[KingOfJericho]

Well, DeBeers DID have control over most of the supply for a long time so they could definitely manipulate the price of diamonds, however that has diminished over the last 25 years.

[carve]

DeBeers has a near monopoly on the diamond supply and artificially limits the supply (although this is slightly improving with more Canadian and Russian diamonds). It is their marketing that convinced every bride she needs a diamond in her engagement ring instead of any other sparkly stone. This is only the last 70-100 year or so.

Despite that high-profile ring, things stayed pretty quiet on the diamond front through the late 19th century.

In the 1870s, though, miners began discovering huge veins of diamonds in South Africa, and ice started flooding onto world markets. Diamonds had quickly gone from being a scarce gem to a pretty common commodity, which was bad news for everyone in the diamond business who wanted to fetch high prices for their wares. These mine owners realized they would have to be clever if they wanted to keep getting top dollar for an increasingly common gem.

It didn’t take long for the producers to hit on a plan. In 1888 several major South African mines merged together to form De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. The merger created a cartel that could effectively control the flow of diamonds from South Africa onto world markets. As diamonds became scarcer and more valuable, their popularity as the gem on engagement rings began to rise, too.
A Diamond Is Forever. Since When?

That explains how De Beers helped prop up the price of diamonds and create an illusion of scarcity, but how did diamonds become such an integral part of the marriage process? Depending on your point of view, you can thank or blame De Beers for that one, too. While we may think of the diamond engagement ring as a time-honored tradition, it’s really just the end result of a brilliant marketing plan De Beers rolled out in the late 1930s.

In 1938, De Beers’ execs were in a bit of a tight spot. Diamond demand and prices had been on a slow decline since 1919, and the tanking economy had led consumers to favor more modest rings that included intricate metalwork rather than gems. The cartel needed to tap into a new market to jumpstart its revenues. De Beers approached New York ad agency N.W. Ayer for help convincing Americans that they desperately needed diamonds.

The agency’s campaign was undoubtedly one of the most effective of all time. N.W. Ayer embarked on a multi-pronged attack that completely overhauled Americans’ view of diamonds. The agency got Hollywood’s biggest stars to wear diamonds and encouraged leading fashion designers to talk up diamond rings as an emerging trend. The plan worked beautifully; in the first three years of the campaign American diamond sales shot up by over 50 percent.

Those results were certainly encouraging for the diamond industry, but the De Beers-N.W. Ayer partnership hadn’t even played its masterstroke yet. In 1947, Ayer copywriter Frances Gerety penned the slogan “A Diamond is Forever,” a line so elegant and effective De Beers is still using it over six decades later. The slogan helped underscore the diamond’s significance as an enduring, unbreakable symbol of love, and the sales of diamond engagement rings shot through the roof. Within 20 years, 80 percent of American brides were sporting rocks.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/26619...#ixzz2hoQ5vhv6

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by carve

Didn't think so :P

My point is that it's tradition more than marketing that dictates these types of things. I haven't seen a DeBeers commercial for over a decade and I don't see any marketing related to diamonds or engagement rings in my everyday life. Engagement rings are diamond rings. If your chick doesn't want one, that's one thing, but if you're pushing some college-kid agenda about conflict stones and market manipulation maaaaaaaan then I think you're in for a rude awakening.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by carve

DeBeers has a near monopoly on the diamond supply and artificially limits the supply (although this is slightly improving with more Canadian and Russian diamonds). It is their marketing that convinced every bride she needs a diamond in her engagement ring instead of any other sparkly stone. This is only the last 70-100 year or so.

You're about 25 year out of date with that data.

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Zimnisky/20...-De-Beers.html

[Templar]

OK, I'll bite on the troll food...

Originally Posted by carve

If your girl is pushing for a big diamond, watch "Blood Diamond" first. Retailers will say they don't sell conflict diamonds, but the whole reason they're popular is they're untraceable.

You not buying a diamond isn't going to change any of this. Please don't come here with the good ol' boy routine...

Originally Posted by carve

It's ultimately there to look pretty, and money spent on a rock is money unavailable to invest and retire early, go on a better vacation, money towards a house or car, etc.

