It doesn't have anything to do with financial security. Look, if your man is spending three months worth of salary on a piece of shiny rock, he is exercising poor financial judgment and that is a signal against future financial security.
Women want diamonds not because of any symbolic reasons ("Diamonds are forever!") but because of reasons that are much more practical: they want to be able to show off the diamonds to their group of (female) and boost their social status among them. At the end of the day it is nothing more than a way of saying "I am better than you!"
This is why many women will accept, at the rational level, that diamonds are horrible and stupid and even evil (since they fuel all kinds of violence in Africa, where they are mined). But most of them will not be able to bring themselves to accept substitutes such as sapphires, rubies, or emeralds. Because that would make their female friends think that the guy does not value them as much (or that they weren't able to find a guy who finds them worthy enough for a diamond).
>Women want diamonds not because of any symbolic reasons ("Diamonds are forever!") but because of reasons that are much more practical: they want to be able to show off the diamonds to their group of (female) and boost their social status among them.
I suspect that the demand for diamonds for both men and women has way less to do with that kind of forward thinking (or subconscious status weighing), and way more to do with what an incredibly expensive marketing juggernaut has hammered into their heads since they were children. A lot is made of status games and seeking evolutionarily fit mates, but it seems to me that "advertising works" is a perfectly adequate solution.
For a somewhat analogous perspective, consider soft drinks. Do people buy Coca-Cola rather than a cheaper store brand because they want to signal their high status? No, they buy it because a ton of money has been spent convincing them that it's superior. And sure, some of them really would prefer Coke in a vacuum. But it's almost certain that a very significant chunk would be either indifferent, or prefer the generic brand in a world without advertising.
I don't think there has to be merely one single solitary reason for the popularity of diamonds. Whenever you see profound effects (in this case, a massive number of people people grossly overpaying for a useless rock), it's worth considering the possibility that you have several strong forces all pushing in the same direction. In this case, yes, advertising doesn't hurt. But there are plenty of other factors that may be contributing:
Social Proof, Envy - You're 28. Many of your good friends are married or engaged by now. All of them got diamonds. Your mother got a diamond. Your sister got a diamond. All of your celebrity idols got diamonds. Surely, it's a normal thing. There's nothing wrong with you wanting one, too, right?
Doubt, Insecurity - You're dating the man of your dreams. You love him and want to spend the rest of your life with him. Marriage is a big step, and you want to know he's committed. Sure, diamonds are useless and overdone, but it's expected of him to get you one. And a big one, too, if he can. You know it. He knows it. So if he doesn't, surely it's a subtle way of him saying, "You aren't worth it."
Fear of Loss - You've been looking forward to this your entire life. By the time you were old enough to consider the possibility that diamond-giving is a dumb and arguably immoral tradition, you'd already spend 15 or 20 or 25 years wanting one. You'd already accepted that you would get one. The fear of loss is a powerful force, even when you're "losing" something you don't have yet.
Inconsistency Avoidance - Refusing to accept a diamond would undoubtedly and repeatedly put you in the position to explain yourself. In a way, it's a silent judgment of all those who do accept diamonds. You've never denounced them in the past. In fact, you were right there with all your friends joking about how big of a rock you'd get some day. So denouncing them today will seem inconsistent, and you don't want to be inconsistent. Nobody does. (If you doubt this this a major psychological factor capable of influencing behavior, read Cialdini's "Influence".)
Etc.
Advertising spend in and of itself isn't a reason people buy things. Nobody ever said, "I want a Coke because Coca-Cola spent $3B on marketing this year." Instead, people want things for primarily carnal and psychological reasons. Because it's hot outside and you know Coke is cold. Because you're craving stimulation and you know carbonation tickles your mouth. Because you know your friends with their big expensive rings will think less of your relationship if you don't get one, too.
Good marketers understand human psychology and play to its weaknesses.
csallen, thank you for thinking of making a list! I do have one or two more reasons to add to your list.
