Diamonds

I wrote the following piece in April 2010 while I was looking around for an engagement ring and doing a lot of research.

The search for an engagement ring is quite exhausting. Online sources are far from unbiased, and faction battles faction, company vs. company, and so on. Mostly what I am referring to is the simulated diamond market. A simulated diamond is any shiny stone that imitates a diamond. They range from (in order of quality, so far as I can tell, and there are more than this) glass to cubic zirconium to moissanite to manufactured diamond. They all differ in chemical composition, and thus in material properties such as light reflectiveness, hardness and chemical reactivity to the environment. At first, most of them are just about the same as diamonds, just after time, the softer stones scratch and such. Moissanite is hard enough that it isn't too bad of an issue, and manufactured diamonds are chemically identical and thus are harder than most anything. And even cubic zirconium isn't too terrible of a diamond simulant. Point is, there is technology available to accurately and inexpensively recreate diamonds without having to dig them out of the ground, even to the point that they can be identical in every way to the "real" thing.

That being said, there are mixed signals when it comes to public opinion of such stones. I think most of the married women I have heard from about the subject agree that fake diamonds are the way to go since no one can tell the difference, they are less expensive and some object to scheming diamond cartels and potentially questionable paths diamonds take to get from Africa into your ring. There are others who object to any cheap knockoff and nothing less than diamonds will do. "Real diamonds equals real love. Fake diamonds equals fake love," comments some random person online, summing up feelings of many others. But really? I mean, really?

That sentiment rubs me the wrong way on so many levels. It's hard to describe exactly why. The fact that any person attaches so much emotion and bases their affection on a material substance and indeed an aethereal concept whether a stone came from a lab or Africa boggles me. Whether or not my true love is worth the cost of the stone isn't the question; if it came down to it, I would choose my love over a diamond or even a pile of them. As for the supposed symbolic or spiritual meaning of real diamonds, they aren't part of tradition or eternal symbolism, but more likely just marketing over the years (including the concept that 2 months salary should be spent...De Beers!).

The tradition of wedding rings started as a sign of ownership (among Romans) and eternal companionship (as a ring is without beginning or end) and diamonds did not become commonplace in rings save for the past 100 years or so when broken engagements no longer had legal implications, then an expensive ring became a sort of financial commitment on part of the groom to the bride.

In any case, diamond hockers fight against the diamond simulants. They, of course, fight back. And they all fight each other to get a piece of the delicious throw-every-last-penny-into-the-wedding pie. It's good business and who can be expected to practice honesty in times like these, am I right? And then so many newly-weds get into debt...how could that be?

Mind you, I did end up going with a trio of real diamonds because any of the manufactured stones would have cost more because of the small size (the ring was a size 3.5, any large stones would have looked gaudy) but I did buy two cubic zirconia for comparison.