I'm the OP - surprised to see this at the top of HN today, but happy to post a quick update:
My wife and I have been happily married for ten years now. She loves her ring, and it has held up extremely well. (She just had the band resized, absolutely no issues with the stones.)
No one has ever thought it was anything other than a diamond ring, which includes several years of daily scrutiny from crazy New York City brides in her role as a bridal gown sales manager in a high-end atelier in Midtown Manhattan. Those who know about the stones think they're beautiful and love that there's a good alternative to diamond.
I stand by everything I said in this essay, and would 100% recommend moissanite to anyone who is (or will soon be) in the jewelry market.
From a fellow moissanite fangirl, thank you for writing this up! I always enjoy telling people my ring isn't a diamond, but the essay is more compelling to share with folks that can't see moissanite in person.
I have a 1ct moissanite and 2 3mm white sapphires in my ring, and the bonus was that custom designing my own ring was still _drastically_ cheaper than getting a diamond: http://i.imgur.com/H3jDulz.jpg
Funny you say that. My partner got a custom band of his own too (engraved and anodized titanium): https://i.imgur.com/c08efTs.jpg
The diamond ring he was "supposed" to get me (according to my family and friends and DeBeers) is easily over 10x the cost of my ring+band plus his band combined - even without comparison shopping. We spent that excess money on a 2 week honeymoon, most of our wedding expenses and splurges, and cat food. I recently just added the two white sapphires (a nod to our currently baking bun) for pocket change too. No regrets. I get my shiny bling-desires fulfilled at bargain bin prices.
I gave my wife a moissanite and seeded are to-be joint saving account with the 10k we saved. You just have to remember that the burden of wearing the moissanite is on the woman. The choice is obvious but the social pressure is huge. Women love to look at other women's rings and chat about it. If she is open to the idea, just remember that she's the one being brave and breaking out of the mold more so than you :)
> Women love to look at other women's rings and chat about it. If she is open to the idea, just remember that she's the one being brave and breaking out of the mold more so than you.
This is a great description that captures the social pressure aspect quite well. Guys aren't the ones wearing the ring everywhere!
> Guys aren't the ones wearing the ring everywhere!
I believe that the bride-only thing is US-only, or (maybe) limited maybe limited to ex-british regions, but it's definitely not universal, and definitely not a thing in latinamerica (diamonds aren't a thing here either) or a great deal of europe.
In Hong Kong, both the husband and the wife wear a ring. My mother lost hers, my dad is still wearing his. My wife lost hers, I'm still wearing mine. XD
Also most guys wouldn't care in the least about rings (unless you know it has bluetooth or zigbee or something).
Agree grandparent comment truly made me understand the woman's side of thing. It's easy for men to dismiss them as being irrational.
I am glad that diamond engagements aren't a thing in India. (Although in place of it we have a ton of other retarded customs). Gold is pretty much the standard here - which is actually quite practical. It makes a good liquid asset, holds its value, stays as an insurance and safety during hard times.
I'm probably odd, but I personally wouldn't be marrying anyone who "caved" to social pressures about a non-functional fashion accessory barely noticeable from anything other than up close. Thankfully, I already found someone like that.
it's about strength of the personality - are you a conformist which tries hard to not stick out of the crowd, behaves as all the others, listens to the same stuff, thinks the same or do you forge your own way, whatever it means for you specifically?
I prefer this strength in women - as it is not an isolated feature of personality. Life is too short to spend it with someone that shallow, unless that is exactly what you want/need.
And yes, if it's not clear, women requesting diamond rings as statement of true love (that's just not true and won't make the relationship any better), or blabbing about 3-salary-worth of diamonds... meh, I say you can do better.
I really hate to be a random person on the internet giving personal advice but... diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign. Don't be surprised to find out a bunch of other things are non-negotiable if you divorce.
Wow. It's very difficult to respond to you civically. We've been together for a long long time. It is amazing what people you don't know on the internet will assume about you.
