WMN: t3_2w5ycw_t1_cooavfb

[TITLE]

CMV: Diamonds are an inferior gemstone.

[brainandforce]

There are numerous reasons for this: * [Diamonds burn!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWpm6_Y7ASI) Oxide and silicate-based gemstones don't. * You can get more sparkly gemstones than diamonds - moissanites come to mind. * Diamonds are hard, but they're brittle. Colorless sapphire doesn't have this problem. * Actually, why would you want a hard gemstone, with all the glass we touch? You'd risk putting nice deep scratches in your phone/tablet/other device that way. * Diamonds slowly convert to graphite. (Well, it takes several billion years but it shows diamonds aren't forever!) * Some gemstones have special properties - alexandrite, for example, undergoes dramatic color shifts. Watermelon tourmaline is *really* impressive. * If you're going for rarity, there are plenty of gemstones more rare than diamonds - benitoite comes to mind (and it's fluorescent too!) as does bixbite (red beryl, similar to emerald) and black opal. Are diamonds really that special? If you want to buy a ring for your SO why pick a diamond? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[cicerothedog]

No other gemstone is formed as deep in the Earths crust as diamonds. They can only form under cratons, the oldest and deepest parts of the crust. They are older than most other gemstones. Some diamonds formed before plate tectonics began. Olivine can be as old, or older, but still it's pretty cool to wear a piece of ancient Earth! They're a 10 on the Mohs scale, which makes them the hardest material there is. Taste will dictate what you think of them, but "inferior" is not a justifiable position.

[VirtualMoneyLover]

Why does a jewel need to be hard? By the way you can break a diamond with a hammer. They are quite bristle...

[cicerothedog]

Some diamonds of lower quality have internal fractures, which means you can break them. But you can't break a perfectly formed one with a hammer. A jewel doesn't absolutely need to be the hardest it can get, but it's an interesting quality nonetheless. Have you seen an x-ray of the atomic structure of diamond? It's quite beautiful, even on a nano-scale :)

[VirtualMoneyLover]

Well, if I can only see it with an X-ray, then it is useless at a party. I personally think zirconiums just as good as diamonds for jewelry purposes and 1/20th the price...

[subheight640]

All luxury goods are arbitrarily expensive. Diamonds are just the flavor of the century. Let's say Reddit & the internet succeed and everybody hates diamonds now. Well great, so a fad disappears and is replaced by another rare gem. Years later, as the moissonite craze comes full circle, the Atlantic will publish another article decrying how evil players have monopolized the moissonite trade and artifically inflated the value of moissonite via a massive astro-turf advertising campaign. Why not publish another article on how Gucci bags' value is actually much less than the than the sale price, and how Gucci bags are a terrible investment, and that the evil Gucci corporation has been swindling poor women for decades by artificially inflating prices by limiting Gucci bag production? Similarly, it turns out that the high end restaurant you go to's food is actually terrible and overpriced. But at the end of the day, nobody is buying this shit for their practical value. Diamonds and all other luxury goods are symbols of *elite status*. Luxury goods must necessarily be rare in order to reflect elite status. Moreover, other gemstones do not properly convey elite status to the common person as well as a diamond or gold. If you have to explain to the layman that your gemstone is rare and expensive, then it has failed as a symbol of elite status. If you don't care about symbols used to convey class and status and wealth, well then good for you. You are not the target demographic of the diamond market or the luxury goods market.

