resources. I have never asked where any diamond I bought was sourced, and I doubt I would get an answer even if I did.
Aren't they illegal in certain western countries?
The point of the OP article is that conflict diamonds that would be illegal in some western countries are being laundered in Surat and coming back onto the market untraceably.
Just wanted to make sure it's illegal (rather than one of those voluntary ethic bans)
So doesn't that fact itself make it different from countries extracting other natural resources to sell?
They're actively circumventing international law of other countries to continue their wars.
The whole matter makes me glad my girlfriend doesn't care about diamonds. She has rings and earrings of artificial materials (real gold/silver and sometimes other gemstones so fairly expensive pieces all the same) and when discussing engagement rings I've been told that it's about how nice the piece is, not how much it costs.
That's why I'm looking into Moissanite, because it looks badass, has a fantastic light refraction index and it can be made in labs.
Science, bitches.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Diamonds are like Lobsters, only way more people suffer and die because of Diamonds.
If you don't know the history of lobsters it is this. Lobsters were once considered the garbage of the sea. During tidal storms in the 17th and 18th centuries they'd roll up on the New England beaches in piles between 3 and 6 feet high of them. Indentured servants, which were basically time leased slaves with slightly more rights had it in their contract that they couldn't be fed Lobster more than twice a week.
With the invention of the refrigerated rail car in the 19th century the fate of the lobster changed. East coast fish barons now saw the midwest as a viable market if they could only figure out what would stay fresh for about a week or two at a low cost that they had an abundant supply of. Lobsters, kept in cool salt water do stay fresh enough for about that time. So marketers from New York basically started a gigantic marketing campaign for lobster as the new status food in the midwest and it took off from there.
Diamonds are exactly like that, only worse. It's hard to horde lobsters after all and nearly impossible to control the price on them. They are easily the most common of the precious stones. The diamond engagement ring was a ploy by the big diamond companies and Hollywood and was so successful that people now believe that we've being doing it forever instead of less than a century.
Spacekungfuman, just so you know, Moissanite is superior to diamond in absolutely every way except being less than a single point softer on the Mohs scale. (which only really matters for drills, near as I can tell, and even the only slightly)
It has superior brilliance and sparkle, easier to cut, easier to manufacture, and lower price. They are also significantly rarer in terms of being naturally occurring, and there are exactly zero slave labour camps dedicated to extracting them.
I very much enjoyed my wifes explanation of "Why would I go with a diamond when I can get something that's better? Why settle for second best and then pay more for the privilege?"
Diamonds are like Lobsters, only way more people suffer and die because of Diamonds.
If you don't know the history of lobsters it is this. Lobsters were once considered the garbage of the sea. During tidal storms in the 17th and 18th centuries they'd roll up on the New England beaches in piles between 3 and 6 feet high of them. Indentured servants, which were basically time leased slaves with slightly more rights had it in their contract that they couldn't be fed Lobster more than twice a week.
With the invention of the refrigerated rail car in the 19th century the fate of the lobster changed. East coast fish barons now saw the midwest as a viable market if they could only figure out what would stay fresh for about a week or two at a low cost that they had an abundant supply of. Lobsters, kept in cool salt water do stay fresh enough for about that time. So marketers from New York basically started a gigantic marketing campaign for lobster as the new status food in the midwest and it took off from there.
Diamonds are exactly like that, only worse. It's hard to horde lobsters after all and nearly impossible to control the price on them. They are easily the most common of the precious stones. The diamond engagement ring was a ploy by the big diamond companies and Hollywood and was so successful that people now believe that we've being doing it forever instead of less than a century.
Umm, that's nothing like diamonds. Lobsters are expensive now because we at all the lobsters back when they were common and now they distinctly do not wash up in giant mounds on the beaches. Lobsters now have 'genuine' rarity.
It's not true that we can produce jewelry quality lab diamonds at a reasonable cost. That isn't something we can do yet. Not that that fact counters most of the arguments in here, but anyone saying you can just buy a lab diamond that's as good as a high quality mined stone is incorrect. We aren't to that level yet, and it's very expensive and time-consuming to produce a jewelry-quality lab stone.
