December 20, 2004

• They're selling it to women— men are just picking up the tab. Women are suckers for diamonds, men are suckers for women.
• Ouchkit: But once you've got one of them, would you like him to buy you diamonds?
• Diamonds. Are they a tail-of-the-peacock type of handicap that men have to carry in order to find a mate? (So what do gay peacock's do?) In my experience, only women know the attraction of diamonds. I'm not saying all/some/most women - I'm just saying that *no men* have this attraction. (When was the last time a guy said: "I'd love a diamond ring"?). Which leads me to the question: do gay men obsess over diamonds?
• Well, plus there's the nearly a century of marketing from DeBeers. As I understand it, DeBeers basically invented the tradition of a diamond engagement ring by getting it in some early hollywood movies and it spread like wildfire from there.
• When was the last time a guy said: I'd love a diamond ring Yeah, that David Beckham is teh hot.
• Any woman who demands a diamond isn't worth marrying anyway, so I don't really see a problem here.
• What Mr. Knick said.
• What uncleozzy said. About those DeBeers ads...the one that makes my skin crawl is the one with the couple in the square (Venice?) and the man yells "I love this woman" and the woman's all embarassed, until he gives her DIAMONDS, then she's all over him and says she loves him. I yell at the screen every time I see it. I think ads like that are definitely directed at men, hinting at the rewards they will reap in exchange for a little ice.

• ...expected to spend two months' salary...

  
  Where did this meme start? I only started hearing it recently. Is credit due to De Beer's marketing team?
  I would deeply resent being told how much money to spend on something as personal as an engagement ring. Am I abnormal?
• cabingirl - I cannot describe how much I hate that commerical. That woman is offensive to me in so many ways. Look, diamonds are shiny and pretty. But the whole manipulative buy-me-things-so-I-know-you-love-me thing? Feh. If I want pretty shiny things I will buy them for myself. Now, if you DO get me something shiny, I will be flattered and appreciative. DeBeers is an evil monopoly anyway - let's stay away from conflict diamonds.
• nicola - agreed. Demanding particular gifts because That's What's Done is one of those things that I feel separates a certain mindset from the mindset I hold - it relates to gender stereotypes, in my mind, and treating men and women like different species instead of two different sorts of human beings. Ramble. Anyway. I'd find it much more meaningful and personal if a gift is individual. Actually knowing what your partner likes and wants is a lot more romantic, to me, than going on preset templates handed to you by a giant mess of stereotypes and social pressures. ...but that's probably why I'm single. :)
• Chaz, you're not abnormal. I think the two months' salary thing has been around for at least 30 years. Wurwilf and Nicola, amen to you both! I am not a traditional gal. Diamond engagement rings seem like a waste of money to me. Most of the married people I know put their "engagement money" into more practical things like down payments on houses or a much-needed vacation. When Mister shinything proposed we were poor students. He popped the question by popping open a really nice bottle of champagne. We kept the cork, and it means just as much to me as a diamond engagement ring would to someone else.
• I would've expected shinything to be more into shinythings.
• ;) In my bizarro world the best shinythings are not necessarily shiny things.
• I ... LOVE ... THIS ... WOMAN! ... I love this man's money!
• my husband refers to these as the "get her a diamond so she gives you a blowjob" ads. the best was on local radio: "Give her what she really wants, so you get what you really want."
• When my husband proposed to me, he didn't have a ring in hand. His family had a ring that he was considering giving me, but I was wearing a handful of rings, and I didn't really want another one. Plus, honestly, I'd done the Barbie Dream Fantasy Wedding (tm) complete with big sticky-uppy diamon engagement ring, in my early 20s. Instead of giving me the family diamond, he went to our little local jeweler, who made me a gorgeous claddagh with a deep blue topaz. Then I nicked his college ring and had the same jeweler make him a surprise engagement ring: a claddagh without a stone. The moral of this story is that we liked the two rings we gave each other for our engagement so well we still wear them, and we'll celebrate our fifth wedding anniversary on April Fool's Day. The ad parodies are dead on in one way: where are the engagement rings for men? I know I've seen discussion about that very topic elsewhere in the last couple of years. I guess boys aren't (perceived to be) willing to dine at the Y for jewelry.
