Diamond engagement rings, are in fact, worthless

dellas1979

Hello there!

Just reading another thread there about someone saying they didnt have a lot of money to buy an engagement ring...

Are people out there aware that diamonds are in fact worthless (or worth a lot less than the 1000s spent on them?).

If love is true love, shouldnt it still be love without a ring you paid 1000s for? (As in most people are programmed to the "man with the knee on the ground and a diamond ring worth 1000s in his hand-its proves he loves you, right?).

This isnt a throw it in your face for people who do have rings and paid 1000s for them.

Its just to make people more aware (that is always was and still is a marketing gimmick)-its more about the true sentiment, isnt it?

Edit: This thread to make people aware. If you are aware and still agree/make that choice to be (successfully) part of a mass ad campaign, go for it. That is your choice!

ardinn

Since when are they worthless??

Timmyctc

Well yeah. Dont de Beers hold a monopoly on the supply and demand of diamonds and have no small supply of diamonds. Its a sentiment started by a marketing exec in the 1900s. Its the same with lots of things. Look at valentines day, in fact, look at any holiday. Everything is designed for people other than me to make money off people like me to give money to other people for nice things ill never afford. Screw diamonds man.

TheChizler

Try explaining your reasoning (which I'm all for!) to your fiancé...

The_Valeyard

dellas1979 wrote: »

Hello there!

Just reading another thread there about someone saying they didnt have a lot of money to buy an engagement ring...

Are people out there aware that diamonds are in fact worthless (or worth a lot less than the 1000s spent on them?).

If love is true love, shouldnt it still be love without a ring you paid 1000s for? (As in most people are programmed to the "man with the knee on the ground and a diamond ring worth 1000s in his hand-its proves he loves you, right?).

This isnt a throw it in your face for people who do have rings and paid 1000s for them.

Its just to make people more aware (its a marketing gimmick)-its more about the true sentiment, isnt it?

Is this your way of saving cash and cheaping out OP?

ardinn

ardinn wrote: »

Since when are they worthless??

Since de beers monopoly which also introduced the idea of a diamond engagement ring

I think it's good to keep in perspective - it doesn't mean you have to stop getting them, but don't wreck yourself or have any sleepless nights over them either

Synthetic ones are supposed to be less flawed as well and I think they are cheaper

Banjo String

I got turfed out of Fields Jewellers in Liffey Valley one afternoon for having my hand down the back of my jocks.

Tossers had a sign in the window saying "come in and pick your ring in comfort" too, but they wouldn't even hear me out. :mad:

dellas1979

TheChizler wrote: »

Try explaining your reasoning (which I'm all for!) to your fiancé...

Well, they should be aware! Best of luck

Its to enable people to make informed choices. Not what they've been lead to believe.

emo72

Interesting thread. Do debeers own all the diamonds still in the ground? Why doesn't another company mine them and sell them for less? I was aware that debeers controlled the supply of stones, and that laboratory produced stones are of equal quality. People still want to buy them though.

Question number one. Who made debeers the boss?

galljga1

Supply and demand. Gold is not worth 1200 dollars an ounce to me. It is effectively worthless to me but if i want it, that is what i will pay and a lot more in a jewellers.

dellas1979

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Is this your way of saving cash and cheaping out OP?

Lols!! No.

Its called being aware. And being manipulated by advertising.

Isnt it the sentiment thats more important than the 1000s spent on a ring? A ring which people have been lead to believe the diamond is worth 1000s.

Tearin It Up

A Garth Brooks concert ticket and I'm yours. No diamonds wanted here.

Edit: preferably not an old ticket. A ticket to an upcoming concert.

gavmcg92

galljga1 wrote: »

Supply and demand. Gold is not worth 1200 dollars an ounce to me. It is effectively worthless to me but if i want it, that is what i will pay and a lot more in a jewellers.

Most important point here. They may not be in such short supply as people are lead to believe, but they are worth what people are willing to pay for them.

They're not worthless when you have people all over the world looking to buy them.

dellas1979 wrote: »

Lols!! No.

Its called being aware. And being manipulated by advertising.

Isnt it the sentiment thats more important than the 1000s spent on a ring? A ring which people have been lead to believe the diamond is worth 1000s.