There was no alternative before this article. Cubic is cheap and tacky. Diamonds are overpriced and awful. Lab diamonds not much better. This article has a real alternative. That's a huge contribution to all diamond haters everywhere.
Why the fact it's cheap makes it tacky? There's plenty of good CZ jewelry and 99% of people won't know the difference with diamonds or moissanite if you don't tell them. Moassanite is good, but still way too much expensive than it should be. It would be fun if we chose homes same way -
"Oh, that big house with large lot, fireplace, etc is perfect in every way for us, but it's 30 times cheaper than that another almost-the-same house that was built by the company which enslaves people and makes them die while building those houses. We will only have to be in mortgage for it for 1 year, so we won't buy it."
Why don't use left over money to buy some trip or something like that? I don't understand why regular working people want to wear half a car on a finger...
The problem with CZ is that it absorbs oil and dirt from the surroundings, so that within a couple years of regular use it's noticeably cloudy. Though I would say for the first year, it's a perfectly good substitute for diamond.
The house analogy isn't really working for me.. An almost same house gives 99% of all the important value, but a non-diamond ring isn't the same since it's still a pretty big mental and societal shift one has to deal with.
That does sound better, spending the saved money on 4x$2000 amazing trips together, or 2x$4000 SUPER trips. Priceless memories that would easily be higher value than a nice rock.
The house analogy doesn't quite work for me. Housing prices vary wildly by their location. Some of it is due to practical reasons(urban centre, close to work), but some of it is clearly just social posturing(buying a house in a posh neighbourhood).
There was always the alternative: I don't care about rings and diamonds and such BS, I care about us being together.
Which is not that uncommon (even in the US) as people here make it out to be. Not everybody goes for a big wedding either -- or even a wedding at all.
Also, as another commenter pointed out, "non negotiable" (as in: I want my diamond ring or we're not getting married") and "no alternative" (as in: we both want to buy the ring, and don't care for it being expensive, but there's no good replacement for a real diamond) is a different thing.
CZ is a very satisfactory diamond simulant. A $10 CZ is almost impossible to distinguish visually from a $10,000 diamond - unless you're a very skilled grader, you really can't tell the difference without a thermal tester or a refractometer. The visual giveaway is that it's too good - the stones are perfectly clear, perfectly colourless and have exceptional fire. CZ grades better than the very best diamonds. When it was introduced in the 1970s, it sent shockwaves through the gem trade.
CZ is a bit less durable than diamond (8 vs 10 mohs hardness, some porosity), but it's so cheap that you can have the stone replaced if it starts to show signs of wear.
Moissanite is a very fine simulant, but to my mind, the main advantage over CZ is that it's more expensive. CZ is implausibly cheap for a high-quality diamond simulant.
Maybe I'm the exception to the rule, but I've been able to consistently spot a CZ, even from a distance. I thought maybe it was just the average cut of a CZ, but doing a blind comparison between similar quality cuts of CZ and diamonds with a jeweler friend, I was able to pick out the CZ first try every time.
> You know, you don't need an engagement ring to get married
You also need a partner who wants to get married to you. Where does HN get it's perfectly compatible partners from? A difference in opinion is not unexpected - not everyone is equally pragmatic. Also,things that are considered "deal-breakers" are far from universal.
"Where does HN get it's perfectly compatible partners from?"
Truth is women in our culture are still somewhat of a status symbol. My wife is essentially perfectly compatible with me that was achieved by not simply selecting the most physically attractive person who would marry me but instead finding someone who actually is a decent human being. Her ring cost under 50 dollars. She wants me to spend the short time we all have on earth with her, not working to buy her shiny rocks, a overvalued house or an expensive car so she can impress her friends. I wouldn't have it any other way.
If people want to spend their money on a ring then I have no issue with that. Personally my wife is quite frugal about signs of material wealth (raised in a family with money that drove old Honda's etc) and had very strong opinions about not wanting an expensive ring. Instead we spent our money on a honeymoon exploring Asia and Europe - I wouldn't trade that time for any ring. Travel may be a privilege but teaches you a lot more about the world and the person you want to spend the rest of your life with.