Of course it's there to be pretty. Any stone, even a CZ, only really serves one purpose on a person's finger, to look good.

All of your other comments are pure speculation and personal opinion. You can't assume to know everyone's financial situation. Perhaps they are better off than you are.

Originally Posted by carve

Moissanite is arguably more beautiful than diamond. Looks similar at a glance, but refracts the light into more colors..more "fire". It's basically silicon carbide- 9.25 on the hardness scale (diamond is 10), so it should be very durable, too. For whatever you want to spend, you'll get a lot more sparkle and clarity. If she's open minded that could be a great option that'll be. Gem quality man-made diamonds are also on the horizon and will make diamonds cheaper one day

Again, personal opinion really...

You could essentially apply this argument to every single purchase a person makes in their life. Smaller house, cheaper car, whatever... Maybe you should have gone for something less than a 335i so you could have saved more for retirement...

[Foxrus14]

Originally Posted by carve

LOL- I have plenty of cash and I'm not getting married anytime soon. But, why would that be a good call, exactly? What's the advantage, besides being way overpriced for what you get? Why didn't you sell another car so you could throw an additional $30k into a little rock? Even if I decide to spend a given amount on HER, why just get her a sparkly ring when I could get a ring that sparkles even better plus get her something else really cool?

Over priced? you mean like all of our BMW's... you bought the BMW cause of Marketing as well.

[carve]

Everyone not buying diamonds WOULD change it.

So...why do engagement rings require a diamond vs. something else?

[carve]

Originally Posted by Foxrus14

Over priced? you mean like all of our BMW's... you bought the BMW cause of Marketing as well.

Nope- never intended to get one until I drove my neighbors. Bought it for the way it drove. Mine was 14 months old and I paid $28k CPO. MSRP new was $48k. $1400/mo depreciation in my favor. Not overpriced- Subaru money.

[Foxrus14]

Originally Posted by carve

Nope- never intended to get one until I drove my neighbors. Bought it for the way it drove. Mine was 14 months old and I paid $28k CPO. MSRP new was $48k. $1400/mo depreciation in my favor. Not overpriced- Subaru money.

no car purchase is ever in your favor unless you get a rare car that appreciates... Cars are bad investments... well I guess except for yours you have the only one that depreciates in your favor.

[Billup]

Rio Tinto (LSE:RIO,ASX:RIO,NYSE:RIO) is another leading diamond producer that is active in mining, sales and marketing. The company reported $9.3 billion in underlying earnings for 2012. However, it recorded a net loss of $3 billion. New incoming CEO, Sam Walsh, who will officially take control of the company in July, said Rio will reduce its capital expenditure to $13 billion this year.

$3 billion dollar loss? Wouldn't the cost to manufacture and produce have to be significantly more than the return to yield a net loss for an operation of that size?

Returns for diamonds beat those of equity for much of the last 15 years, according to the Financial Times. Three-carat diamonds increased by 145 percent and 5-carat diamonds increased by 171 percent between 1999 and 2011. However, it’s worth bearing in mind that diamond trading is an unregulated market. With De Beers retaining much of the trade, it can be difficult for private investors to break into the market. With the still relatively new diamond discovery in Russia, it is hard to say if the diamond market of today will be recognizable in years to come.

De Beers has had the upper hand in the market, but that doesn't take away the cost to mine and manufacture. Price goes up on mark ups, yes, however, to say marketing is the ONLY reason they are expensive is not true.

[Myrder]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

My point is that it's tradition more than marketing that dictates these types of things. I haven't seen a DeBeers commercial for over a decade and I don't see any marketing related to diamonds or engagement rings in my everyday life. Engagement rings are diamond rings. If your chick doesn't want one, that's one thing, but if you're pushing some college-kid agenda about conflict stones and market manipulation maaaaaaaan then I think you're in for a rude awakening.

I'm going to agree with carve on this one. You haven't seen any marketing by DeBeers because their initial marketing is so prevalent they don't need to do it anymore. Also diamond advertising is still going on through the multiple jewelers which source diamonds from....DeBeers.