1. Cognitive dissonance reduction: he spent so much, so to avoid cognitive dissonance he's going to tell himself she's worth it. Helps keep marriages together. It is the same reason that hazing ritual happen in college and why secret societies have all sorts of strange initiation rituals, often hazardous or difficult.
- Easy way to test this would be RQ: Do couples with relatively more expensive wedding rings for their income level(s) stay together longer than those who spend less on their wedding ring (controlling for other initial ritual costs like the wedding, although I suspect similar effects and interactions there).
2. Symbolic Interactionism This suggests that the initiation rites are there precisely to bind people together socially. It's a social-level theory explanation for all of the rites of passage rituals which are common in mating-couple pairing cultures in humans (and probably other primates, for that matter). A big token like this is a constant reminder of the commitment, and the meaning ascribed to this again helps with the ongoing project. If course this is entirely consistent with the marketing phenomenon, as it's more of an anthropological descriptive approach.
In graduate school, I took a class on evolutionary biology. One of the principles put forth was that women (think cave women) evolved to focus on seeking a mate that provided time and resources because women are more focused on the long-term reproduction strategy of investing in their offspring and want a mate to help maximize their success (i.e. that offspring surviving to reproduce). Both men and women were shown to engage in both short and long term reproduction strategies of sorts. Men sleeping around (short term) and supporting a child (long term). Women supporting a child with a mate's help (long term) and sneaking out on mate to have sex with genetically superior mate (short term). One of the supporting studies showed that in a list of things that would most anger a man or women relative to their mate, men rated sexual infidelity as number one (this is in part because men have paternal uncertainty and their worst outcome is investing in the long term strategy of raising another male's child). Women listed sexual infidelity as somewhere in the top few, but number one was their mate spending time/money/resources on another woman. For example, imagining their guy taking another woman out to dinner, spending time and thought on her, buying her a gift, etc. upset them more than the thought of him simply have sex with a women he wasn't otherwise invested in. Within this theory, an expensive diamond communicates that the male is making a large investment and communicates to other women that the woman with the diamond is worthy of that large investment. In real life, women of course range from "don't care or think that way" or "achieve that validation through non-material means" to "totally obsessed with sucking material goods and services from a man and showing that off to other people (mostly women). It was an interesting course and study.
An anecdotal data point: a friend used to work with a man who had married right out of high school, as had most of his classmates. At that point, probably 15 or 20 years out, this marriage was one of the few still intact. The man's observation was that in this group, the length of marriage was inversely proportional to the cost of the wedding.
Another anecdotal data point: When I married, I was working as a low-level reporter for near minimum wage. We married at a city courthouse and had a reception in the living room with my housemates who happened to be home at the time. I didn't buy a rock of any sort, though I gave her a plain gold wedding band I got from an estate sale. She gave me one she bought for $70 at a jewelry store.
That happened thirty years ago and we are still happily married with three kids, two of them in college right now and one in high school.
Advertising does one thing, and one thing only: create symbolic associations. (Well, I guess web ads are a departure, since the goal is a click).
What does Coke's advertising budget actually pay for? Images of people having fun and drinking Coke, which are then distributed through every media known to man. Three billion just for Coke = fun, popular. Think about that for a minute, and you'll recognize it's almost impossible to comprehend how intimate symbols really are, how they turn something intangible into something real that you can buy.
Now let's look at the diamond. In my opinion there is only one association that actually drives the purchase. Diamond = marriage. And not just marriage. The loving side of marriage, the tender and personal one as opposed to the banal legal one symbolized by a certificate or the familial one symbolized by the ceremony.
You can come up with a story as to why you don't have one, but there always must be a story. The diamond needs no story, because it's already a symbol. I'd love to see some examples of the early advertising campaign the article discusses.
Does "I'm not stupid enough to pay insane margins on a worthlessly common piece of rock." count as a story? It sounds more like a statement of fact to me.
Another way of thinking about it is the age old saying:
'Blood is thicker than water' when referring to family over people you encounter.