So why does only one partner get a ring? Why, typically, the female one? In same-sex marriages, how do partners determine who gets the ring? Flip a coin? Damn.
The answer to all your questions is: it depends on the partners and what they agree to. But on the most part, it is driven by cultural momentum - the same reason men's formal clothing includes a tie. One could equally argue "One does not need to wear a tie to go to work", but there are people who love ties and how they look wearing them.
Stoneless rings are common in other countries. Tattoos are up and coming. A bit more painful, but still cheaper than a diamond (and much more permanent).
Name or initial is not quite the same thing, I think. I don't know anyone who has names or initials as a wedding/engagement tattoo. It's usually a simple symbol, like a rune, or in my case, a Moebius ring (two sides that are one, what better wedding symbolism is there?). Although I do know one person with both a wedding and an engagement tattoo who is about to get a divorce after more than 10 years of marriage.
What does this mean to you? Why isn't it true of silicon carbide?
I find it odd to see the simultaneous complaint that one clear cubic crystal is "cheap", but another is "overpriced". What do you want the price to be? Why?
It is not a good thing for courtship gifts to have value; if they have too much value they are likely to be dishonestly accepted by someone who isn't interested in the giver but does want the object.
I think you were in the right and didn't really assume as much as suggested. I got the same impression particularly because of the language chosen. "non-negotiable" implies that there was a second party to necessitate negotiation. Saying "no alternative" would come closer to describing a personal taste threshold.
Non-negotiable was a bad choice of words. It's been very negotiable. She just really didn't want cubic because of the perception, like someone else had noted.
It's just a little ridiculous to read 3 sentences a stranger types and tells them they are going to get a divorce. Bad form as far as unsolicited advice goes.
Hey mythrwy are you pregnant, you're looking a lot bigger? And also you should dump your partner because they conform to mainstream social standards, total red flag. Oh and you're raising your kids wrong.
Hey why are you offended? I was trying to help! You could be gracious about it.
For one thing, I never said he would get divorced. I said "if you get divorced".
For another thing, if you are going to divulge details of your personal relationship online, you should not be surprised or get upset if someone comments about it. If it's a sensitive issue for you - keep it to yourself. This isn't your journal.
I take my apology back. I did absolutely nothing wrong, and people seriously need to develop thicker skin.
We put cubic in my wife's ring when we got engaged nearly a decade ago. No one has ever noticed and most people talk about how gorgeous her stone is and how much it must have cost :)
> diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign
It's deeply ingrained in Western culture. Think about it like eating dogs. There's no rational reason not to use dogs for meat, but most Westerners would throw a hissy fit rather than eat dog meat.
So don't assume the prospective bride is unreasonable. In fact, assume the opposite, as she was able to read a rational explanation of the issues with diamonds, and change her mind.
OT aside: I sometimes like to play automatic reading (ala dada) with google. So at this moment a google search for "It's all nonsense. None of it makes sense." brings up your comment at the top of the page and a few items below this link [1] which has a section entitled "Making sense of nonsense. Conant and Diamond read Wittgenstein's Tractacus".
Now I wonder if that Diamond is a chance event ("nonsense") or correlation artifact from the search algorithm ("sense").
Culture just tends to be arbitrary, in the details. If you don't care about potential social consequences, then feel free to ignore the parts that you find absurd.
I can't reply to stouset for some stupid reason, but why is it "absurd" to not want to eat horse for texture reasons? My understanding is that horse meat generally does not taste that good and is very tough, because those animals get a lot of exercise; it's like deer meat. Some people like venison, and there's no stigma attached to eating it, but it's hard to buy because demand is low (and they're not raised as livestock), and the meat is generally considered "gamey" and difficult to cook properly so it's tender instead of tough and nasty. Cow and especially chicken is popular meat because it's both relatively cheap and rather easy (and fast) to cook. It's really hard to screw up cooking chicken in fact.
On deeply nested comments, if it hasn't been long since the post was made you have to click the "permalink" ("XX minutes ago" or "XX hours ago") link to reply. I think the extra step is to help slow down flamewars ("do I really need to reply to this comment, right now?".
