diamonds are so pointless

[combinationpadlock]

why are they valued so highly? Because they look nice? Other things look nice without the price tag, and without the massive industrial scale mining, and human cost of lives spent in mines.

Do you wear them? Why? Do you think this is a sexist issue? men mostly mine them and women mostly wear them. Why do so many millions of man hours go into something to adorn women?

Diamonds have been cherished since ancient times, I love a beautiful diamond and most other precious stones. I don't want to be dripping in them, but I do love them. I can't get intetested in shoes, handbags, cars ,getting my nails done, cosmetics etc. We all like different things. Most choices have an environmental and ethical impact .

I have a couple of small ones in jewellery. My earrings, engagement ring and a necklace all from my husband. They hold their value as they will not get damaged. Which I think is the appeal!

There are so many beautiful stones, I can't see the attraction of a basically clear stone, they have never been my thing at all. My engagement ring was an iolite, which was stunning. I sold it to pay legal fees when divorcing.

I prefer antique and vintage rings now

Iolite is a beautiful stone. I have a sapphire with small side diamonds.

Thank you. I can understand that.

I suppose I just feel the same about cheap stones - even polished rocks - that you can look at and think “wow, that came out of a volcano hundreds of thousands of years ago” or whatever. That it’s a diamond I don’t think makes me any more in awe of it. But, as I say, I get your point.

Why?

I love my diamond rings but they are secondhand and one of them, art deco style, was inherited. It was already secondhand when it was purchased by my family member. No guilt at all but I wouldn't buy another and certainly not new.

There's many more interesting stones out there; demantoid garnet, opal, sphene/titanite, zircon, cats eye chrysoberyl, alexandrite, tanzanite.

Sphene and zircon have higher dispersion than diamond. Alexandrite is differently coloured in natural light or candle light.
My engagement ring is sphene

Things only have the value people are prepared to pay for them. It's all emperor's new clothes with any 'desirable/expensive object.
Some pay over a thousand quid for a pair of red-soled shoes
Some pay 450 grand for a 'limited edition' car
Some pay 300 million for a da Vinci

So, diamonds may have no intrinsic value, but the fact that a carbonised mass of dust and other shit can be cut, polished and valued at a price beyond reason, is the fault of society, particularly those prepared to pay

Engagement ring maths.

A lot of men act like a woman asking for a nice ring makes her some kind of gold digger, but let's look at who is really looking to benefit from this transaction. Even if a man got you a £10,000. Over the course of a year that would mean your ring was only worth £27 a day. And in exchange for £27 symbol of love most men are looking to secure a fulltime maid, cook, cleaner, secretary, nanny, surrogant, sex worker, chauffeur, cheerleader, and so much more. If he actually had to pay people to do all the work he's going to expect his wife to do in exchange for this one time ring transaction, it would equate to hundreds of thousands of pounds per year.

So he's already getting a bargain, even if he only spends 10 grand on the ring, but if he tries to palm you off with some cheap dust ring what's really happening is this ring worth £200 is really worth a one pound. If he saves a pound every day for a year, he can afford this ring and secure the services of some person who doesn't know their worth.

Talk about gold digging, right? This man is looking to recieve hundreds of thousands per year in free services for the low low price of £1 a day. And that's just over the first year. Over the course of a marriage, you are worth less than a penny a day.

Men like to say that the price of the ring doesn't determine the marriage. I disagree. People invest in what they care about. When you see a big old rock on a woman's hand, it is never a hand with snagged cuticles and fucked up nails. Because the woman who's hand it is on is being well taken care of. It is never on the hand of a woman who has had to scrub and wash and be busted down because she has someone who is taking care of her, who wanted to elevate her and treat her well. Give her the best.

Some gemmologist (IIRC) said that gems are the only thing people mine from the earth and make more beautiful, which I think is probably about right.

I think your logic’s a bit skewed.

Made me laugh though.

Had to Google that! It's a gorgeous stone

Have any of you been to the jewellery gallery at the V&A? They had a diamond exhibition ( I think I was a temporary exhibition) and oh boy, the huge diamonds under spotlights were sensational! That told me why they're valued. The one in the King's crown at the opening of parliament this week was huge and glittery too. And it has a history, which makes it a bit more interesting than your average stone. I have an amethyst engagement ring. But I can see why stunning diamonds are highly prized.

Hope your opal (sounds fabulous, btw!) was bought for you!

Eh?How is it a sexist issue?

Oh dear… I’d be less concerned about diamonds and more concerned about the ethics of mining all of those minerals used to make that phone/laptop/tablet you are all posting with. Or are we not concerned about that because those items are ‘useful’ and boycotting would not be as convenient?

I'm exactly the same.
As for what I haven't bought myself, my mum gifted me a little pendant with diamonds in as a graduation gift. I very rarely wear it because it's my favourite and I'm scared of losing it. Sometimes I get it out to hold it and look at it. Probably a bit weird but it's how I am.

I just bought ethically mined diamond earrings and I love them. I respect others position on not wanting to buy/wear diamonds but I wanted them and I think they’re beautiful.

They’re not remotely rare. They’re stockpiled to give the illusion of scarcity and keep prices high - mainly by De Beers, who created and now control the global diamond market. It’s a completely artificial construct, done with the help of a clever and effective advertising strategy some time in the 50s or 60s.

Prior to that engagement rings weren’t really a thing - and they even invented out of thin air the idea that a man should spend the equivalent of something like 2 month’s salary on one, or else how much does he really love you?

The whole thing plays on people’s innate insecurities and status consciousness, and lines the pockets of others who are up to their necks in unethical practices and human rights abuses. So basically the usual story of gullible punters being shilled by a bunch of greedy, unscrupulous fuckers.

I think the same about fur TBH.

Tucking into a leg of lamb (nowt wrong with that) while wearing your woolly jumper (nor with that) and swearing that you’d never wear fur always seems illogical and performative to me.

But the world is as it is. 🤷‍♀️

Exactly this. They talk about this on Rebel Finance School.

Yup all of this.

I think "pointless" is an odd criticism - lots of things are pointless if they're just for decoration/accessory/appearances. They're no more pointless than any other stone or jewellery.

I agree that they're overvalued, and I personally don't really like the diamond solitaire style of ring. My engagement ring is a sapphire - but of course ultimately that's equally as pointless, just a bit less expensive.

So... the more expensive the ring your man puts on your finger, the more you'd be prepared to do for him? Where do you draw the line? 🤔

Wind-up. Has to be.