Diamonds Aren’t A Girl’s Best Friend

tattooed_redhead
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 09:08 am: [report]

What a great article! The most beautiful engagement ring I ever saw was a co-workers. It was a custom made ring with emeralds and sapphires. They represented heaven and earth, because her fiance always told her he’d move heaven and earth for her.
The only time I ever melted over an engagement ring!

misspixie
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 09:15 am: [report]

Thank god someone has written an article reflecting what I think. I told a friend that I’d absolutely not like to have a diamond engagement ring when that time eventually arrives - I really want an emerald-cut emerald…

Funny Face
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 09:48 am: [report]

When I see someone with a huge diamond ring I don’t think “lucky girl,” I think “stupid,” because it is an ostentatious display and a total waste of money.

Funny Face
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 09:51 am: [report]

Oh! And who on Earth would want something on their finger that would remind them of the inhumane things done to get that THING.

vanya
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 11:22 am: [report]

Diamonds are not the only conflict gemstones - emeralds (Afghanistan), rubies (Myanmar), and sapphires (Sri Lanka) are also conflict stones, among others.  Nor are gemstones the only conflict jewelry on the market.  The mining practices of platinum, gold, and silver are also pretty abhorrent, hence the term “dirty gold”

The Ethical Jewelry movement doesn’t just concern “blood diamonds”, it extends beyond one gemstone and one country. Those who are involved with the ethical jewelry movement are concerned with all the factors involved in mining gemstones and precious metals, from the effect of mining on the land and ecology, to the living, working and safety conditions of the people who are doing that mining.

http://www.nodirtygold.org is an excellent site for info on ethical jewelry and there are plenty of sites for ethical e-rings and wedding rings.

Michael
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 01:18 pm: [report]

finally someone’s getting it.

From a guy’s perspective it’s almost comical.  When you’re about to embark on a life with someone else why put a dent that large in your nest egg?  Money could be better spent on savings or a down payment on the house (the same could be said for a big lavish wedding).  On top of that - with financial disagreements being the number one (last I saw) reason for divorce, why put the added pressure on?

I always here about “tradition” but it’s only an American tradition and it’s only around 100 years old. 

And if only a jeweler can tell the difference between a cz and an actual diamond then why should it matter?

puck
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 01:27 pm: [report]

I’m surprised the article doesn’t mention the fact that diamonds were never the standard for engagement rings until DeBeers started marketing them that way. They also successfully marketed the price expected (two months salary—yikes), and that a man should make the presentation a surprise (they found that when couples came in together, women tended to buy cheaper rings).

misspixie
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 01:55 pm: [report]

@Puck - it’s good marketing. I’d hate for a man to surprise me with a ring. I’d much rather i was part of the decision. Anything more than a grand is obscene I think.

40yrolddad
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 02:25 pm: [report]

vanya - back in the mid-90s before I knew about any of this stuff I got my wife a tanzanite.  they were still relatively new, the prices hadn’t skyrocketed at that point & she really wanted it so I got it.  fast-forward a couple of years & I was channel-surfing & came across something on discovery, nat geo or some channel like that where they showed THE mine (there’s only one or at least then there was) where they come from whose entrance was so small/narrow that it was (/is?) almost exclusively child labor.  I felt horrible & have refused to buy any more despite her fondness for them…

Taurwen
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 04:52 pm: [report]

I knew there was a reason I’d pay more for Canadian gem stones…
Actually, I’m not big on gems in rings, I prefer uncut minerals, and I absolutely love getting out of the car on the side of the street and finding them ~with~ someone. So much fun (Man I love living within driving distance of The Canadian Shield)

tattooed_redhead
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 05:04 pm: [report]

@ Taurwen - I live in the Canadian Shield - where are you finding diamonds? I could pay off my credit cards!!

IAMME
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 06:40 pm: [report]

You could always try to find your own….http://www.craterofdiamondsstatepark.com

Now that I have shamelessly plugged my state….

I would prefer a ruby engagement ring if I were ever going to lose my mind and get married again…..