If this is the intention, it seems like it'd make more sense to throw up roadblocks to only someone else who's in the comment chain, rather than to someone who hasn't been involved at all and is just chiming in. Usually, those flamewars are long chains of comments between two people.
Deer meet is hard to buy, at least in the US, partly because the US has ridiculous laws prohibiting transportation of venison from US deer across state lines in various ways.
In fact, in my experience you're more likely to see New Zealand venison in a US store than US venison, because of the above laws prohibiting transportation.
> There's no rational reason not to use dogs for meat...
Yes there is, unless you would make the same argument for having sex with relatives - which philosophers have rationalized against for thousands of years (way before the genetic consequences were understood). Morality is a rationalization. Dogs are genetically predisposed to be man's best friend - friends don't get eaten.
Diamonds don't even come close, there is no positive moral argument - just a fairly recent PR campaign.
All those animals were domesticated for very different reasons. I've spent a lot of time with horses, my family had three, and they're great animals - but they don't come anywhere close to dogs when it comes to trust and the ability to read people. I've seen dogs trained with nothing more than praise - the desire to please is that strong for them. That doesn't work for horses.
I've owned horses too. It depends on what you want them to do. If you want to jump on their back and ride them around, sure. I don't do that personally, and while they don't read you like a dog can I've taken unsocialized "mean" horses and turned them into friendly companion horses with nothing but patience and the occasional cookie or carrot.
Unless your children keep having sex with their siblings as well, just pair of incest marriage doesn't actually have significant risk of genetic consequences.
Good to know. Although it does raise the question of how a line is drawn. I'm imagining a "I smoked pot when I was your age but..." sort of conversation - just infinitely more uncomfortable for everyone involved.
> diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign
This is dependent on the relationship between the two people. If one party is strongly against the concept of diamonds and DeBeers, then yes, it'll be an issue. However, your parent commenter might be more moderate, or just doesn't care that much that their partner agrees with this particular societal pressure.
I have to agree that it's not a great sign if she insists on this. What other trendy stuff is she going to demand just because "everyone else does it"?
I'm somewhat recently divorced now, but one good thing about my ex is that she was never superficial like this. She was perfectly happy to get a $70 Titanium wedding band, and loved how lightweight it was, and never wanted a silly gemstone on her hand. We did get her a couple other rings with gemstones (much cheaper ones, and prettier too; I think one was Tanzanite?), for wearing at special occasions, but wearing a gemstone ring every day is impractical and dumb really; it's just going to get in your way, and worse it's easy to take it off and then lose it. I knew a guy once whose wife dropped her $10k diamond ring down the drain while doing dishes! (No, they didn't recover it.)
it ain't normal to want to see the man you are supposed to love unconditionally, to financially bleed on impractical trinket that some people pay with almost proper enslavement, so you can brag about it with your friends (you = anybody, nothing personal here).
if that's an US norm, so what, it's still wrong on many levels. it ain't like that here in europe. the last ex-gf that mentioned 3-salary rule for it was exactly the type you should never, ever marry, no matter what person you are. my fiancee on the other hand is happy with 70 euro ring since relationship is about everything else, but this.
if woman sets this as non-negotiable standard to get married, there is no love from her in relationship, just pure calculation and she treats her counterpart like an idiot. simple as that.
If she wants a diamond so badly, she can spend her own money on it.
If I really want a sports car, I don't expect my fiance to buy it for me. If I want a cellphone, I don't expect my girlfriend to buy it for me and pay for the service.
> diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign
uh... well, apparently it was negotiable, since all he had to do was find a suitable alternative and send her a link to a convincing article on the internet.
Wife and I had read the Atlantic article before it was too late, went with plain wedding bands for both of us. However, living in America, this is causing issues for her, continuously having to explain to friends and acquaintances why she does not have a diamond.
We'd been looking for used rings as an alternative - hence, thank you very much for writing this, you just saved me and my wife several thousand dollars.
> having to explain to friends and acquaintances why she does not have a diamond.
