Occasionally I've been known to get a bit grumpy about certain holidays - Valentine's Day being one of them - because of a feeling that the pressure to conform causes more trouble than it's worth, emotionally speaking. Sometimes, this leads to me feeling like a bit of a party pooper, although I don't feel like I'm actively disdaining anybody's choices to give a loved one roses or chocolates or balloons - I just don't feel that it's a realistic barometer for the relationship in either direction.
Diamond engagement rings are another thing for me - I'm not thrilled by the fact that they are, like Valentine's Day, an artifically created "tradition" with a fairly bloody history. Again, I pass no judgement on people who desperately crave a diamond ring for their engagement, but there are reasons that I requested a very pretty, lab-created ruby ring that cost a fraction of what a diamond does for my engagement ring. This article from 1982 (link found via Boing Boing) from The Atlantic does a really nice job of charting the history of the diamond as a desired object. Here are a few snippets that I think are particularly interesting:
1870, however, huge diamond mines were discovered near the Orange River, in South Africa, where diamonds were soon being scooped out by the ton. Suddenly, the market was deluged with diamonds. The British financiers who had organized the South African mines quickly realized that their investment was endangered; diamonds had little intrinsic value—and their price depended almost entirely on their scarcity. The financiers feared that when new mines were developed in South Africa, diamonds would become at best only semiprecious gems.
In 1938, De Beers sought out a New York ad firm to carry out a unique campaign - turn diamonds into something that women would crave and which men would provide them.
Although it could do little about the state of the economy, N. W. Ayer suggested that through a well-orchestrated advertising and public-relations campaign it could have a significant impact on the "social attitudes of the public at large and thereby channel American spending toward larger and more expensive diamonds instead of "competitive luxuries." Specifically, the Ayer study stressed the need to strengthen the association in the public's mind of diamonds with romance. Since "young men buy over 90% of all engagement rings" it would be crucial to inculcate in them the idea that diamonds were a gift of love: the larger and finer the diamond, the greater the expression of love. Similarly, young women had to be encouraged to view diamonds as an integral part of any romantic courtship.
The campaign started to bear fruit, and the ad agency continued with even more aggressive marketing tactics: In its 1947 strategy plan, the advertising agency strongly emphasized a psychological approach. "We are dealing with a problem in mass psychology. We seek to ... strengthen the tradition of the diamond engagement ring -- to make it a psychological necessity capable of competing successfully at the retail level with utility goods and services...." It defined as its target audience "some 70 million people 15 years and over whose opinion we hope to influence in support of our objectives." N. W. Ayer outlined a subtle program that included arranging for lecturers to visit high schools across the country. "All of these lectures revolve around the diamond engagement ring, and are reaching thousands of girls in their assemblies, classes and informal meetings in our leading educational institutions," the agency explained in a memorandum to De Beers.
By the end of the 1950s, things had taken hold - The message had been so successfully impressed on the minds of this generation that those who could not afford to buy a diamond at the time of their marriage would "defer the purchase" rather than forgo it. De Beers went on to create a campaign for Japan, where a diamond engagement ring had been no part of the cultural tradition at all, and painted the diamond as a way to display wealth, and demonstrate a sense of modernism. By the 1980s, sixty percent of Japanese brides had a diamond ring on their finger.
The article goes on, and discusses such things as marketing diamonds to couples already married, a secret deal with the Soviets which resulted in a secondary campaign for smaller diamond rings or rings made up of many smaller diamonds instead of one large one, and, years later, another move to bring larger rings back into fashion because the previous ad blitz had been so successful that large diamonds were now seen as ostentatious and vulgar. Plus, the diamond cartel had to figure out ways to keep all the diamonds already in the hands of consumers from being re-released back onto the market, which would result in prices dropping, and it's resulted in diamonds actually being a very poor investment despite the perception that they are a very good one. In fact, pity the poor jewel thief who makes off with a sack of diamonds - he won't be able to sell them for very much at all.
When thieves bring diamonds to underworld "fences," they usually get only a pittance for them. In 1979, for example, New York City police recovere stolen diamonds with an insured value of $50,000 which had been sold to a 'fence' for only $200. According to the assistant district attorney who handled the case, the fence was unable to dispose of the diamonds on 47th Street, and he was eventually turned in by one of the diamond dealers he contacted.