I know one day I'll have to pony up some cash for this pointless clear mineral that has been ingrained in our society...I just hope the girl is fine with a nice modest sized rock.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by Myrder

I'm going to agree with carve on this one. You haven't seen any marketing by DeBeers because their initial marketing is so prevalent they don't need to do it anymore. Also diamond advertising is still going on through the multiple jewelers which source diamonds from....DeBeers.

I know one day I'll have to pony up some cash for this pointless clear mineral that has been ingrained in our society...I just hope the girl is fine with a nice modest sized rock.

Marketing may have played an initial role in forming the tradition decades ago, but it's now entirely tradition that dictates what an engagement ring is and what stones go on it. As I stated earlier, DeBeers role has diminished significantly over the last several decades. I've had TiVo for 10 years and rarely see any type of commercial so whatever marketing is being done is being lost on me.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

Marketing may have played an initial role in forming the tradition decades ago, but it's now entirely tradition that dictates what an engagement ring is and what stones go on it. As I stated earlier, DeBeers role has diminished significantly over the last several decades. I've had TiVo for 10 years and rarely see any type of commercial so whatever marketing is being done is being lost on me.

I agree. If I recall correctly, I don't see commercials for diamond engagement rings specifically, but I do see the typical holiday (i.e. Valentine's Day) stuff. Like the heart collection nonsense from Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman.

[pgviper]

Originally Posted by Seminole

That's a good way to piss her off.

Who gives a shit what others think, get her what SHE wants. You should be focused on making her happy, not random people. My fiancée wanted a cushion cut solitaire with a ring diamonds on the band while I preferred a band with no diamonds and a center stone flanked by two side stones. In the end I got her what she wanted and she's really happy with it. It also turned out the type of ring she wanted was cheaper then the design I preferred. Same with a band only like your girlfriend wants. Since there are no large diamonds it will be significantly cheaper then a normal ring, luck you

I'm thinking of taking this step soon also and I have to tell you, your reasoning seems on point.

She is the one that has to wear it 24/7 so ultimately it needs to be something that she wants.

Best way to purchase a ring is to "know someone". Some things I have learned are to never buy online because how all 4 C's play together when your holding the diamond in person is a much better reflection of how the diamond will refract the light as opposed to reading its stats. You can compare it to shopping for cars because of their 1/4 mile times, 0-60, 100-0 etc... however if you don't drive the car yourself, you will never know how it all plays together. Same goes for rings. You can sacrifice on clarity and color because up to a certain point it isn't visible to the human eye however cut can make a diamond look bigger than it really is and carat weight is something that will def be noticeable since these are very physical aspects to the diamond.

My girlfriend and I went to the diamond district in NYC to check out what she likes. She walked out liking something completely different than what she had found in magazines and online. This is a clear example of how pics on the internet and in magazines are never a true example of how a diamond will look when worn.

[carve]

Looks like Mark Zuckerberg got his girl a 1 ct Rubie. Good on 'em

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-we...b_1545011.html

The author, a diamond dealer, has another article called "7 reasons why a diamond is a waste of your money"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-we...b_1720870.html

Here's an interesting article hypothesising that expensive engagement rings were a sort of collatoral, 80years ago, so the girl would be more comfortable having sex. Before the 1930's, there were many laws that allowed a woman to sue should a man break off an engagement since it reduced her 'market value'. It was riskier then, and her "honor" was an issue, so this was a promise and something for her to fall back on if the promise was broken. This might explain why there's a lot of pressure to get a needlesslessly expensive stone, but the idea seems very outdated these days. Cultural inertia.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...gagement-rings
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...-rings/255434/

[pgviper]

Originally Posted by carve

Looks like Mark Zuckerberg got his girl a 1 ct Rubie. Good on 'em

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-we...b_1545011.html

The author, a diamond dealer, has another article called "7 reasons why a diamond is a waste of your money"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-we...b_1720870.html

Here's an interesting article hypothesising that expensive engagement rings were a sort of collatoral, 80years ago, so the girl would be more comfortable having sex. Before the 1930's, there were many laws that allowed a woman to sue should a man break off an engagement since it reduced her 'market value'. It was riskier then, and her "honor" was an issue, so this was a promise and something for her to fall back on if the promise was broken. This might explain why there's a lot of pressure to get a needlesslessly expensive stone, but the idea seems very outdated these days. Cultural inertia.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...gagement-rings
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...-rings/255434/

I want to get my girlfriend a diamond. She's an amazing woman and deserves it. That's enough of a reason for me.

