Diamond engagement rings, are in fact, worthless

Knasher · 29-03-2015 03:03PM

emo72 wrote: »

Why doesn't another company mine them and sell them for less?

As I understand it, if another company starts mining diamonds, they have the option of selling them to DeBeers and the jewellers that subscribe to them. If they decide against it, then DeBeers, who have a massive stockpile of diamonds, will flood the market for that particular type of stone.

That subscriber part is also one of the reasons why there is such a poor market for diamonds. A jewellers has to subscribe exclusively to DeBeers for their diamonds. If they buy outside it, including second hand, then DeBeers won't do business with them.

Wibbs · 29-03-2015 03:03PM

strobe wrote: »

they are worth thousands. They have value. The value is what they can be sold for. Like everything.

Indeed, their worth as new is high, over inflated, but secondhand their value plummets. As does the value of many things, however the gold in the same ring will have far more intrinsic value than the stones(unless said stones are huge, or of a rare colour).

DeBeers know this hence their "diamonds are forever" spiel. They wanted to convince people to hang onto them and defo didn't and don't want them flooding the secondhand market where it would quickly become apparent how not so rare* and nor so intrinsically valuable they are. Gold and platinum need no such industry protections. Even other gemstones have less of that going in. EG carat for carat rubies are more expensive than diamonds and have a much stronger resale value.

They also pushed the diamonds are a girls best friend angle and the guff about x number of months wages for a man as a price point. Apparently it's up to six months these days, which is beyond ridic. That's nigh on a couple of years mortgage repayments and for what? Try selling it a year later and you'd be lucky to get one months wages for it.

All luxury items have a bullshít gap. That gap between reality and BS. Diamonds have about the highest.

*debeers mines enough diamonds to fill a teacup with them for every man woman and child in the US. They're most certainly not rare.

Eugene Norman · 29-03-2015 03:04PM

dellas1979 wrote: »

I am a person who does not place my value, my love, my hopes, or my affection in "things", or the need to parade the "thing" around. Or get into huge debt for a "thing". A "thing" that we humans pump up the price on (for the most part by not understanding what is really going on). So, I feel this conversation will go around in circles.

most men would agree do don't feel so special. Most women disagree so start saving.

Steppenwolfe · 29-03-2015 03:05PM

That's very sensible and logical OP. Unfortunately those two words are meaningless when it comes to engagements/weddings. Don't ever express any similar sentiments to a future fiance. At best you're likely to be percieved as mean, at worst an insensitive brute. Unless you find a very special woman that's how it works. Good luck with that.

bilbot79 · 29-03-2015 03:06PM

It's like a dowry

Jawgap · 29-03-2015 03:07PM

bilbot79 wrote: »

It's like a dowry

Actually, I think with a dowry the bloke is supposed to get the treasure, not to have to fork out for it

mikemac1 · 29-03-2015 03:10PM

De Beers have a factory in Shannon afaik

Support Irish jobs OP

Eugene Norman · 29-03-2015 03:10PM

Anyway on value. There are two types. The market place (exchange value) and the use value (what you earn or gain from it).

Here is what Adam Smith had to say.

[13] The word value, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called "value in use"; the other, "value in exchange." The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and, on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water: but it will purchase scarce anything; scarce anything can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it.

He even mentions diamonds. In terms of use value you can estimate the return on some items like stocks, bonds and housing - anything that generates income and you can say something about value vs price. You can say housing is overpriced. Or stocks.

When it comes to items, like diamonds, with no intrinsic use value ( outside of industrial uses) you can't. All they have is exchange value.

Knasher · 29-03-2015 03:12PM

On the brighter side of things, imagine the muggings if people were walking around wearing stuff actually worth that type of money.

mikemac1 · 29-03-2015 03:13PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually, I think with a dowry the bloke is supposed to get the treasure, not to have to fork out for it

If she has no brothers and the family have land with road frontage then she is worth a good engagement ring

super_furry · 29-03-2015 03:14PM

What I did find interesting when shopping around for my fiancee's engagement ring is that in Dublin, and I assume elsewhere, it's actually much cheaper to have one made bespoke than to go to a jewellers and buy one off the shelf.

Geniass · 29-03-2015 03:22PM

Why pick on Diamonds, OP? Or are you against all material things? If not what material things do you value?

And can you put a price on happiness? *

*Happiness being not having to suffer the evils when her sister saunters around with a far finer ring

Discodog · 29-03-2015 03:23PM

A friend used to have a cash for gold shop. He dreaded girls coming in to sell the engagement ring. "I am pleased to say that I can give you £20 for it"

The best way to buy a diamond ring is to go to Hatton Garden & buy a quality stone. Then get the ring made.

Geniass · 29-03-2015 03:28PM

Discodog wrote: »

A friend used to have a cash for gold shop. He dreaded girls coming in to sell the engagement ring. "I am pleased to say that I can give you £20 for it"

Why did he dread screwing over girls selling engagement rings more than anyone else?

29-03-2015 03:40PM

I don't understand why the 'real thing' is so important to people, when when without a trained eye and a loupe, cubic zirconia is almost indistinguishable by most people.

A nice ring is one thing, insisting it has to be a real diamond is fine if you have the spare cash in the same way a Rolex might be nicer to own than a Timex, but there are better things to spend the cash on if money is tight.

Wibbs wrote: »

They also pushed the diamonds are a girls best friend angle and the guff about x number of months wages for a man as a price point.

Diamonds may be a girls best friend, but at the very least, cubic zirconia is damn good company.