Can't that be said about most things? Banksy art pieces are made from stencils most of the time. To some they're worthless, to others they're masterpieces. There's a lot of work that goes into shaping diamonds and fitting them. They may not be worth what people pay for them, but at the end of the day it's the market that determines the price of something.

shruikan2553

Synthetic diamonds are just as good, even better for many industrial uses. They had to develop ways to tell the difference and market them as being "cheap" when even the guy in the jewelers would have to send it off to some lab or use expensive machines to tell the difference. .

RORY O CONNOR

At anyone time only 1% of gemstone quality stones are in circulation, the rest are in vaults. it is an artificial scarcity created by the diamond sellers to give the stones a false value. Many years ago the Russians were dumping gemstone quality stones on the market to get currency. They were largely bought up by the big suppliers and put in a vault to keep them scarce and the values high.

dellas1979

gavmcg92 wrote: »

Most important point here. They may not be in such short supply as people are lead to believe, but they are worth what people are willing to pay for them.

They're not worthless when you have people all over the world looking to buy them.

Exactly - if people stopped buying diamond rings in the morning, diamonds are in fact worthless.

The little rock itself isnt worth much at all.

People should maybe stop sweating over the prices of engagement rings (or what its supposed to represent or the more you spend, the more you love someone) and maybe think outside the box a little.

(PS: It could be applied to a lot of things in our lives/advertising that we are fed..."buy this for 1000s and you'll feel better (or make some believe you love them").

PARlance

dellas1979 wrote: »

Lols!! No.

Its called being aware. And being manipulated by advertising.

Isnt it the sentiment thats more important than the 1000s spent on a ring? A ring which people have been lead to believe the diamond is worth 1000s.

Fascinating.... I hope this adverstising thing doesn't catch on.

Sent from my iPhone (costs nothing to make retails at over €500) as I sip on my coffee (cost of sale approx 30cent, paid ten times that for it)

galljga1

PARlance wrote: »

Fascinating.... I hope this adverstising thing doesn't catch on.

Sent from my iPhone (costs nothing to make retails at over €500) as I sip on my coffee (cost of sale approx 30cent, paid ten times that for it)

Madness I say...madness...

dellas1979

PARlance wrote: »

Fascinating.... I hope this adverstising thing doesn't catch on.

Sent from my iPhone (costs nothing to make retails at over €500) as I sip on my coffee (cost of sale approx 30cent, paid ten times that for it)

Ah - maybe you are too smart PARlance

RORY O CONNOR

And if diamonds were worth as much as they are sold for as rings why is it that a secondhand ring is worth about 25% of its original cost.,

gavmcg92

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

And if diamonds were worth as much as they are sold for as rings why is it that a secondhand ring is worth about 25% of its original cost.,

Because cost price is multiplied by 2.25 in the retail sector to cover operating costs.

EDIT: Also depreciation.

Jawgap

A ring is more than stones and metal - a good ring also has a lot of craftsmanship 'built' into it.

The stones have to be cut and polished, and the metal has to be worked.

Even to the untrained eye a piece of crafted jewellery stands out from something mass or machine produced.

dellas1979

Jawgap wrote: »

A ring is more than stones and metal - a good ring also has a lot of craftsmanship 'built' into it.

The stones have to be cut and polished, and the metal has to be worked.

Even to the untrained eye a piece of crafted jewellery stands out from something mass or machine produced.

That is true-but Im not talking about craftmanship or anything (which obviously their expertise would add value to anything craft-wise), Im talking just about the actual stone itself.

PCX

dellas1979 wrote: »

Exactly - if people stopped buying diamond rings in the morning, diamonds are in fact worthless.

The little rock itself isnt worth much at all.

Isn't that exactly the same for any good?

Things like art, jewelry and clothes bought for fashion are not really necessary but the world is probably a better place if we can use those things to express ourselves rather than limiting ourselves to purely utilitarian items on principle.

Plus I don't buy into the economics of your argument. Company executives are too greedy to play the really long game with their assets. I think they would cash in rather than leave the spoils for the next generation of company men who come behind them.