That said, I was planning to go with moissanite until I was given a family diamond instead.
The fact that we can make basically perfect synthetic diamonds, but people don't like them because they aren't "natural", is probably the whole part of this little shindig that makes me the most irate.
We can literally solve the problem of buying shiny stones without exploiting native populations, supporting a gigantic monolithic and cruel industry, or fueling warlords, but nope it is somehow not the saaaaaaame.
You can get diamonds made out of the organic matter of your loved ones how is that not much, much better?
But no, DeBeers instead invented a spectroscope so that they could distinguish between artificial and natural diamonds because without looking at the spectrograph they are impossible for even trained professionals to tell apart.
In short, fuck the diamond industry, buy lab-diamonds every day.
Science has solved one of society's ills
Your conclusion is faulty because you're ignoring the concepts of branding and authenticity.
Which are bullshit concepts pushed by DeBeers to preserve their cartel.
If you need help understanding how you should feel about DeBeers, please refer to the thread title.
From your response, I have to conclude you have a problem with branding in general. That's all branding is, in our modern world. If you have a problem with how DeBeers is promoting their product, then you have a problem with how pretty much any fashion accessory is promoted.
Which means we now need to have a conversation on branding. Joy.
In addition, how I feel about DeBeers has little to do with how I feel about their product or what the general cultural feeling is about diamonds in general. You're attempting to bring a logical argument into the realm of morality and emotion.
Diamonds are like Lobsters, only way more people suffer and die because of Diamonds.
If you don't know the history of lobsters it is this. Lobsters were once considered the garbage of the sea. During tidal storms in the 17th and 18th centuries they'd roll up on the New England beaches in piles between 3 and 6 feet high of them. Indentured servants, which were basically time leased slaves with slightly more rights had it in their contract that they couldn't be fed Lobster more than twice a week.
With the invention of the refrigerated rail car in the 19th century the fate of the lobster changed. East coast fish barons now saw the midwest as a viable market if they could only figure out what would stay fresh for about a week or two at a low cost that they had an abundant supply of. Lobsters, kept in cool salt water do stay fresh enough for about that time. So marketers from New York basically started a gigantic marketing campaign for lobster as the new status food in the midwest and it took off from there.
Diamonds are exactly like that, only worse. It's hard to horde lobsters after all and nearly impossible to control the price on them. They are easily the most common of the precious stones. The diamond engagement ring was a ploy by the big diamond companies and Hollywood and was so successful that people now believe that we've being doing it forever instead of less than a century.
Umm, that's nothing like diamonds. Lobsters are expensive now because we at all the lobsters back when they were common and now they distinctly do not wash up in giant mounds on the beaches. Lobsters now have 'genuine' rarity.
It's like Lobster in that they manufactured a desire for an otherwise fairly unremarkable product. You're right in that Lobster's scarcity is man made and not artificial like diamonds.
The Disney Vault is a better example of a manufactured scarcity.
The fact that we can make basically perfect synthetic diamonds, but people don't like them because they aren't "natural", is probably the whole part of this little shindig that makes me the most irate.
We can literally solve the problem of buying shiny stones without exploiting native populations, supporting a gigantic monolithic and cruel industry, or fueling warlords, but nope it is somehow not the saaaaaaame.
You can get diamonds made out of the organic matter of your loved ones how is that not much, much better?
But no, DeBeers instead invented a spectroscope so that they could distinguish between artificial and natural diamonds because without looking at the spectrograph they are impossible for even trained professionals to tell apart.
In short, fuck the diamond industry, buy lab-diamonds every day.
Science has solved one of society's ills
Your conclusion is faulty because you're ignoring the concepts of branding and authenticity.
Which are bullshit concepts pushed by DeBeers to preserve their cartel.
If you need help understanding how you should feel about DeBeers, please refer to the thread title.
