Diamonds are a girl's best friend....are they?

lazygal

I commented on a thread over in weddings, marriages and civil partnerships on engagement rings. The thread, probably totally understandably, focused, dare I say it, almost exclusively on diamonds and the 4cs. Most of my friends who are engaged or married have diamond rings. I don't, I tried them on and didn't really care for them, so went for a different stone, a sapphire.

What is it about diamonds that they are the default engagement ring? I was told by one jeweller that I'd get 'tired and bored' of looking at a non-diamond ring and by another that 'women get diamond engagement rings, I'll show you them and then you can try the other stones'. Would you be expecting a diamond if your other half popped the question? Or if you went shopping for an engagement ring, would diamonds be the default stone you'd look for? Why diamonds anyway? Is it the DeBeers spin of 'diamonds are forever'?

él statutorio

Marketing and DeBeers. That's it.

Scarinae

Apparently diamond rings have only been common since the 1930s:

But the desire wasn't always there. In fact, the "tradition" of the diamond engagement ring is newer than you might think. Betrothal rings, a custom inherited from the Romans, became an increasingly common part of the Christian tradition in the 13th century. The first known diamond engagement ring was commissioned for Mary of Burgundy by the Archduke Maximilian of Austria in 1477. The Victorians exchanged "regards" rings set with birthstones. But it wasn't until the late 19th century, after the discovery of mines in South Africa drove the price of diamonds down, that Americans regularly began to give (or receive) diamond engagement rings. (Before that, some betrothed women got thimbles instead of rings.) Even then, the real blingfest didn't get going until the 1930s, when—dim the lights, strike up the violins, and cue entrance—the De Beers diamond company decided it was time to take action against the American public.

In 1919, De Beers experienced a drop in diamond sales that lasted for two decades. So in the 1930s it turned to the firm N.W. Ayer to devise a national advertising campaign—still relatively rare at the time—to promote its diamonds. Ayer convinced Hollywood actresses to wear diamond rings in public, and, according to Edward Jay Epstein in The Rise and Fall of the Diamond, encouraged fashion designers to discuss the new "trend" toward diamond rings. Between 1938 and 1941, diamond sales went up 55 percent. By 1945 an average bride, one source reported, wore "a brilliant diamond engagement ring and a wedding ring to match in design." The capstone to it all came in 1947, when Frances Gerety—a female copywriter, who, as it happened, never married—wrote the line "A Diamond Is Forever." The company blazoned it over the image of happy young newlyweds on their honeymoon. The sale of diamond engagement rings continued to rise in the 1950s, and the marriage between romance and commerce that would characterize the American wedding for the next half-century was cemented. By 1965, 80 percent of American women had diamond engagement rings. The ring had become a requisite element of betrothal—as well as a very visible demonstration of status. Along the way, the diamond industry's guidelines for the "customary" cost of a ring doubled from one month's salary to two months' salary.

So it looks like él statutorio's concise summary is correct - it's mostly down to marketing and De Beers.

Having said that, I've no problem with people who choose a diamond engagement ring. Maybe someday I will get one, who knows? I do find it weird though that if you want something different (as in your case), people try to steer you back towards diamonds. Why would you get 'bored' of a sapphire ring?

cson

There's a pretty good thread on this from 6 months back here -> http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=76712580

I'll say what I said there; its not the value of the stone that matters but what it symbolises.

I want a sapphire if i ever get to that

the diamond thing, as has been said, is just marketing + debeers
'have you ever tried to sell a diamond' was an enlightening read

SusieBlue

My boyfriend got me a sapphire and white gold Promise ring about 2 years ago, we've been planning to get married since then but if we got engaged the family would freak so we call it a Promise ring just to placate them. Even though I wear it on my ring finger

When I get engaged I'm not sure if I want a diamond ring or not..I think some of them look really generic and tacky!

The Big Red Button

WhiteRoses wrote: »

My boyfriend got me a sapphire and white gold Promise ring about 2 years ago, we've been planning to get married since then but if we got engaged the family would freak so we call it a Promise ring just to placate them. Even though I wear it on my ring finger

Why would they freak?

And would it really matter that much to you if they did?

sawfish

They shouldn't be a girls best friend,

I`m a lad and I simply cant understand women`s obsession with them.

Watch the film Blood Diamond (great film..starring Leonardo DiCaprio) and it will give you some idea of the harm diamonds causes.

woodchuck

I probably would want a diamond to be honest. I do like other stones, but if it's something you're going to wear every day for the rest of your life I'd want it to match everything and not worry about whether or not I'm colour coordinated!

