Diamonds are beautiful, yes. But so are emeralds, rubies, sapphires, and other gemstones. Until a few decades ago, diamonds were just one gem among many. But then in 1934, the DeBeers cartel set up the Diamond Trading Corporation and began what may be history's most brilliant advertising campaign. Before 1934, men gave women any sorts of gems they wanted to; in "Busman's Honeymoon," Lord Peter gives Harriet a "whacking great ruby." Today, thanks to decades of brilliant advertising (the slogan "A diamond is forever" was first used in 1947!), only mavericks want anything other than a diamond, and we're urged to buy diamond anniversary rings, diamond trilogy rings, diamond eternity rings, diamond right-hand rings (for divorcées and independent women), diamond pendants, diamond tennis bracelets, and soon, doubtless, diamond-encrusted toilet seats.
Synthetic diamonds were invented in the 1950s. From primitive beginnings, these diamonds have evolved into stones so perfect they can fool even professional jewelry appraisers. As part of its "Gem Defensive Programme," the DTC has developed instruments that allegedly can detect all "treatments, synthetics, and simulants" (if they're indistinguishable even to jewelers, WHO CARES?), and the DTC is lobbying hard for synthetic diamonds to be labeled as such. Presumably their hope is to stigmatize the less-expensive synthetics in "defense" of their profit margin.
Pearls have been valued as gems and objects of beauty for centuries, so much so that "pearl" means something rare, fine, and "of great price." A hundred years ago, a pearl necklace was worth a queen's ransom. Today, thanks to cultured pearls (real pearls grown on a "farm"), you can get a much bigger, showier pearl necklace for $5 plus shipping and handling from a variety of "waste your money with our cheap stuff" mail-order outfits.
And that's the problem with diamond jewelry as an investment. I am currently in possession of a family heirloom, a beautiful antique ring with 17 small mine-cut diamonds. It goes to the oldest girl in the family when she turns 18, and I believe it first belonged to my great-great grandmother. When the ring was given to me in 1970, it was appraised at $2,500. Two years ago, with the cost of living having multiplied about eightfold since 1970 and the price of gold rising, I had the ring appraised again. I fantasized that it would be worth at least $25,000. I was astounded to discover that, thanks to synthetics, my wonderful heirloom is now worth . . . $2,500. In other words, it had LOST about 88 percent of its value!
I had been trying to think up excuses NOT to pass "my" ring on to the oldest girl of the next generation, but now, why not? By the time Emma turns 18, my beautiful heirloom will probably still be worth $2,500, but $2,500 then will be what $250 is today. (Thank you, George W. Bush!) But the ring will still be beautiful, it will still be an antique, and it will still have sentimental value.
And THAT is why one should have expensive jewelry — not because it is expensive, but because it gives the wearer joy or has meaning in the wearer's life. If you're looking for a smart investment, invest in companies that serve the common good. Invest in solar power, in wind power, in biofuels that aren't made out of food, in other "green" concerns. Invest in organizations that make microloans to the world's poor. Invest in companies that maintain our nation's infrastructure; invest in companies that care more about social responsibility than how many hundred million a year its CEO should make.
Invest in education, as opposed to propaganda or "ignorance-only" education. Don't succumb to the allure of those gorgeous commercials and buy expensive diamond jewelry only because 74 years of brilliant advertising have made you believe that only expensive diamond jewelry can show your love. It's an "investment" in an asset that's overpriced to begin with and will only decrease in value.
For a smart investment, invest your money in people's hopes and dreams, not ostentatious "stuff." "Stuff" is never going to love you back.
No comments:
Post a Comment