5 ms·

I’m not sure diamonds are popular because of what they are but what they represent. Every gem out there is “the crystalline form” of something. Diamonds are (w

I’m not sure diamonds are popular because of what they are but what they represent. Every gem out there is “the crystalline form” of something. Diamonds are (were?) the expensive crystalline form. And plenty of people equate “expensive” with love, or care, or respect. Even if the same people would never be able to tell the difference between diamond and cubic zirconium, knowing it’s the cheap one makes it less valuable in other ways. This depends on the person, of course. If it’s not diamonds it will have to be something else that shows “I put my money where my mouth is”. A simple metal wedding band is the same wherever it’s made but a famous jeweler will charge an arm and a leg more than your local shop for the same amount of precious metal, same effort, and same result. And yet Tiffany’s isn’t going out of business for the same reason. It’s what it represents. I am curious to see if tastes or fashion shift towards other rarer or more expensive gems not yet manufactured cheaply en masse.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
I could see thinking about this differently. As people quit believing in God, they stop thinking in terms of "God brought us together/we were made for each other" (though they stop thinking that a generation or two later than they stop believing in God). If you think that we made this relationship, then maybe a lab-grown (human made) diamond fits? (Though it may take an advertising campaign before people see it that way.) Disclaimer: I'm not a sociologist. This is just my speculation about how the dynamic could change.
jqpabc123 1y ago
I'd argue that a person obsessed with cost really isn't focused on what it represents. For those obsessed with materialism, real satisfaction is out of reach. There is always bigger, better and more expensive. Personally, I would tend to reconsider any long term relationship with such a person.
- close04 1y ago
  For anyone appreciating expensive things, giving diamonds represent the willingness to fulfill that desire. It’s easy to conflate that with love, at least for a while, even when you aren’t a materialistic person. Jewelry is the pinnacle of “just monetary value”. Unlike almost any other possession, a car, a house, clothes, etc. jewelry serves no practical purpose, only shows the willingness or ability to spend for it. The more you spend, the more valuable the gesture, the more you cared to please the recipient. Materialistic people have the same feelings you have. Those just happened to be triggered by different values than yours.
  - Muromec 1y ago
    The other purpose of jewerly is looking nice. That's difficult to comprehend, but it's the actual important thing for people who's most expensive piece of everyday wear isn't their phone.
    - close04 1y ago
      Nothing supports your "looking nice" argument like finishing it with the "most expensive piece of everyday wear". If you want something nice, you get something nice, not something expensive. That's difficult to comprehend for people who measure niceness in a visibly displayed price tag.
      - Muromec 1y ago
        It's a shoker, but nice things that are done by people who love making them have a tendency to be expensive.
        close04 1y ago
        Don't break your back moving those goal posts. If you cared about "nice" you would have said "nice" and let everyone understand what you mean. You said "expensive" because you meant "expensive", the core value slipped out. > nice things that are done by people who love making them have a tendency to be expensive No and no. People love making things as much as anyone loves their job, and the price of your output is not what determines it. Niceness and price are almost completely independent characteristics. You can have beautiful cheap trinkets, and garish expensive jewelry, and everything in between. Look no further than when you need an expert to tell apart real and counterfeit items. Or when your "nice and expensive" luxury items are cheap crap because nothing says "made with love so it's expensive" like luxury companies making a $50 bag with slave labor and selling it for $3000 [0]. In the end what matters to some people is the visible price tag, that's the signal, that's the core value. In the real world you’d flash some bling and people would instinctively give more weight to your opinion. Here it has to stand on merit. So I see why price is such a core value. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2024/06/24/italian-court-reveals-diors-unethical-supply-chain-and-puts-other-luxury-brands-on-notice/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2024/06/24/italian-...
- atmavatar 1y ago
  The cost is exactly what it represents. The entire point of using diamonds in wedding rings is for the male to signal how committed he is to the marriage by expending a large amount of money on both the ring and the wedding itself. It then acts as a way for the wife to signal her status to other women by showing off how much her husband was willing and able to spend on the ring. It is a hold-out from the tradition that the male is a provider and the female is a caregiver. If you reject traditional gender roles, you should also reject expensive diamond rings regardless whether they are mined or grown. Otherwise, embrace the shiny, but make no mistake: the cost is entirely the point.
  - jqpabc123 1y ago
    the cost is entirely the point. Assume you have 2 diamonds that cost the same. One is natural, the other is larger and man made. Which one is more likely to convey your point to the average person?
    - WorkerBee28474 1y ago
      The larger one, because people will think it costs more.
    - grues-dinner 1y ago
      The more rational decision, IMO, assuming you still want to signal wealth, is to buy neither, collude with your supposed life partner, buy a gigantic, flawless moissanite that you both agree to say is a natural diamond that cost 50k. Then secretly put the money you didn't spend on sparkling carbon into some appreciating asset. Rivals are still sick with envy, you have a fun joint venture bamboozle to laugh about, and the mortgage gets paid off a few years early.
    - cwmoore 1y ago
      "would tend to reconsider any long term relationship with such a person" Are you arguing that anyone who would accept and display a precious gem is ineligible for marriage? More so if it is larger, but not if more expensive? The post you are replying to presents a plausible social economy of the tradition. What is your point?