In terms of a diamond vs other neutral coloured stones, I think diamonds are meant to be the hardest aren't they? Again, if it's something I'm wearing for the rest of my life I'd want it to be durable.

(PS obviously wouldn't want a blood diamond though! I heard before you can actually get man-made diamonds, that'd do me fine )

Silverfish

They're not my best friend, cut my eyelid open one night with my engagement ring.

And I wouldn't say women are 'obsessed' with them, a lot of threads in here in the past would show that the diamond is possibly the least favoured stone.

I got a diamond because I'm not a fan of coloured stones or fancy rings, so it's pretty plain and small.

Acoshla

woodchuck wrote: »

I probably would want a diamond to be honest. I do like other stones, but if it's something you're going to wear every day for the rest of your life I'd want it to match everything and not worry about whether or not I'm colour coordinated!

+1!

Dolbert

Silverfish wrote: »

I got a diamond because I'm not a fan of coloured stones or fancy rings, so it's pretty plain and small.

Same. I got a simple white gold solitaire as it was the only one that suited my small hands. I'm not that into jewellery generally, my engagement ring is usually the only piece I wear. BTW if you aren't that bothered on the '4 Cs' a diamond ring really doesn't have to cost the earth

Ickle Magoo

sawfish wrote: »

They shouldn't be a girls best friend,

I`m a lad and I simply cant understand women`s obsession with them.

Watch the film Blood Diamond (great film..starring Leonardo DiCaprio) and it will give you some idea of the harm diamonds causes.

Eh, I don't even wear my engagement ring I'm so obsessed with it...

I'd also add you can buy ethical diamonds, like those sourced in Canada. :cool:

SusieBlue

chatterpillar wrote: »

Why would they freak?

And would it really matter that much to you if they did?

They think we're too young to even be thinking about it :rolleyes: I couldn't deal with the drama it'd cause, especially on his side of the family, so we're waiting about another year to get engaged, and we've a date set for a year after that.

They don't know that yet though

Ilyana

Tbh I'd just want to have a pretty, classic ring that suits my hand and doesn't cost more than my future fiance and I can afford to spend. If a diamond ring fits that bill, then so be it. Likewise, it could be an emerald, a ruby, a sapphire etc.

I do like that diamond rings are recognisable as engagement rings though, even if that is a result of De Beers marketing. But I'm not going insist on a diamond either.

borderlinemeath

I have a diamond ring, really plain three stones on a plain platinum band, it's quite understated and plain, no stones down the sides or anything like that. (apologies to anybody that has them but I hate that bling look) It's not the most popular type, it seems most people I know have solitaires, but it suits my finger and I like that it's sort of antique looking. It doesn't annoy me on my finger which is the main thing.

I never considered a colour as I've never been a fan of gemstones of any particular colour, I don't really wear jewellery at all bar one plain gold band on my other hand. I'll throw on costume jewellery if I'm dressing up an outfit but I wouldn't wear jewellery otherwise.

Wibbs

For me personally diamonds seem cold and obvious and impersonal and bloodless. They're also crazily common. De Beers alone mine enough diamonds on a yearly basis to fill a small tumbler for every man woman and child in the US of A. Yea, yearly. I prefer rubies or sapphires(my birth stone) or opals to Diamonds, as did the ancient world.

dearg lady

I'm a fan of cheap and cheerful jewellery, and I never wear rings, find them uncomfortable, so I wouldn't like an engagement ring at all. My boyfriend says he'd prefer if I wore a wedding ring if we got married, but I dunno!

daenerysstormborn3

One of my boyfriend's friends is a goldsmith and jewellery designer so if we ever decide to get engaged he will most definitely get her to make the ring. She makes very unusual designs which is much more my style. I would prefer something unusual rather than just one band and a stone(s).

I prefer yellow gold to white gold and I would like an emerald (as green is my favourite colour) and my boyfriend would like a diamond so as a compromise we will probably get her to design something with the emerald as the main stone and maybe some small diamonds.

We will get her to design the wedding bands as well and I would like my boyfriend to have a special wedding band, if I am going to be getting two rings, so his wedding band, or both wedding bands, will probably not just be a plain band.

Quorum

Wibbs wrote: »

I prefer rubies or sapphires(my birth stone) or opals to Diamonds, as did the ancient world.

I'm not a diamond fan myself, but why would you model what you like on what the ancient world liked? Just like something because you like it.

ash23

No preference tbh. I think I'd be open to diamonds but also open to other stones. I like antique rings but have big man hands so that won't be an option!

I'll just go with what I like, what I can afford and what suits me - if that is a diamond, so be it.

