The Hype Over Jewelry (rings)...

[rayzoredge 2]

So I'm in that boat where I'm looking at jewelry just in case things go well , and I've done my research... which come from many, many biased sources. And I'd hate to jump onto the bandwagon, but I almost want to because of the hype that's built around the ever-popular platinum band with the diamond rock on it.

 

It's crazy to think that we have synthetic stones that look close to if not identical to the real deal. Cubic zirconia is the closest by far, and it's apparently an amazing deal, considering the likeliness of a diamond coupled with the value that steals the title of "being cheap." But who's to judge? Most jewelry specialists can't even tell the difference between the two with the naked eye, so why does the consumer fret over not having diamonds over their cheaper counterparts? The only aspects that diamonds have superior to cubic zirconia are the refractive index of light, or the "brilliance" as light is refracted from the cuts in the rock; the weight (as CZ is 1.7 times heavier than a diamond, but then again... is it really that cumbersome to wear?); and the hardness of the material, which is actually quite comparable (with diamonds scoring a 10 as opposed to CZ's 8.5 to 9 on the Mohs hardness scale).

 

The same goes for platinum. Yes, it's an amazing metal. It has some great qualities and is very hard, doesn't require as much maintenance as white gold, and whatnot. Then there's palladium, which is whiter, requires less maintenance than white gold, harder than platinum... and no one screams over it. Is it that much of a "cheaper" metal? Will people really look down on others if they are wearing rings that look identical? Could you really tell if someone was wearing a platinum band as opposed to white gold, palladium, or even highly-polished rhodium, silver, or tungsten? Seriously.

 

So why does the idea of having a diamond seem so much better to most people, even though you would save hundreds if not thousands on getting something that's actually BETTER as far as it goes with value comparisons?

 

Rarity could be a possible argument, but again that's based on an idea, and you would be paying more for an IDEA of a more precious item as opposed to one that possibly looks or is (physically) better.

 

What are your thoughts? I'm actually interested, considering that I'm probably going to be in more of a situation to actually think about practicality/value over paying money for the idea that it's better in the future. Plus, I'm sure that it would help most guys out by hearing your thoughts, girls.

[moogie 0]

I think that for some people, or maybe for a lot of people, having a real diamond ring, becomes a status thing. They can always say "I have the real thing" and feel better about it. It makes them feel special. Some people only buy authentic Juicy or Gucci, others are happy with knockoffs.Diamonds have long been a tradition, in the western world, as engagement rings and I think a lot of women still feel they want the traditional diamond even if it's much more expensive.Some women equate the amount of money being spent on them with how much their boyfriend loves them.Ultimately it comes down to a personal choice and what you and your boyfriend will be happy with.

[rayzoredge 2]

I thought it was awesome and funny how you insinuated in thinking that I was a girl. Sometimes it can be hard to tell on Xisto though...

I forgot about the whole status gig. And that can go on a rant for me about how people are sheep and follow with the latest trends (or in this case, need their materialistic goods in order to show off that they "are better" than others), but I'll save that for another thread.

Some women equate the amount of money being spent on them with how much their boyfriend loves them.

In that case, I'm sure that the same women with these mindsets materialistically deserve the very best that their boyfriends can get them, and if us guys can't provide, we're no better than dirt, are we?

There are some mixed ideas that I've read in other places during my research between diamonds and cubic zirconias. Some women would rather have the diamonds, as we all believe them to be the ultimate symbols of love, life, and a hefty down payment to be followed by bill after bill after bill; and some women seem more sensible with rather wanting the cubic zirconia or the cheaper rings, preferring that money saved to be put towards patching the house, throwing more money at mortgage payments, etc. (It almost seems like there are the two extremes where one girl is materialistic and probably naive of the more practical uses for the money spent on something like a diamond ring as opposed to the other girl who can think past the ring and love a man for who he is, regardless of his choice in provided jewelry, instead concentrating on more practical priorities.)

And it's just funny how as much as my argument still stands with wanting to be practical with cubic zirconia, I still want to be able to saw off an arm and a leg to give my girl this idea of having a diamond, platinum combination...
Edited October 30, 2008 by rayzoredge (see edit history)

[moogie 0]

I am sooo sorry I assumed you were a girl!! Just goes to show that the old old saying is right about assuming doesn't it? It's easy to get caught up in the old traditions isn't it?I guess I never offered a personal opinion. It wouldn't matter to me seeing as I'm not that much of a traditional girl anyway. Giving and accepting an engagement ring is a sign of commitment and love and how much you spend on it shouldn't reflect on how much you love her.