No offense to Spmgbord, but there’s a darker issue that is entirely omitted from the response-- especially considering the way the question was framed.
Maybe it’s too dark and disturbing, or would be considered too close to an “editorial”, but Spmgbord should’ve made at least a cursory reference to the sad truth that an aggressive marketing campaign from the diamond industry “hijacked” the traditions discussed in the reply.
I just did a search for “DeBeers marketing campaign”, and plucked the first article from the results that seems reasonably accurate and informative: “Diamonds Are The World’s Biggest Scam?”
The lighthearted question doesn’t require a tangential discussion of the appalling “blood diamonds” issue, but Lesley White (the questioner) wouldn’t be besieged by acquaintances going into debt to buy a pricey diamond if the diamond cartel’s marketing-on-steroids approach hadn’t programmed Normals to believe that investing a small fortune to honor a romantic “tradition” is compulsory.
Fair point. De Beers didn’t originate the idea, but perhaps by this time the practice could have faded away without their brilliant marketing concept. This reminds me of Tang, something that may have been totally forgotten if not for an astronomical increase in sales due to the space program.
From the column: "The reason the ring is placed on the third finger of a woman’s left hand is due to an early Egyptian belief that the venas amoris or ‘vein of love’ runs directly from the heart to the tip of that finger."
Was the Egyptian belief specifically the third finger on the left hand? Because the Germans use the third finger of the right hand. Why the difference?
Totally true! After Canada found biggest deposit of diamonds in the world, diamond must cost as almost as special edition Himalayan Organic Red Salt for hippies ))))
I agree. When I was reading the original SD article I was thinking to myself “Hmm. I bet they’re gonna finish up with a discussion of how DeBeers et al convinced everyone that failure to buy a diamond is downright unamerican.” but then I got to the end of the article and felt like it wasn’t finished. This topic certainly would make a good follow-up.
I, too, thought that the article would end with a mention of the DeBeers advertising campaign. I remember first hearing about it on the excellent radio podcast called “Age of Persuasion” with Terry O’Reilly. Here is the excerpt:
*DeBeers was (and is) the world’s biggest diamond supplier.
In 1939, the value of diamonds plummeted after the Depression, so DeBeers needed to find a new way to market the precious stones. They hired advertising agency N.W. Ayer, who devised a strategy to link diamond rings to engagements, coining the slogan, “Diamonds Are Forever.” Prior to that, men would give women fur coats, automobiles or rubies as an engagement gift.
But ever since diamonds have been linked to engagements, over 80% of the women in North America sport diamond engagement rings.
DeBeers not only married diamond rings to engagements, they created an entire category.*
Am I ever glad I didn’t fall for this when my wife and I got married…we gave each other mountain bikes…
Thank you! It really bothered me that they hadn’t included it too. It’s gotten to the point where if you don’t demand a ridiculously expensive diamond solitaire - I gem and style I find monstrously ugly anyway - then many women think he doesn’t love you. I don’t want him spending three months’ salary on a stupid rock.
Here is the really freakin amazing thing. You know how you know a synthetic diamond from a mine diamond? The synthetic ones, other than costing one tenth of the price, have no flaws! So we are being encouraged to buy a flawed product for a ridiculous price. Personally I think every time someone mentions the history of diamonds as engagement rings they should tell everyone about the huge scam perpetrated on people.
I hit the jackpot with the wife. Not only did she not want a diamond, but our gold wedding rings were bought for us by her mother, as per her family’s ethnic tradition (in which the future mother-in-law always buys the rings.)
Or there’s the brown diamond scam. Brown diamonds are diamonds with impurities and imperfections; they’re more common than clear diamonds. They used to be sold cheaper for industrial uses. But then some ad agency renamed them “chocolate diamonds”.