LittleBook

This article from The Atlantic is very long but the first page alone shows how the DeBeers cartel have been playing us all for suckers for over 100 years.

The financiers feared that when new mines were developed in South Africa, diamonds would become at best only semiprecious gems. [They] realized that they had no alternative but to merge their interests into a single entity that would be powerful enough to control production and perpetuate the illusion of scarcity of diamonds. The instrument they created, in 1888, was called De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd.

De Beers proved to be the most successful cartel arrangement in the annals of modern commerce. While other commodities, such as gold, silver, copper, rubber, and grains, fluctuated wildly in response to economic conditions, diamonds have continued, with few exceptions, to advance upward in price every year since the Depression. Indeed, the cartel seemed so superbly in control of prices -- and unassailable -- that, in the late 1970s, even speculators began buying diamonds as a guard against the vagaries of inflation and recession.

The diamond invention is far more than a monopoly for fixing diamond prices; it is a mechanism for converting tiny crystals of carbon into universally recognized tokens of wealth, power, and romance. To achieve this goal, De Beers had to control demand as well as supply. Both women and men had to be made to perceive diamonds not as marketable precious stones but as an inseparable part of courtship and married life. To stabilize the market, De Beers had to endow these stones with a sentiment that would inhibit the public from ever reselling them. The illusion had to be created that diamonds were forever -- "forever" in the sense that they should never be resold.

Bluewolf, is this the actual book? It's long enough!

Rosedust84

Myself and my partner got engaged last year, and while he got me a small diamond he spent just short of 300€ on it.. To be honest if he had spent into the thousands while it might have initally been exciting I dont think it would make a difference to me in the long run. The thougt was what counted, I love the ring he bought, and the fact that he ran around for days trying to find one he knew I would like is what mattered to me.. We are also currently moving into our own home and Id much rather invest the money in our new furniture!

Although I have friends that wouldnt accept anything less than the giant rock, and think Im crazy for being happy with my little ring :P

LittleBook

LittleBook wrote: »

Bluewolf, is this the actual book? It's long enough!

the very one! is it a book? i thought it was just a very long article

LenaClaire

I have a sapphire and white gold ring for my engagement ring and I adore it. It also was eminently affordable My grandmother had rubies in hers.

I think you should get want you want and tell everyone else to shove off and do their own thing.

smallerthanyou

I think I'd go for a dark green coloured emerald with little diamonds either side. I like green, but as someone said above it's not about the ring it's about what it represents so a claddagh would do the job if that's all ye/he can afford!

kylith

I'd prefer a nice silver or white gold band ring with no stone. My hands are always in and out of my pockets so I've found stones a hindrance.

Fiona

The one thing I miss about not being married is my engagement ring and wedding band. I am a fan of the sparkle

My ring was modest enough €2k I think and he got a good discount as he paid cash. I was offered a budget of €4k but I couldn't really justify spending that much.

I bought my own wedding band and that was the same price as there were diamonds in it two.

My motto was if I have to do the dishes or the laundry I want something nice to look at while I did it

You don't need to spend thousands to get a nice ring, you just need to get what suits you.

I have two other diamond rings that were bought for me as presents by my ex and I still wear them. So yes diamonds and me would be good friends

Ellsbells

I love diamonds. I think there is life in the stone which you don't find in other precious stones.

Jewellery is my thing and I could look at the lights/ reflections etc in a diamond for ages. I think they are fab. No offense to others but for me emeralds, rubies etc are just one dimensional and while you say diamonds are colourless, the cut and clarity generate the rainbow colours within the diamond so they are far from colourless.

I often find a bias in these threads from people who would not spend a lot of money on a ring. What's wrong with it, if you have it and want to? Having a €299 engagement ring does not make you more pure of heart or salt of the earth than spending €7999 does. Each to their own.

daenerysstormborn3

Ellsbells wrote: »

I love diamonds. I think there is life in the stone which you don't find in other precious stones.

Jewellery is my thing and I could look at the lights/ reflections etc in a diamond for ages. I think they are fab. No offense to others but for me emeralds, rubies etc are just one dimensional and while you say diamonds are colourless, the cut and clarity generate the rainbow colours within the diamond so they are far from colourless.

I often find a bias in these threads from people who would not spend a lot of money on a ring. What's wrong with it, if you have it and want to? Having a €299 engagement ring does not make you more pure of heart or salt of the earth than spending €7999 does. Each to their own.

I agree. I know a couple who had thousands to spend on a ring but the ring they chose didn't cost thousands so they used the extra money to go on a special holiday. I know another couple who had money left over from their ring budget so they bought themselves a big home entertainment system out of the leftover money. Sure why not?!