I don't think this is a universal "in America" thing. Maybe in some parts of the country, but here in the northeast it seems like it's none of their business; I can't imagine asking someone to explain it, and I would think someone who did ask was being awfully nosy. FWIW my wife has a diamond ring which she almost never wears, and I can't remember anyone ever asking about it. My parents wear plain gold wedding bands only, and I've never heard anyone ask them about it either.
That's absolutely fair, I should know better than to generalize like that. We live in rural Missouri, which is probably why the social pressure is what it is.
Fuck, my wife and I are in possession of my parents gold (+small diamond) band and rings and wore them during our courtroom marriage ceremony - but we switched to tungsten rings with a carbon fiber inlay because the gold was too fragile and the wife kept scratching everything (including our daughter) with the diamond.
We're much happier with $20 disposable rings (both of us have lost one already); no fear of loss or damage and it gets the point across fine- hell, when I proposed to her I didn't even have a ring, we would have done it this way in the first place.
My wife and I, living in the SF Bay area and having no regard for convention whatsoever -- and not really liking diamonds -- went with a sapphire for her ring. She tells me that other women do sometimes ask her about it. This is unfathomable to me, but there it is.
> WIW my wife has a diamond ring which she almost never wears, and I can't remember anyone ever asking about it
Interesting, I'm from Europe and I'd be curious to know at which point exactly did diamond rings replace gold wedding bands as the "official marriage signs" in the States. Wedding bands are still quite popular over here in Europe, hopefully they don't get replaced any time soon (for one thing, gold actually has some intrinsic value compared to diamonds).
> at which point exactly did diamond rings replace gold wedding bands as the "official marriage signs" in the States.
They didn't. Wedding bands are still the "official marriage sign". Diamond engagement rings are extremely common, however, and it's very common for American women to continue wearing their engagement ring alongside their wedding band.
(As with my wife and my mother, it's definitely not unheard of for women to wear just the wedding band either).
That tradition is news to me. As far as I knew, the tradition is to give
a ring with a stone (commonly diamond) for engagement, and then a plain band for the wedding. Once married, only the plain band is worn.
The reason: stones can snag on clothing, rip an eyeball, snap off, attract violence, or scratch something you care about.
I went with my birthstone (Arizona Peridot, cheap and pretty) from my grandma for the engagement. My wife thought that was sweet. She keeps it in a drawer somewhere as a memento, and wears a plain gold band every day.
I suppose I might prefer titanium over gold, for weight reasons, but the gold is OK.
My (now ex) wife wanted a titanium ring. She loved it because it was so light and felt like it wasn't even there.
That's one thing out of that marriage that didn't cost me much... (Actually, it was a very amicable divorce; marrying someone who isn't a selfish person fixated on superficial stuff like diamond rings is, I think, a good way to make sure that if the marriage does have to end, that it'll be as painless a transition as possible.)
My mom was born around 1951 in San Francisco to parents raised there and in the central valley. My dad was born around 1946 in San Mateo to parents from Iowa and I forget. The ancestry is Catholic from Ireland, Scotland, Germany, and similar.
The engagement ring is fancy. The wedding band is plain. The wedding band is always worn. The engagement ring could be worn, but that is optional. My mom wore hers often enough that it and the wedding band ground each other away and eventually had to be soldered together. So you don't have to always keep the engagement ring in a box, but you might, and wearing it is totally optional. The wedding ring pretty much never comes off.
Is this really a thing in the US? In Italy (and AFAIK in most of Europe) wedding rings are normally plain gold (rarely white or red gold, or platinum) bands. Engagement rings do have a stone, but they are not worn every day.
It was that way in the US for a very long time. Sometime in the last couple decades a new trend arose to wear both the engagement ring and a wedding band together. The logic being you spent 4-5 figures on beautiful jewelry, so it's silly to only wear it during the engagement. (Whether it's silly to spend that much in the first place is another argument.) I don't know if they are in fashion currently, but many jewelers began selling engagement rings with a paired wedding band that is designed to match perfectly and be fused with the engagement ring after the wedding.