• You mean I should be getting jewlery for that?? Crap. I'm owed.
• No, itch, you're owned. I came across this info about how DeBeers marketing has completely reshaped the courtship and marriage rituals in Japan.
• As others have said, almost everything we think about dimonds and what they represent and how big of one you are supposed to buy is completely made up by DeBeers. On the marketing front, if one listens to commercial radio, you will hear commercials that are clearly aimed at women while others are clearly aimed at men. This may just be the local jewelers, but I have heard commericals that starts with "Ladies...." and others talking about "Imagine how her eyes will light up when you give her [sale item of the week]." Last year, the barage of diamond ads before Christmas was unbearable. Then, to make matters worse, after Christmas I heard a commercial imploring women, "The man in your life didn't by you the diamond you were expecting? Well, come in and buy yourself one!" which made me want to go on a killing spree. Of course that isn't as bad as the radio ad I heard last year for amature night at a strip club that was suggestiong that women should come to amature night to win the cash prize so they could go Christmas shopping...
• women should come to amature night to win the cash prize so they could go Christmas shopping Ain't nothin wrong with that.
• I'm not very fond of shiny things myself, but I have a friend who really does equate number of carats to quantity of love. She's been like that as long as I can remember and I've known her since she was twelve. At least her husband always knows what to get her.
• The history of the engagement ring is really interesting. I will probably make an FPP on it soon.
• (Oh, and my boy, who's also a monkey, knows full well I'd have him killed if he wasted his money on a diamond. Really, how ridiculous.)
• Is that a frightening trick statement, designed to confuse him utterly?
• Not only is it an artificial marketing meme, two months' salary, get her a diamond to prove your manly earnings-fortitude, thereby ensuring that your genetic heritage is worth passing on to more little materialists, but it's an entirely artificial scarcity which shores up the prices. A frighteningly large percentage of diamonds on many women's left-ringfinger (I can't find the actual percentage online, sorry monkeys) are Blood Diamonds: diamonds mined by slave labor for junta regimes to sell in exchange for weapons, starting the repressive cycle anew. Aside from the fact that my wife and I are perfectly happy with our $75 titanium rings (how many couples have inexpensive enough rings that they can afford EASILY to get new rings in new styles for every anniversary for, roughly, 25 years before spending two months' salary?), my wife thinks diamonds are ugly. Herself being a geologist, she's not too keen on simple carbon tetrahedral structures. Thinks they're boring. So for all those people who have one rock of potentially dubious provenance bought from a distributor who has unquestionably made it artificially scarce, how about a new ring every year? A good thing about titanium is that you can afford to lose it. And it's stronger (titanium is forever! *squee*) than platinum or gold.
• Oops! I calculated TOTALLY wrong on that one. My wife and I can afford to get each other brand new titanium rings every year for over 65 years of marriage before spending 2 months' of my current salary. Now wouldn't that make an interesting family heirloom? A chest with over 100 wedding rings that we bought each other for every year of marriage... Or, I could go out and get me a DeBeers diamond, lovingly harvested from the bountiful earth by the happy, well-fed people of central Africa, hand-carried in a velvet case by a gentle mine manager, conveyed air-express to antwerp or brussels by an elderly courier, assessed for brilliance, color and clarity by a kindly gentleman in Belgium, cut carefully and with great reverence by that gentleman's brother, and stored in a DeBeers vault for 35 years because dropping it on the market right away would eat into their profits.
• i thought it was THREE months' salary. last time around i got a diamond, this time around it seems more important to have simple-yet-matching bands.
• chimaera, if I may: Monkeyfilter: not too keen on simple carbon tetrahedral structures.
• Three months' salary?? There's not much chance that we'll live through a 98th year of marriage. Sounds like we'll still come out ahead. It's a racket, I tell ya. A total racket.
• I agree with the good doctor. They don't advertise toys to adults, but to children. Adults just foot the bill. (Not equating women with children, just a comment on the marketing process.)
• The diamond Right Hand Ring signifies the strength, success and independence of women of the twenty-first century.
