Diamonds Slated…

Isaac Mostovicz writes...

manacle

This article over at slate is getting a lot of web pick-up.

The story has been blogged by the Captain and Ezra and Constitution Club among many others…

Most commentators seem obsessed with De Beers cartel or by the suggestion that diamonds are not rare- both of which are myths (De Beers has just 40% of the market these days, and the diamond industry spends billions, mostly unsuccessfully trying to find viable diamond deposits).

The other argument, though, is that it’s somehow patronising or sexist to offer and receive a gift as a symbol of commitment…or that a cubic zirconia or manufactured moissanite would do just as well.

The premise of many of these pieces is that somehow social value, emotional value or spiritual value are less meaningful, than something functional. Surely Maslow tells us otherwise!

It’s a naive argument. The question is not whether or not whether De Beers created this market, but whether it is a ‘good’ market for those that choose to participate. Whether diamond engagment rings fulfil a human need – to commit, and to feel a moment of transcendence beyond our own lives…

In short. It is. And they do.

But the luxury in these cases is not the ‘What’ of the diamond, but in the ‘Why’ of engagement. The gift is a symbol is in choosing make a personally costly commitment by giving something eternal, pure, and natural and individual…

If you can find a better symbol which is more ‘Why-level’ luxurious’ for the giver and receiver alike, then go ahead exchange it.

Judah Gutwein says of this article...

Issac,

Great posting!

I too noticed the slate article and feel the same way you do regarding this sham.

I just blogged on this over at http://www.diamondvues.com with some links to your article and your site.

Best Regards,

Judah

You say of this article...

Bookmark and Share