I completely agree with the points the page makes, but I don't think it will turn away many from diamonds as it misses the point of getting a diamond. Shoving a diamond in an engagement ring might have been pretty cool the first few times somebody did that, but nowadays it's not at all interesting, novel or original; and I'm pretty sure people don't marvel at the way their gem disperses light after the first few days of having it pass.
This is what I think is really the reason people gift and wear engagement rings: upholding tradition and signalling commitment. Even if the tradition is "fake", created by De Beers marketing, isn't most tradition like that anyway? Artificial gemstones don't lie too well with people who care about the tradition of gemstones. I don't even think it's necessary to care for the tradition, I think the value of natural diamonds is pretty much burned into everybody's subconscious by pop culture. And the inflated cost is actually a "plus" for signalling commitment.
Don't get me wrong, I would feel pretty stupid if I had to buy diamond jewelry (if I could); I just don't think the article makes a good pitch, because its points don't hit close enough to the reasons people buy (or desire) diamonds. I kind of think that the article speaks best to those who are least inclined to buy diamonds anyway.
It's not even particularly traditional. Up until the DeBeers campaign in the 30s/40s, a wide array of gems were used in wedding rings. Wedding rings are traditional, but solely using diamonds is fairly novel. It would be more traditional to use any other gem.
> This is what I think is really the reason people gift and wear engagement rings: upholding tradition and signalling commitment.
Both of those are bad reasons. A diamond wedding ring is not traditional (nor is the obscene spending, at least once we stopped using wedding rings as part of the dowry), and spending a bunch of money is a bad way to show commitment. Anyone can spend a bunch of money without caring at all. This is the worst part of the DeBeers mythos; equating lavish spending with commitment. They are not the same.
I agree. I think the author is missing the point of diamond engagement rings.
Also, none of this seven points really sway me.
1. Basically anything that's expensive has had its price inflated in some way. That doesn't make it anyone any less willing to pay the price.
2. Same as number 1. Lots of things are only expensive because they've been marketed well. Does that make them less valuable?
3. No one buys an engagement ring as an investment. Who buys an engagement ring thinking they'll be able to recuperate costs?
4. This one has merit but there has also been a lot of progress in recent years. things like these have popped up and most major jewelers are taking part. Ask where your diamond was sourced before buying. https://www.responsiblejewellery.com/
5. Don't spend more than you can afford on anything. That's just common sense.
6. The author is really missing the point here. You can make an exact replica of a famous painting but it's still a replica. There's value in authenticity.
7. Same as number 5. Also, you could say this about any major purchase.
> 1. Basically anything that's expensive has had its price inflated in some way. That doesn't make it anyone any less willing to pay the price.
That doesn't make sense. Liquid expensive things like gold have a market price plus some transaction fee or fee for storing etc. Even illiquid expensive things like houses cost market prices + transaction fees + fees for agents etc. The point here is that diamonds are marketed like liquid assets when in fact they aren't.
> 2. Same as number 1. Lots of things are only expensive because they've been marketed well. Does that make them less valuable?
Yes, unless you define value to be 100% subjective, in which case, no.
> 3. No one buys an engagement ring as an investment. Who buys an engagement ring thinking they'll be able to recuperate costs?
I've had lengthy arguments with family about this. Engagement rings aren't bought as an investment but every single person had the expectation that diamonds are an investment, and as such can be resold, will appreciate (at least not depreciate) etc.
There are valid reasons to buy a diamond, don't get me wrong, but the large majority is not aware that diamond rings loose 30-50% of monetary value the instant they are bought.
This is what I think is really the reason people gift and wear engagement rings: upholding tradition and signalling commitment. Even if the tradition is "fake", created by De Beers marketing, isn't most tradition like that anyway? Artificial gemstones don't lie too well with people who care about the tradition of gemstones. I don't even think it's necessary to care for the tradition, I think the value of natural diamonds is pretty much burned into everybody's subconscious by pop culture. And the inflated cost is actually a "plus" for signalling commitment.
Don't get me wrong, I would feel pretty stupid if I had to buy diamond jewelry (if I could); I just don't think the article makes a good pitch, because its points don't hit close enough to the reasons people buy (or desire) diamonds. I kind of think that the article speaks best to those who are least inclined to buy diamonds anyway.