• I love the self righteousness some people exhibit when it comes to diamonds. Bottom line is that pretty much all of the stuff you own has been marketed and sold to you. The beepy flashy geegaw that will be obsolete in a year or two, the shiny car, the designer this that or the other. Even the crap that is sold under the auspices of sticking it to the man has been marketed and sold to you. Get over it. The value of diamonds is just a product of what people are willing to pay for them, at least they will last forever unlike countless other throwaway purchases that people make everyday.
• That is one of the saddest and yet funniest links I"ve seen in a while. Not only are they trying to create a new fad, but they have Right Hand Rings! As if most rings ONLY look good on the left hand and yo have to have a special ring for the other hand!
• The ad parodies are dead on in one way: where are the engagement rings for men? I have one. The person that gets asked gets the ring in my universe. Not that I wanted a diamond; I'm not much into bling. The whole two month's income seems insane. If you're poor, it gets you a small diamond and no food. If you're rich, it gets you a huge, crass rock. As to the marketing? Primarily women, I'd argue. Men don't, in my experience, wander around showing off the engagement ring to all their mates to show what a big chunk of ice they can afford. Women are more likely to swarm over the engagement ring to see it measures up (imagine the confusion at my wife's workplace when she tried explaining that "I bought the ring" didn't mean, "He's too poor, so I bought my own", but rather, I" bought him a ring for him to wear").

  Get over it.

  Get over yourself, zeoslap. "Oooh, ooh, I'm so superior and cynical and I know how the world really works!" Or at least take it to MeFi, where you and jonmc can pat each others' arses.
• I would disagree with zeoslap in the sense that the diamond marketing machine is not equivalent to that of, say, the iPod. Not least of which that products which require manufacture have an inherently different implementation and sales profile than resources such as diamonds. I also don't see Apple withholding iPods from the market to artificially inflate their prices. DeBeers and their ilk are inherently anti-competitive. If you're speaking of general materialism and consumerism as a "bad thing" I don't think you'll find too many here to disagree with you, but I also think that speaking of the latest flashy gewgaw and designer-edition SUV is a straw man, and one which fails a categorical comparison. Basically, I don't agree with what seems to be your argument. You think we're bashing "apples (diamonds), the people who buy them and the company that markets them while complaining that we also like to buy oranges (other stuff) and their marketers. Just because both are marketed, bought, and sold does not make diamonds equivalent to the items that you described.
• The lj entry does seem more than a touch bitter. I must admit I continue to be confused by guys who equate gift-giving in relationships to a quid-pro-quo with wealth and sex.
• In other words, "They'll last forever, because the commercials told me so. Yep." In my world, little trinkets get lost, and it's rather scary to buy something in order to convince yourself that your love will be as durable. "My love is like a lump of coal squeezed very very hard" or "My love can cut glass" might be fun slogans, though.
• ...that's in reference to zeoslap's slap. Forgot to quote.
• If you want untainted diamonds you can always go Canadian. I know I did, and my wife loves looking at the little polar bear inscription under the microscope. For all those so deeply concerned about the Congo (and I apologize if I sound cynical here, but I've seen these facile protests far too often) it might interest you to know that not only do diamonds fuel Congo conflict, but so do your cellphones and laptops... I believe its safe to assume that the people warning others off blood diamonds won't be giving up their tech anytime soon hmmmm???
• I would, and have, been placing my own limited amount of pressure on manufacturers of goods using Columbite-tantalite ore, but again, I think it is somewhat shaky argument in comparing items which are veritable necessities (computers, cell phones, remote contols, and just about any high-consumption electrical device which uses capacitors that contain refined "Coltan" ore) versus an item which is, for the vast majority of people (unless you are one who does industrial smoothing, cutting, and the like) is absolutely, 100% discretionary. Again, in this calculus, while the Nokia in my pocket and the (work-bought) HP laptop on my desk may contribute to the problem, they are used for productive purposes, as much as I can try to use them in good stewardship. Diamonds? Not so much. Though I wholeheartedly applaud purchasers who make an effort and choose to buy Canadian diamonds, for the reasons i count dots stated above.
• do gay men obsess over diamonds? Elton John and his 16-carat diamond pinky ring.
• I am superior it's true, but certainly not cynical, just the opposite. My point is that diamonds are worth what people are prepared to pay for them, which is true of many products, and getting all high and mighty about what people choose to spend their disposable income on is.. well, it's just wasted bile.