From your response, I have to conclude you have a problem with branding in general. That's all branding is, in our modern world. If you have a problem with how DeBeers is promoting their product, then you have a problem with how pretty much any fashion accessory is promoted.
Which means we now need to have a conversation on branding. Joy.
In addition, how I feel about DeBeers has little to do with how I feel about their product or what the general cultural feeling is about diamonds in general. You're attempting to bring a logical argument into the realm of morality and emotion.
Both of your posts neatly ignore the issue, which is even addressed in my post (I didn't ignore branding! That is specifically mentioned as the problem) and I don't really know what you are trying to say.
Trust me, I understand that branding is the problem.
The fact that we can make basically perfect synthetic diamonds, but people don't like them because they aren't "natural", is probably the whole part of this little shindig that makes me the most irate.
We can literally solve the problem of buying shiny stones without exploiting native populations, supporting a gigantic monolithic and cruel industry, or fueling warlords, but nope it is somehow not the saaaaaaame.
You can get diamonds made out of the organic matter of your loved ones how is that not much, much better?
But no, DeBeers instead invented a spectroscope so that they could distinguish between artificial and natural diamonds because without looking at the spectrograph they are impossible for even trained professionals to tell apart.
In short, fuck the diamond industry, buy lab-diamonds every day.
Science has solved one of society's ills
Your conclusion is faulty because you're ignoring the concepts of branding and authenticity.
Which are bullshit concepts pushed by DeBeers to preserve their cartel.
If you need help understanding how you should feel about DeBeers, please refer to the thread title.
From your response, I have to conclude you have a problem with branding in general. That's all branding is, in our modern world. If you have a problem with how DeBeers is promoting their product, then you have a problem with how pretty much any fashion accessory is promoted.
Which means we now need to have a conversation on branding. Joy.
In addition, how I feel about DeBeers has little to do with how I feel about their product or what the general cultural feeling is about diamonds in general. You're attempting to bring a logical argument into the realm of morality and emotion.
Both of your posts neatly ignore the issue, which is even addressed in my post (I didn't ignore branding! That is specifically mentioned as the problem) and I don't really know what you are trying to say.
Trust me, I understand that branding is the problem.
It's much easier to produce colored synthetics, right now. Pretty much the largest colorless diamond you can synthetically produce right now is a half carat, and there aren't a ton on the market.
Moissanite is still cool. But as long as the branding on colorless diamonds holds up, there isn't a synthetic market to match the demand yet.
It's not true that we can produce jewelry quality lab diamonds at a reasonable cost. That isn't something we can do yet. Not that that fact counters most of the arguments in here, but anyone saying you can just buy a lab diamond that's as good as a high quality mined stone is incorrect. We aren't to that level yet, and it's very expensive and time-consuming to produce a jewelry-quality lab stone.
That said, I was planning to go with moissanite until I was given a family diamond instead.
Depends on your definition of 'good'. If you want a good quality yellow or pink diamond then we absolutely can produce a cheaper diamond artificially than by waiting for people to dig one up. Most of the limitations in the market aren't caused by scientific issues but by issues of demand. People don't want 1 carat clear artificial diamonds for half the price of real ones. Someone buying a carat wants a 'real' diamond. So the manufacturers focus on the colored stones (where the real ones are so expensive as to be beyond the price range of most people) and smaller stones (to be used as 'flanking' stones in pieces or in cheaper jewelry with smaller stones)
Create a demand for cheaper 1 carat diamonds and they will be delivered.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Spacekungfuman, just so you know, Moissanite is superior to diamond in absolutely every way except being less than a single point softer on the Mohs scale. (which only really matters for drills, near as I can tell, and even the only slightly)
It has superior brilliance and sparkle, easier to cut, easier to manufacture, and lower price. They are also significantly rarer in terms of being naturally occurring, and there are exactly zero slave labour camps dedicated to extracting them.
I very much enjoyed my wifes explanation of "Why would I go with a diamond when I can get something that's better? Why settle for second best and then pay more for the privilege?"