Jawgap · 29-03-2015 04:05PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

If she has no brothers and the family have land with road frontage then she is worth a good engagement ring

.....especially now the milk quotas have gone:D

Wibbs · 29-03-2015 04:16PM

Candie wrote: »

A nice ring is one thing, insisting it has to be a real diamond is fine if you have the spare cash in the same way a Rolex might be nicer to own than a Timex, but there are better things to spend the cash on if money is tight.

+1 Joke is even though they're massively overpriced the Rolex is a "nicer" watch than the Timex, even to casual observers and you'd not need a loupe to see it. Though is it 1000 times the intrinsic value of a 100 quid Timex? Is it feck. Actually luxury watch prices are more than a bit of a "scam". Artificially inflated isn't in it.

Though Rolex are a bit of an odd one out in the luxury market. They're pretty much the same price new worldwide, if you buy a new one and sell it a year later anywhere in the world with indoor plumbing chances are very good you'll get the majority of the price back, if you have it for 20 years you almost certainly will. There is a cultural and financial acceptance that the brand holds a value and keeps or gains said value, far outside of its intrinsic worth. Which is why though there are nicer/better/cooler watches at their price point, if a non watch person asked my advice on which one off lifetime purchase luxury watch to buy it would almost certainly be a Rolex(secondhand).

29-03-2015 04:25PM

I don't actually really go for Rolex, they have a bit of a footballers wife vibe off them now. In the same way, I'd probably like the Burberry check if it wasn't now instantly recognised as chavalicious. Burberry is a good example of how a heritage brand can be devalued by the 'wrong' kind of consumer, and I think the Rolex brand is suffering some of the early symptoms. Omega is where it's at for me.

I don't like rings at all, they look like they get in the way and you have to be mindful of them, like long manicured nails, I imagine the wearers of many ostentatious rings to be not the kind of people who like to do spontaneous things that might dishevel them.

Zaph · 29-03-2015 04:28PM

Tearin It Up wrote: »

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.

Are you trying to set a record for mentioning Garth Brooks on every thread on Boards?

HugsiePie · 29-03-2015 04:54PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU

UCDVet · 29-03-2015 05:47PM

Everything is worth what people are willing to pay. Economics 101.

The cost of producing an item does not determine it's worth. It doesn't matter if there are warehouses full of iPhones, so many that everyone in the world could have 10. As long as whoever owns them all, is selling them for 400 euro and people want them, then they are worth 400 euro.

eviltwin · 29-03-2015 05:52PM

Whatever floats your boat. If you think an expensive ring is crucial to the whole process and you have the means to buy one go for it. It means a lot to some people the way designer clothes or high end cars mean a lot to others. And I say that as a married woman without either an engagement or wedding ring.

awec · 29-03-2015 05:59PM

You don't buy an expensive engagement ring as an investment so ultimately the future resale value is completely irrelevant.

Desolation Of Smug · 29-03-2015 06:02PM

If ye think Diamonds are over-valued, have a look at high-end handbags...

29-03-2015 06:08PM

Desolation Of Smug wrote: »

If ye think Diamonds are over-valued, have a look at high-end handbags...

I like a nice bag, and will pay for nice leather, style, and detail in the same way that man might like to kit out his car above what is necessary.

I couldn't in all conscience pay out large sums for a bag because of a logo or perceived brand cachet. So bags are something I will pay for, within sensible limits. They're also much more useful than rings.

I think there's sometimes a culture of embarrassing people who pay out for things they enjoy, but there's nothing wrong with liking nice things. People will pay for prestige cars when a Skoda will do, or for a particular brand of laptop or even cologne. All of it creates employment and gives the owners pleasure, who while I'd be all for good sense when it comes to the likes of diamonds, people are also entitled to spend the money they make on whatever makes them happy.

Deranged96 · 29-03-2015 06:13PM

But... if you pay €1000s, if everyone pays €1000s, because one company has a monopoly. doesn't that make the ring worth €1000s??

No point sayings its worth less if you can't get it for less.

Also how does one company get a monopoly on a natural resource?

SMJSF · 29-03-2015 06:15PM

If I ever find Mr right, I wouldn't want diamonds (I must be the first woman who has ever said that!!)... I personally don't like the idea of spends thousands.... I'm not Impressed by money.
Now, I'm not a expert on "gems" or anything, but just something that shows a lot of colour in the cut, for less than 300e, but it has to be a clear gem. I'm not a ruby or any coloured jewellery person, that's just my preference.

darkpagandeath · 29-03-2015 06:20PM

Deranged96 wrote: »

But... if you pay €1000s, if everyone pays €1000s, because one company has a monopoly. doesn't that make the ring worth €1000s??

No point sayings its worth less if you can't get it for less.

Also how does one company get a monopoly on a natural resource?

They don't they control the south African mines, Brazil and India still have diamonds.

29-03-2015 06:21PM

SMJSF wrote: »

If I ever find Mr right, I wouldn't want diamonds (I must be the first woman who has ever said that!!)... I personally don't like the idea of spends thousands.... I'm not Impressed by money.
Now, I'm not a expert on "gems" or anything, but just something that shows a lot of colour in the cut, for less than 300e, but it has to be a clear gem. I'm not a ruby or any coloured jewellery person, that's just my preference.

You're not.

Personally, even the so called ethical diamonds are often of questionable origin, and it's not a risk I would take. I don't want to wear anything if someone else was exploited in it's production, if I can help it.

I'm not interested in jewelry generally, and especially not in rings. I'm not the only one in my circle either, so the assumption that ALL women want a 'sparkler' worth x number of months salary is erroneous.

Geniass · 29-03-2015 06:24PM

awec wrote: »

You don't buy an expensive engagement ring as an investment so ultimately the future resale value is completely irrelevant.

DeBeers certainly want you to think that. What's the divorce rate right now?

Diamond engagement rings, are in fact, worthless

Comments