Taurwen
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 06:55 pm: [report]

No diamonds in the shield, try the Yukon and North West Territories though, they also have some rubies sapphires up there. Mostly Garnet in the shield (well, not mostly, but that’s generally what I look for because it’s my birthstone lol)

landesign
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 07:00 pm: [report]

1/4 Carat for $400. Thats what I gave my girlfriend when I proposed. She didn’t care about the size of the ring. We’ve been married since 1988.
Some people have tons of money, if they want to spend it on
a big diamond, who am I to judge?
The important thing is to marry a lady who only cares that you two are together.

Isista
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 08:21 pm: [report]

I don’t know; I don’t think I’m nearly as staunch a opposition to diamonds as some of you. I just don’t want a huge diamond engagement ring *shrugs* I would rather have a small, one carat or so, or better yet, a blue topaz, aquamarine or hell, even turquoise (I know, I’m weird lol).

vanya
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 09:03 pm: [report]

Isista, in my city a 1-carat diamond is considered GINORMOUS

carofiro
wrote on May 30 2009 @ 09:46 pm: [report]

I registered just to post a comment on this article!  I want a diamond engagement ring when I get married, but I want a LAB CREATED diamond.  “Cultured” diamonds are exactly the same thing, and are now just as clear as “natural” diamonds.  Diamond is just carbon atoms bonded in a very strong lattice, so we can make them if we want, it’s just a chemical! Almost any gemstone can be lab created, and you can even order them online and have them set in any ring you want.  I am a chemist, and I think it would be very cool to have a $100 1 carat diamond in a ring.  CZ is cool too but too bad it scratches pretty easily compared to diamond.  DeBeers etc is getting very nervous about lab diamonds, people are really going to realize what a sham the diamond trade is once we realize that not only are they not rare, a small start up engineering company can do it even better than the earth’s crust.

Anniekins
wrote on May 31 2009 @ 05:43 am: [report]

I’ve always preferred colored stones. He was going to buy a diamond, but I wasn’t that interested. I’ve never understood the hype.  I wanted an emerald engagement ring, but I heard they’re not good for everyday wear.

My engagement ring is a pink sapphire center stone; strangers comment on how beautiful it is all the time.  It’s unique and stunning, and it reflects what I like. It’s a lot more than “the price a real man is expected to pay so [we] females continue to wash, iron,cook and f#*k.” 

Anyone who thinks that an engagement ring is a “price to pay” should NEVER get married. “I gave you a ring, now do my laundry.”  Sounds like love.

carofiro
wrote on May 31 2009 @ 06:26 am: [report]

Hmm, Diamond Guru sounds like a person who SELLS REAL DIAMONDS AND MAKES SURE EVERYONE STILL WANTS TO PAY HIGH PRICE FOR THEM.  I will never pay thousands for a lump of carbon.  Thanks for continuing the hype to make diamonds expensive!  People will still buy conflict diamonds unknowingly and as long as people still believe they are rare or “better” when they come from the earth, they will still be expensive and people will still kill for them. And of course your “certified” diamonds are probably inflated in price from even the conflict ones.  Nice racket you got!

I’m talking about breaking the stupid habit of showing love = diamonds.  No one needs a diamond!  Diamond rings have been only a tradition for 100 years and its ONLY in the US, why are we so hyped about these stupid stones?  I think your logic is exactly what diamond sellers say to make sure we all still think we “need” them.  And if a man ever bought me a real diamond, I would say “no”.  You can still spend a lot of money on a ring for high quality metals.  I would much rather have a platinum or palladium ring with a synthetic diamond that costs the same as the real diamond in white gold (which scratches).

PS linking your own blog shows me no evidence of anything.  DeBeers buys up synthetic companies to make sure they aren’t making stones that get into the market, because they look exactly the same.

Here’s some REAL links from REAL news:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992749,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1584782,00.html

carofiro
wrote on May 31 2009 @ 06:30 am: [report]

By the way, a synthetic diamond wasn’t expensive in the first place, so why would I care about it holding its value???  I don’t want a diamond “investment” I want a pretty thing to wear every day, the less money spent on the stupid rock, the better!  And did you read the article?  Diamonds DON’T hold their value because of sellers like you who inflate their prices.

writergirl
wrote on May 31 2009 @ 07:11 am: [report]

For those of you who want colored stones for engagement rings—or have them…..I am assuming you are bucking having a colored center stone set in diamonds as well.  Because in my perusal, and I peruse a lot, I’ve never seen a colored stone NOT set with diamonds. 