And yet I don't see them in any of the stores I go to. Everyone just sells diamonds. I've heard Moissanite is nice, and I would probably buy stud earrings in it or something if I saw them and liked them, (2+ ct studs are insanely expensive, so I won't buy them) but I have never seen one.
To add my own anecdote, just about everyone I know who has gotten engaged in the past 5 years has done so without a diamond. Sapphires (including my own wifey) and emeralds seem to be the thing. Sure, I'm not part of a super rich group of friends, but I think lots of young people are comfortable getting engaged without a diamond these days.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I only know one person who got engaged without a diamond. She got this maybe 3 ct emerald instead. Pretty much everyone I know has a diamond, and the only question is size.
I recently looked into have Mrs. SKFM's center stone reset in a new setting with two stones on each side (she has baguettes now) and the jeweler said "each of these stones would be an engagement ring in the midwest" so I guess things vary a lot regionally.
Doing something even moderately practical in your wedding arrangements is great because it allows you to see which of the people you know are ridiculous enough to value the traditions of other people over actual gain.
I only know one person who got engaged without a diamond. She got this maybe 3 ct emerald instead. Pretty much everyone I know has a diamond, and the only question is size.
I don't know anybody in my social circle who got engaged with a diamond.
Buying diamonds is one of those things that my older family members did, and when it is done today it's by people I don't really know very well, like using the word "negro" unironically or saying grace at the dinnertable.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I only know one person who got engaged without a diamond. She got this maybe 3 ct emerald instead. Pretty much everyone I know has a diamond, and the only question is size.
I recently looked into have Mrs. SKFM's center stone reset in a new setting with two stones on each side (she has baguettes now) and the jeweler said "each of these stones would be an engagement ring in the midwest" so I guess things vary a lot between the rich and everyone else.
+10
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Most people in my circle see large diamond engagement rings as pretty trashy/Real Housewifey.
Most people in my circle see large diamond engagement rings as pretty trashy/Real Housewifey.
Really? Where do you live, and what kind of income group is it? I'm just really surprised to hear that. I could see like a 6ct ring being gaudy, but the norms in my group is 1-3ct probably.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I only know one person who got engaged without a diamond. She got this maybe 3 ct emerald instead. Pretty much everyone I know has a diamond, and the only question is size.
I don't know anybody in my social circle who got engaged with a diamond.
Buying diamonds is one of those things that my older family members did, and when it is done today it's by people I don't really know very well, like using the word "negro" unironically or saying grace at the dinnertable.
Are you talking engagement rings or jewelry at all?
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
3 cts is pretty redick
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Hell, once you step above 2c, you're getting into cartoonish territory.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Most people in my circle see large diamond engagement rings as pretty trashy/Real Housewifey.
Really? Where do you live, and what kind of income group is it? I'm just really surprised to hear that. I could see like a 6ct ring being gaudy, but the norms in my group is 1-3ct probably.
Mid-Atlantic, incomes vary but probably around $150k+. People my age are just starting to think about getting married, and following the economic crash people are thinking twice about outward demonstrations of wealth (particularly purely decorative ones). When you see a giant diamond, it's generally viewed as a sign of an insecure relationship or someone trying to one-up the girl next door.
I like them. They throw off so much light. I don't only buy Mrs. SKFM diamonds, but the truth is nothing else has the impact of a diamond, imo.
There is an interesting Ask/Tell thread in the Something Awful Forums where a jeweler gave people diamond alternatives. Personally, some of the alternatives were much nicer and more brilliant and reflective than diamonds (there were side by side comparisons). Its an interesting thread if you buy a lot of jewelry, which it seems you do. If you're doubting diamonds now you should give some of these alternatives a look, I'm sure your wife would be pleased.
Most people in my circle see large diamond engagement rings as pretty trashy/Real Housewifey.
Really? Where do you live, and what kind of income group is it? I'm just really surprised to hear that. I could see like a 6ct ring being gaudy, but the norms in my group is 1-3ct probably.