Beyond the shared experiences and the irrational bond (I use the phrase as devil's advocate whilst being happily irrationally bonded with my family), there's not a lot to prescribing value to familial relationships over other ones.
We prescribe irrational value to diamonds, because offering a big rock to a bride in front of our family imbues value beyond the intrinsic worth of the rock.
All good points. I think the real takeaway here though is if the price of a diamond really floated to its fair value, we'd be buying rings with something else on them. Which satisfies most of your list, but in addition, it would be more rational because what you buy could actually be justified as some sort of investment and not merely burning your money in essentially a grand century long con job.
Imagine instead buying a plastic ring for your beloved which would have engraved the account number and sum total of your engagement 401k you bought for the love of your life.
Why do you think your argument contradicts the claim that it is about social status?
Diamonds are a sign of social status in large part because De Beers marketing has convinced them (and their friends) that it is a sign of social status.
The connection between diamonds and social status in this case is supporting evidence for the assertion that "advertising works".
Coke plain tastes better. They spend millions on research getting the taste just right. Most store brand colas have one overpowering flavor that ruins the experience.
> This is why many women will accept, at the rational level, that diamonds are horrible and stupid and even evil (since they fuel all kinds of violence in Africa, where they are mined). But most of them will not be able to bring themselves to accept substitutes such as sapphires, rubies, or emeralds. Because that would make their female friends think that the guy does not value them as much (or that they weren't able to find a guy who finds them worthy enough for a diamond).
This is, sadly, so very very true.
When I was proposing I wanted to get an alternative precious stone that would be actually rate - or, at least, a man-made diamond. I told my SO everything about how they're not rare, the price-fixing, the conflict diamonds - but she barely budged because of what her friends would think of it. I managed to sell the idea of a man-made diamond, but eventually had to settle for a natural one which wasn't sourced from Africa because of just how rare they are and how difficult it was to ship them to my country.
> but eventually had to settle for a natural one which wasn't sourced from Africa
Because Africa is all one big war zone. Because any money sent to Africa funds violence.
Seriously? Why is it so much better to buy from Russia than South Africa or Botswana? (the money's all going to De Beers -- which was originally a South African company -- or a similar multinational anyway).
The top four diamond-producing countries in Africa (the top two are actually not African: Russia and Canada) are Botswana, Angola, South Africa and Namibia. All of these countries are poor, sure. They all have some political problems, sure. But they are all democracies with somewhat functional governments; none of them are at war (the Angolan civil war ended in 2002).
Multinational mineral companies aren't always the best thing for locals, but the idea that the only money sent to Africa should arrive on a UN food truck is far worse.
The problem with buying diamonds from anywhere is that you're giving conflict diamonds added value through the simple fact of your demand for them. They're a fungible commodity. Essentially there is no diamond that is not a blood diamond.
Hmm, actually, they aren't perfectly fungible. 100 one-carat diamonds aren't worth the same as one 100-carat diamond, and even diamonds of the same weight aren't substitutable. But with respect to country of origin, yeah.
No, but it's impossible for me to know where in Africa the diamond is coming from, which means it's impossible to know whether or not it's a conflict diamond. I know that diamond miners in Russia or India have decent working conditions and that there's no chance of the proceeds going to fund a bloody civil war; I have no such confidence when the most specific answer the jeweler can give me regarding the stone's origins is "Africa."
Is it really true (I'm not doubtful, just shocked) that the jeweller can tell you what country the diamond came from unless that country is in a particular continent?
Because of the 'blood diamond' controversy, the diamonds get mixed up together, sold around, exported, smuggled, etc. There's no way to track them.
Canadian ice diamonds, on the other hand, are all laser-engraved with a serial number, making it possible to verify each diamond's authenticity and source. According to the jeweller I spoke to, the only guarantee she could make is 'Canadian' or 'not Canadian'; she couldn't even guarantee me African, Russian, etc.
She did, of course, offer to sell me a ring with 'who knows' diamonds and then remove them and put Canadian diamonds in, but at that point I'm paying for 'who knows' and Canadian diamonds, which seemed a little idiotic.