• Get over it. Two ways to respond to this: I'm sold! Here's my two month's salary! Wait, no! Here's an entire year's salary. Pile on the shiny shit! OR I love the self righteousness some people exhibit when it comes to anti-consumerism. Bottom line is that pretty much all of the stuff you refuse to own has been replaced with magazine subscriptions and expensive workarounds. The hemp shirt that will be worn out in a year or two, the No Logo paperback, the organic this that or the other. Even the crap that is sold under the auspices of sticking it to the faux counterculture has been marketed and sold to you. Consume and get over it.
• I find diamonds to be ugly. I've never understood the attraction. Then again, I also think gold looks tacky because it looks like crap on my practically blue-white skin - so your standard rock on a gold band makes me shudder.
• shawnj, huh? I realise you're trying to rephrase my words as some kind of comeback but I didn't quite get it. But even paraphrased the sentiment is spot on, the hemp shirt and the nologo paperback are being marketed and sold. If that's what you want to spend your money on have it, but to get on the snooty train because you someone made a purchase you personally wouldn't have is simply a waste of time. A diamond ring is a luxury item, people have attributed value to baubles since forever.
• they're advertising to a demographic and playing on a tradition that goes beyond their own history of propigating it, not to people who shop at walmart for jewelry or people having inherited assets reset into new works of art at some place that has armed minders included in the rent price with their merchandise: subjects of upper middle class culture it's interesting to see how men think of money and what it means to women, and how people think of money in general. the idea of spending a lot of money on a wedding dress use to be because that woman then wore that dress out for the whole year after or that it was the only time a woman would get a custom made dress. a nice piece of jewelery is more than the sum of its parts, and an investment. to give someone a thing of high value can have it the implication of a contract to freely give something is a sign of tribute and respect in the case of an easily translateable commodity, it can be literally buying someone time and freedom (say in the case of a fallen engagement, when one may need to regroup and recoup losses) i would think motivations behind someone buying jewelry is more revealing that targeted advertising. if some ass gets bad jewelry for someone because they fucked up, i wonder how well he thinks that would work. if it is in the case of someone wanting to show appreciation in allocating a large sum of money towards something solely in possession and use of another, it can be quite touching: a man i know bought a ring for his wife because they had spend every cent towards his medical education and raising their kids, having a stable foundation, and she never had any luxuries, especially in comparison to all their friends. he had a ring when they had the car crash she died in. besides the fact they can be appreciated in many ways, they also are symbolic in many ways, having to do with their properties. i know guys who think they can "buy" women and half of them are asses, the other half are clumsy about expressing themselves. but then i've had drunks run down their assets at me which i don't even want to understand i say we bring back gold coins, gems and charms as currency. it's not what you do, it's the way that you do it this guy seems bitter men with big noisy problems with conspicuous wealth seem to always have personal issues manifesting in "the self righteous poor" thing ooh, idea: if you wanna buy me a drink at the bar, send it with a nice semiprecious cabochon cut please, maybe on the cocktail stick with the olives "could i have that on the rocks?"
• btw: my sis got her man a silver engagement ring they have yet to marry screw it, buy me stuff, like in "the muse" bring back the benefactors! quality over carat and cut, please
• Hey, you buncha fuckin' numbnuts: There's lotsa straight guys, like me, who like fuckin' diamonds. Check out this here pinky ring, which has a buncha fuckin' little diamonds put together to say "#1." Ya buncha overeducated fuckin' morons. Actually, I'm looking forward to the DeBeers ads aimed at the male Sopranos/Vegas crowd.
• If that's what you want to spend your money on have it, but to get on the snooty train because you someone made a purchase you personally wouldn't have is simply a waste of time. So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is fuck all and forget about being an informed consumer. Is that the first step to being a jaded modernist? Using the same logic, any sort of consumer activism, whether it be to get a better product, better working conditions, or even a safer product is a waste of effort. Who cares if other people purchase them? I do care about diamonds. I'm tired of some artificial demand causing armed conflicts to continue in near perpituity. I'm tired of shallow materialism from spoiled Westerners helping let slavery continue. And I'm sure as hell tired of ugly jewelry financing terrorist organizations. Since when is concern for other people and being a responsible consumer self-righteous?