AnimalMuppet 1y ago

I could see thinking about this differently. As people quit believing in God, they stop thinking in terms of "God brought us together/we were made for each other" (though they stop thinking that a generation or two later than they stop believing in God). If you think that we made this relationship, then maybe a lab-grown (human made) diamond fits? (Though it may take an advertising campaign before people see it that way.) Disclaimer: I'm not a sociologist. This is just my speculation about how the dynamic could change.

jqpabc123 1y ago

I'd argue that a person obsessed with cost really isn't focused on what it represents. For those obsessed with materialism, real satisfaction is out of reach. There is always bigger, better and more expensive. Personally, I would tend to reconsider any long term relationship with such a person.

close04 1y ago
For anyone appreciating expensive things, giving diamonds represent the willingness to fulfill that desire. It’s easy to conflate that with love, at least for a while, even when you aren’t a materialistic person. Jewelry is the pinnacle of “just monetary value”. Unlike almost any other possession, a car, a house, clothes, etc. jewelry serves no practical purpose, only shows the willingness or ability to spend for it. The more you spend, the more valuable the gesture, the more you cared to please the recipient. Materialistic people have the same feelings you have. Those just happened to be triggered by different values than yours.
- Muromec 1y ago
  The other purpose of jewerly is looking nice. That's difficult to comprehend, but it's the actual important thing for people who's most expensive piece of everyday wear isn't their phone.
  - close04 1y ago
    Nothing supports your "looking nice" argument like finishing it with the "most expensive piece of everyday wear". If you want something nice, you get something nice, not something expensive. That's difficult to comprehend for people who measure niceness in a visibly displayed price tag.
    - Muromec 1y ago
      It's a shoker, but nice things that are done by people who love making them have a tendency to be expensive.
      - close04 1y ago
        Don't break your back moving those goal posts. If you cared about "nice" you would have said "nice" and let everyone understand what you mean. You said "expensive" because you meant "expensive", the core value slipped out. > nice things that are done by people who love making them have a tendency to be expensive No and no. People love making things as much as anyone loves their job, and the price of your output is not what determines it. Niceness and price are almost completely independent characteristics. You can have beautiful cheap trinkets, and garish expensive jewelry, and everything in between. Look no further than when you need an expert to tell apart real and counterfeit items. Or when your "nice and expensive" luxury items are cheap crap because nothing says "made with love so it's expensive" like luxury companies making a $50 bag with slave labor and selling it for $3000 [0]. In the end what matters to some people is the visible price tag, that's the signal, that's the core value. In the real world you’d flash some bling and people would instinctively give more weight to your opinion. Here it has to stand on merit. So I see why price is such a core value. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2024/06/24/italian-court-reveals-diors-unethical-supply-chain-and-puts-other-luxury-brands-on-notice/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2024/06/24/italian-...
atmavatar 1y ago
The cost is exactly what it represents. The entire point of using diamonds in wedding rings is for the male to signal how committed he is to the marriage by expending a large amount of money on both the ring and the wedding itself. It then acts as a way for the wife to signal her status to other women by showing off how much her husband was willing and able to spend on the ring. It is a hold-out from the tradition that the male is a provider and the female is a caregiver. If you reject traditional gender roles, you should also reject expensive diamond rings regardless whether they are mined or grown. Otherwise, embrace the shiny, but make no mistake: the cost is entirely the point.
- jqpabc123 1y ago
  the cost is entirely the point. Assume you have 2 diamonds that cost the same. One is natural, the other is larger and man made. Which one is more likely to convey your point to the average person?
  - WorkerBee28474 1y ago
    The larger one, because people will think it costs more.
  - grues-dinner 1y ago
    The more rational decision, IMO, assuming you still want to signal wealth, is to buy neither, collude with your supposed life partner, buy a gigantic, flawless moissanite that you both agree to say is a natural diamond that cost 50k. Then secretly put the money you didn't spend on sparkling carbon into some appreciating asset. Rivals are still sick with envy, you have a fun joint venture bamboozle to laugh about, and the mortgage gets paid off a few years early.
  - cwmoore 1y ago
    "would tend to reconsider any long term relationship with such a person" Are you arguing that anyone who would accept and display a precious gem is ineligible for marriage? More so if it is larger, but not if more expensive? The post you are replying to presents a plausible social economy of the tradition. What is your point?