I think what's sad here is not the desire for the respect of one's peers, but the means chosen to attain it; or rather, the arbitrarily-established mechanisms for doing so.
Why do you care what the respect is based on? What differentiates "superficial" respect from genuine respect? I guarantee you the criteria you use to judge people look equally ridiculous to other people too.
What's your point, exactly? Slaveholders and abolitionists certainly chose to respect different people in the 19th century. That doesn't change the fact that slaveholders who judged people based on how large their plantation was were horrible people not worthy of our respect.
And to drive the point home: those diamonds you see in rings have a non-negligible chance of coming from child slaves, who have been torn from their families in civil war and will probably be setting off land mines once the diamond mines run out. I actively disrespect the choice to purchase them.
The point is not about who you should or should not respect. The point is that other people are going to respect certain aspects in people that you don't agree with, and it's silly to say that respect is not real just because you don't agree with its motivations. It's the same reason we don't like c# developers who say that python devs aren't real programmers.
Do you honestly believe that you are so obviously correct, anyone who disagrees with you must only be doing it because they are financially invested in presenting that way?
I found it quite hard to extract anything from those articles. I think what it's trying to say is that if the ring becomes an issue then the relationship may be far from perfect anyway.
The main thing I took away was in this passage:
"you prove to me I'm worth it. ...make me know how valuable I am. Because I don't have any idea..."
But then, I don't see how she'll be satisfied with any ring. Surely if a guy could sacrifice this much he could sacrifice just a bit more - so she may not be that valuable to him. I don't even want to start thinking about a guy who can afford a bigger rock suddenly showing up :D
Basically, the moral of the story, for me, was: 1) Avoid women who don't know their worth and require external confirmations; 2) Develop your own sense of self-worth by doing something worthwhile, then finding a like-minded woman would be easier.
That's not the point though. If anything is worth the respect of your peers there it's what you do to earn the money, not shiny rocks that you spend the cash on.
It's important to think about how this is a product of the people with whom one surround oneself.
I think my SO would be happy with an alternative stone (or perhaps no stone at all!) and that's because her and my friends largely aren't the type to ogle a ring, a watch, or a car. Friends that do fancy material things are able to recognize it and laugh at their own materialistic tendencies because they are the outliers in our circles. Watches are cool but experiences are cooler (plus my g-shock from '98 happily survives the abuse travel and hobbies give it).
Now, we aren't a couple that will settle for tying human hair around our fingers and calling it a wedding band, but I sure as hell won't be spending 20 grand on a rock. And my friends will happily accept the free rounds that savings can cover over the next xx years.
Exactly. If you aren't into those sorts of symbols, odds are the friends you select aren't, either. None of my friends had diamonds - including me - and none of the rest of us cared, one way or the other.
I am very glad that my wife was reasonable and agreed that I need not get her a diamond. She still wanted a ring, so I designed and made a claddagh style ring for her, with a blue topaz set in silver. It cost me less than $50, plus many hours researching, designing, and carving the wax mold. (I have a friend who is a jeweler, and he was able to provide expert assistance and tools to get the job done :)
Now, rather than bragging about how big and expensive the stone is, my wife happily shows off her ring and tells her girlfriends how I made it for her, and how beautiful and special it is.
My wife is the most awesome woman ever! (Source: Personal experience and careful study and observation).
My girlfriend said the same thing. I did however get her a diamond (she doesn't know about it yet)... but it cost me 1/20th the price as I have a friend in that industry. I would not have paid retail for a diamond as I know how much of a rip off it is.
The rest of the ring I'm including fragments from a martian meteorite, a lunar meteorite, and a deep space iron meteorite...... and then other gems from every continent. :)
That is AWESOME that you made your ring. I'm having this one made... as I just... seriously lack the artistic skill to create what I want. :)
She and I love traveling and travel a lot-- I wanted her ring to represent every place mankind has gone/will go to in our lifetime.... I bet there are few objects in the world that have been combined with pieces from so many distant origins.