• It's self righteous because you're claiming it's an artificial demand, there is no such thing, it's a very real demand and that's how they can charge such high prices. It's self righteous because you come across as though you think you're a better person because it's a purchase you wouldn't make. Do you drive a car? What make? Do you buy goods that are made in China? Is all the coffee you drink freetrade? Also as others have pointed out Canadian diamonds are readily available negating any political implications of buying a diamond.
• you're claiming it's an artificial demand So, what you're saying, is that it's self-righteous to be right? Do you drive a car? Not if I can help it. I carpool to work. Do you buy goods that are made in China? Generally, no. Is all the coffee you drink freetrade? Yes. I don't think of myself as a better person for those choices. Informed, yes. Better, no.
• i missed were the bile spring sprang from. taking the original post, as to who debeers is targeting, it's uninformed men who don't really know or give a crap about diamonds. they supply more than have a line as far as i know but have been on a campaign for recent years to promote diamonds in general, in response to the problems that come to light against the nature of their acquisition and accommodating ever changing marketing possibilities worldwide. i think that other lines advertise aimed for the same market more directly, taking advantage of people who don't know about the back end of that business or any. i missed the ledge here where anyone can stand on to use their position on diamonds to judge people as a whole perhaps a nice reset heirloom piece will help me find it
• I never said that DeBeers' great marketing didn't create the demand, it did, what I'm saying is that a demand exists, it's not artificial. You may get the last word here because I gotta scoot. Nice chattin with ya (I'll check in tomorrow)
• can we get back to the luxury equals love part? because i'm wondering more on why men who buy them buy them. the only people i've heard of mixing up a need for food and luxuries are junkies. i've never heard of women who accept gifts if lieu of actual affection unless that's the arrangement
• Regarding the original post: I'd say they can't sell to one without the other. Regarding consumerism: there was an interesting post over in the blue a week or so ago.
• Sorry shawnj, when you group all diamonds under one roof, you do come across as uninformed. In addition to alternative Canadian sources of diamonds, have you ever heard of the Kimberley Process, a certification process to prevent conflict diamonds from entering the marketplace? I ask you, at what point does hating on diamonds (and those that wear them) become a red herring for your justified anger about conflict and slavery in the Congo?
• rodgerd and ethylene: Glad to hear my man wasn't the only one to get an engagement ring. I want to see the ad campaign for diamonds that HawthorneWingo proposed. I suspect it would look very different from the parody in the FPP.
• bling
• i'm guessing something like: hey, get a look at these rocks who's got stones now? size matters check out these family jewels
• zeoslap I never said that DeBeers' great marketing didn't create the demand, it did, what I'm saying is that a demand exists, it's not artificial. To call something artificial is not to deny that it exists, or even to claim that it doesn't behave like the real thing. If I show you my artificial Christmas tree, are you going to contradict me and insist that it must be a real tree, because it looks like a real tree, is decorated like a real tree, and is clearly serving the same function as a real tree? Do you honestly see no difference between a natural market demand for (say) food and a seller-created market demand for (say) a highly specific type, size, shape, and color of gemstone? Why shouldn't we distinguish between natural and artifical demand? zeoslap My point is that diamonds are worth what people are prepared to pay for them, which is true of many products, and getting all high and mighty about what people choose to spend their disposable income on is.. well, it's just wasted bile. Look at it this way: Because diamonds are only worth what people are prepared to pay for them, prevailing attitudes can change their value. That is, because the demand is artificial, merely complaining about it, if it's done vocally and frequently enough, could actually destroy the demand. This is one case where complaining / whining / berating one's friends might actually fix the problem. I could understand being pessimistic about the likelyhood of such an endeavor's success. But your reflexive-sounding dismissal of the very idea of discussing any part of the issue is strange.
• in lieu of what i was going to post, i'm looking for the highchair/horses people have decided people are on i don't know zeo but i didn't see the comment as being more than a comment that the main chunk of people who buy lots of jewelery buy lots of stuff without much of a care about issues behind them, not even his own position on it. people are so jumpy to find opponents
• I like diamonds. These diamonds (from duende's link). But not these (mentioned before). Due to the thread mentioned above, I've gone and bought some cool Christmas presents for a (pseudo) niece and nephew. The one-carat diamond earrings are pretty gorgeous, and the price was even less than what you would pay for Swarovski crystals.