So what are you all doing in regards to that?

Just curious.

loveitlala
wrote on May 31 2009 @ 07:37 am: [report]

I’ve told my bf, whatever ring he gets me, don’t have it be too high off my finger or too big.  I’m a doctor at a poor county hospital and to have a big diamond that gets caught on everything or that attracts too much attention would be a bad, bad, bad idea. 

So no, not everyone wants a big stone, whatever it may be.

Anniekins
wrote on May 31 2009 @ 09:14 am: [report]

@writergirl- We bought a stone we liked and had it set.  We were going to set the sapphire in a plain white gold band, but I ended up liking more ornate bands.  It is in a band that has VERY small diamonds on it to accentuate the design of the band.
Admittedly, I know very little about conflict diamonds, and I can’t say that that was a deciding factor for me.  I just like pink sapphires and emeralds a lot more than diamonds.

vanya
wrote on May 31 2009 @ 11:01 am: [report]

Writergirl, a jeweler can set your coloured gemstone any way you wish, just as they do for diamonds.  You can request a solitaire setting for a coloured stone and they will oblige.  Chain jewelry stores rarely show coloured gemstones in solitaire settings, but a jeweler will be able to accomodate your request for a solitaire setting and help you choose a coloured gemstone to purchase. HTH.

lilrockgoddess4u
wrote on May 31 2009 @ 06:27 pm: [report]

Screw a big diamond I would only loose it.

Taurwen
wrote on May 31 2009 @ 08:35 pm: [report]

You misunderstand me, I’m sorry, part of our issue here, is that I don’t care much for diamonds.

theattack
wrote on May 31 2009 @ 09:32 pm: [report]

I personally don’t want a diamond or even an engagement ring at all. I would find it much more romantic and symbolic for his commitment to me if he made a down payment on a house or anything else practical with that money instead. I wouldn’t want to marry a man who would spend that much money on something that serves no real purpose other than to let other people know that you’re taken. I would want a simple gold band once I was married, solely to indicate that I’m not available, but nothing more extravagant than that.

@Diamond Guru:
You’re questioning everyone else’s authority and making immature personal attacks, but you’ve yet to establish any reason whatsoever for any of us to believe you have any qualifications either. This is the internet, and none of us actually know each other, whether you think you can sum up someone’s entire existence by their comments or not. State your opinion and leave the personal attacks aside. It’s unnecessary and very seventh grade. That’s all.

retro chic
wrote on May 31 2009 @ 09:53 pm: [report]

Is it nec to *buy* stones? There are so many in our/family’s jewelry boxes waiting to be resurrected in new original settings to spark the joy for future generations. The downer issues of conflict and bad economy shouldn’t have to tell us this is more than a viable option.

DesertLorelei
wrote on May 31 2009 @ 10:23 pm: [report]

Diamonds are just clear carbon…it’s actually funny to think that they could burn just as easily as a piece of charcoal for the BBQ!  Besides, it’s all about the “modern dowry,” and personally, I’d rather have a piece of a down payment on a house—something practical which will benefit both persons in the marriage.

misspixie
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 12:29 am: [report]

Just because diamonds increase in value, doesn’t mean they’re necessarily the easiest thing to liquidate when the time comes.
Fraud is a major risk which makes resale difficult, and even retail jewellers are wary following warnings in the 1990s about many different fraud schemes by customers selling jewellery to jewellers or bringing it in for repair. Even now there are very few professional funds who are investing in them - they seem to veer towards gold, which is a much safer investment, especially in times of economic crisis, and that is an established fact which has been repeated by numerous economists.

