Your arguement is a little skewed. You talk about diamonds as a gemstone and yet you talk about gold as an industrial product(note semi conductors). Like you said "diamonds are used as abrasives, drill bits etc." So they do have some form of utility. As your statement in the scarcity of diamond that it is not limited as compared to gold, i assure you that you are quite wrong. Natural diamonds are very scarce. If they werent then they would not have much value. There are techonology on making lab diamonds but then it is like comparing natural pearls to cultured pearls.

How do you determine the value of diamonds? Well if you have bought any that have real value, you will know that good diamond come with a Cert and Serial no on the quality of the diamonds. Certs are issued by GIA or some other certified institution. Then you compare it to the current market rate. Who detemines these rates? The simple idea of Supply and Demand. Just like everything else in this world. Think of crude oil. The prices were more than US150 per barrel and then dropped to less than US40 per barrel in less than 6 months. Have we suddenly stopped using oil? NO. Just some bunch of rich ppl playing the markets. So it is a very moot discussion of you talk of the price. Value is a different matter all together.

As both of your arguements on value. Value is a perception. Not something tangible. Something valueble to you might not be for me. Like the example of CD players and Rolex watches. Expensive watches are not valued so much by the material it is made but the technology and level of craftsmenship(most expensive watches are hand made ie. Patek, Panerai, Franck Muller, etc.) This is of value to somone who collects watches but not to the average Joe.

The purchase of diamonds are not value by the object in itself, but the idea or perception of its value. Its value could be in the happiness it brings to your loved one, or the sense of achievement in purchasing one, or just to show off that you have a bigger rock than the other person. The arguement on its monetary value and investment value is moot. Very rarely ppl invest in diamonds. If you want to invest in jewellery then watches would be your best bet(higher demand in the collectors circle)

I think this thread has taken a very personal turn and has stopped being a discussion.

---

Added on April 27, 2009, 4:30 pmI have to disagree on this. The most important 'C' is Carat. If your stone is too small, then the other Cs wont matter . Any thing less than 0.5 Carat would be too small to see the difference in the other Cs. You cant tell - the colour, cut only if it is very bad, defenitely cant see the clarity cause nothing/too small to make any significant difference.

Got a nice solitaire of 0.5 Carat, Brilliant cut, Colour E, VVS2, GIA from Carat Club. Cheaper and better quality then the other shops.




This post has been edited by Bishop: Apr 27 2009, 04:30 PM

I highly recommend you not to buy diamonds as a means of investment. Think her arguement was that diamonds do appreciate in value. The purpose of buying diamond is not to resell. there are a decent resale value in diamonds. Many shops have a buy back policy. All they do is reset the stone and it is like brand new. but that is not the purpose of buying the diamond.

Yes they do control the supply hence controlling the demand. Hence controlling the price, NOT the value.

val⋅ue
–noun
1. relative worth, merit, or importance

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/value


Value is a relative perception. Value is the meaning you give to it, not the price. You are getting mixed up about the two. If someone's deceased loved one left a garden rock to that someone. Then that rock would be very valueble to him. I doubt that he would change that for money or a diamond. "relative worth, merit, or importance", not the price. The value is in giving or recieving the diamond... matter of perception.

There is no misconception about it. Diamonds are pretty and nice, I think *I/my GF/mother/bf/etc* would like one, so i buy it. Those buggers at DeBeers say it is bloody expensive, but I have the money to get one so I buy it. There is no misconception about it. Demand and Supply.

---

Added on April 27, 2009, 6:13 pmYes it was . Set on a 3 clawed ring, it opens up the diamond to be viewed from all sides. Make it look bigger than other settings. A little high though...




This post has been edited by Bishop: Apr 27 2009, 06:13 PM

Again value is perception. Not the price. DO NOT buy something that you CANNOT afford.

Yes it is the same to the untrained eye. Just like cultured pearls. In fact cultured pearls usually look better. Again that is not the point of giving something. Why dont you give her a ring in rodium plating instead of white gold or platinium? To the untrained eye it is just white shiny metal.

Just a matter of where you put your values...

Yes that is true. But why are you comparing diamonds with gold and oil? Why not compare it to art or watches. Then you are comparing apples with apples. I dont think moorish or anyone here have implied that diamonds have any economical usage. It is an ornament. And THAT IS IT. You can resell it if the need arise but other than that it is just a shiny piece of stone.