I would be far more happy to have a ring made for me then one that was just bought from a store no matter what the price difference for all sorts of reasons (unique, easy to just spend money, hard to actually make one wtc)
| they want to be able to show off the diamonds to their group of (female) and boost their social status among them.
That's true. But why do diamonds have high social status? Because they are expensive. They are a reliable signal of the wealth of the man. Social status is a proxy for actual wealth and power, and thus the probability of wealth and power for the woman's potential offspring.
Unfortunately they have become such a strong signal that people without wealth to spare feel compelled to over-spend on them. Like a peacock's tail.
From all psychology signaling is most powerful when it shows expensive resources spent on unpractical, useless things. As the peacock tail.
Spending a hundred bucks on something useful is not a signal showing wealth; but lighting a cigar with a hundred dollar bill is such a signal.
Being seen with, say, an expensive computer is less powerful wealth signal than being seen with an exactly equally expensive ring; the computer might be (even if it isn't) practical, but the ring states "hey, I can afford to waste money, so if you don't then obviously I'm of a higher social status/pecking order than you".
It is more than that. Not only is it expensive, but its also small enough that you wear it everywhere. Think about why ipod/iphones are so popular amongst teenagers
You absolutely nailed it with this comment. Was reading pieces of the debate out loud to my girlfriend, who is rather rational and intelligent but for some reason still wants a diamond ring (and I couldn't really figure out why) - when I read this and looked over, I knew you got it 100% right. Well done.
No such problem in my case. I explained I was strongly against the idea for most of the reasons listed in the original article and it wasn't a negotiable point. Basically if she still wanted the diamond ring then she didn't understand me well enough to be married to me. I didn't get all RMS-esque about it, but somethings are under our control, some aren't. It is one of those things that was. We got order-made platinum wedding rings instead.
Yeah, the things that women do in order to outdo their female friends are expensive and pointless--almost as much so as the things that men do to outdo their male friends!
Well women spend their time and health bearing and nursing our (hopefully :) children. That's resources they could have dedicated to pumping their social status. So in the end it's fair I guess...
>>Basically came down to some variation on "I don't ask for a lot (she doesn't), but I want the diamond ring."
As some one newly married, I have observed the following.
1. See <something>. Demand for it.
2. When rationally explained why we can't buy it.
3. Simply state.. "I don't ask for a lot, but I want the <something>."
4. I buy it.
Did you try modifying step 2 to something along these lines:
"Great idea, I never thought about it, we really need <something>! Problem is, this particular model of <something> is not the best and will not do <something that something is supposed to do> very well. In fact I remember reading bad reviews about this. But fear not! We'll go home, spend some time reading review sites and will find a really good version of <something>."
This will buy you some time, and might even look that YOU want it, which might even make it less appealing to your other half. Now, find a really expensive model of something, but at such price point that the rationality wins, even in someone who usually does not listen to your arguments (step 2). YMMV, but sometimes this tactic works out quite well.
Interesting assumption there that he is buying her something. Agreeing as a married couple whether to spend money on something doesn't indicate that it is his or her money, the discussion implies that money is shared. For all you know if could be all her money in terms of income.
My grandfather ran a grocery store throughout the Depression, and he accumulated a large selection of diamond rings from cash strapped customers. When my father and his brother were getting married, they had their choice of the rings.
I've always wondered how other diamond rings get recycled or removed from the market. Diamonds are forever, after all, so why doesn't the price collapse from being awash in used stones from three or four generations of dead women?
As we found out when looking for a ring, there is (perhaps manufactured) superstitious social stigma attached to using a used engagement ring. How do you know it's not from a failed marriage? Many jewelers were confused and incredulous when we asked about one.
After a certain age is reached though, the stigma seems to go away somewhat. We got a 'vintage' ring (about 100 years old) in the end - but they're hard to find; you won't find them in most chain jewelry stores.