• Since you asked, Biffa, I don't like diamonds. In fact, when I got engaged, my husband's grandmother bugged him to get me a diamond. This same vile woman bugged her son to get his fiancee (his mom) a fur coat thirty years earlier. My mother-in-law refused the fur, and I refused the diamond. I'm a very private person, and someone who spent years living on almost nothing. The people I've always liked the best are people who spend money on food, books, education, traveling, and a good mattress. People who drive fancy cars and wear rings that cost enough money to feed a family of four for a year are a complete puzzlement to me. Add to this, I dislike men who primp, blow dry their hair, or obsessively wash their cars. Call me an old hippie, but what's up with all that? Give me a man with a clean body, gentle hands, and a quick mind, and I'm happy.
• OK, if the demand is artificial or not, the scarcity of them is artificial. The Debeers company is withholding supply in order to create a higher profit and is creating demand to further create profit. The heads of DeBeers are actively researching ways to distinguish natural diamonds from synthetic ones which are so similar to natural ones that most professional jewelers cannot tell them apart. People who are against diamonds are not necessarilly against the demand, they are agaisnt the artificial and exploitative restriction of the supply. To say, "its all consumption, so get over it" is to severly miss the point and to assume that all consumption is the same. If I buy a shirt at Wal-Mart, who profits? The stock holders at Wal-Mart. If I buy a shirt from the local store, be it a hemp shirt or not (which I have no interest in ever owning!) the person that profits is the person who sells me the shirt. They are both acts of consumption, but I would rather give my money to a person than a corporation. In my opinion, jewelry of any kind is stupid. I have never, and I never will buy it for a woman. Are there a lot of women who wouldn't understand that? Sure, but I wouldn't want to date them in the first place. If you want to buy them, fine, just don't pretend that buying a worthless diamond that is sold to you by a company that artifically constricts the supply of their product and treats the people who mines them like shit is the same as buying a hemp shirt or No Logo book (now, as I said in the thread about anti-consumerism, people that do such things are drinking Kool-aid if they think it is anti-consumerist, but it is at least a more responsible form of consumerism).

• your reflexive-sounding dismissal of the very idea of discussing any part of the issue is strange.

  ITYM "asshatted". Progress depends, almost by defintion, on people being adequately interested in thinking about their world, how it could be different, and what can be done to nudge it that way. The fact that many people may not think about such things, or that living the perfect life is impossible, does not make doing so a worthless endeavour.
• Since when did 'consumerism' become synonymous with 'consuming'?
• i'm not sure how this got antidiamonds, antijewelry, antiwhatever but the comment i thought i posted was about jewelry making and the skill and tradition involved and the incredible mark up of a lot of available jewelry that even goldie hawn's daughter (name escapes me) knows of, making her own-- i hate the meat industry but i don't have a problem with eating meat. i hate the fur industry and a lot of luxury good makers but i wouldn't destroy someone's heirloom coat or ivory relic-- luxury goods Are often suspect, like that whole pashmina thing years ago it's one thing to not propigate and work against the existence of a negative institution, it's another thing to just say something shouldn't exist because You don't see any worth in it did i miss someone saying they want the bad diamonds?
• I'm with you, JCCalhoun. "Get over it" to me is the same as saying, "WhatEVER." Hellooooo! Not very interesting. What's interesting to me are questions like: What does it say about you if you're okay divorcing yourself from the reality that slave labor has produced the rock you think is so lovely? Or that you want your beloved to slave for two months so he can buy you as big a rock as possible? Tell me again . . . Why should he? So that you can look sexy? Try a see-through blouse. Rich? Try zirconia. Nobody will ever know. And think of it this way, zirconias are so much cheaper than diamonds, that you'll be able to get as big a stone as you want. So much bigger than poor dear Jimmy could ever afford in a diamond. Just think of how much more time you two lovebirds will have to spend together, now that he won't be having to get that second job to pay for food.
• is there some crazy run on diamonds or a trend of diamond demanding in circles i don't know about? are droves of young wouldbeweds kids being forced to buy diamonds? people who can capriciously buy diamonds aren't living on saltines the difference between zirconia and diamond is not even debateable, but what i wanna know is who are these diamond demanding women? and as for this sexy thing, i don't get it.