Yes its price have been severely over inflated, but then there are people paying US57 milion for an eight cm tall limestone sclupture - The Guennol Lioness. What do you call that? THese are prices that so called valuers give to something seemingly useless stone that have no value except percieve value. How about paying US140million for Pollock art? Which i might add has no artistic value except the concept of kinetic art. It takes no artistic talent to create that piece of work. Just"drips" or "splatter" of paint on a canvas. I think this would be a better comparison. Ornament to ornament.

As your arguement on diamonds financing wars, I can assure you oil have push more countries to war than diamonds. Think of how many wars have started because of that? perhaps you should think of that when you pump petrol?

Supply and Demand. Anything of financial value is being played by someone in power- think crude oil, gold, stock markets, etc. Diamonds are no different.



This post has been edited by Bishop: Apr 27 2009, 08:50 PM

She has a very simplistic and socially accepted view of the matter. That is the industry that she is in and to be a good sales person you need to have faith in your product. So challaging her on it, again is moot.

2. To her as long as the object inflate in price over time hence initial investment have grown. Therefore good. To her defence she said you can sell it should you need cash. Dont think she meant it as an investment.

3. Diamonds are forever. Takes carbon to become diamond in many many thousands/million(?) of years to form and it is still the hardest element known to man. So theoritically it is "forever"

---

Added on April 27, 2009, 10:03 pmYes triple X. Got it for less than RM10K . It is not their love diamond. If you get their love diamond it cost about 30% more. Just for the branding/engraving and cert.

Went to a few shops, they started quoting at RM11-13K for a half carat. Most of them are just VS and F or G colour.



This post has been edited by Bishop: Apr 27 2009, 10:03 PM

They actually are making real diamonds in the lab. Millions of years reduced to 4 days (saw it in Discovery)

The recent Iraq war was oil motivated. or do you believe the bullshit about freedom and human rights?


"Anything of financial value is being played by someone in power- think crude oil, gold, stock markets, etc.", that makes it okay.

Note I didnt say it was ok, I just made a neutral statement that is all. That is the way our world works. You can accept it or deny it.

---

Added on April 28, 2009, 9:55 amBeen there done that, it was a priceless experience, although i wouldnt repeat it again anytime soon...

Well my "buddy", you obviously have not made your significant one happy before... (heaven on earth )

---

Added on April 28, 2009, 10:02 amThey are actually identical except for the engraving of the love diamond and their buy back policy. If you dont intend to sell it then you can save the money. (my ex staff used to work there)



This post has been edited by Bishop: Apr 28 2009, 10:02 AM

My dear "buddy", at which point did I say that I didnt care?
Then again I never said that I do.

I merely highlighted the point that there are many other unscruplous business and trades out there. Not just the diamond trade which you take so personally. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, it is a sad predicament of what is happening in the diamond trade. But that is not the only trade that has cause war and abused human rights. What about all the sweat shops in indochina? You going to stop wearing clothes?

You are just making a very personal view on the matter. Think about it. You talk about De Beers financing the slave trade in Africa. Well they merely pay for services provided.

-They want diamonds.
-Some ppl can get it for them.
-They pay.

In what circumstances these ppl choose to produce that diamond, I dont think that the ppl at De Beers really care. They just want the diamonds. Simply supply and demand. So if you think about it, De Beers only want the diamonds. It is the ppl in Africa that CHOOSES to kill/rape/enslave their OWN ppl for money.

So my dear "buddy", who is at wrong here? De Beers for willing to pay a lot of money for something seemingly worthless? or the warlords in Africa killing and enslaving their OWN ppl to get money? So who is actually really cutting off the breast of Africa?

So you are the ppl who feel the need to impose their views on to other ppl. Take a neutral view and see who is really doing all the butchering?

Silverhawk, there is no point continuing to flame moorish. She has a very simplistic view of investment. She is not a sophiscated investor. She like many out there views investment as something that apprciate in price through time. Just like how everyone thinks that buying a house is investment without taking into account the cost of interest, maintainence, inflation, taxes, etc (YES, many of you out there buying houses as an investment is actually buying a liability )

So to her something that she bought a long time ago, now cost more means she make money, means good. Hence her views on diamonds as a good investment. It is just a matter of preference. Some ppl buy art as an investment, others collect comics/coins/stamps as investment.

No point you trying to force your views down her throat. The fact remains that diamond do appreciate in price(regardless of who is controlling/playing the market) makes it an investment. Not a good one. Nor a very profitable one, but a form of investment nonetheless.



