I think the desire for diamonds is an evolved adaptation to confirm that a mate has sufficient resources to ensure survival of progeny. It can’t be completely blamed on modern corruption. This also seems to transcend cultural bias. That’s why it doesn’t matter that much what good a diamond is once you have it, only that it costs a lot to get.
It’s not PC to say so but basically men like hot young babes and women like men with a lot of money. May not be true for any given individual but that’s where evolution leaves us.
Adam Smith discussed this topic in Wealth of Nations. He talks about what he calls the “water-diamond paradox”. Essentially, water is about the most useful thing in the world and yet we can get it for free. Diamonds (with some few exceptions) are completely useless in any practical sense, but we shell out the big bucks for them. This is, as I recall, part of his discussion that distinguishes price and value.
The diamond suppliers have waged an intensive advertising campaign to convince us that diamonds are the only true symbol of our undieing love for each other.
Diamonds are forever
Wedding rings should cost 3 months salary (gack, how about a nice payment on a house instead)
Currently they are pushing diamonds for anniversaries.
Pushing diamonds as a wedding ring in Japan (almost unheard of 40 years ago)
An interesting presentation from the University of Minnesota’s Econ department Link
I was watching Bill Maher on HBO last night. He was talking about how much diamonds really cost. He said that many diamonds are gotten by forced labour, and that the money goes to fund guerilla groups who use the money to kill people. He said that some of these groups chop off the arms of children (presumably one arm each) to ensure that the parents cooperate. Is this true? Or was it just an exaggeration for his comedy routine?
(He said that he mentioned this arm-cutting to a woman he knows. She said, “Both arms?” implying that if she can get a diamond then one arm per child was acceptable to the American consumer.)
That’s true, though recently, De Beers swore it wouldn’t buy anymore these “blood diamonds”…
The part about chopping off the arms of childrens (and adults, for that matter) is true. It has been “customary” for some times in war-torn west african countries (mainly Liberia), for various reasons (preventing the other side from recruiting the amputee, having a look the guy with the weapon doesn’t like, etc…). I don’t know whether it has been used as an intimidating tactic in order to put parents into forced labor, but I can’t see any reason why they would have hesitated to do so, since they had the habbit of chopping off arms for no reason at all.
Arms chooping came in two versions : “long sleeves” and “short sleeves”. I don’t doubt there were also “one sleeve” and “two sleeves” versions…
The value of everything is in people’s minds. Things are worth what a person will pay for them and nothing else. Diamonds are worth a lot because people place great value on them and will give a lot up to get one, proportional to its size and quality.
I mean, it’s ludicrous to state diamonds are useless unless you’re into cutting or drilling. They are EXTREMELY useful for making pretty jewelry. They’re remarkably shiny, clear, and incredibly durable. Perhaps this use isn’t of interest to you personally, but it is certainly of great interest to a lot of other people.
smiling bandit then said:
As has already been pointed out, diamonds aren’t the most valuable precious stones NOW. Rubies are.
The first link provided borrows quite extensively from an article published by Atlantic Monthly. The people who answered DeBeers have answered correctly.
The two part article in Atlantic Monthly describes how DeBeers controls the diamond market, along with some Jewish diamond brokers and Russian cartels. Basically diamonds are artificially expensive because DeBeers hordes them.
Read the entire article. It is long, but it traces the diamond phenomon from its onset. And includes DeBeers campaign to turn a diamond into an engagement ring. As someone else said, unheard of more than 50 or 60 years ago.
The DeBeers cartel certainly makes diamonds more expensive than they otherwise would be, but they would be expensive regardless. Why? Because diamonds are rare, and people want to own them.
True, but they also had fabulous sapphires, rubies, emeralds, amethysts, pearls, you name it.
Mostly it was the construction of the piece I’d say, and not the diamonds themselves. They were all valuable.
Now diamonds are looked upon as the Cadillac of gemstones. I find them dull, and prefer opals, garnets, sapphires, amethysts, rubies and aquamarines. I like stones with color, por favor.
There is a small but growing anti-diamond movement as well. After reading about the tactics of DeBeers and seeing the quality (and price!) of alternate and man-made gemstones, I have no interest in ever owning a diamond. It just doesn’t make sense to me. I know other women who feel the same way, inlcuding those who have come forward in previous SD threads about the diamond industry.
It’s true that diamonds are rare, but people mostly want to own them because of intense cultural and advertising pressure. If the culture changes, and I believe it will, diamonds will still be rare, but no one will want them anymore.
I would dispute that diamonds are rare. They are just “not common.” A subtle difference.
A gem value is not soley determained by weight. Cut, Color and Clarity provide value. A smaller well cut diamond of exceptional brilliance CAN be worth far more than a bigger diamond.
I think a better question is why are diamonds the industry standard of expensive jewelry.
Think flowers, think Roses, they are a symbol of love. I believe it was in the 1600s Tulips were very expensive, so much they even had their own exchanges in Holland, similar to stock exchanges today.
As Naomi on “Mama’s Family” said “It is only a real loser that doesn’t PROVE his love by giving expensive roses and overprice candy to his sweetheart on Valentine’s Day.”
These new man made diamonds are real diamonds. The biggest difference is that these are perfect and the mined diamonds are not. I don’t think I would invest in either right now.
Someone mentioned pearls. I am in full agreement. What we usually see are not real pearls. A natural or cultured pearl can be breathtaking.
And opals! There are opals at the Smithsonian that are too beautiful for words.
a couple of weekends ago, sunflower and i went off to the malls to people watch. there is one particular mall here that is our local answer to rodeo drive. all upscale shops and expensive boutiques. the largest (and most expensive) jewelry store in town is in this mall.
a lovely ring caught sunflower’s eye, and we asked to see it. the lady behind the counter started commenting on the unique cut of the stones, and the setting. just as she asked if we would like to get a price for the ring, i took out a 10x jeweler’s loupe to examine the stones. suddenly, she decided the time was right to tell me that these diamonds were “clarity enhanced” this means that the diamonds were substandard stones that had the occlusions filled, the carbon impurities cleaned and irradiated to clear up the color. we politely disengaged ourselves from this counter and moved to another part of the store.
here, they were having a designer’s trunk show. again, a ring caught my lady’s eye, and we asked to see it. this had a pretty large central stone, and a setting with smaller stones set to accent the central stone. the salesman was describing the setting, and as i raised my loupe to examine it, suddenly he said, “that ring is the only one in the show with cubic zirconia as the central stone…”