• "Try Zirconia. Nobody will ever know." Not true, the play (internal reflection and refraction) and colors of diamonds are in fact quite easy to tell apart from what a zirconia reflects. Even a poorly cut (or rough) diamond is prettier. A while back The heads of DeBeers are actively researching ways to distinguish natural diamonds from synthetic ones which are so similar to natural ones that most professional jewelers cannot tell them apart. Is that really true? I somewhat doubt it. I've looked at enough real and synthetic diamonds to tell you there are real differences between the two of them. The main one being synthetic ones are perfect, natural diamonds contain inclusions (which are cool in of themselves). I don't think it's right to post an opinion in the form of a true statement...
• I imagine that there are plenty of people who cannot imagine an engagement/wedding ring without gold or precious stones being involved. It's the done thing for many people, just as a big over-priced wedding/reception and a dress/suit never to be worn again are. This is just another example of those who are vulnerable to the guilt tripping and the desire for cultural homogeneity of friends and relatives making decisions that may not seem 'rational' or are actually harmful to their long-term wellbeing (the number one problem of recently married couples being money). The evidence that these people exist is there in the Sunday papers every week. I think many of these people would be baffled by the arrangements and accompanying paraphernalia of my own wedding.
• *waiting for yakuza subcutaneous pearl insertion of penis to be trendy*
• The main one being synthetic ones are perfect, natural diamonds contain inclusions (which are cool in of themselves). tempest, if you check the link that duende put up some time ago, only diamonds that are made by CVD (carbon vapour deposition) are totally flawless (and they have a perfect crystal matrix as well). Diamonds made by the Gemesis method do have metal inclusions due to the process. And I suppose it depends on what you mean by synthetic diamonds. These are real diamonds being created, and the fact that De Beers has to come up with very expensive machines just to detect these lab-created diamonds seems to imply that professional jewellers would have a great deal of trouble detecting them on their own. Of course, IANAJ, so I'm just talking through my hat here.
• "for his and his and her pleasure"
• Something that endeared me to my then-girlfriend (and now wife) when we began dating exclusively: she told me very explicitly that if this relationship lasted and we were to begin thinking about signing bits of legal paper to join us together in frightening ways, she would not ever consider wearing an engagement ring, and if we did decide to go all out, wedding bands weren't neccesary to her existence. We did get the bands in the end, but they are simple and don't draw any attention. No diamonds in our house, thankfully. The Zappa threads now prompts me: when Frank and his wife Gail entered the city hall in which they were married, Gail suddenly panicked and asked him "What about a ring? We need a ring!" Ever resourceful, Frank bought, for a quarter, a pen from a machine in the lobby, and clipped it to Gail's dress at the appropriate time.
• *waiting for yakuza subcutaneous pearl insertion of penis to be trendy* *crosses legs v. v. tightly*
• This story fails to impress in other parts of the FilterWorld
• this thread was used to impress express purposes
• In addition to alternative Canadian sources of diamonds, have you ever heard of the Kimberley Process, a certification process to prevent conflict diamonds from entering the marketplace? I ask you, at what point does hating on diamonds (and those that wear them) become a red herring for your justified anger about conflict and slavery in the Congo? The Kimberley Process is no more effective in shutting down the illicit diamond trade as the standards in place before it was started. The monitoring only occurs when "credible indications of significant non-compliance with the international certification scheme" happen. All a country has to do is say that they will participate and they're in, and then after that they have to be willing to submit to a review if the credible indications emerge, which is highly unlikely. And when Dutch traders are claiming more imports than legitimate diamond producing companies officially export, it's not hard to see that the Kimberley Process only puts a bandaid over a gaping wound. And about Canadian diamonds. Most jewelers do not know the origin of their diamonds. For a good chunk of the diamond buying populace, they would be hard-pressed to find a jeweler that has Canadian diamonds for a competitive price and quality. Also, purchasing Canadian diamonds only reinforces the demand for diamonds in general. your justified anger about conflict and slavery in the Congo I wish the world's diamond problems boiled down to this. This is only a share of the issues caused by the diamond trade.
