What is it about diamonds?

TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others

Yes it's true that diamonds are not as rare as the sky-high prices would have you think, but even if they were as inexpensive as CZs, I'd STILL love them. They throw fire, icy sparks, and rainbows....in a way that no other gem can. When they're cut well, they can sparkle so brightly that they catch my eye from clear across the room. The light return that you can get from an ideal cut stone is just breathtaking.

Bottom line -- they're drop-dead beautiful. The traditional symbolism of betrothal really appeals to me too.
 
I used to adore Diamonds....

....
Now I am in love with Aqua Marines...they were the engagement ring of choice b/f diamonds....although I do see the attraction to Diamonds...it is just not worth it anymore for me....

Aquamarines, while beautiful, are much, much softer than diamonds.

On the mohs scale, the aquamarine (beryl family) is around a 8, where as the diamond is a 10. This means, if one puts them in an engagement ring, the stone will be nowhere near as robust as the same ring with a diamond and will require more care and protection so it won't shatter and crack. Its kind of like an emerald. Very pretty, but more delicate than a diamond.


One of the other reasons that diamonds are used in engagement rings most likely is because of the stone's durability.
 
I loved diamonds when I was younger, but the whole DeBeers monopoly thing puts a damper on things. I just don't want a diamond that's been mined by children in Africa and cut by children in India. I'm still on the wall on the whole engagement ring thing, but I will keep everyone updated. Thanks everyone for their replies!
 
I loved diamonds when I was younger, but the whole DeBeers monopoly thing puts a damper on things. I just don't want a diamond that's been mined by children in Africa and cut by children in India. I'm still on the wall on the whole engagement ring thing, but I will keep everyone updated. Thanks everyone for their replies!

Most reputable jewelers acquire their diamonds through regulated channels and so you can be pretty certain that you're not buying a conflict diamond. The Kimberley Process is a new, standardized process created to keep conflict diamonds from entering the market. Basically, it's where a diamond can be tracked/certified from the moment it's mined to the moment it arrives at the cutter. Theoretically, this will prevent conflict diamonds from entering the market. The current estimate is that only 1% of all diamonds entering the market are conflict diamonds, although some activists think it's more like 20%. In any case, if you go to a reputable jeweler and ask to see documentation of a diamond's origins and inquire whether it was sourced through the Kimberley Process, you should be able to avoid buying a conflict diamond.
 
Did some research on the history of the engagment ring.
**************************************************

In Western tradition, an engagement ring is a ring worn by a woman on her left-hand ring finger indicating her engagement to be married. By modern convention, the ring is usually presented as a betrothal gift by a man to his prospective bride while or directly after she accepts his marriage proposal. It represents a formal agreement to future marriage.
Similar traditions purportedly date to classical times, dating back from an early usage reportedly referring to the fourth finger of the left hand as containing the vena amoris or "vein of love".
In the United States today, it is becoming more common, but still quite rare, that a woman will also buy an engagement or promise ring for her partner at the time of the engagement.
In Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Germany, both the man and the woman wear engagement rings. However, in these countries the man's engagement ring is often used as the Wedding ring. (In Germany often the engagement rings for both partners are plain gold or platinum bands, worn on the left hand, which are then moved to the right hand and used as the wedding bands once they get married.) The female usually gets a diamond wedding ring. Some men wear two rings, but this is still rare.


//
Material and design

Designs of such rings have varied greatly over the years. It is typically a precious band, and mounts a diamond or other gem. Current fashions for engagement rings are for a gold, platinum, silver or, rarely, titanium band with a single diamond. The establishment of the diamond engagement ring as a standard in Western culture is a result of one of the most successful advertising campaigns in history, by the world's leading diamond producer de Beers, in the 1940s.
An engagement ring is often intentionally expensive as a sign of a man's permanency. The argument for a diamond is that it is the most enduring, beautiful, and expensive gem. Some people prefer different gems or semiprecious stones. Sapphires, star sapphires, emeralds, and rubies are often used in engagement rings. Pearls and opals are rare, because these are soft stones.
In some European countries such as Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, engagement rings are usually plain gold bands without a gem. In others such as France, engagement rings usually mount a colored gem rather than a diamond.
Gold and platinum are recommended by many jewelers, not only because of their inherently higher value, but because they are much more durable than silver. Often a gold or silver ring will employ a platinum setting because it will better protect the stone.
Titanium and stainless steel are becoming more popular because of their lower cost and higher strength. These materials as well as traditional jewelry metals like gold and platinum that have been treated and work hardened allow for a type of setting called a tension ring which is popular because it causes the illusion of a floating stone. Titanium and steel must be milled on a lathe because the temperatures required for proper fabrication are much too high for a small jewelry operation. A titanium ring might cause problems with removal in case of an emergency, as hospital tools are unable to cut some grades of titanium, although the titanium ring maker's FAQ challenges this notion. The results of their tests have shown that a manual ring cutter can cut through a ring in under two minutes and electric tools would be faster.
 
