Diamonds Suck (2006)

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by occamrazor on Monday November 14, 2016 @02:01AM (#12948017)

Is this really a thing in the US? In Italy (and AFAIK in most of Europe) wedding rings are normally plain gold (rarely white or red gold, or platinum) bands. Engagement rings do have a stone, but they are not worn every day.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by liquidcool on Monday November 14, 2016 @04:31AM (#12948588)

It was that way in the US for a very long time. Sometime in the last couple decades a new trend arose to wear both the engagement ring and a wedding band together. The logic being you spent 4-5 figures on beautiful jewelry, so it's silly to only wear it during the engagement. (Whether it's silly to spend that much in the first place is another argument.) I don't know if they are in fashion currently, but many jewelers began selling engagement rings with a paired wedding band that is designed to match perfectly and be fused with the engagement ring after the wedding.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by coldpie on Monday November 14, 2016 @09:25AM (#12949942)

> The logic being you spent 4-5 figures on beautiful jewelry

Good lord, people do this? People spend ten thousand dollars on a ring? Fuck. When we got engaged, we shopped together and I bought her a black opal ring. Diamond was never on the menu, so I never even looked at their prices. I knew diamonds were expensive, but I had no idea the extent to which people were getting suckered.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by liquidcool on Monday November 14, 2016 @07:34PM (#12954652)

There was a big ad campaign from the diamond cartel to make everyone believe that 3 months of (gross) salary was the standard amount to pay for an engagement ring. That means if you only make $36K/year, you still shell out $9K for a ring. I don't know how many bought into it, but it likely did raise the average amount paid by anchoring the price so high. "That's crazy! Maybe half that..."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by grkvlt on Monday November 14, 2016 @05:44PM (#12954046)

> Good lord, people do this? People spend ten thousand dollars on a ring?

No, of course not - why would you think that? Those 'high priced' rings are like the wax fruit in a greengrocer, or plastic lobsters at the fishmongers - just there for show...!

Back in the real world, people can actually spend hundreds of thousands, even millions, on jewelry.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by grkvlt on Monday November 14, 2016 @05:09PM (#12953817)

It's pretty much always been the case that a married woman would wear both her engagement and wedding ring? There's even long-standing etiquette about the order in which they should be placed on the finger - engagement first, I believe? It certainly isn't something new since the 1990s.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by dagw on Monday November 14, 2016 @03:26AM (#12948334)

and AFAIK in most of Europe

In Sweden at least it seems to be quite common to wear both rings. However it also seems to be more common to have inset stones, rather than one that sticks out. I've also seen several people who buy the engagement ring and wedding band together as a matching set to make sure they work together. (something which to me always felt rather presumptuous)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by jandrese on Monday November 14, 2016 @02:20PM (#12952465)

What is more presumptuous than getting married?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by dagw on Monday November 14, 2016 @05:53PM (#12954105)

Fair point.

[ Parent | on HN ]