Mid-Atlantic, incomes vary but probably around $150k+. People my age are just starting to think about getting married, and following the economic crash people are thinking twice about outward demonstrations of wealth (particularly purely decorative ones). When you see a giant diamond, it's generally viewed as a sign of an insecure relationship or someone trying to one-up the girl next door.
Interesting. I have not seen any drop in conspicuous consumption in LI as a result of the recession. If anything, people may have bought more stuff, since the recession resulted in some great sales.
I only know one person who got engaged without a diamond. She got this maybe 3 ct emerald instead. Pretty much everyone I know has a diamond, and the only question is size.
I don't know anybody in my social circle who got engaged with a diamond.
Buying diamonds is one of those things that my older family members did, and when it is done today it's by people I don't really know very well, like using the word "negro" unironically or saying grace at the dinnertable.
Are you talking engagement rings or jewelry at all?
Mostly the former, but that's just because of the limitations with my memory.
People I know tend to show off engagement rings, so those stick out in my memory, and nobody in my social circle has ever had a diamond engagement ring. The only people I know who have are older relatives or coworkers I don't really socialize with.
I can't say for sure that none of my friends or friends-of-friends have ever purchased diamonds, but I can say that if they have, they haven't really shown them off.
It's just kind of an anachronism.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Years. We've had threads on the horrors of Debeers activities around the world (from simpy artificially inflating the scarcity to building their own little niche through manipulative means to the reason they're called "blood diamonds") several times in the last half decade or so.
For some it's a rejection of diamonds for whatever reason (morals, expense, etc), for others it's simply finding other stones/materials more attractive for different reasons, or just not buying into DB's bullshit.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I would disagree strongly that diamonds are anachronistic. I generally agree with the arguments against them, but aside from pretty progressive people, I've seen very little push back against them. I don't remember where Feral lives, but I imagine it's the northwest and that it's a pretty liberal social group. Around here, you'd definitely get a slightly askance look, or at least an, "Wow, that's so non-traditional and beautiful" semi-compliment if you got engaged without a diamond. This wasn't going to stop me from going moissanite myself, but the people I know who get engaged still use diamonds. The ones who would probably have avoided diamonds just aren't getting engaged in traditional ways.
What is this I don't even.
+2
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
So, let's say you buy a synthetic diamond. If someone asks if its real (rude), do you tell them the truth? It's chemically the same (for the most part, since the diamond detectors do work) but I think it would be dishonest to pretend it is "real".
I haven't really come across that many people 'round these parts (Sacramento) who would consider buying anything but a diamond as an engagement/wedding ring. It's probably partly a regional thing, but it's probably also a self-selection thing, where you tend to hang around people with similar sensibilities.
That said, the moment a friend starts criticizing me because I'm unwilling to drop crazy money on expensive fashion accessories is the moment they wind up an ex-friend.
And, a question: it was claimed in here that glass can be cut to be just as sparkly as diamond. However, decent diamonds seem to invariably sparkle more than cubic zirconium or glass. Why is this? Is it a psychological thing, do fake diamonds just have crappier cuts because the manufcaturers are lazy, or what?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
It matters because people are shallow and make judgments about the fashion choices of others.
Imagine a woman gets engaged with a CZ/white sapphire/synthetic diamond ring and meets up with her friends. They all learn about the engagement. What happens next? They all ask to see the ring and the details on where it was from.
Now, the woman with the ring might not care if it's fake, and may indeed prefer it out of moral or ethical choice. But that same woman will likely also value the opinions and judgments of some other people, and those people may well have a negative reaction upon finding out it's a fake diamond.
Aren't they illegal in certain western countries?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
The point of the OP article is that conflict diamonds that would be illegal in some western countries are being laundered in Surat and coming back onto the market untraceably.