[chormin]

The reason that diamonds are chosen for engagement rings is tied to the price. At the time the engagement ring became popular people starting families were growing into mostly one income homes, with a primary bread winner and a housewife. To symbolize taking on this additional expense and staying comfortable the future breadwinner would reduce his spending for an amount of time and spend the money saved on the engagement ring. So, at the time, the engagement ring served as a symbol of sacrifice. Since then, times have changed. Families now for the most part require two incomes to stay afloat. While social pressures still push for the man to be the breadwinner, it is not quite as strong as it was. The sacrifice is less important than it was in a literal sense. However, either spouse may still need to spend from their income in dire situations, or to help their spouse. If one requires medical care, or intends to begin or return to higher education the cost for the family will increase, and it will likely cause the total income to decrease. In families intending to have children this is not only a possibility but an eventuality, either through actual pregnancy or the difficulties that can arise when failing to conceive. So, this combined with tradition would be the reason that diamonds are usually chosen for engagement rings. As far as "Diamonds are the inferior gemstone" there are categories where other stones are superior, but there are categories where the diamond is superior. Carbon content by mass, hardness, and price come to mind. So with that I will counter your statement with a declaration of my own. >Diamonds are not uniformally superior or inferior as a gemstone.

[VirtualMoneyLover]

[STA-CITE]> for engagement rings is tied to the price. [END-CITE]And its price is artifically inflated. They aren't rare nor are they specially valuable...

[chormin]

Yes, I'm glad we agree that diamonds are expensive.

[VirtualMoneyLover]

Artificially expensive. The whole diamond industry is based on lies and good PR...

[brainandforce]

[STA-CITE]> but there are categories where the diamond is superior. Carbon content by mass, hardness, and price come to mind. [END-CITE]1. How is higher carbon content superior? I can't see how. 2. Sure diamond is hard, but it's not tough. 3. What do you mean by price – cheaper or less expensive? Because diamonds can be beat easily by a multitude of other stones in terms of total cost, and they're certainly not cheap.

[chormin]

[STA-CITE]>1.How is higher carbon content superior? I can't see how. [END-CITE]I'm not sure why someone would want more Carbon per gram, but it is possible and if I were to rate by that metric diamond is superior to many gemstones. [STA-CITE]>2.Sure diamond is hard, but it's not tough. [END-CITE]Right, but if we were to use hardness as a metric to determine superiority of a gemstone, diamond is superior to most gemstones. [STA-CITE]>3.What do you mean by price – cheaper or less expensive? [END-CITE]I'll concede this point, I'm not an expert by far at buying or selling gemstones and was unaware of their position on the gradient of prices.

[Crayshack]

[STA-CITE]>Actually, why would you want a hard gemstone, with all the glass we touch? You'd risk putting nice deep scratches in your phone/tablet/other device that way. [END-CITE]Industrial purposes. Diamonds have practical uses due to their hardness that other gemstones can't match.

[brainandforce]

I'm not considering diamonds as an industrial commodity - diamond-laden saw blades are great for cutting rare earth metals, for example. Diamonds are a great abrasive. I'm only considering them as gemstones.

[Cavemonster]

If we're measuring inferiority, it must be related to a purpose. So why are diamonds good for rings? We can compare diamonds to some of the other alternatives and make a reasonable argument that diamonds fit the bill better when looking at multiple factors. For one thing, their colorlessness makes them go with anything. For an engagement ring, that's important because it's one piece of jewelry that has to go well with whatever outfit. So for that purpose, diamonds are superior to colored stones, which rules out tourmaline, alexandrite, benitoite, bixbite, and many oxide and silicate-based gemstones. Compare diamonds with other colorless stones. White sapphire is far less brilliant and moissanites too gaudy. We can say that this sweet spot of sparkliness is a product of culture, but we're talking about jewelry here. I don't think cultural taste is an invalid factor. Moissanites are also less durable, and they're so rare in their natural form that all jewelry is made from artificial gems. While this doesn't make much practical difference, many find a symbolic value in the fact that natural gems took a very long time to make. In a gift designed as part of a symbolic ritual, we can't discount evocative benefits. While white sapphires are less susceptible to chipping than diamonds, they are far more prone to scratches and abrasions. While the former is a risk, the latter is a certainty over time. Sapphire rings over time need more repolishing and repair than diamonds on average. As for the other concerns about diamonds, Most people wear the gem on the top of their ring, it's our palm that mostly comes into contact with our electronics. Although some accident can put the phone in contact with the diamond, it probably ranks fairly low with other small risks to phones. As for lasting only a few billion years- Probably not a practical concern. All in all, diamonds are a pretty good tool for the job. While arguing that they're the best might be tough without a lot of very subjective points, I think it's hard to argue that they're meaningfully inferior.

