the cost is entirely the point.

Assume you have 2 diamonds that cost the same.

One is natural, the other is larger and man made.

Which one is more likely to convey your point to the average person?

grues-dinner 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

The more rational decision, IMO, assuming you still want to signal wealth, is to buy neither, collude with your supposed life partner, buy a gigantic, flawless moissanite that you both agree to say is a natural diamond that cost 50k. Then secretly put the money you didn't spend on sparkling carbon into some appreciating asset. Rivals are still sick with envy, you have a fun joint venture bamboozle to laugh about, and the mortgage gets paid off a few years early.

▲

WorkerBee28474 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The larger one, because people will think it costs more.

▲

cwmoore 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

"would tend to reconsider any long term relationship with such a person"

Are you arguing that anyone who would accept and display a precious gem is ineligible for marriage? More so if it is larger, but not if more expensive? The post you are replying to presents a plausible social economy of the tradition. What is your point?

	▲	jqpabc123 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Are you arguing that anyone who would accept and display a precious gem is ineligible for marriage? No. My point is that anyone who conditions marriage on the size or cost of a diamond is ineligible to marry me. My wife accepted my marriage proposal without a ring. One was added later --- after other more urgent finances were covered and reassuring her that it would be modest and not overly wasteful. In other words, this was done strictly because I wanted to --- not as a pre-condition for her acceptance. She says doing it this way was more meaningful.