I'd argue the inverse, that someone wearing a REAL diamond in order to impress people with their wealth is giving off a false impression, because someone buying a diamond to demonstrate and store their wealth is an idiot due to the knowledge that lab diamonds exist. However, I bought a 'real' diamond engagement ring which is really beautiful but I bought it because of how great it looked. I investigated lab diamonds and decided the price differential wasn't good enough to make up for the lack of selection (especially in fittings) in my price range. If I was incredibly wealthy, this would not have been the case. For (lets say) $3K a 'real' diamond ring was the best looking thing I could get. If I'd had $30-300 K then I could have someone make whatever I want and do it using a lab diamond.
Although, when it came time to buy wedding bands while my wife got a platinum ring I went for palladium. Looks 95% as good as platinum for 1/10 the price, and mens platinum rings are EXPENSIVE.
I object to the idea that Artificial diamonds are "fake". They are identical right down to the molecular level with regular diamonds. The only difference is that regular diamonds have impurities in them. So in a strict sense synthetics are the "real" diamonds.
I get what you are talking about, but first step is to eliminate that fake/real bullshit.
I blame the idea of a Engagement ring as a major contributing factor to the whole blood diamond crap.
Just wanted to make sure it's illegal (rather than one of those voluntary ethic bans)
So doesn't that fact itself make it different from countries extracting other natural resources to sell?
They're actively circumventing international law of other countries to continue their wars.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
That's why I'm looking into Moissanite, because it looks badass, has a fantastic light refraction index and it can be made in labs.
Science, bitches.
If you don't know the history of lobsters it is this. Lobsters were once considered the garbage of the sea. During tidal storms in the 17th and 18th centuries they'd roll up on the New England beaches in piles between 3 and 6 feet high of them. Indentured servants, which were basically time leased slaves with slightly more rights had it in their contract that they couldn't be fed Lobster more than twice a week.
With the invention of the refrigerated rail car in the 19th century the fate of the lobster changed. East coast fish barons now saw the midwest as a viable market if they could only figure out what would stay fresh for about a week or two at a low cost that they had an abundant supply of. Lobsters, kept in cool salt water do stay fresh enough for about that time. So marketers from New York basically started a gigantic marketing campaign for lobster as the new status food in the midwest and it took off from there.
Diamonds are exactly like that, only worse. It's hard to horde lobsters after all and nearly impossible to control the price on them. They are easily the most common of the precious stones. The diamond engagement ring was a ploy by the big diamond companies and Hollywood and was so successful that people now believe that we've being doing it forever instead of less than a century.
It has superior brilliance and sparkle, easier to cut, easier to manufacture, and lower price. They are also significantly rarer in terms of being naturally occurring, and there are exactly zero slave labour camps dedicated to extracting them.
I very much enjoyed my wifes explanation of "Why would I go with a diamond when I can get something that's better? Why settle for second best and then pay more for the privilege?"
Umm, that's nothing like diamonds. Lobsters are expensive now because we at all the lobsters back when they were common and now they distinctly do not wash up in giant mounds on the beaches. Lobsters now have 'genuine' rarity.
That said, I was planning to go with moissanite until I was given a family diamond instead.
From your response, I have to conclude you have a problem with branding in general. That's all branding is, in our modern world. If you have a problem with how DeBeers is promoting their product, then you have a problem with how pretty much any fashion accessory is promoted.
Which means we now need to have a conversation on branding. Joy.
In addition, how I feel about DeBeers has little to do with how I feel about their product or what the general cultural feeling is about diamonds in general. You're attempting to bring a logical argument into the realm of morality and emotion.
It's like Lobster in that they manufactured a desire for an otherwise fairly unremarkable product. You're right in that Lobster's scarcity is man made and not artificial like diamonds.
The Disney Vault is a better example of a manufactured scarcity.
Both of your posts neatly ignore the issue, which is even addressed in my post (I didn't ignore branding! That is specifically mentioned as the problem) and I don't really know what you are trying to say.
Trust me, I understand that branding is the problem.
We need to re-brand synthetics
Careful. The holidays are over and you might hurt Geth's feelings.