I know that my boyfriend and I won't be getting engaged until he has the money to buy me the ring that he wants his friend to make and that's his choice. He has said to me since the beginning of our relationship that if we were to ever get engaged that he'd get his friend to make the engagement ring and our wedding bands. That has always been his plan and it will probably mean spending quite a bit of money but he won't spend it unless he has it. It means a lot to him to ask this particular friend to make the engagement ring and wedding bands so that's part of it for him too.

LenaClaire

Ellsbells wrote: »

I often find a bias in these threads from people who would not spend a lot of money on a ring. What's wrong with it, if you have it and want to? Having a €299 engagement ring does not make you more pure of heart or salt of the earth than spending €7999 does. Each to their own.

I did not spend a lot on my ring but that is just because I found a cheaper ring that I love. Also, I have a lot of other expenses to worry about.

If you have the money to spend 8 grand on a ring more power to you, I would love to have that kind of money. I just don't want people to think that you HAVE to spend that much money on a ring.

You hear about people who think they have to get themselves in serious debt to buy a ring and that just makes me sad.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

cuilteanna

Ellsbells wrote: »

...I could look at the lights/ reflections etc in a diamond for ages.

Reading this made me laugh remembering the AGES that I spent looking at my engagement ring as I had to sit through mass every Sunday for what seemed like forever (dh and my mother were both set on a church wedding). Luckily the church lighting brought out the colours and sparkles really well and distracted me enough to sit quietly through it all.

I'm not too pushed about diamonds vs cubic zirconia, but I leave colour stones to match clothes and for everyday prefer the clear ones.

Peppery

I don't like diamonds and I wouldn't want a diamond engagement ring.

As someone above said, films like Blood Diamond draw attention to what goes into getting a diamond to someone's finger...I know you can get certificates to state that they have been ethically produced but I wouldn't trust the countries involved in issuing these certs, or the companies who make huge profits.

Even if the diamond was from somewhere where it could be confirmed that it was 100% ethical or, I think I read somewhere that you can get man made diamonds, I still wouldn't want one because of what they represent to me...

I hope if someone does ask me to marry them that they would know me well enough to choose something else!

Ellsbells

I can see your reservations peppery but where does one draw the line? Nike, addidas, coffey, bananas etc etc

Peppery

I know...most of what we buy clothes-wise could certainly be considered unethical. I have tried in the past to avoid shops and brands completely but I found that so many can be questioned that it is almost impossible - well if you don't want to knit your own clothes and grow your own food! I try to be somewhat ethical. I tend to buy only locally produced or fairtrade food, I don't buy produce from Israel etc
I certainly don't think I buy only ethical products though because I'm too much of a consumer. At the same time, when it comes to something like diamonds, for me they represent extreme injustice and exploitation. If I had one on my finger it would just make me think of the people who have suffered over the years so women could have something sparkly to look at, and that cost their husbands crazy amounts of money. I'm not judging people who want diamonds, more the system that has been in place to satisfy the want.

Cherry Blossoms

I want a diamond or diamond look alike engagement ring, I just think its such a pretty stone. It won't go out of fashion and will go with whatever I wear.

I wouldn't want my future fiance spending too much money on it, I'd be afraid I'd lose it. I'd be open to man made diamonds but seeing as my boyfriend has already told me he would want to pick my engagement ring if he were to propose, I won't get much say in it!

Umekichi

While Diamonds are nice and all, I'd love a nice classy ring maybe something vintage like from the 50's or older.

Strawberry Swan

It is marketing by the diamond companies to keep demand high and enforced as myth from films and songs. Why are diamonds a girls best friend? Why not ruby or sapphire or gold? It doesn't make sense to spend so much money just to signify the short time between proposal and marriage!

Ellsbells

Strawberry Swan wrote: »

It doesn't make sense to spend so much money just to signify the short time between proposal and marriage!

It does, to a lot of people, when worn for the next 50 years.

Novella

I don't actually like diamonds, or sparkly jewelery in general, so I can't see myself wearing a diamond ring ever. Myself and my friend were talking about it and she asked what would I like on a ring instead and I said pearls. She thought that was strange, but I just think pearls are really pretty.

Ilyana

Novella wrote: »

I don't actually like diamonds, or sparkly jewelery in general, so I can't see myself wearing a diamond ring ever. Myself and my friend were talking about it and she asked what would I like on a ring instead and I said pearls. She thought that was strange, but I just think pearls are really pretty.

A pearl ring could be lovely actually, a really unusual choice. While diamonds can be lovely too, I would be like you in that I'm not into 'bling' either.

