| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2006/11/10-12 [Recreation/Dating, Finance/Shopping] UID:45317 Activity:high |
11/10 Hi sodans. Engagement rings again. What do people think of a 0.70
carat ring at http://bluenile.com for $2,500 (+$500=$3K for setting)? Will
her parents think I'm cheap? My SO has indicated that she would rather
spend the money on something useful (car, crap, etc.). Do women really
want 1 carat minimum? I know about Apollo Diamond, but it's not
mature (ob blood diamond discussion). Also, is a Signature Ideal
diamond really that much better than a Very Good cut diamond? Thanks.
\_ It's fine. Be glad you found a women that has a bit more
sense than just how big a ring you can give her. Why would it
matter what her parents think? I bought my wife something
similar to what you are thinking of getting. Out of the
four C's, I go for cut, color, clarity, and carat in that
order. The better cut does give a better "fire".
\_ I bought my wife's engagement ring for less than $300 and wedding
ring for less than $1k. Now *that* was cheap. We put the money on
properties, cars (not fancy ones) and savings instead.
\_ Before you buy anything, check out the past discussions on "debeers"
and "De Beers" in the MOTD archive.
\_ We have synthetic diamonds now. Screw De Beers. -!op
\_ If someone came up with a process to create diamond rings
for like $100 that match today's $3000 ones, would people
still value giving those?
\_ I hope not. Down with jewlrey!
\_ Yeah. But from the MOTD archive, De Beer "also started a PR
program to convince people that synthetic diamonds are like
cheating by buying a cubic zirconia and that if you really
love your woman you'll get her a 'real' diamond." So don't
fall to that BS.
love your woman you'll get her a 'real' diamond."
\_ If you really love your woman, you'll buy her this jar
filled with the blood of african children killed so that
rich people can show off their bad taste. $3000 OBO.
\_ You know, It actually would not be crazy to try to start
something where one pays 3000 dollars for a 100 dollar
piece of jewlery plus a 2900 dollar loan/grant to a
non-diamond related African business. If this caught
on, men could avoid being called cheap, but have a net
positive effect instead of net negative effect on the
African economy.
\_ You're insane. Yes, let's buy milk bottle rings
for our wives and send millions of dollars every
year to stuff the pockets of which corrupt what?
Seriously, you're either a troll or you've never
had a girlfriend.
\_ GO DE BEAH!
\_ Her parents have nothing to do with it. If you still care about
her/your/anyone else's opinion on how you live your life at this
level you're likely not ready for a serious relationship. It is
none of their business. You should talk with her about it. As far
as size of the stone goes, see above about the 4 Cs. Cut is most
important because that is the shape of the stone. Good color and
clarity will make whatever you have look better. Carat count
beyond about .5 or .6 is all about showing off to the Jones'.
Unless you're marrying the Jones' or her parents don't worry about
that. Also, most marriages that end in divorce do so because of
money problems. Don't spend a zillion bucks on a rock and a party
just to get divorced 6 months later because you're broke and every
penny spent is a big fight.
\_ Do you get one diamond engagement ring plus a diamond wedding ring
later? Or is that the same ring? Also, I thought you're supposed to
have the ring when you propose, not discuss it.
\_ The wedding ring is not supposed to have a rock in it. It's
supposed to be a band, representing eternity. Maybe op should
get a mobious strip ring.
\_ Typically engagement ring has the diamond. Your fiance
wears that between your engagement until your wedding
day. She doesn't wear that ring at the ceremony because
the wedding band is suppose to go on first. Something
to do with "closer to the heart." She slips the
engagement ring back on (band first, then ring) after
the ceremony.
\_ ok thanks, I guess I was always a bit confused about that
\_ And of course, it's common to get them as a set so they can
be welded together after the wedding.
\- ObDeBeers=EvilFuckers:
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/Politics/DeBeers=Evil.txt
\_ I agree. I think it's silly to buy diamonds.
Fortunately I married a woman who agrees. -pp
\_ After all that is being said and the evil of De Beer. Do
keep in mind, that 20 years down the road, the diamond will
still be a diamond, but other things that you might have
bought with the diamond money, such as that plasma TV, the
killer laptop, will probably be out of service and money
down the toilet. ;)
\_ Of course, if you invested, 20 years down the road you will
probably have doubled your money.
