Anyway now I have decided, I want to get a moissanite instead. Even more sparkly than a diamond, according to this:
Diamonds are much more common than rubies, so if that was what determined price, rubies would be ‘more valuable’. The pure red ruby is arguably the rarest gemstone. It’s noth the only rock rarer than diamonds, though.
If I was to get engaged, which seems pretty dang unlikely at the moment, I’d buy her a ruby if I bought a stone. I probably wouldn’t buy a stone, though because I think gold, or platinum, or even titanium is neater. Hey, maybe use a small chunk of an acid treated metal metorite… at the moment we can’t mine them. Non-metal metorites are even more rare, but wouldn’t look terribly interesting.
Doing web searches on gem facts is practically impossible. There’s far too much propaganga from the jewelers. I bet there’s someone out there selling limestone as the rarest gemstone…
The linking thing isn’t working very well here, but NPR’s American Radio Works recently did a three-part series on exactly these subjects. Go to http://www.npr.org and plug ‘diamond’ into the search field - three of the first four articles pulled will give you much of the information you’re curious about.
Once when I was rather young, I gave my mothoer a zirconia ring for Christmas. It just looked nice and I didn’t think about it as diamond substitute, it was just a nice ring in a nice setting. (I think it cost about 10 bucks at the time)
She loved it and wore it constantly. People would ask about her new diamond ring and she’d just smile.
So as far as the “visual properties of real diamonds vs. imitiation” argument goes, I’m afraid that your reasonings don’t wash with me. Diamonds only look prettier when you have them sitting side-by-side with an imitation, on a pillow of velvet, under a ray of direct halogen light. In a natural everyday, on-the-street environment, nobody would notice.
So it seems to me that you ARE caught up in the hype or the whole image thing. Just go out and get yourself a pair of pretty earrings already, unless you’re intending on using them to cut glass.
-D
No I’m not - if you read my post just above I’ve decided to go for this moissanite, which has no hype or history, because it’s brand new and utterly artificial.
But it’s sparkly sparkly SPARKLY!!!
Those articles mentioned that it’s very important to DeBeers that diamonds not be re-sold. I think they’re going to have some problems in the next few decades. First, there is eBay, and other ways for customers to re-sell diamonds directly to each other. Second, there is the inheritance problem.
I always wondered why, if diamonds are forever, they don’t seem to be inherited very often. The diamond engagement ring tradition being only about 60 years old explains that. However, as the 1940s generation that DeBeers and Ayers originally convinced that diamonds were essential for engagements dies, most of those rings will be passed down*. Women might not be able to sell their rings for anything approaching retail value, but I think there will be market fluctuations as Grannie’s ring is given rather than 5k being wasted on a new ring. I’m getting engaged in February, and we’ll be using my grandmother’s ring. It has more sentimental value than a new stone,and DeBeers isn’t making any profit off of it. I wonder what ad campaign they’ll come up with to fight this “new” source of diamonds.
*I hope. Please tell me that people aren’t burying their relatives with several carats of diamonds. The wedding band is all that really should be forever, imho.