> The logic being you spent 4-5 figures on beautiful jewelry
Good lord, people do this? People spend ten thousand dollars on a ring? Fuck. When we got engaged, we shopped together and I bought her a black opal ring. Diamond was never on the menu, so I never even looked at their prices. I knew diamonds were expensive, but I had no idea the extent to which people were getting suckered.
There was a big ad campaign from the diamond cartel to make everyone believe that 3 months of (gross) salary was the standard amount to pay for an engagement ring. That means if you only make $36K/year, you still shell out $9K for a ring. I don't know how many bought into it, but it likely did raise the average amount paid by anchoring the price so high. "That's crazy! Maybe half that..."
> Good lord, people do this? People spend ten thousand dollars on a ring?
No, of course not - why would you think that? Those 'high priced' rings are like the wax fruit in a greengrocer, or plastic lobsters at the fishmongers - just there for show...!
Back in the real world, people can actually spend hundreds of thousands, even millions, on jewelry.
It's pretty much always been the case that a married woman would wear both her engagement and wedding ring? There's even long-standing etiquette about the order in which they should be placed on the finger - engagement first, I believe? It certainly isn't something new since the 1990s.
In Sweden at least it seems to be quite common to wear both rings. However it also seems to be more common to have inset stones, rather than one that sticks out. I've also seen several people who buy the engagement ring and wedding band together as a matching set to make sure they work together. (something which to me always felt rather presumptuous)
- Lab-grown diamonds are purer, more perfect crystals, cheaper, and better than mined diamonds in every way. (ignoring the market manipulation factor, which I'm not too knowledgeable about, except that I've heard big diamond companies do some shady things to keep prices high)
- Girls hate lab-grown diamonds because they consider them "artificial".
Also in your article, you don't seem to make such a distinction, so I'm wondering if your article is about lab-grown, mined, or both?
> Lab-grown diamonds are purer, more perfect crystals, cheaper, and better than mined diamonds in every way. (ignoring the market manipulation factor, which I'm not too knowledgeable about, except that I've heard big diamond companies do some shady things to keep prices high)
This is completely correct, although in the absence of De Beers mined diamonds would be cheaper. (Creating diamonds is technically quite difficult, but they are very common in nature.)
> Girls hate lab-grown diamonds because they consider them "artificial".
I can deny this. I collect synthetic cut gemstones. There are three types of common reactions:
1. "It looks fake."
2. "What are you going to do with it? What's the point?"
3. "Wow, it's beautiful!"
I've never seen someone who thought a gem was beautiful decide they'd been wrong after learning the stone was created. Girls might dislike synthetic diamonds in engagement rings because they think the symbolism is wrong; they don't dislike them in general.
> in your article, you don't seem to make such a distinction, so I'm wondering if your article is about lab-grown, mined, or both?
The OP is talking about lab-grown moissanite:
>> The big difference between moissanite and diamond is that moissanite can be manufactured reliably and efficiently in a laboratory. The result: flawless, brilliant gemstones at about 1/10th the cost of a comparable diamond.
Regarding the second, that's very much the angle DeBeers marketing has been trying to push. In practice, it will be true of some girls and not true about others.
FWIW, I agree that "science and the progress of human knowledge" isn't exactly the right symbolism for a wedding ring. But I do think it's better than "blood and oppression", at least given my personal views on marriage...
1st assumption is correct. 2nd assumption is incorrect.
My wife was perfectly happy in particular with the environmental and ethical benefits. Also doesn't hurt that you can get a larger diamond that looks much better.
We came to a similar conclusion. Although we had already bought a diamond ring.
After researching, we figured out that we could sell our diamond (we only got about 60% of the original price back from a diamond broker) and buy a twice as large synthetic diamond and still save several thousand $.
There is only upside as far I can tell: it looks better (clarity), is bigger (no can tell the difference between a real and "fake" diamond), has fewer environmental and ethical externalities, and is cheaper.
I'm sorry about the 40% haircut. Any jeweler worth doing business with should refund a ring minus the cost to set it.
