Brilliant example. There's another social signal that's relevant across cultures regarding wedding rings: the design of the setting. The complexity and attractiveness of how the stones are set is what people notice, above and beyond the stones themselves. (The only thing people tend to notice about the stones is the size and quantity.)
My wife wears a moissanite ring, which she loves. The deciding factor was that we could afford a unique custom-designed setting if we went with moissanite. The same ring with diamonds would have been more expensive by at least a factor of ten.
My wife worked in high-end bridal in NYC for a few years, and rings were always a topic of conversation. The amount of times prospects noticed the stones in her ring were moissanite: zero. The setting sends a stronger signal, and it's less expensive. To echo patio, people who saw the ring assumed I was unreasonably well off, when the true total price was less than the latest MacBook.
Paying up for "perfect" diamonds is a complete waste of money from a signaling standpoint. Spend on the setting and design, not the stones.
Unfortunately, if you do ever want to sell, the setting is essentially worthless. Almost all of the cost of the setting is in the labor, and, as the article explains, those who buy "used" jewelry are almost certainly going to part it out and melt it down. (That is, unless you're talking about really high end estate jewelery.) So, for the $3-10k you'll spend for a nice setting, you'll probably get back 20-50% of the price of the stones, and maybe 60-80% of the spot value of whatever metal you choose, which again, is far, far less than the cost of the setting.
This isn't to say that you're not right on from a signaling standpoint, just that if you think you might have the need to resell the ring in the future (or perhaps borrow against it), you're better off getting a better stone than a fancier setting.
Do engagement rings have a large resale value anyway? This is a whole article about the marketing push for diamonds. I can't imagine what "second hand ring" would say....
That's sort of the point. The ring itself is only really worth whatever the metal weighs because nobody wants a "used" ring. So if you sell the ring to a jeweler, he is almost certain to melt it down and recast it. Whatever you paid for the craftsmanship/design of the ring is literally melted away.
The stone is another story. It's very easy to resell/reuse good stones, although as the article indicates, the value you'll be able to recoup isn't exactly great.
Yes that's true, but I'd presume a lot of what you pay for in a diamond ring initially is not the cost of raw materials, but the symolism, and hence a diamond ring would lose value.
I was thinking you'd lose money either way if you went with diamond vs. non-diamond, so "you'll lose value" is not a compelling argument for non-diamond.
Everything about a wedding is front-loaded to an exreme. From photos, to flowers, to cars - when it's a wedding the price is loaded. It's a complete rort, everyone knows it is going on, yet - there it is, everyone just pays up. Because nobody wants to be seen to be cheap.
My wife wears a moissanite ring, which she loves. The deciding factor was that we could afford a unique custom-designed setting if we went with moissanite. The same ring with diamonds would have been more expensive by at least a factor of ten.
My wife worked in high-end bridal in NYC for a few years, and rings were always a topic of conversation. The amount of times prospects noticed the stones in her ring were moissanite: zero. The setting sends a stronger signal, and it's less expensive. To echo patio, people who saw the ring assumed I was unreasonably well off, when the true total price was less than the latest MacBook.
Paying up for "perfect" diamonds is a complete waste of money from a signaling standpoint. Spend on the setting and design, not the stones.