Jawgap

dellas1979 wrote: »

That is true-but Im not talking about craftmanship or anything (which obviously their expertise would add value to anything craft-wise), Im talking just about the actual stone itself.

The point is a uncut diamond is pretty much worthless without the skilled cutters and polishers to turn them in something aesthetically pleasing.

DeBeers could further restrict the supply of raw stones and they wouldn't make a cent unless the stones had the potential to be 'beautiful' - it's the craftsmen (and women) who realise that potential.

strobe

dellas1979 wrote: »

Hello there!

Just reading another thread there about someone saying they didnt have a lot of money to buy an engagement ring...

Are people out there aware that diamonds are in fact worthless (or worth a lot less than the 1000s spent on them?).

If love is true love, shouldnt it still be love without a ring you paid 1000s for? (As in most people are programmed to the "man with the knee on the ground and a diamond ring worth 1000s in his hand-its proves he loves you, right?).

This isnt a throw it in your face for people who do have rings and paid 1000s for them.

Its just to make people more aware (that is always was and still is a marketing gimmick)-its more about the true sentiment, isnt it?

Whether it's a diamond ring, a bag of potatoes, or a gram of heroin, something is worth what people are willing to pay for it.

It ridiculous to say a diamond ring is worthless when you can sell it for thousands. It's worth thousands. As that is what it can be sold for.

There's no such thing as intrinsic value.

If I have a diamond ring, advertise it for sale for 50,000 euro, and have no problem selling it. Then it is worth 50,000 euro.

Eugene Norman

Most of the posts here are missing the point. Yes industrial diamonds are cheap and largely indistinguishable from the real thing. Yes there is a deliberate constraint on supply.

That's not why engagement rings are expensive. Engagement rings are expensive because people expect engagement rings to be expensive. Well I say people, I mean women. The fiancé.

If De Beers hadn't managed their slight of hand and diamonds were all cheap then the engagement ring would be made of platinum or something else which remained expensive.

As to why the modern "anti-patriarchal" world , a world where women work and don't need gifts proving their partners ability to keep a family, hasn't done away with this, or feminism hadn't made removing the tradition a war cry, your guess is as good as mine.

It's certainly a feminism I could support.

Eugene Norman

strobe wrote: »

Whether it's a diamond ring, a bag of potatoes, or a gram of heroin, something is worth what people are willing to pay for it.

It ridiculous to say a diamond ring is worthless when you can sell it for thousands. It's worth thousands. As that is what it can be sold for.

There's no such thing as intrinsic value.

If I have a diamond ring, advertise it for sale for 50,000 euro, and have no problem selling it. Then it is worth 50,000 euro.

With those kind of luxury goods you are correct. You can impute values from other income producing goods however and talk about over and under pricing.

One eyed Jack

strobe wrote: »

Whether it's a diamond ring, a bag of potatoes, or a gram of heroin, something is worth what people are willing to pay for it.

It ridiculous to say a diamond ring is worthless when you can sell it for thousands. It's worth thousands. As that is what it can be sold for.

There's no such thing as intrinsic value.

If I have a diamond ring, advertise it for sale for 50,000 euro, and have no problem selling it. Then it is worth 50,000 euro.

I tried tellin' 'em that in the Cash4Gold place. They told me GTFO


Ah no, seriously OP, I like your thinking, but I'm not sure my wife would be so pragmatic if given the choice between a new diamond ring, and a new ironing board / toaster / microwave, etc :pac:

Spanish Eyes

Anybody been to Antwerp for Diamonds!

dellas1979

strobe wrote: »

It ridiculous to say a diamond ring is worthless when you can sell it for thousands. It's worth thousands. As that is what it can be sold for.

Lookit, you can argue until the cows come home - but the rock itself is worthless (at least not 1000s spent on it). If you have bought (or know someone whos bought) a diamond ring, they bought into a mass ad campaign started in the 40s.

People believe that a diamond is "precious" (when in facts there are billions of 'em) and that they are worth something (a construct humans created, yes like a lot of other things - hello? Housing bubble?).


I accept I'll get shot down for telling the truth - that is fine. But, it might educate or save someone somewhere from spending 1000s on something worthless to "prove" their love for one another.

