Lee's Blog: Diamonds are Annoying.

« A Roman Orgy... | Main | Two Nights of Fun and Music »

September 17, 2003

Diamonds are Annoying.

Remember the other day, when I talked about my pet peeves?

Found another one.

I really am tired of being told that a diamond ring is the only acceptable expression of undying love and devotion. Me, I don't happen to think diamonds are particularly attractive. Now, that's just my personal opinion, but I must admit it was influenced by reading articles like this

Now, I know I'm on dangerous territory here. My mom owns a very nice ring with four diamonds that my father gave her for an anniversary (their twentieth?) some years ago. You, gentle reader, might well own a diamond that you treasure, given to you by somebody who cares greatly for you. I wouldn't wish to impugn the emotional value of that symbol. The feelings that some people choose to express or symbolize with fine jewelry are absolutely genuine. Most of the time. Having given my disclaimer...

I feel compelled to say something about this because it nags at me every time I see that commercial with the guy in Italy screaming about how he loves his wife, then gives her a ring, and she whispers how much she loves him. Now, I know that he didn't just buy her love. I know that these characters probably have a long history of caring for one another, and this ring is simply a symbol of their affection and devotion for one another.

However, from an advertising perspective, the implication couldn't be clearer. You want love? Buy a diamond and give it to somebody. If you don't, you're a schlock and a cheapskate.

This is a relatively new phenomenon. From the Atlantic article I linked above:

The diamond invention is far more than a monopoly for fixing diamond prices; it is a mechanism for converting tiny crystals of carbon into universally recognized tokens of wealth, power, and romance. To achieve this goal, De Beers had to control demand as well as supply. Both women and men had to be made to perceive diamonds not as marketable precious stones but as an inseparable part of courtship and married life. To stabilize the market, De Beers had to endow these stones with a sentiment that would inhibit the public from ever reselling them. The illusion had to be created that diamonds were forever -- "forever" in the sense that they should never be resold.

The article goes on to say that the phenomenon of the diamond solitaire engagement ring was fabricated by the marketing executives for the diamond cartels. Heck, it worked on me: I bought a diamond ring (on credit, no less) for my ex-fiancee. That's what a guy who's in love is supposed to do, right?

Well, the relationship didn't work out, but that's not the only reason I feel like a sucker. I feel like a sucker because I got sold on this image: Diamonds==love. But that simply isn't so. They're a relatively common gemstone whose production is very carefully regulated by an international cartel, to artificially inflate their price. Don't believe me? Take a look at the secondary market.

So. Look into the labor conditions in diamond production. Look into the history of the marketing campaign. Then go shopping. Maybe you'll choose something like my folks did: A really neat emerald engagement ring that looks totally different from any other ring I've ever seen. One thing I do know about love: It is different for everyone.

Incidentally, if this doesn't inflame you the way it does me, just wait until we see DeBeers come down on the new firms wanting to use diamonds in computer production. That ought to get your dander up.

Posted by Lee at September 17, 2003 10:52 PM