And what to do with the new diamond mines in Australia, that have the potential to flood the market with even more stones?
The entire article is very worth a read - it's long, but fascinating. I wish somebody would do a follow-up to see how it all played out.
Diamond engagement rings are another thing for me - I'm not thrilled by the fact that they are, like Valentine's Day, an artifically created "tradition" with a fairly bloody history. Again, I pass no judgement on people who desperately crave a diamond ring for their engagement, but there are reasons that I requested a very pretty, lab-created ruby ring that cost a fraction of what a diamond does for my engagement ring. This article from 1982 (link found via Boing Boing) from The Atlantic does a really nice job of charting the history of the diamond as a desired object. Here are a few snippets that I think are particularly interesting:
1870, however, huge diamond mines were discovered near the Orange River, in South Africa, where diamonds were soon being scooped out by the ton. Suddenly, the market was deluged with diamonds. The British financiers who had organized the South African mines quickly realized that their investment was endangered; diamonds had little intrinsic value—and their price depended almost entirely on their scarcity. The financiers feared that when new mines were developed in South Africa, diamonds would become at best only semiprecious gems.
In 1938, De Beers sought out a New York ad firm to carry out a unique campaign - turn diamonds into something that women would crave and which men would provide them.
Although it could do little about the state of the economy, N. W. Ayer suggested that through a well-orchestrated advertising and public-relations campaign it could have a significant impact on the "social attitudes of the public at large and thereby channel American spending toward larger and more expensive diamonds instead of "competitive luxuries." Specifically, the Ayer study stressed the need to strengthen the association in the public's mind of diamonds with romance. Since "young men buy over 90% of all engagement rings" it would be crucial to inculcate in them the idea that diamonds were a gift of love: the larger and finer the diamond, the greater the expression of love. Similarly, young women had to be encouraged to view diamonds as an integral part of any romantic courtship.
The campaign started to bear fruit, and the ad agency continued with even more aggressive marketing tactics: In its 1947 strategy plan, the advertising agency strongly emphasized a psychological approach. "We are dealing with a problem in mass psychology. We seek to ... strengthen the tradition of the diamond engagement ring -- to make it a psychological necessity capable of competing successfully at the retail level with utility goods and services...." It defined as its target audience "some 70 million people 15 years and over whose opinion we hope to influence in support of our objectives." N. W. Ayer outlined a subtle program that included arranging for lecturers to visit high schools across the country. "All of these lectures revolve around the diamond engagement ring, and are reaching thousands of girls in their assemblies, classes and informal meetings in our leading educational institutions," the agency explained in a memorandum to De Beers.
By the end of the 1950s, things had taken hold - The message had been so successfully impressed on the minds of this generation that those who could not afford to buy a diamond at the time of their marriage would "defer the purchase" rather than forgo it. De Beers went on to create a campaign for Japan, where a diamond engagement ring had been no part of the cultural tradition at all, and painted the diamond as a way to display wealth, and demonstrate a sense of modernism. By the 1980s, sixty percent of Japanese brides had a diamond ring on their finger.
The article goes on, and discusses such things as marketing diamonds to couples already married, a secret deal with the Soviets which resulted in a secondary campaign for smaller diamond rings or rings made up of many smaller diamonds instead of one large one, and, years later, another move to bring larger rings back into fashion because the previous ad blitz had been so successful that large diamonds were now seen as ostentatious and vulgar. Plus, the diamond cartel had to figure out ways to keep all the diamonds already in the hands of consumers from being re-released back onto the market, which would result in prices dropping, and it's resulted in diamonds actually being a very poor investment despite the perception that they are a very good one. In fact, pity the poor jewel thief who makes off with a sack of diamonds - he won't be able to sell them for very much at all.
When thieves bring diamonds to underworld "fences," they usually get only a pittance for them. In 1979, for example, New York City police recovere stolen diamonds with an insured value of $50,000 which had been sold to a 'fence' for only $200. According to the assistant district attorney who handled the case, the fence was unable to dispose of the diamonds on 47th Street, and he was eventually turned in by one of the diamond dealers he contacted.
And what to do with the new diamond mines in Australia, that have the potential to flood the market with even more stones?
The entire article is very worth a read - it's long, but fascinating. I wish somebody would do a follow-up to see how it all played out.