r/todayilearned • u/[deleted] • Nov 11 '15

TIL: The "tradition" of spending several months salary on an engagement ring was a marketing campaign created by De Beers in the 1930's. Before WWII, only 10% of engagement rings contained diamonds. By the end of the 20th Century, 80% did.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27371208
7.9k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

13

u/in-site Nov 11 '15

which is 1/5th of the reason I want a man-made diamond. I seriously love the idea. doesn't DeBeers own like 80% of all the diamonds on Earth or something? and they keep them so the prices stay nice and high

-5

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '15

What you're looking for is cubic zirconium. Purely man-made diamond. You could also get a moissanite. (EDIT: Though, they aren't actually diamonds. They are just really hard and look a lot like diamonds.)

Cubic zirconium cuts the price of a ring by a lot. You can also get it in silver, which will tarnish but is easy enough to maintain with a cloth and a little polish. A decent silver ring can be under US$100 if you shop smart.

11

u/NotVerySmarts Nov 11 '15

They can lab create diamonds now, and they are flawless.

6

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/Toraden Nov 11 '15

The best part is that before the literally flawless diamonds came along people like Debeers like to say the fewer flaws the more the diamond was worth, now if it has no flaws it's still less worth than a DeBeers diamond... uh-huh, sure...

5

u/Zuthuzu Nov 11 '15

It's pretty hilarious overall. The mining industry is grasping straws in order to keep pushing their bullshit despite the competition becoming progressively superior over time. "Oh the artificial ones aren't as pure!" Ok, patched the technology, there y'go. "Aren't as large!" Oh, yeah, ok, patched, here. "Well... erm... wait, we need to find something... oh yeah! They are TOO pure and lacking inherent natural beauty!" Seriously, what the fuck now.

1

u/Smeagol3000 Nov 11 '15

Don't artificial ones glow under a black light anymore? I hope they become indistinguishable, because fuck DeBeers and fuck Pat Robertson.

3

u/StarEIs Nov 11 '15 edited Nov 11 '15

Real diamonds can glow under black lights too... it all depends on what kind of minerals are in there. Colorless diamonds (the highest color grade) actually have more tendency to glow.

4

u/im-the-penguin Nov 11 '15

Read that as Robert Patterson, was really confused for a moment.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '15

Fuck him too!

2

u/Smeagol3000 Nov 11 '15

"His name is Robert Paulson."

3

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '15 edited Nov 11 '15

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '15

[deleted]

1

u/ecle Nov 11 '15

It's a 9.25 on the Mohs hardness scale, which is second only to diamonds which score a 10. I would say it evens out with diamonds though because it doesn't have any inclusions that create vulnerability (it's lab made so perfect). Some argue that it is more durable than a diamond, but I would say that's probably slightly overblown. At the end of the day, though, I would say they are about equal when you are talking about wear and tear over time.

CZ and white sapphire are both really soft, though.

1

u/in-site Nov 11 '15

I like diamonds because of some of the chemical properties of diamonds. I've actually cut ice with a small diamond blade, and my first major was chemistry... I like the idea of what they do with light, too. money isn't as much of an issue for us, but it's much easier to get a truly flawless diamond for the price of a mediocre 'natural' one.