Diamond engagement rings, are in fact, worthless

Guy:Incognito

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?).

s!

Hate to break it to you but everything you buy is worth less than you're paying for it. Kind of how running a business works.

strobe

dellas1979 wrote: »

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.

I'm not gone attacky. You're just not really getting it. You're saying diamond rings are worthless, they are worth thousands. They have value. The value is what they can be sold for. Like everything.

Jawgap

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

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

Neither was I.

Give you an example.....a pre-1969 Omega Speedmaster watch will set you back anything from €2000 to €8000 depending on condition......you can bet there's no way you can buy one of the Speedmasters for that era owned by Armstrong, Aldrin etc for less than mid-six figures, even if they ever came up for sale (or Swigert's one that he used to time the Apollo 13 mid-course burn).

Same everyday watches, different stories, higher prices.

Eugene Norman

strobe wrote: »

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.

That's not true of the house. You can measure value vs price in anything that generates income.

hidinginthebush

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.,

A secondhand ring should indeed be worth a fraction of the original price. Unfortunately there are places all around town selling "antique" rings at prices far higher than new, fully certified ones.

Anyway, there's a very interesting and informative article here worth a read on the topic of diamonds.

I recently went through the process of getting an engagement ring for my fiancée, and sure, I was aghast at the prices asked, but I had money saved up, we went in and picked the ring together, I informed her of the budget, and she got a ring she absolutely adores. It's a fun day doing it together, and seeing how happy she was and still is with it, that's all that matters really.

dellas1979

strobe wrote: »

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.

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.

Maximus Alexander

Jawgap wrote: »

Neither was I.

Give you an example.....a pre-1969 Omega Speedmaster watch will set you back anything from €2000 to €8000 depending on condition......you can bet there's no way you can buy one of the Speedmasters for that era owned by Armstrong, Aldrin etc for less than mid-six figures, even if they ever came up for sale (or Swigert's one that he used to time the Apollo 13 mid-course burn).

Same everyday watches, different stories, higher prices.

Which is a special case and totally different to what the OP was talking about - the general practice of people going out and spending thousands on engagement rings.

dellas1979

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Hate to break it to you but everything you buy is worth less than you're paying for it. Kind of how running a business works.

That news was broken the day I handed over money for a sweet deemed the price of a penny

Jawgap

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Which is a special case and totally different to what the OP was talking about - the general practice of people going out and spending thousands on engagement rings.

Similar scenario.

Rarity creates value, because it creates the illusion of exclusivity.

Whether the diamond ring depreciates or appreciates in value is a function of what it's story is or becomes.

If the person whose finger you plonk it on goes on to live a fairly ordinary life, then the ring depreciates - although it probably remains of incalculable value to her and her family.

Same ring on a person who lives an extra-ordinary life becomes more 'valuable' because of it's provenance.

Tarzana2

dellas1979 wrote: »

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?

This is old news.

Knasher

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

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

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

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

It's like a dowry

Jawgap

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

De Beers have a factory in Shannon afaik

Support Irish jobs OP

Eugene Norman

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

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

mikemac1

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

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

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

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

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?

Wibbs

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

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

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).

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

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

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

UCDVet

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

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

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

Desolation Of Smug

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

Desolation Of Smug

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

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

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

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.

SMJSF

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

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?

Into The Blue

This reminds me of the "but why" questions my 4yr old niece keeps asking me..

Sometimes op, weird **** just happens. Diamonds, and other precious stones/metals don't necessarily have any inherent value, but folk want them.. it's just the way of the world.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

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.

My radley bag has taken some serious abuse and it's lasted perfectly so far without falling apart
okay i wouldn't spend thousands and i wouldn't spend just for a logo but having had cheap handbags there is definitely a difference

It's worth considering the risks (to others) of diamonds. There are lab made diamonds that are indistinguishable to those mined, and 'conflict free' diamonds are very often anything but. There are also safer diamonds from Canada and some other areas, but verifying the origins is difficult.

I wouldn't consider a natural stone when lab made alternatives exist with no ethical dilemma attached.

According to a recent piece in Foreign Policy, the odds are a staggering 1 in 4 that a diamond on the market today is a conflict stone. What’s even more troubling: It’s become nearly impossible to tell the difference between the clean and dirty gems.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/the_myth_of_conflict_free_diamonds/

I don't judge anyone for wanting a sparkler, but if someone doesn't care about the origins of their stones and how they were obtained or who was hurt in the process, I'll probably judge them on that eight ways to Sunday. If anyone is out hunting a diamond ring, just try to do your best to check out that it's conflict free.



I know that sounds preachy, I'm sorry!

Discodog

Geniass wrote: »

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

Because they would invariably burst into tears & say that their ex told them that it was worth thousands. One even bought her ex back to "sort it out" :eek:

Any Pornbroker will tell you that a lot of "diamonds" turn out to be fake. The mind numbing thing is why any couple would spend so much on a ring that they could spend far better.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

It's worth considering the risks (to others) of diamonds. There are lab made diamonds that are indistinguishable to those mined, and 'conflict free' diamonds are very often anything but. There are also safer diamonds from Canada and some other areas, but verifying the origins is difficult.

I wouldn't consider a natural stone when lab made alternatives exist with no ethical dilemma attached.



http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/the_myth_of_conflict_free_diamonds/

I don't judge anyone for wanting a sparkler, but if someone doesn't care about the origins of their stones and how they were obtained or who was hurt in the process, I'll probably judge them on that eight ways to Sunday. If anyone is out hunting a diamond ring, just try to do your best to check out that it's conflict free.



I know that sounds preachy, I'm sorry!

Or get a sapphire because blue is cool :P:P:D

Maximus Alexander

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"

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

Yeah the gold shops will only pay the going rate for the gold (minus their percentage), they pay nothing at all for the stones. If you ever are selling jewellery to one of those shops, you might as well take all the stones off first - if won't affect what they pay you.

LeBash

I love how the ad for diamonds was in the middle of the thread as i was reading through it.

Discodog

Discodog wrote: »

Any Pornbroker will tell you that a lot of "diamonds" turn out to be fake. The mind numbing thing is why any couple would spend so much on a ring that they could spend far better.

I heard of pearl necklaces, but I didn't know diamonds featured in the porn industry.

BlatentCheek

Yeah they're a massive scam that perpetuate conflict and suffering in many parts of the world but people, and women in particular, have been conditioned to prize them so if you want to get married your best bet is to just suck it up and put your hand in your pocket.

byhookorbycrook

Eugene Norman wrote: »

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

<

---

This woman wanted a mare she could be breed from ,rather than an engagement ring, my now husband insisted on the ring . I'd have made money with the mare, at least, my ring sits in a drawer somewhere, my late mother was horrified I didn't wear it all the time.