This post has been edited by Bishop: Apr 28 2009, 06:08 PM

well if you buy a house at RM500k with interest at 6% you are paying RM30k of interest a year. So if you are renting at RM2k/month you are actually saving on interest. Cause paying RM2k a month is not getting you closer to buying the house.... And if you are taking a 20 year loan you end up paying RM1.2million for your house...

(but when you sell it for RM1million you think that you made a good investment )

If you rent you get a house to stay. If you buy you also get a house to stay. So you get the same thing - a house to stay. In the end? In the end you die. Dont need a house by then.

But the idea of investment is to make money. If you buy your house and it appreciates 10x in price but you dont sell it then it is not an investment because you didnt make money out of it. (like my mom's house - up 15x but she dont want to sell )

(Think we just hijacked the diamond thread.... )

This post has been edited by Bishop: Apr 28 2009, 07:09 PM

The issue is that you are judging your standards against hers. By her standards that much appreciation is a good investment. That is her standard. You are putting your standards against hers. Many are happy with a proton, others will never drive anything less than a BMW. Are you to say that the latter is wrong. No. It is just a matter of different standards or reference point if you must.

As for the WORMS statement. It is not twisting. It is a fact. Again you are measuring against your yardstick. Good for her is obviously not good enough for you. What is an investment but appreciation in value. No one say it must be of significant appreciation.

---

Added on April 28, 2009, 8:44 pmLets put it in her methodology of thinking.

I like shinny stones = GOOD
Shinny stones appreciate in price = INVESTMENT

therefore GOOD INVESTMENT.

Obviously this method of investment is not up to both your standards then let her be happy in her reality. We are not here to judge her sense of value. She obviously put a lot of it in shinny stones but then you must remember that that is her reality/life.

I am not supporting or defending moorish. I just believe that everyone has their values and priority in different things. Some in money, some in relationship, some in god, and there are some in little shinny stones. We are not here to impose our values to other ppl. There is really no point in agrueing on this, it would be like argueing that my god is better than your god.



This post has been edited by Bishop: Apr 28 2009, 08:44 PM

Her approach to investment is very simplistic. I dont think she knows what ROI is. Read my previous post. Again a simple appreciation in value is also an investment. And her reference to good is probably more personal to her than actual monetary value.

I agree with the education part. I just dont agree with the tone that this thread has taken. It has becomed a series of attacks and justifications between the posters. If we approach it in a more mature manner instead of name calling and ego centric chanllanges, I think it would be a lot easier to digest. (but then that is only my point of view... )

I believe the confusion is in the term "investment".
"Investing is the active redirecting resources from being consumed today so that they may create benefits in the future; the use of assets to earn income or profit."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment#cite_note-1

But when you say investing in CD players and motorcycles, then i think you have confused everyone on the term investment. Thoose are doodads. Those so called investments are self gratification in nature and have no inherit value other than to the initial purchaser. The word "investment" used in the purchase of those luxury items are used very loosely. It is just post justification of spending large sums of money.

So if you are comparing doodads as a means of investment with diamond, I see why you would say that it is a "damn good investment", because those other things are not what we would call investments. They are called spending money.

So Silverhawk, like i said in my earlier post, she has a simplistic interpretation of the term investment. So when you talk in terms of ROI, it is not relavant as she compares her diamonds to HiFi's and motorcycles as means of investment. In that sense it is really damn good.

You have confused everyone when you use the term investment . Most ppl understand it as defined in my previous post.

An underlying point in that post that I left out is that most, if not all, of those assets–the HDTV’s, the luxury cars, the stereo systems, the swimming pools–are horrible investments. They aren’t “assets” at all. Instead, they are fake “assets.” Better yet, they are liabilities. (Robert Kiyosaki likes to call them “doodads.”)
http://flimjo.com/fake-assets-doodads-expe...epleting-items/

That is why the others are questioning you on the returns (ROI) when you say investment. Just clarifying your point of reference to them.

I think the others will understand your stand now.

No worries.

Go back to telling ppl how to buy pretty diamonds.

I think you should focus on advising ppl on how to select good diamonds and avoid the idea of investment.
One of the criteria of good investment is liquidity. As mentioned in the 2nd paragraph and somewhere in the middle of your article, diamonds are not very liquid, therefore making them not very good investment.

Lets just focus on the original intent of this thread, selecting diamonds.

This post has been edited by Bishop: Apr 29 2009, 10:55 AM

You can take a horse to the water but that doesnt mean it will drink...

Such a waste. I was starting to like this thread.

(what ever happend to Mr D1ck and his breast cutting thingy?)

This post has been edited by Bishop: Apr 29 2009, 01:46 PM