Incidentally, the reason you don't see many used bands is different; the metals are worth so much now that it's more cost effective to melt them down than to resell them at the depressed price the market demands for used jewelry compared to new.
> Many jewelers were confused and incredulous when we asked about one.
Bear in mind that it is in the jeweller's interest to perpetuate such superstitions as it means they can persuade many customers to buy a new ring instead.
Buying a diamonds as a romantic gesture, the buyer is vulnerable for two reasons:
1) They're unlikely to have much experience of buying jewellery; for many, this is the only occasion.
2) They probably feel very strongly about the gesture; it's very important that they get it right. Overspending pales beside the risk of offending the love of their life and/or subjecting them to negative judgement by their peers.
As a result, it is all too easy for jewellers to intimidate the buyer by telling them exactly what is 'expected' and charging absurd prices for it.
Absolutely - which is why I said the sentiment was perhaps manufactured. We went to multiple jewellers though, big and small, and either _all_ the employees were great actors or at least some were genuinely surprised that we made the request.
Still, 'real' superstition or manufactured one, we didn't fall for it. I suspect many do though. A web search for "used engagement ring back luck" reveals the superstition is pretty widespread.
[Edit: Not that I mean that many people actually _believe_ that the used status of the ring will affect their marriage - I suspect they're more concerned on how their partner and, perhaps more so, their peers will judge their decision]
Agreed. I accompanied my fiance when he shopped for my ring and most salespeople tried to tell both of us that we were wrong. We ended up getting it from a catalog.
I would imagine diamond rings were rare during the Depression, while today they're common. Perhaps an entire year's sales of diamonds in 1930 takes place in a single day today. Wait til 1 or 2 generations from now. I'm willing to bet the entire racket will collapse on its own weight by then.
If the ring is new but only the stone is "used", it´ll be hard to be discovered and still much cheaper. Even a refinished old ring would be quite hard to tell apart from a brand new one (unless your fiance is quite an expert on ring designs, and able to tell apart if a ring is 20 years old, then of course you better buy a new one).
But don´t do it if you are not good at keeping secrets...
> It doesn't have anything to do with financial security. Look, if your man is spending three months worth of salary on a piece of shiny rock, he is exercising poor financial judgment and that is a signal against future financial security.
I don't get it. Why would you even want to be engaged with women so stupid to want a shiny rock no matter what. If anything I'd want a man-made diamond, because it's cooler.
I never even heard of the rule that you have to get a diamond ring for engagement, guess that's a USA thing. Well, my BF still bought me a good monitor, which is much more useful.
I wanted my birthstone, a sapphire, and that's what I got. Everyone in my family and circle of friends thought it was great. The only one who had an issue was my mother-in-law, who said "I know my son loves you more than that". My MIL and I had different values. . .
The social status is changing I think. I commented on this in some other Diamond discussion thread but I have noticed an increase in people my age group (Gen Y) having engagement/wedding rings with other stones. Purely anecdotal but it seems to be a trend in my group of friends at least.
For example my wife has a Sapphire ring (yes I know Sapphires can be made at any size artificially) and so does my brothers. A close friends wife has a Ruby and I have seen Emerald ones.
Several people (including myself) in my social circle ended up going the antique route the past few years -- There's a few shops in the area that specialize in antique (read: used) jewelry. My wife really wanted something with a unique/classic flair; was able to find the perfect ring that was made in the 1920s. The fact that we were sort of able to fantasize about the back story added to the allure.
This is what we did about 10 years ago (GenX), for a similar reason (wife wanted something unique). It was really fun going around antique shops looking for a ring -- and we're not really the "antiquing" types. Something to look into if you're looking for something different, particularly if you're in a city with a large neighborhood of antique shops.
EDIT: And to avoid misrepresenting my wife, I should add it was not a diamond ring (it's a pearl). My wife worked in African before we got married and would have nothing to do with diamonds.
| It doesn't have anything to do with financial
| security. Look, if your man is spending three
| months worth of salary on a piece of shiny
| rock, he is exercising poor financial judgment
| and that is a signal against future financial
| security.