\- "a diamond is still a diamond" is not an argument.
part of the "problem" with diamonds ... again de beers
is partly responsible ... is there is no real secondary
mkt for diamonds. while the diamond is durable [assuming it
doesnt get stolen or lost], it isnt liquid. given that
a "used" diamond should be as good as a new diamond,
it's the depressed value of "used" diamonds that is
interesting [compare to high value of "used" DVDs].
3.5% return = double money in 20yrs. [ob nominal/real
disclaimer]
\_ Or put another way: The TV depreciates over a few years,
the diamond depreciates instantly!
\- that's a compelling way of putting it. and gives me an
excuse to contrast it to the depreciation of other
things. shoes get worn out. tv also gets worn out but
more importantly quality goes up and prices fall.
in the case of a car, it wears out, the quality goes
up, and there is the mkt for lemons informations
up, and there is the mkt for lemons information
aysmmetry problems [you dont know if the car has
been in an accident ... not generally a problem
with TVs ... although it is true TVs unlike cars
dont have an odometer ... on the other hand a tv
pretty much jut does one thing: have a picture,
which cars have transmission, tires, body, cosmetic
issues suspension etc]. so really a diamond is sort
of like a DVD ... it really doesnt wear out and what
you see should be what you get [minus the small chance
the DVD is scratch ... but surely you can get a
guarantee it will play fine]. but a DVD really doesnt
depreciate much at all! and the diamond is something
you would expect would hardly depreciate ... it doesnt
get worn out, they dint get cheaper or better over
time, there isnt much info asymmetry [except maybe
some chance it is stolen ... not also the very idea
of "used vs new gold" is silly], it's price would be
the panda says "no!" _/
\- http://csua.org/u/hfz
determined by the double coincidence of wants
[finding somebody who wants that size/cut etc] ...
again the same as a DVD [think about regional codings
fucking up the secondary mkt]. so the immense
depreciation can only be explained by factors outside
the depreciation of the product itself, i.e. debeers.
[for the DVD contrast, compre the price of used DVDs
to the amazon new price, for popular selections.
not also the negative premium for non-USA region
DVDs].
\_ The only reason diamonds cost so much is because everyone else
wants them (because of advertisements that suggest bigger diamond==
commitment), and there is a strict control of supply set by the
diamond cartel. If diamonds were mined and sold in a completely
free market the price would plummet to less than 1/10 of its
current value right now.
\- it's more complicated than debeers just pushing bigger
diamonds. they push different trends based on what part
of the stock they want to push. like going from large
solitares to 3 smaller stones past/present/future rings
because a large number of smaller diamonds came on line.
read the home.lbl.gov link.
\_ Episode from South Park: Kyle asks his dad for money to
buy the latest and greatest Chinpokemon toy. His dad explains
that it is a fad and he doesn't have to be a part of it. In
fact he can make an even stronger statement by saying that
he's an individual. Kyle responds "Yes I understand. Now let
me tell you how it works in the real world. In the real world,
I can either get a Chinpokomon, or I can be the only kid
without one, which singles me out, and causes the other kids
to make fun of me and kick my ass." Dad agrees and gives him
money.
My advice to you-- yes DeBeers is evil, but so are many
corporations and cartels out there. Get the fucking diamond
anyways. You seriously don't want to be an outcast or a weirdo
and be ridiculed in the society, do you?
\- this is why guys not in a bind and before The Ring becomes
an issue should give Liberal girls a hard time about the
acceptability of diamonds. look at furs ... nobody i know
under at least 45 is expected to buy the wife a fur ...
at least not in northern california. do any normal women
under say 45 own +$5000 fur coats? ... i dont include
people from texas or people who own +$1000 chihuahuas,
but i do include people with multimillion dollars who
clearly could afford it. even a ridculously expensive
watch is better. in fact next time i see some women
friends of mine, i'll have to bring it up.
\_ Is there 10x the supply of diamonds that there is of, say,
emeralds or rubies?
\- De Beers bot controls the supply [by stockpiling
\- De Beers both controls the supply [by stockpiling
the production, as well as conrolling access
to high high end stone to high high end
jewelers] but also doesnt a lot of work on
jewelers] but also does a lot of work on
the demand side ... and i think what they
do on the demand side is kinda sleazy.
it's one thing to advertise something like
car to an adult ... he should be able to
control his spending urges. but in he case
of diamonds for something like engagement
rings, it puts the man in this weird position
[as per the OP ... "will my inlaws think i am
cheep"] and is in a sense not fighting fair.
just like there is a sleaziness marketing say
junk food to kids so they will cause a scene
at the airport ... except this is more indsidious
since at least society would back if not
encourage the parent's right to fight the
peopel advertising to their kids. a guys
cant really himself bring up "dont be a de beers"
to his fiancee.
to his fiancee. i guess he could give her a
copy of one of the "debeers expose" books ...