[brainandforce]

[STA-CITE]> [END-CITE]For one thing, their colorlessness makes them go with anything. For an engagement ring, that's important because it's one piece of jewelry that has to go well with whatever outfit. So for that purpose, diamonds are superior to colored stones, which rules out tourmaline, alexandrite, benitoite, bixbite, and many oxide and silicate-based gemstones. Which is highly dependent on personal perception and taste - but even if you want neutral colors, what about black (schorl tourmaline is one of my favorite minerals)? [STA-CITE]> moissanites too gaudy [END-CITE][STA-CITE]> Moissanites are also less durable [END-CITE][Moissanite shows more color in its reflections due to its higher dispersion.](http://www.moissanitevsdiamondrings.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Moissanite_JFire_Test-Large.jpg) (Again, personal taste, but I thought this visual is pretty cool.) It also has superior durability due to the lack of distinct cleavage planes, even though it's not as hard (though diamonds actually vary significantly in hardness). [STA-CITE]> While white sapphires are less susceptible to chipping than diamonds, they are far more prone to scratches and abrasions. While the former is a risk, the latter is a certainty over time. Sapphire rings over time need more repolishing and repair than diamonds on average. [END-CITE]Sapphires are highly durable and don't need any polishing given normal wear and tear. My mom's sapphire ring (which she recently lost) still looked perfect for the ~10 years she owned it, and I've read about sapphires remaining flawless for 50 years. [STA-CITE]> Most people wear the gem on the top of their ring, it's our palm that mostly comes into contact with our electronics. Although some accident can put the phone in contact with the diamond, it probably ranks fairly low with other small risks to phones. [END-CITE]I would figure that the main issue would be using a diamond ring in conjunction with a purse or other bag - you're more likely to scratch whatever else is in there if you're like me and don't organize anything.

[McKoijion]

You're absolutely right. Diamonds are inferior to other gemstones in every way that you described. Plus, now that many new diamond mines have been discovered in South Africa, Australia, and Russia, they are extremely plentiful and have lost a lot of their value. All the diamonds in the world are controlled by one company, De Beers, which artificially controls supply. If you try to sell one, you'd be lucky to get half of what you paid. Also, tragically, many children lose limbs and die in the process of mining them. Plus, there are many violent wars over diamonds, which results in further death and destruction. For these reasons, diamonds are totally worthless in every logical way. But good luck proposing with anything else. After a century of advertising, product placement in Hollywood films, and subconscious marketing, diamonds are deeply engrained in American, and now international culture. Proposing with anything else is like buying your kid Megablocks for Christmas instead of Legos. All gemstones are intrinsically worthless (aside from a handful of industrial applications.) The only value they have is what we assign to them. And as a society, we have collectively decided that diamonds are valuable. Logic and reason are nothing in the face of collective ignorance. But, again, this applies to all gemstones equally, so it is unfair to consider diamonds inferior compared to any other one. Especially when society values them the most.

[brainandforce]

Hey, Megablocks are great too! I think the point of my argument is somewhat unclear - if you want to buy a ring for someone, diamonds aren't the best choice. I'll edit the post to reflect that.

[TheNicestMonkey]

If we assume that all gemstones are truly pointless from a non-industrial perspective then the only value they can have is the irrational value society puts on them. In that case proposing with anything but the stone that your partner actually wants is folly. All the stones are worthless, the only one that matters is the one he/she wants.

[yakinikutabehoudai]

Diamonds are the best choice if that is what your SO is expecting and would cause them to have the most overall happiness (from themselves or from family/friends).