But A Diamond is Forever. It's an investment. If
you're ever on hard times, then you can just turn
around and sell the... oh... ;-)
Do you mean that you feel many people respond to financial problems by splitting up. Doesn't that exacerbate their financial problems, at least short term, and - if there are no other issues - dispose of many benefits in the process?
Committed doesn't mean that there's zero chance of a failed relationship. In fact, there's a rather high chance that any given relationship will fail these days. There's nothing wrong by realizing that it's a possibility and it shouldn't signal non-commitment.
Yes there is. It's like the classic burning of your ships once you've landed. Once you know there's no turning back, you have no option but to make things work by going forwards.
Huh? Having the money to splurge on a ring is a signal of financial fitness because you have the extra money to spend on something that will 'have no return' (so the speak). It's hardly a case of 'burning of your ships.' If you have the financial security to splurge on some ridiculous ring, then it's also possible that you have the ability to just absorb the cost if you don't like the marriage.
Besides, depending on the cost of the ring, and the length of the marriage, it would make you more likely to terminate the marriage over time as the cost of the ring gets amortized over the length of the marriage.
Two people propose to you with rings that cost 25k each. One ring is resellable for 20k. One is resellable for 5k. Which one do you think is more likely to renege?
By then it's too late. The point is not to get more out of it if things go south. The point is to make sure they don't. This is basic game theory, buddy.
Perhaps I should have been more verbose. The point I was trying to make is that neither proposer is more likely to renege. Since they have both given away their 25k investment, it doesn't matter to either of them what the resale value is and thus it has no impact on their decisions. Unless it's assumed that you'll be combining assets upon marriage, which I hadn't taken into account in my original post.
Since you'll have to decline one of these proposals, one of them gets their ring back. Which one are you more likely to accept? All things equal, the 20k resale ring.
Sure, that's definitely for some women. But you can also use that to your advantage.
An article similar to this came up six months ago, at about the same time I was getting ready to propose to my fiancee. It sparked this comment thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4536010
patio11 suggested that I wasn't "selling" her correctly. Women want the story, the status, the "Facebook status". So that's exactly what I did.
I bought her a white gold ring with a purple sapphire. It took me over a month to find the right gemstone. While it may not be as expensive as an equivalent weight/quality diamond, it is incredibly hard to replace, since they're so rare.
I also made sure that the white gold was made with palladium instead of nickel + rhodium-plating, since I was concerned about skin irritations. I had it completely custom-made, with the design done in CAD and 3D printed. As an engineer, this was awesome. My fiancee didn't quite appreciate that as much as I did, admittedly, but she did say it was cool.
Having done all that, I still spent a lot less money on the actual ring than if I had bought a diamond ring. So with the remaining money, I booked a flight to Rome for a 24 hour trip, to catch her by surprise on her last day of her Europe vacation she was on with her sister. I surprised her in a spot I had coordinated, and I hired a local photographer to take engagement pictures of us throughout Rome.
So I didn't buy a diamond, but I did end up spending about the same amount of money. However, I was able to "sell" my fiancee on the rarity and authenticity of the ring, and the story of the proposal. To this day, she looks back on the ring, the pictures, and remembers it all fondly.
So diamonds may be bullshit, but the story and memories aren't.
You spent an amount of money equivalent to what De Beers charges for a diamond ring because of the advertising campaign De Beers started about a century ago. You felt like you had to match that expenditure, perhaps subconsciously. If the diamond cartel and diamond advertising and diamond pricing didn't exist, you wouldn't have that specific financial figure to aspire to.
Out of curiosity, I started looking at what a three-months salary engagement ring would look like if I proposed to my wife today.
Man am I lucky I got married right at the end of college and we purchased the engagement ring and wedding bands together to negotiate the price down, for far less money. I can't ever imagine my wife wearing rings like that. When we bought them, the sales lady told us we "can always upgrade the stone later" and we both laughed at the idea. We're still laughing, actually.