• In grand theft auto 3, the radio ad for diamonds has a jingle that goes: "shut that bitch up... with ICE."
• Regarding the synthetic diamonds that most jewelers can't detect: These are made through a new process (or new processes, the show I saw talked to two different companies) and are just now hitting the market. I did a quick google search and here is a short article that showed up. I saw this on tv and they went and talked to DeBeers and showed the machines they are developing to show the differences.
• Also, purchasing Canadian diamonds only reinforces the demand for diamonds in general. Really? How? I'd say it only reinforces demand for Canadian diamonds...it actually alleviates short supply of other diamonds by leaving extra blood diamonds in the market. You should read up more on Canadian diamonds. My wife's Canadian diamonds have a serial number inscribed on them and a certificate of authenticity. Of course, that could all be faked...but I've heard no evidence of widespread forgery of Canadian diamonds. Yes, they do cost more, but I was more than willing to pay the extra amount, if just to counter the self-righteous putdowns I've been reading in this thread. Yes, my wife did prefer diamonds (I tried to talk her into a sapphire or maybe a kayak) and she's anything but stupid. She just likes shiny things and I think there is nothing wrong with that. As for the Kimberley process...I'm not saying its a conclusive answer...but at least its a start. What type of program would you be happy with? Anything? I seriously doubt any program with any amount of enforcement and transparency would quench y'all's anti-diamond stances.
• Really? How? The same way that buying a hybrid car still reinforces the use of gasoline. It's a step in the right direction, but it doesn't sidestep the entire issue that when you buy a diamond, you're buying into 75 years of manipulation and public relations wizardry.
• They have metal inclusions? Are we talking about the same thing? Natural diamonds (at least the ones I've seen) have small liquid (glass) and crystal (garnets mostly) inclusions. A by-product of being formed >200Km in the mantle and being brought up. Pretty cool to see and study. What kinds of inclusions get formed when diamonds are made at the surface?
• Speakin' of public relations wizardry, I'm amazed that no one has mentioned the new campaign on TV: the eternity setting, with *three* diamonds, that signifies past, present and future. (This is separate from your engagement ring, of course.) Just think about the marketing execs on this one: how can we get women who already have a diamond to *require* more diamonds from their now-spouse? Yowza!
• arch1, my sister has been on at me about getting an eternity ring. Apparently the wife is supposed to get one after having a child, she says. I have a friend who worked briefly for a low-end jewellery chain here and she said likewise. Marketing is working, I guess. I'd rather have a new deck.
• hey, if i could get a new deck by having a child, I'd do it! *forwarding thread to spouse* tracicle, we could create a NEW marketing campaign: men, you prove your love through construction, not simple carbon tetrahedral structures.
• Is it awful that my first reaction to the last three posts was, "Tracy and arch1 play Magic? Cool!"?
• tracicle and arch1: the eternity ring concept goes back a long way (though I've only recently heard that term to describe it). My grandmother, who was born in the 1870's, inherited one from her mother. I'm unclear on the adding of stones bit, but the ring was altered with the birth of each child, then handed down to the eldest female child upon the occasion of her giving birth of her first female child. I suppose I could phone my eldest sister's husband to ask him what happened to it and see if he knows the story, but I have my doubts about his reliability.
• Thanks for the info, coppermac... that said, the commercials I've been seeing for the "three-diamond eternity ring" don't mention the kids, and seem more like an "upgrade your love" and "outdo the joneses" riff.
• Okay, Tempest. So YOU would know the difference. I was speaking for myself. I wouldn't give a rip one way or the other. Not true, actually. I'd feel better about the person wearing the zirconia. But again, that's just me.
• 'Upgrade your love' -- that's absurdly hilarious. Maybe mid-life crises are what inspire some spouses to dump their partners and hook up with a newer model. I can see the threats and fights now: "Watch it you! Lose thirty pounds and get those eyebrows under control or I'm going to upgrade my love!".
• "What - you want me to lose thirty pounds? I thought you said you wanted to supersize your love!"
• coincidence alert: got bad jewelery, made him return it for food wow, i suck
• I thought I'd add this Salon (i.e., ad-to-watch) article on diamonds natural and synthetic because it's not really FPP-worthy and 90+ comments on this thread wasn't enough.