Forums | MacLife

Pithecanthropus wrote:

resedit wrote:

Pithecanthropus wrote:

If you've ever looked into the history behind the diamond engagement ring, you'd never buy one.  DeBeers invented that whole idea and as a result changed an entire culture.  In the past a simple, silver band was given upon engagement and traded for a gold band upon marriage.  DeBeers came along and changed all that.  It is, IMHO, the single most successful marketing campaign in the history of the world.

Santa Claus ...

But Santa Claus was a religious figure (St. Nick) who was turned into a commercial icon.  Diamonds have no such Biblical/religious origins.

I thought Santa Claus was invented by Macy's.
At least the big jolly fat red version was.

Res, have you ever even heard of Google?

.tsooJ

To go back to the topic:

While I would never condone the purchase of a blood diamond, especially when there are non-conflict diamonds out there, it is something that has to live on her hand for the rest of her life....or until you get divorced.  Which, in this day and age, should happen before you actually get married.  So, I'd say in general, be sure it's something she actually wants.

Last edited by CrashingtehWarehouse (2008-09-30 4:29 pm)

Yeah, otherwise she'll think you're a cheap bastard.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

CrashingtehWarehouse wrote:

Yeah, otherwise she'll think you're a cheap bastard.

Of course http://homepage.mac.com/oatmeal/MAF/maxes/slapmax.gif

Rather than putting my money into a diamond ring (that immediate devalues to less than 5% of its retail value unless I can find some other sucker to pay retail), I'll just waste my money on impratical things like a down payment on a house or a car or such.

That's the kind of thinking that could possibly be the topic of fights in 10 years.  No woman wants to hear that you'd rather be practical than buy her a ring, unless you've both decided to do that together, and if you plan on staying married forever, whether the ring devalues or not and finding another sucker to buy it isn't an issue. Even if you don't stay together, it won't be an issue because she's going to keep the ring. You will never get it back once you give it to her, unless she calls off the engagement.

And you can always use the ring to cut glass.

just stop being a cheap bastard

mrreet2001 wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

I wouldn't recommend it.

When the "bad guys" are coming and you have 45 seconds before the bomb goes off in the lobby and you have to  get out before the snakes get you ... you might rethink that. ...

didn't that all happen already on a plane?

If I were to get engaged, the ring I'd want to present would be designed, cast, and made from gold I panned and sluiced myself.
That would be shear awesome.

justine wrote:

MacMonkey wrote:

If I were to get engaged, the ring I'd want to present would be designed, cast, and made from gold I panned and sluiced myself.
That would be shear awesome.

Better make sure the person you propose to likes to wear gold jewelry.

It could also be mixed with platinum to make white gold. I've also found bits of silver in my panning.

...And into it I would pour my cruelty, malice, and will to dominate all life...
*cough* cough*

...I mean love... and umm stuff

Last edited by MacMonkey (2008-10-02 5:46 pm)

justine wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

CrashingtehWarehouse wrote:

Yeah, otherwise she'll think you're a cheap bastard.

Of course http://homepage.mac.com/oatmeal/MAF/maxes/slapmax.gif

Rather than putting my money into a diamond ring (that immediate devalues to less than 5% of its retail value unless I can find some other sucker to pay retail), I'll just waste my money on impratical things like a down payment on a house or a car or such.

That's the kind of thinking that could possibly be the topic of fights in 10 years.  No woman wants to hear that you'd rather be practical than buy her a ring, unless you've both decided to do that together, and if you plan on staying married forever, whether the ring devalues or not and finding another sucker to buy it isn't an issue. Even if you don't stay together, it won't be an issue because she's going to keep the ring. You will never get it back once you give it to her, unless she calls off the engagement.

I guess that somehow my opinion doesn't matter?

It's simple. If she insists on diamonds despite my showing her what a sucker deal they are, then marriage certainly is never going to be a problem: she will never hear a proposal from me.

justine wrote:

[snip]
You guys need to realize that for a lot of women, the engagement ring means a whole lot more to them than it does to you. It represents how you feel about her, and if you aren't willing to put some serious thought and money into it, it could lead to problems down the road.

Um, who said anything about not buying a ring? I have been talking about diamonds.

[snip]
Using the blood diamond excuse not to spend money on a diamond is a bunch of crap IMO.

Really?
::  lowers personal opinion of justine by several notches ::
Part of the reason why diamonds are used to help finance wars is that their value is kept artificially high by the deBeers cartel and its agreements with most mines around the world not under the cartel's control to limit the market. A free flow of diamonds would result in an immediate drop in the prices of average jewelry diamonds to perhaps a tenth of their current value (if not much more). Unless and until viable artificial diamond manufacturing processes become available, my choices are to deal with a cartel or to go (relatively) cheap by getting a diamond of questionable origins.

So is using the excuse that DeBeers created the diamond market. It doesn't matter when this tradition started. it's here now. So, if you aren't sure what she's going to want, get a diamond. It's tradition.

A fake tradition created whole cloth by deBeers 80 years ago, and one which I refuse to follow.

And quit patronizing me by telling me that I should put "some serious thought" into this. I have, and the decision I have made is that buying most* diamonds is a sucker's deal for most* consumers.

* "most" because there are large stones which have rarity value beyond the basic carat evaluation (the value of the Hope Diamond isn't going to change if cheap artificial diamonds become readily available), and a few people can get diamonds wholesale. The latter does bring up the question: do I love you more if I spent $9000 for a diamond or if I got the same stone for, say $1500 wholesale?

D'Eyncourt wrote:

justine wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Of course http://homepage.mac.com/oatmeal/MAF/maxes/slapmax.gif

Rather than putting my money into a diamond ring (that immediate devalues to less than 5% of its retail value unless I can find some other sucker to pay retail), I'll just waste my money on impratical things like a down payment on a house or a car or such.

That's the kind of thinking that could possibly be the topic of fights in 10 years.  No woman wants to hear that you'd rather be practical than buy her a ring, unless you've both decided to do that together, and if you plan on staying married forever, whether the ring devalues or not and finding another sucker to buy it isn't an issue. Even if you don't stay together, it won't be an issue because she's going to keep the ring. You will never get it back once you give it to her, unless she calls off the engagement.

I guess that somehow my opinion doesn't matter?

It's simple. If she insists on diamonds despite my showing her what a sucker deal they are, then marriage certainly is never going to be a problem: she will never hear a proposal from me.

So, wait, just because she doesn't share your opinion on how something she's going to potentially wear forever devalues, you'd cancel the proposal?
With that logic why don't you just slap the ho and tell her to make you a smurfing sandwich!