[i consider it a good deed to talk about
debeers with liberal fiancee's of friends] |
| 5/23 |
|
| home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/Politics/DeBeers=Evil.txt EDU Subject: FYI: DeBeers -> Lawful Evil Status: RO Talking about "blood diamonds" has been in vogue for a while, but I always found the debeers "reality control" practices more interesting. It is perhaps little dated as it does not discuss high quality artificial diamonds but the historical perspective is fascinating. Has anyone written an expose on DeBeers or otherwise cross them and live to tell about it? Especially hope you past and present DeBeers customers enjoy it :-) --psb >Until the late nineteenth century, diamonds were found only in a few >riverbeds in India and in the jungles of Brazil, and the entire world >production of gem diamonds amounted to a few pounds a year. Some hundred million women wear >diamonds, while millions of others keep them in safe-deposit boxes or >strongboxes as family heirlooms. It is conservatively estimated that >the public holds more than 500 million carats of gem diamonds, which >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >is more than fifty times the number of gem diamonds produced by the >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >diamond cartel in any given year ... The moment a significant portion >of the public begins selling diamonds from this inventory, the price >of diamonds cannot be sustained. For the diamond invention to >survive, the public must be inhibited from ever parting with its >diamonds. As far as De Beers and N W Ayer were >concerned, "safe hands" belonged to those women psychologically >conditioned never to sell their diamonds. see below and the full article for the problem of "cheating by cartel affilates" --psb >When the campaign began, in 1967, not quite 5 percent of engaged >Japanese women received a diamond engagement ring. By 1978, half of all Japanese >women who were married wore a diamond; by 1981, some 60 percent of >Japanese brides wore diamonds. In a mere fourteen years, the >1,500-year Japanese tradition had been radically revised. Japan became the second >largest market, after the United States, for the sale of diamond >engagement rings. De Beers ordered N W Ayer to reverse one of its >themes: women were no longer to be led to equate the status and >emotional commitment to an engagement with the sheer size of the >diamond. DeBeers >devised the "eternity ring," made up of as many as twenty-five tiny >Soviet diamonds, which could be sold to an entirely new market of >older married women. The advertising campaign was based on the theme >of recaptured love. Again, sentiments were born out of necessity: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >older American women received a ring of miniature diamonds because of >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >the needs of a South African corporation to accommodate the Soviet Union. W Ayer learned from an opinion poll it commissioned from the firm >of Daniel Yankelovich, Inc. that the gift of a diamond contained an >important element of surprise. "Approximately half of all diamond >jewelry that the men have given and the women have received were given >with zero participation or knowledge on the part of the woman >recipient," the study pointed out. N W Ayer analyzed this "surprise >factor": > > Women are in unanimous agreement that they want to > be surprised with gifts.... They want, of course, to > be surprised for the thrill of it. However, a > deeper, more important reason lies behind this > desire.... Some of the women > pointed out that if their husbands enlisted their > help in purchasing a gift (like diamond jewelry), > their practical nature would come to the fore and > they would be compelled to object to the purchase. The study suggested a two-step "gift-process continuum": >first, "the man 'learns' diamonds are ok" fom the woman; then, "at >some later point in time, he makes the diamond purchase decision" to >surprise the woman. The male-female roles seemed to resemble >closely the sex relations in a Victorian novel. "Man plays the >dominant, active role in the gift process. " The woman seemed to believe >there was something improper about receiving a diamond gift. Women >spoke in interviews about large diamonds as "flashy, gaudy, overdone" >and otherwise inappropriate. Yet the study found that "Buried in the >negative attitudes ... lies what is probably the primary driving force >for acquiring them. Diamonds are a traditional and conspicuous signal >of achievement, status and success." It noted, for example, "A woman >can easily feel that diamonds are 'vulgar' and still be highly >enthusiastic about receiving diamond jewelry." The element of >surprise, even if it is feigned, plays the same role of accommodating >dissonance in accepting a diamond gift as it does in prime sexual >seductions: it permits the woman to pretend that she has not actively >participated in the decision. She thus retains both her innocence -- >and the diamond. The >"keystone," or markup, on a diamond and its setting may range from 100 >to 200 percent, depending on the policy of the store; if it bought >diamonds back from customers, it would have to buy them back at >wholesale prices. Most jewelers would prefer not to make a customer an >offer that might be deemed insulting and