Diamonds cannot be used, as there is no such thing as a new one. Certainly they can be damaged but that's totally different.
I figure if you buy something a billion years old and return it a few months later in exactly the same condition, if you can only get 60% back then you dramatically overpaid.
It's a very impressive example of avoiding the sunk cost fallacy, though. I think a lot of people would be unwilling to cop that 'loss', even if they realised it would leave them better off overall. (Or perhaps more realistically, they would be unable to admit to themselves that it would leave them better off.)
Thanks for writing this. I'm glad people are pushing back against the insanity of the diamond marketing.
But you're still buying into the concept of the gifting of rings, when this is a recent phenomenon created by De Beer's. Unless they were European royalty, your great-great-grandparents did not exchange rings. Commoners did not have this custom until the twentieth century. When you suggest getting non-diamond rings, you perpetuate the expectation that people should exchange rings, continuing De Beer's advertising campaign.
My wife and I got married without exchanging any rings for this reason. I thought that I might need to explain my position on rings to friends and family, but we've never gotten so much as a comment about it.
> Commoners did not have this custom until the twentieth century
It really depends on the culture. Having the groom give the bride something of value is a quite old tradition for Jewish weddings, including "commoners" (read: all Jews, pretty much). A ring was in fact a quite common such gift going back a long way.
That said, if a ring is used in this case it must traditionally be a plain band with no stones; we're not talking diamond rings here.
This site isn't trying to upend the artificial customs that we've come to cherish, just to substitute one costly part of it with a cheaper indistinguishable alternative for all the reasons he described
Congrats on the solid decade together with your wife, happy to hear you're doing well. I was wondering why in the ten years since your posting I hadn't come across much moissanite in jewelry, until I found out Charles & Colvard had a patent on it until the last year.
Thanks for writing this. My problem is only that you consider mosanite inexpensive, which is relative to Diamonds true, but from a ring search i could only find nice looking ones for >1000€ which is still expensive/hardly affordable to me.
Try the second-hand market, and buy the stone you like, and the ring you like (sperate). It's extremely in-expensive (usually included in the cost of the ring if you buy it at a store) to have your stone set into the ring of your choice.
I spent a total of $500 to have a .75ct diamond set in a ring this way.
That would be a significant fraction of our wedding costs. We held ours in our back yard, ordered some catering, served buffet-style, about 50 guests. No DJ, just set up some playlists on Google Music. There's no requirement to blow five figures on a one-day party, just some bizarre social expectation.
Not if you get married in Vegas at a chapel with a small handful of family members. It's still a fraction of that cost, but a reasonably-large fraction (maybe 1/10 at most, instead of 1/100).
There is also an interesting online company called My Trio Rings (http://www.mytriorings.com) that does conventionally mined diamonds but has, AFAICT, lower than average prices. I think one of their guys posts to HN sometimes.
I find the arguments in your essay compelling. Are there any particular resources you'd recommend to someone wanting to educate himself further about moissanite?
Sol: No, it's a moissanite.
Bad Boy Lincoln: A what-in-ite?
Sol: A moissanite is an artificial diamond, Lincoln. It's Mickey Mouse, mate. Spurious. Not genuine. And it's worth... fuck-all.
I'm not, especially that this article was very popular not so long ago [1].
After a while on HN you can figure which subjects they like, and which they don't. Diamond are yes subject. Another example could be Leonard Cohen. His recent departure has so much to do with technology or hacking as your toilet seat, but yet he was #1 for a long time...
My wife and I have been happily married for ten years now. She loves her ring, and it has held up extremely well. (She just had the band resized, absolutely no issues with the stones.)
No one has ever thought it was anything other than a diamond ring, which includes several years of daily scrutiny from crazy New York City brides in her role as a bridal gown sales manager in a high-end atelier in Midtown Manhattan. Those who know about the stones think they're beautiful and love that there's a good alternative to diamond.
I stand by everything I said in this essay, and would 100% recommend moissanite to anyone who is (or will soon be) in the jewelry market.