[VirtualMoneyLover]

No, a fake diamond is the best choice. It is cheaper and looks the same. If it is lost/stolen, no biggie. Belief is everything. As long as your SO thinks it is very valuable, so be it...

[sarah201]

I don't even want a diamond, but I would be *pissed* if my SO tried to pass a fake one off as real. That would be a relationship changer for sure.

[VirtualMoneyLover]

What if he said: I spent the difference on our vacation (or a good cause)?

[sarah201]

It doesn't matter. I don't want to be lied to. If he said "here's your ring. It's not a real diamond," I wouldn't care even a bit. Being open, honest, and upfront is the best way to maintain a healthy relationship.

[VirtualMoneyLover]

Sure, unless you have different views on the value and usability of jewelry. If you are hardcore diamond fan and I hate the idea of diamonds, you are getting a zirconium ring girl. :) Why should I give up my principles because you bought the industry's lies?

[sarah201]

If your partner is really that unreasonable and the communication between you two so poor, maybe you should reevaluate marrying her, rather than lying to her.

[yakinikutabehoudai]

That's only if your SO never finds out. If they do you'll have to weigh the hundreds or thousands you saved vs the potential fallout of what they might consider years or decades of a lie.

[VirtualMoneyLover]

SO should get down to reality instead of drinking the diamond industry's kool aid....

[PeterPorky]

[STA-CITE]> Hey, Megablocks are great too! [END-CITE]You have proven yourself irrational and are not worth the effort of attempting to reason with.

[YossarianWWII]

You should have a CMV that Megablocks are great. I will challenge that assertion to no end.

[Au_Struck_Geologist]

Ok, I almost agree with you, but there is one instance where diamonds are actually a great gemstone. Diamonds are an atrocious gemstone to represent traditional marriage. Forget all the other good reasons why diamonds suck, and just think of this one. Mineralogy. How in the world does a mono-element mineral represent a union of two people? It's just carbon, so a union of two heterosexuals who are very different has no application. It should be sapphire (Al2O3) or bixbite like you said. Does your fiancee have a fascination with India? What better way to show your union by obtaining a rare mineral from that country? Why not pick a mineral that has properties that reflect your differences coming together to form something stable and beautiful? Returning to diamonds, I think they do have an advantage in one arena. Homosexual marriages. As the diamond is a single element mineral with just carbon bonding together strongly, what better metaphor for the strength of a homosexual marriage than this? Even better, you have the underdog formation story too. Like the fight for marriage equality, you have diamonds being formed under intense heat and pressure, from all sides only to finally, mercifully be freed up onto the surface of the Earth in a kimberlite pipe. At long last, the beauty of these unions is revealed to the world, and they no long need to stay hidden under miles of darkness below ground. So yes, in most instances, diamonds are bullshit as gemstones. But I do think there is a creative opportunity for their mineralogy to be served in gay marriages.

[brainandforce]

∆. You win, man. This is an awesome metaphor. Strange, but awesome. Though if it were me I'd go for a solid tungsten ring. Tungsten is pretty cool. I would pick ytterbium but it tends to corrode easily, even though its color is really unusual and nice.

[Au_Struck_Geologist]

Hurray! I'm glad you liked it.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Au_Struck_Geologist. ^^[ [^^Awardee's ^^History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/au_struck_geologist) ^^]

[Au_Struck_Geologist]

Yeah I always find it strange that most people seemed uninterested in the wide variety of jewelry options outside of diamonds. Your tungsten ring would survive even if you were set on fire. How cool is that?

[brainandforce]

It would survive being thrown into lava! (and ytterbium would boil instantly)

[morallyharmful]

I've seen far too many finger deglove pictures to ever want to wear a ring again. Getting married soon and totally not wearing any rings.

[brainandforce]

Working in a lab, this is exactly my fear.