Zambia

Noboby is forced to buy a ring.

Eugene Norman

dellas1979 wrote: »

Lookit, you can argue until the cows come home - but the rock itself is worthless (at least not 1000s spent on it). If you have bought (or know someone whos bought) a diamond ring, they bought into a mass ad campaign started in the 40s.

People believe that a diamond is "precious" (when in facts there are billions of 'em) and that they are worth something (a construct humans created, yes like a lot of other things - hello? Housing bubble?).


I accept I'll get shot down for telling the truth - that is fine. But, it might educate or save someone somewhere from spending 1000s on something worthless to "prove" their love for one another.

You really don't understand the psychology of engagement rings. Not about the diamond. It's about the expense.

Jawgap

It's simply worth what the market will pay for it.

Paintings, first edition comics etc are coloured ink or pain on canvass or paper but are worth a fortune.

Likewise classic cars.

Desire, not need drives prices for diamonds and other similar objects.

Maximus Alexander

strobe wrote: »

Whether it's a diamond ring, a bag of potatoes, or a gram of heroin, something is worth what people are willing to pay for it.

It ridiculous to say a diamond ring is worthless when you can sell it for thousands. It's worth thousands. As that is what it can be sold for.

There's no such thing as intrinsic value.

If I have a diamond ring, advertise it for sale for 50,000 euro, and have no problem selling it. Then it is worth 50,000 euro.

I think the point he's trying to make is that this will never happen. If you go out and buy an engagement ring for 5000 euro and try to sell it the next day, you'll get a tiny fraction of that back. The gold in the ring is likely worth a couple of hundred and the diamond is worth next to nothing.

The thing is, people have an idea in their head that diamond and gold jewellery is valuable, but it's actually only valuable at the point of sale, if you try to sell it on it's practically worthless.

One eyed Jack

dellas1979 wrote: »

Lookit, you can argue until the cows come home - but the rock itself is worthless (at least not 1000s spent on it). If you have bought (or know someone whos bought) a diamond ring, they bought into a mass ad campaign started in the 40s.

People believe that a diamond is "precious" (when in facts there are billions of 'em) and that they are worth something (a construct humans created, yes like a lot of other things - hello? Housing bubble?).


I accept I'll get shot down for telling the truth - that is fine. But, it might educate or save someone somewhere from spending 1000s on something worthless to "prove" their love for one another.

I won't shoot you down OP, of course you're telling the truth, but you're missing the whole point of why people spend a small fortune on the engagement ring - tradition, showing off, indeed as a display of their commitment to each other - the bigger apparently... (never mind about the quality or the cut) did you see the size of the white snot hanging off Kim Kardashian's finger, or Beyoncé?


All about the bling, etc. Of course they're worthless now to most people, because they're tacky, but for some they are still a symbol of status and ehhh, wealth.

strobe

dellas1979 wrote: »

Lookit, you can argue until the cows come home - but the rock itself is worthless (at least not 1000s spent on it). If you have bought (or know someone whos bought) a diamond ring, they bought into a mass ad campaign started in the 40s.

People believe that a diamond is "precious" (when in facts there are billions of 'em) and that they are worth something (a construct humans created, yes like a lot of other things - hello? Housing bubble?).


I accept I'll get shot down for telling the truth - that is fine. But, it might educate or save someone somewhere from spending 1000s on something worthless to "prove" their love for one another.

But you're not telling the truth, you're misunderstanding what worth and value mean.
There's no such thing as intrinsic value. If a fistful of dog hair can be sold, and resold, for €10,000 euro. Then it is certainly not worthless, it's worth €10,000. Value is ultimately created by the purchaser being willing to purchase.

dellas1979

Zambia wrote: »

Noboby is forced to buy a ring.

No but they should be aware of the circumstances of paying 1000s. And then make the choice/decision.

I think the point is being missed - lets talk potatoes.

If potatoes were constricted in the market (by a very clever company), and people were lead to believe they were valuable "precious", and people bought into that (a good ad campaign), 1 potato would now be worth as much as a diamond engagement ring.

PARlance

Glad to see the rocks of sense have weighed in with some gems of information. Just trying to cut through some of the inevitable puns, this could be more polished but I haven't got forever.