also might undercut the >widely held notion that diamonds go up in value. Moreover, since >retailers generally receive their diamonds from wholesalers on >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ consignment, and need not pay for them until they are sold, they would >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >not readily risk their own cash to buy diamonds from customers. A little bit below: >By 1978, the banks had extended $850 million in credit to diamond >dealers, an amount equal to some 5 percent of the entire gross >national product of Israel. The only collateral the banks had for >these loans was uncut diamonds ... At that rate, it would be only a matter of months before the >Israeli stockpile would exceed the cartel's in London. If Israel >controlled such an enormous quantity of diamonds, the cartel could no >longer fix the price of diamonds with impunity ... The cartel decided > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >that it had no alternative but to force liquidation of the Israeli >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >stockpile. De Beers announced >that it was adopting a new strategy of imposing "surcharges" on >diamonds. Since these "surcharges," which might be as much as 40 >percent of the value of the diamonds, were effectively a temporary >price increase, they could pose a risk to banks extending credit to >diamond dealers. For example, with a 40 percent surcharge, a diamond >dealer would have to pay $1,400 rather than $1,000 for a small lot of >diamonds; however, if the surcharge was withdrawn, the diamonds would >be worth only a thousand dollars. |
| csua.org/u/hfz -> www.newyorker.com/critics/books/articles/040628crbo_books1?040628crbo_books1 by LOUIS MENAND Issue of 2004-06-28 Posted 2004-06-21 The first punctuation mistake in "Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation" (Gotham; "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" presents itself as a call to arms, in a world spinning rapidly into subliteracy, by a hip yet unapologetic curmudgeon, a stickler for the rules of writing. But it's hard to fend off the suspicion that the whole thing might be a hoax. The foreword, by Frank McCourt, contains another comma-free nonrestrictive clause ("I feel no such sympathy for the manager of my local supermarket who must have a cellarful of apostrophes he doesn't know what to do with") and a superfluous ellipsis. The preface, by Truss, includes a misplaced apostrophe ("printers' marks") and two misused semicolons: one that separates unpunctuated items in a list and one that sets off a dependent clause. About half the semicolons in the rest of the book are either unnecessary or ungrammatical, and the comma is deployed as the mood strikes. Sometimes, phrases such as "of course" are set off by commas; Doubtful, distracting, and unwarranted commas turn up in front of restrictive phrases ("Naturally we become timid about making our insights known, in such inhospitable conditions"), before correlative conjunctions ("Either this will ring bells for you, or it won't"), and in prepositional phrases ("including biblical names, and any foreign name with an unpronounced final s' "). Where you most expect punctuation, it may not show up at all: "You have to give initial capitals to the words Biro and Hoover otherwise you automatically get tedious letters from solicitors." Parentheses are used, wrongly, to add independent clauses to the ends of sentences: "I bought a copy of Eric Partridge's Usage and Abusage and covered it in sticky-backed plastic so that it would last a lifetime (it has)." Citation form varies: one passage from the Bible is identified as "Luke, xxiii, 43" and another, a page later, as "Isaiah xl, 3" The word "abuzz" is printed with a hyphen, which it does not have. We are informed that when a sentence ends with a quotation American usage always places the terminal punctuation inside the quotation marks, which is not so. And it is stated that The New Yorker, "that famously punctilious periodical," renders "the nineteen-eighties" as the "1980's," which it does not. The New Yorker renders "the nineteen-eighties" as "the nineteen-eighties." For some reason, the folks at Gotham Books elected not to make any changes for the American edition, a typesetting convenience that makes the book virtually useless for American readers. As Truss herself notes, some conventions of British usage employed in "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" are taboo in the United States--for example, the placement of commas and periods outside quotation marks, "like this". The book also omits the serial comma, as in "eats, shoots and leaves," which is acceptable in the United States only in newspapers and commercial magazines. The supreme peculiarity of this peculiar publishing phenomenon is that the British are less rigid about punctuation and related matters, such as footnote and bibliographic form, than Americans are. An Englishwoman lecturing Americans on semicolons is a little like an American lecturing the French on sauces. Some of Truss's departures from punctuation norms are just British laxness. In a book that pretends to be all about firmness, though, this is not a good excuse. The main rule in grammatical form is to stick to whatever rules you start out with, and the most objectionable thing about Truss's writing is