[edit] History

The inception of the engagement ring itself can be tied to the Fourth Lateran Council presided over by Pope Innocent III in 1215 [citation needed]. Innocent declared a longer waiting period between betrothal and marriage; plain rings of gold, silver or iron were used earliest. Gems were important and reassuring status symbols to the aristocracy. Laws were passed to preserve a visible division of social rank, ensuring only the privileged wore florid jewels. As time passed and laws relaxed, diamonds and other gems became available to the middle class.
At one time, engagement rings mounted sets of stones. One traditional sentimental pattern mounted six to celebrate the joining of two families: The birthstones of the bride's parents and the bride (on the left), and the birth stones of the groom and his parents (on the right). The parents' stones were mounted with the mother to the left of the father. The bride and groom's birthstones would be adjacent in the center. Another similar pattern, for four stones, mounted the birthstone of the parents' marriages, and the birthstones of the bride and groom. These token rings often disassembled, to expose a channel in which a lock of the suitor's hair could be treasured.
A Victorian tradition was the Regards ring, in which the initials of the precious gems used spelled out the word 'regards'.
The first recorded diamond engagement ring was presented by the Archduke Maximillian of Austria to Mary of Burgundy as a betrothal gift in 1477. However, the diamond engagement ring did not become the standard it is considered today until after an extensive marketing campaign by De Beers in the middle of the 20th century.
In the early 20th century, the United States jewelry industry attempted to start a trend of male engagement rings; going so far as to create a supposed "historical precedent" dating back to medieval times. The attempt failed, although the industry applied lessons learned from this venture in its more successful bid to encourage use of male wedding rings [1]

[edit] Refusing the gift

Women traditionally refuse offers of marriage by refusing to take the offered engagement ring.
In the United States, engagement rings are considered "conditional gifts" under the legal rules of Property. This is an exception to the general rule that gifts cannot be revoked once properly given. See for example Meyer v. Mitnick, 625 N.W.2d 136 (Michigan, 2001), finding the following reasoning persuasive; "the so-called, 'modern trend' holds that because an engagement ring is an inherently conditional gift, once the engagement has been broken the ring should be returned to the donor. Thus, the question of who broke the engagement and why, or who was 'at fault,' is irrelevant. This is the no-fault line of cases."
Tradition generally holds that if the betrothal fails because the man pursues other women or himself breaks off the engagement, the woman is not obliged to return the ring. Legally, this condition can be subject to either a modified or a strict fault rule. Under the former, the fiancé can demand the return of the ring unless he breaks the engagement. Under the latter, the fiancé is entitled to the return unless his actions caused the breakup of the relationship, the same as the traditional approach. However, a no-fault rule is being advanced in some jurisdictions, under which the fiancé is always entitled to the return of the ring. The ring only becomes the property of the woman when marriage occurs. An unconditional gift approach is another possibility, wherein the ring is always treated as a gift, to be kept by the fiancée whether or not the relationship progresses to marriage
 
I love the sparkle, but I can't see spending the highly marked up prices at stores like Tiffany's or something........I do believe we pay much more for diamonds than we should and are led to believe they are so rare......even still I do want 2 ct tw diamond studs, but when the time comes I'm checking out the wholesalers, even then we are paying a markup but nothing like what you pay at a jewelery store.......Plus having the huge engagement ring that you wear everyday that you have to insure etc. etc. etc., as lovely as that is, it's just not me, and insurance things drive me crazy. I have what I think is a beautiful ring, diamond, setting, and wedding band nearly totals 2ct's it's a very good quality and I love it, but if god forbid something were to happen to the diamond (crack or fall out etc.) it would not be the end of the world, I could afford to replace it and it will still cost less than paying to insure it all these years......besides, it's on my finger ALL the time, I have enough things to worry about so I can't see walking around with more than $20,000 on my hands at all times.......That's just me though and what fits my lifestyle whether I could afford more or not......
 
As my fiance puts it..."you just can't resist sparkly things huh..." It's not the price tag that makes me like it, it's just the fact that it's shiny, pretty, and sparkly. :laugh:
 
I'm attracted to the brilliance diamonds give, as a kid I always liked diamonds more than any other stone.

Many people get engaged with a stone other than diamond, but like someone said diamonds go with everything.

Go with what you value.
 
Aside from being beautiful, I think it's fascinating that diamonds are former organic matter, prior to becoming carbon, and then diamonds. The nerd in me is mesmerized by the transformation!

I had never tried on a diamond ring until recently, but once I did--WOW! There is something about having an incredibly sparkly and gorgeous rock on your finger--once you know that feeling, that's it--you NEED one! :nuts:
 
I love the sparkle of a diamond, and am a sucker for the entire De Beers marketing campaign. :shame:

Which explains why I'm always on the fence when it comes to diamonds. I think they're SOOOO pretty, and I must have one, and then I think about how much it's actually worth, and how much more I could do versus blowing all that money on one tiny rock.

Diamond studs versus taking a much longed for holiday? A drop dead e-ring versus a dream wedding?

I'm just glad I don't hafta make those decisions yet. So for now, I'm just content to gaze and lust for those shiny pretty things that inexplicably make me smile :smile1:
 
Top