I appreciate what you posted though, had no idea about the history behind it.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that people have their own reasons for buying an engagement ring. If your girl pressures you into it then I don't think she's the right one for you.

[JasonCSU]

Originally Posted by Foxrus14

If you succeed you should get rid of her cause she is clueless....

No, I would say you are the clueless one for thinking one needs to spend that amount money on a diamond ring unless money is no object to you. There are many other things that kind of money could be better spent on or invested in instead of a rock that is only intended to impress other people and/or make them jealous. Spending 2-3 months salary on a ring is unrealistic for the average person, and women expecting such high amounts to be spent are gold digging in my opinion. Again, if money is no object, then no worries I suppose. For the majority of people though, they should probably read this first.

http://www.mint.com/blog/planning/ho...95324707031250

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

Marketing may have played an initial role in forming the tradition decades ago, but it's now entirely tradition that dictates what an engagement ring is and what stones go on it. As I stated earlier, DeBeers role has diminished significantly over the last several decades. I've had TiVo for 10 years and rarely see any type of commercial so whatever marketing is being done is being lost on me.

I suppose that is why some people are asking, "why is it a tradition and expected in our society?"

[Foxrus14]

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

No, I would say you are the clueless one for thinking one needs to spend that amount money on a diamond ring unless money is no object to you. There are many other things that kind of money could be better spent on or invested in instead of a rock that is only intended to impress other people and/or make them jealous. Spending 2-3 months salary on a ring is unrealistic for the average person, and women expecting such high amounts to be spent are gold digging in my opinion. Again, if money is no object, then no worries I suppose. For the majority of people though, they should probably read this first.

http://www.mint.com/blog/planning/ho...95324707031250

I suppose that is why some people are asking, "why is it a tradition and expected in our society?"

No gold digger for me. She makes more money than I. But we are both very comfortable with the money I spent for it. Our wedding cost less than the ring. It was exactly what she wanted and she deserved every bit of it.

[BayMoWe335]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

You are really only impressing a jeweler with that stone. Nobody can see minor inclusions with the naked eye on a 1.5 carat stone so at that point only you, your wife, and a jeweler with a loop will ever know.

See my point about salesman trying to sell bang for buck...our diamond is more expensive for a reason. It's rarer and better than the others and that's important to me. A cubic zirconia looks exactly/better than a real diamond but no one gets that because you'd know its fake even if no one else would.

Same exact concept here...I am impressing myself.

[upstatedoc]

Originally Posted by Myrder

I know one day I'll have to pony up some cash for this pointless clear mineral that has been ingrained in our society...I just hope the girl is fine with a nice modest sized rack.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

No, I would say you are the clueless one for thinking one needs to spend that amount money on a diamond ring unless money is no object to you. There are many other things that kind of money could be better spent on or invested in instead of a rock that is only intended to impress other people and/or make them jealous. Spending 2-3 months salary on a ring is unrealistic for the average person, and women expecting such high amounts to be spent are gold digging in my opinion. Again, if money is no object, then no worries I suppose. For the majority of people though, they should probably read this first.

http://www.mint.com/blog/planning/ho...95324707031250




I suppose that is why some people are asking, "why is it a tradition and expected in our society?"

Bolded the key part there...

My girl didn't pressure me into anything. She was actually fine with just a band, and she showed me quite a few that she liked. I got her what I felt she deserved.

[carve]

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

A cubic zirconia looks exactly/better than a real diamond but no one gets that because you'd know its fake even if no one else would.

Same exact concept here...I am impressing myself.

Actually, there's a good reason not to get a cubic zirconia; they're only like an 8 on the hardness scale and, on something you wear ever day for the rest of your life, it'll eventually get banged up and look like crap (although, no big loss- you can put a new one it). Moisisonite, however, is a 9.25. It's basically a silicon carbide crystal, and should hold up fine. It has a higher refractive index than diamond or CZ, too, and is generally flawless, which gives it MUCH more "fire" and sparkle