its inconsistency. Either Truss needed a copy editor or her copy editor needed a copy editor. Although she has dug up information about things like the history of the colon, Truss is so uninterested in the actual rules of punctuation that she even names the ones she flouts--for example, the rule that semicolons cannot be used to set off dependent clauses. And she admits that her editors are continually removing the commas that she tends to place before conjunctions. Why would a person who is not just vague about the rules but disinclined to follow them bother to produce a guide to punctuation? Truss, a former sports columnist for the London Times, appears to have been set a-blaze by two obsessions: superfluous apostrophes in commercial signage ("Potatoe's" and that sort of thing) and the elision of punctuation, along with uppercase letters, in e-mail messages. Are these portents of the night, soon coming, in which no man can read? Truss warns us that they are--"If we value the way we have been trained to think by centuries of absorbing the culture of the printed word, we must not allow the language to return to the chaotic scriptio continua swamp from which it so bravely crawled less than two thousand years ago"--but it's hard to know how seriously to take her, because her prose is so caffeinated that you can't always separate the sense from the sensibility. And that, undoubtedly, is the point, for it is the sensibility, the "I'm mad as hell" act, that has got her her readers. A characteristic passage: For any true stickler, you see, the sight of the plural word "Book's" with an apostrophe in it will trigger a ghastly private emotional process similar to the stages of bereavement, though greatly accelerated. Within seconds, shock gives way to disbelief, disbelief to pain, and pain to anger. Finally (and this is where the analogy breaks down), anger gives way to a righteous urge to perpetrate an act of criminal damage with the aid of a permanent marker. Some people do feel this way, and they do not wish to be handed the line that "language is always evolving," or some other slice of liberal pie. They don't even want to know what the distinction between a restrictive and a non-restrictive clause might be. They are like people who lose control when they hear a cell phone ring in a public place: they just need to vent. They don't care where her commas are, because her heart is in the right place. Though she has persuaded herself otherwise, Truss doesn't want people to care about correctness. She wants them to care about writing and about using the full resources of the language. "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" is really a "decline of print culture" book disguised as a style manual (poorly disguised). Truss has got things mixed up because she has confused two aspects of writing: the technological and the aesthetic. Writing is an instrument that was invented for recording, storing, and communicating. Using the relatively small number of symbols on the keyboard, you can record, store, and communicate a virtually infinite range of information, and encode meanings with virtually any degree of complexity. The system works entirely by relationships--the relationship of one symbol to another, of one word to another, of one sentence to another. The function of most punctuation--commas, colons and semicolons, dashes, and so on--is to help organize the relationships among the parts of a sentence. Its role is semantic: to add precision and complexity to meaning. It increases the information potential of strings of words. What most punctuation does not do is add color, texture, or flavor to the writing. Those are all things that belong to the aesthetics, and literary aesthetics are weirdly intangible. But people say that someone's prose is "colorful" or "pungent" or "shapeless" or "lyrical." When written language is decoded, it seems to trigger sensations that are unique to writing but that usually have to be described by analogy to some other activity. When deli owners put up signs that read " Iced' Tea," the single quotation marks are intended to add extraliterary significance to the message, as if they were the grammatical equivalent of red ink. Truss is quite clear about the role played by punctuation in making words mean something. But she also--it is part of her general inconsistency--suggests that semicolons, for example, signal readers to pause. She likes to animate her punctuation marks, to talk about the apostrophe and the dash as though they were little cartoon characters livening up the page. As she points out, ... |
| bluenile.com -> www.bluenile.com/ Find the perfect diamond engagement ring As the largest online retailer of certified diamonds, engagement rings and fine jewelry, we offer outstanding quality, selection, and value. Fine jewelry set with gemstones, diamonds, and pearls View our collection of finely-crafted jewelry in classic and modern designs. Win a Blue Nile Signature Diamond Enter to win a Blue Nile Signature Princess-Cut Diamond appraised at approximately $5,000. The Blue Nile Advantage Blue Nile offers thousands of GIA and AGSL certified diamonds, and we provide the guidance and education to help you choose the perfect one. Forbes Magazine has selected Blue Nile as a Forbes Favorite every year since 2000 and why we have been a part of over 80,000 engagements. |