Is the price of diamonds in the U.S. really that high?
I spent quite a chunk of change on an engagement ring for my fiancée, but it was closer to a week's salary. I think if I'd spent three months salary on it the rock would be so big she wouldn't be able to lift her hand.
I'm making good money, but we're not exactly talking Fortune-500 CEO levels here.
It depends where you go. Mall stores (Kay/Jareds/etc) are all owned by 1 company[0]. Which means you can "shop around" the mall and one may be a few hundred cheaper than the others. But, still all over priced. Stores outside that brand are generally near those stores and also over charge. Both, don't keep many diamonds onsite. They all ask for your budget, and ship in 2-3 stones for you to look at (in your budget). Then, you buy one. Illusion of choice.
If you goto a diamond store (that houses tons onsite) and just go for eye appeal rather than rating. You can get a '15-20k$' mall diamond for a third or less.
For a senior developer in SF area, 3 months salary could get you a loose diamond in the 3-4 carat range off a site like bluenile.com. That's enormous for a ring. In fact, probably so large that disbelief becomes a problem: "That can't be real!"
Wowsers. 1.5 carat solitaire rings look quite huge, 3 carats would be enormous.
I'd be kinda tempted buying one that big for a woman because, you know, if we're going to go for a vulgar display of wealth, then let's make it really f*cking vulgar :)
(I still have better things to do with the money...)
“From birth to age 18, a girl needs good parents, from 18 to 35 she needs good looks, from 35 to 55 she needs a good personality, and from 55 on she needs cash.” --Sophie Tucker
Well but don't you say it yourself that the diamond is a kind of "showy waste"* to show that they are able to command a fiancé/husband of their own that is able to provide? That is a symbolic reason no?
You're wrong. Jewelry is the historical way to store wealth.
Have some extra you want to keep for harder times? Convert it to gold and hang it on your wife's ears. Many other things we take for granted now are storage: cheese, wine, ham, jam are all efficient ways to store food.
So giving a diamond to your wife is just a supplemental reserve of wealth. Read only two books about people of the past, you'll see many stories of ladies selling their earrings when in trouble and getting through by this mean.
But don't they always sell at a loss? Yes, it beats a blank, but still, isn't it a depreciating asset? Back then, they didn't have the investment vehicles that we have today.
>It doesn't have anything to do with financial security. Look, if your man is spending three months worth of salary on a piece of shiny rock, he is exercising poor financial judgment and that is a signal against future financial security.
A bit over 23 years ago I had a wedding which - including wedding bands - was under $200. I'm still married to her. We're both glad we didn't go into debt to get married...
I was gobsmacked when I heard that people borrow money to have a wedding. I have never heard of that happening in New Zealand. How common is this? Or am I just mixing in the wrong circles?
I don't know if a lot of people borrow, but ridiculously expensive weddings are common in America, and they are terrible. Many people won't get married if they can't "afford a wedding". Like the parent, our wedding was under $200 when all was said and done, including rings (which neither of us wear).
In Thailand, people borrow money to have a wedding. But guests pay some money (+ gift) at the wedding. So you usually got enough back, if not more, to pay for the debt.
>Women want diamonds not because of any symbolic reasons ("Diamonds are forever!")
The funny thing is that diamonds are one of the most unstable minerals when taken out of the conditions they were formed. Although, it would still take thousands of years for them to turn into graphite.
Women want diamonds not because of any symbolic reasons ("Diamonds are forever!") but because of reasons that are much more practical: they want to be able to show off the diamonds to their group of (female) and boost their social status among them. At the end of the day it is nothing more than a way of saying "I am better than you!"
This is why many women will accept, at the rational level, that diamonds are horrible and stupid and even evil (since they fuel all kinds of violence in Africa, where they are mined). But most of them will not be able to bring themselves to accept substitutes such as sapphires, rubies, or emeralds. Because that would make their female friends think that the guy does not value them as much (or that they weren't able to find a guy who finds them worthy enough for a diamond).
Social status. That's what it is all about.