Jawgap

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I think the point he's trying to make is that this will never happen. If you go out and buy an engagement ring for 5000 euro and try to sell it the next day, you'll get a tiny fraction of that back. The gold in the ring is likely worth a couple of hundred and the diamond is worth next to nothing.

The thing is, people have an idea in their head that diamond and gold jewellery is valuable, but it's actually only valuable at the point of sale, if you try to sell it on it's practically worthless.

Again it depends.

You or I buy a ring give it to our fiancé and then they of to sell it, it's going to depreciate rapidly.

If there's a 'story' to it's ownership it will increase - that's why you can buy some jewellery at cheap prices, but try buying a comparable piece that was owned say by Princess Grace, Liz Taylor etc and the prices rise exponentially, even for the merest of trinkets that passed briefly through their ownership.

strobe

dellas1979 wrote: »

1 potato would now be worth as much as a diamond engagement ring.

And therefore could certainly not be described as worthless.

Jawgap

PARlance wrote: »

Glad to see the rocks of sense have weighed in with some gems of information. Just trying to cut through some of the inevitable puns, this could be more polished but I haven't got forever.

Sounds like you've found a good thread to mine.......

dellas1979

strobe wrote: »

But you're not telling the truth, you're misunderstanding what value means.

I like the way you write - push it back onto me, like I am lying (for telling the truth).

I do understand value, after all, I live in the same world as you. Just not on the same notions. I am saying how a diamond is valued is wrong. WE as humans created this.

dellas1979

strobe wrote: »

And therefore could certainly not be described as worthless.

Strobe.
The potato itself is worthless.
The human demands on the potato made it expensive.

Maximus Alexander

Jawgap wrote: »

Again it depends.

You or I buy a ring give it to our fiancé and then they of to sell it, it's going to depreciate rapidly.

If there's a 'story' to it's ownership it will increase - that's why you can buy some jewellery at cheap prices, but try buying a comparable piece that was owned say by Princess Grace, Liz Taylor etc and the prices rise exponentially, even for the merest of trinkets that passed briefly through their ownership.

In fairness he was talking about buying engagement rings, not trading Faberge eggs.

strobe

dellas1979 wrote: »

I like the way you write - push it back onto me, like I am lying (for telling the truth).

I do understand value, after all, I live in the same world as you. Just not on the same notions. I am saying how a diamond is valued is wrong. WE as humans created this.

Apparently not. WE as humans create ALL valuations. Whether that's in diamond rings, sports cars, carrots, or clothes. The value is created by us as humans being willing to pay.

PARlance

dellas1979 wrote: »

No but they should be aware of the circumstances of paying 1000s. And then make the choice/decision.

I think the point is being missed - lets talk potatoes.

If potatoes were constricted in the market (by a very clever company), and people were lead to believe they were valuable "precious", and people bought into that (a good ad campaign), 1 potato would now be worth as much as a diamond engagement ring.

It would probably be worth more because the last time I checked you can't throw a diamond in the ground, cover it in horse sh*te and come back to find 20 diamonds a few months later.

Most of us get the fairly basic premise that diamonds are expensive due to demand created by the decades of marketing and societal pressure. We get it. We still buy them. Because if it wasn't diamonds, it'd be something else....
What carrott does that spud come in???

PARlance

Jawgap wrote: »

Sounds like you've found a good thread to mine.......

Took a while to sieve through them

strobe

dellas1979 wrote: »

Strobe.
The potato itself is worthless.
The human demands on the potato made it expensive.

The potato is in itself worthless, the diamond is in itself worthless, a house is in itself worthless. There no such thing as intrinsic value. Someone willing to pay x for y, is the only thing that values x at y, it's no more or less through for Diamond engagement rings as it is for anything else that a value can be placed on.

dellas1979

strobe wrote: »

Apparently not. WE as humans create ALL valuations. Whether that's in diamond rings, sports cars, carrots, or clothes. The value is created by us as humans being willing to pay.

Strobeeeee

Thats what am saying (I dont understand why you've gone all attack-y. You should ask yourself why).

I've said the above at least 3 times now.

wendell borton

The best use for diamonds is cutting concrete.