Here's a semi-reference to it:
http://news.cnet.com/synthetic-diamonds-still-a-rough-cut/2100-11395_3-6159542.html
It's much easier to produce colored synthetics, right now. Pretty much the largest colorless diamond you can synthetically produce right now is a half carat, and there aren't a ton on the market.
Moissanite is still cool. But as long as the branding on colorless diamonds holds up, there isn't a synthetic market to match the demand yet.
Depends on your definition of 'good'. If you want a good quality yellow or pink diamond then we absolutely can produce a cheaper diamond artificially than by waiting for people to dig one up. Most of the limitations in the market aren't caused by scientific issues but by issues of demand. People don't want 1 carat clear artificial diamonds for half the price of real ones. Someone buying a carat wants a 'real' diamond. So the manufacturers focus on the colored stones (where the real ones are so expensive as to be beyond the price range of most people) and smaller stones (to be used as 'flanking' stones in pieces or in cheaper jewelry with smaller stones)
Create a demand for cheaper 1 carat diamonds and they will be delivered.
And yet I don't see them in any of the stores I go to. Everyone just sells diamonds. I've heard Moissanite is nice, and I would probably buy stud earrings in it or something if I saw them and liked them, (2+ ct studs are insanely expensive, so I won't buy them) but I have never seen one.
I recently looked into have Mrs. SKFM's center stone reset in a new setting with two stones on each side (she has baguettes now) and the jeweler said "each of these stones would be an engagement ring in the midwest" so I guess things vary a lot regionally.
I don't know anybody in my social circle who got engaged with a diamond.
Buying diamonds is one of those things that my older family members did, and when it is done today it's by people I don't really know very well, like using the word "negro" unironically or saying grace at the dinnertable.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Really? Where do you live, and what kind of income group is it? I'm just really surprised to hear that. I could see like a 6ct ring being gaudy, but the norms in my group is 1-3ct probably.
Are you talking engagement rings or jewelry at all?
3ct is pretty big, but it isn't insane looking. I got lucky and Mrs. SKFM had a 2ct family ring, so I didn't need to buy one
Mid-Atlantic, incomes vary but probably around $150k+. People my age are just starting to think about getting married, and following the economic crash people are thinking twice about outward demonstrations of wealth (particularly purely decorative ones). When you see a giant diamond, it's generally viewed as a sign of an insecure relationship or someone trying to one-up the girl next door.
There is an interesting Ask/Tell thread in the Something Awful Forums where a jeweler gave people diamond alternatives. Personally, some of the alternatives were much nicer and more brilliant and reflective than diamonds (there were side by side comparisons). Its an interesting thread if you buy a lot of jewelry, which it seems you do. If you're doubting diamonds now you should give some of these alternatives a look, I'm sure your wife would be pleased.
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3331917
Interesting. I have not seen any drop in conspicuous consumption in LI as a result of the recession. If anything, people may have bought more stuff, since the recession resulted in some great sales.
Mostly the former, but that's just because of the limitations with my memory.
People I know tend to show off engagement rings, so those stick out in my memory, and nobody in my social circle has ever had a diamond engagement ring. The only people I know who have are older relatives or coworkers I don't really socialize with.
I can't say for sure that none of my friends or friends-of-friends have ever purchased diamonds, but I can say that if they have, they haven't really shown them off.
It's just kind of an anachronism.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
anyone who tries to act like this is inferior will be slapped about the face and neck with my large penis while i hoot with animalistic ferocity
so there
For some it's a rejection of diamonds for whatever reason (morals, expense, etc), for others it's simply finding other stones/materials more attractive for different reasons, or just not buying into DB's bullshit.
That said, the moment a friend starts criticizing me because I'm unwilling to drop crazy money on expensive fashion accessories is the moment they wind up an ex-friend.
And, a question: it was claimed in here that glass can be cut to be just as sparkly as diamond. However, decent diamonds seem to invariably sparkle more than cubic zirconium or glass. Why is this? Is it a psychological thing, do fake diamonds just have crappier cuts because the manufcaturers are lazy, or what?