My birthstone is opal, and I'd love a vintage opal ring, if such a thing could be found! It wouldn't clash with most outfits but it not your standard blingy solitaire either.

The Cool

I agree, pearls are gorgeous - something very classy about them I think. I'd be tempted by pearls, but then I wear pearls an awful lot anyway so I think I'd rather something different for my engagement ring, it'd just make it more special than the rest of my jewellery.

Not a massive fan of those solitaire diamond rings, and i hate those ones with diamonds just set in the band. I like rubies, emeralds and in particular, sapphires. Sapphires seem to be a popular favourite in this thread - maybe because of Diana's sapphire engagement ring that Kate Middleton wears? No wonder, it is a stunning ring -

Strawberry Swan

Ellsbells wrote: »

It does, to a lot of people, when worn for the next 50 years.

Of course a ring would mean a lot to people after 50 years. Any object has the potential to mean a lot when it symbolises a lifetime of happy memories. But what does it represent at the start? It represents a formal agreement to marry in the future. That is all and while worthy, does not have the same meaning as the promise to spend your whole life with someone. It doesn't make any sense that the promise to marry is more or as important as the marrying part itself! Sure why stop at an engagement ring? One could have a pre-engagment ring or a pre-pre-engagement ring.

Strawberry Swan

Strawberry Swan wrote: »

Sure why stop at an engagement ring? One could have a pre-engagment ring

I'm pretty sure they already do, don't they

The Big Red Button

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they already do, don't they

Yeah, I had friends who referred to themselves as being 'pre-engaged' for years. There was no ring or anything - they just announced it one day. We weren't really too sure what to make of it. Like, you're intending to marry ... or you're not ... I'm not sure how 'intending to intend to marry' fits into it!

They're now actually 'engaged', with a ring and all. Looks like that'll last for quite a few years too!

I've heard of 'promise rings' too, I guess that's something similar to a pre-engagement ring?

Ellsbells

I think the Diana/ Kate Middleton ring is garish to be honest. I also think its too old fashioned for a girl of kates age but each to their own.

Diamonds arent any more blingy than emeralds, rubies etc. Like everything else, its how they are worn.

SarahBeep!

Ellsbells wrote: »

I think the Diana/ Kate Middleton ring is garish to be honest. I also think its too old fashioned for a girl of kates age but each to their own.

Diamonds arent any more blingy than emeralds, rubies etc. Like everything else, its how they are worn.

Ive ALWAYS wanted a Princess Di (smaller sapphire) but now Im kind of sickened because so many people have them.
I wanted it because it was so different!

LenaClaire

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Ive ALWAYS wanted a Princess Di (smaller sapphire) but now Im kind of sickened because so many people have them.
I wanted it because it was so different!

I am actually kind of glad more people are wearing colored stones. When I got engaged 5 years ago I actually had older women tell me not to wear a ring on that finger because men would think I was taken (and I hate that term anyway, I belong to myself damnit).

When I told them it was an engagement ring they got all confused but now that more people are wearing rings other than diamonds I get left alone

Ilyana

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Ive ALWAYS wanted a Princess Di (smaller sapphire) but now Im kind of sickened because so many people have them.
I wanted it because it was so different!

My parents got engaged in the late 80s, and my mum's ring is a daintier version of Diana's ring. It's a small pale-ish Ceylon sapphire surrounded by diamonds on a gold band. It was certainly modelled on Diana's ring, but far better suited Mum's hand as she's very petite. The real thing is very big, and I don't think you could put a wedding band with it.

I prefer Mum's ring, although I'm not keen on the gold band on either or them. Mum got a lovely art deco diamond ring a couple of years ago as she'd always wanted 'a rock' and could finally afford one. There'll be a war between my sister and I when she draws up the will :pac:

SarahBeep!

Ilyana wrote: »

My parents got engaged in the late 80s, and my mum's ring is a daintier version of Diana's ring. It's a small pale-ish Ceylon sapphire surrounded by diamonds on a gold band. It was certainly modelled on Diana's ring, but far better suited Mum's hand as she's very petite. The real thing is very big, and I don't think you could put a wedding band with it.

I prefer Mum's ring, although I'm not keen on the gold band on either or them. Mum got a lovely art deco diamond ring a couple of years ago as she'd always wanted 'a rock' and could finally afford one. There'll be a war between my sister and I when she draws up the will :pac:

Moms is a small round cut diamond set in white gold with a plain yellow gold band, I love it. Last year for their 20th anniversary Dad said he was gonna get her a bigger engagement ring ans she was like 'Thanks but no thanks.' and Dad was pure put out over and until she explain it to him, that was her engagement ring and it was irreplaceable