So, you’re buying a rock and you want to keep it on your finger - the cost at that point is pretty much a side issue because you [hopefully] don’t plan on reselling it. Surely the point of a ring from the outset is to represent how the other person feels about their partner. The rock should ideally be incidental to the feelings that accompany the piece of jewellery - the value that is most important is sentimental, surely - and anyone who wants a diamond simply for the sake of having a diamond is sorely missing the point of the ring being there in the first place.

xxx

Riley
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 07:51 am: [report]

It seems as if slinging diamonds gives you license to plug your blog post after post.  I hope you don’t talk to people you are trying to get a commission off of the same way you do here.

retro chic
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 08:47 am: [report]

With Riley. Altho, TDG sounds more like an out-of-work diamond merchant forced to pick up extra cash info-blogging about it. He/his family have my condolences.

writergirl
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 08:54 am: [report]

@ retro chic—can you adopt me?  There are no diamonds lying around waiting to be resurrected in my family!

Riley
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 09:15 am: [report]

Seems like you missed your nap guru.

retro chic
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 09:40 am: [report]

Yeah, writergirl, oops, I meant “our/family’s” collectively. What few I have were mostly my Mother’s, receiving them the way many of us do… :(

Personally, I don’t like a big rock on my finger—I’m too active and prefer a single, low-profile stone-encrusted wide wedding band—with no engagement ring per se.

theattack
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 09:38 pm: [report]

What this says about you, Diamond Guru, is that you are obviously ignorant to the fact that although it DOES provide jobs for those people, the land in those countries are exploited for only diamonds and certain crops (same goes for coffee and other crops) which limits their ability to provide for their own people, because they are constantly using their resources to provide to capitalist American and the UK. The people have no food and unsafe working conditions because the elites in their countries choose to turn a profit in a single industry instead of providing basic essentials for its citizens. And why not run the country like that when Americans continue to buy and buy and buy, and the elites can just sit on top of their piles of money? You are clearly not looking at all facets of this situation.

theattack
wrote on June 1 2009 @ 09:40 pm: [report]

*America, not American

jimnist10
wrote on June 2 2009 @ 12:24 pm: [report]

Wow, I hope that people who aren’t posting to this also feel the same way you all do.  After I saw “Blood Diamond” I decided that I didn’t want some big engagement ring, if the time ever comes for me.  I’d actually be satisfied with something fake or partially fake. I know women are tricked into thinking their worth and the worth of their relationship and partner is directly linked to the size of her diamond, but I’d rather have a house than a diamond. I guess it’s about prioirites. I don’t have anything else to offer here. Just think it’s great that someone finally wrote something about this subject and that people actually agree.

clashgirl
wrote on June 4 2009 @ 06:58 pm: [report]

I personally have a 4 1/2 Ct “diamond” ring, It is on a platinum band every one LOVES my ring and always says wow this is the “nicest I’ve ever seen” “that so unique”.  I got this ring from a company that only sells CZ or other lab created diamonds. The average 4 1/2 ct ring could have gone for at least $7-$10k, we got it for 98$ plus shipping. |My husband was elated when I said this was the ring I wanted and was upset when I told him why I prefered the fake one,He had no clue. I said I prefer that children in africa and other countries go to school instead of dying so that I could have a large ring on my finger that shows how much “he loves me”. I have an article in the smithsonian or the Nat GEO about this company that makes the lab created stuff and they won’t release where they are located in fear of the people that hate them, because they make fake diamonds that are exactly like the real thing and cheaper because the large diamond companies in the world find these companies as a threat. I WILL SAY the fake diamond looks just like everyone else’s real diamonds and I havent had any issues about it getting scratched.

Titi
wrote on June 6 2009 @ 01:15 am: [report]

Brilliant article. It’s sad that so many people don’t bother to find out where their goods come from—they only care after they watch a damn DiCaprio movie. Perhaps DiCaprio should also make a film about where your food comes from, if that’s how awareness is raised.

twilight faerie
wrote on June 6 2009 @ 02:55 am: [report]

You know, there’s actually another alternative to diamonds for an engagement ring other than CZ - moissanite! It’s a lab-created mineral that’s almost identical to diamond. It’s very rarely found in nature. It has a slightly higher luster than diamond and is almost as hard. Of course, it’s sold at a fraction of the price of diamonds. I told my boyfriend after discovering moissanite on the Internet that when he proposes to me, I’d like a moissanite ring instead of diamond…though I’d like to do a bit more research before I set that request in stone.