Anyone else think that diamonds are ugly?

[torpid]

I wouldn't say they are ugly, but I prefer things with a bit more color.

Also, can someone explain to me how light reflects light?

 

[MegaVovaN]

Originally posted by: torpid
can someone explain to me how light reflects light?

I don't understand your question...diamond works kinda like a prism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_%28optics%29

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: MegaVovaN

Originally posted by: torpid
can someone explain to me how light reflects light?

I don't understand your question...diamond works kinda like a prism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_%28optics%29

I'm referring to the post above by slicksnake. I know how prisms work.

 

[HammerCurl]

titties>diamonds

 

[KarmaPolice]

I see a lot of Jewelry and honestly, I don't get why diamonds are so special. Used in a nice design or very simply they can look nice, but when they are used too much it just looks too flashy. They are very very overpriced.

 

[MegaVovaN]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Vic
A properly cut diamond will reflect light like no other substance in the universe.

Except light.

Anyone who thinks a diamond is more important than food and a roof over your head, has too much money to worry much about how ugly they are.

this one?

Hmm, here's the catch: light is NOT a substance

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Diamonds are properly setting stones. It wasn't until the last 100 years when they became centerpieces. Demand has been artificially inflated.

 

[alkemyst]

Diamonds are nice...most everything we have today has been gained by spilling the blood of someone.

 

[moks78]

Originally posted by: compnovice
Diamonds are forever..........Ugly.

Tell that to the wifey and you won't have any tonight.

 

[Xylitol]

I like diamonds
I just think that the other 3 rare gems are better, especially for their prices

 

[BoomerD]

I like diamonds if they're well cut, of good quality and clarity, and if they have the right color.

MOST diamonds sold in jewelry stores are crap. SI, SI1, SI2, VS...pretty poor quality. Depending on the intended use, never settle for anything less than VS2, and if it's for a wedding/engagement ring, VVS2 is best. You really don't want to buy that special someone a diamond with a visible black carbon spot or other inclusion in it...Not only can they be visible to the naked eye, they can also affect the light refraction, which is what makes a good diamond sparkle...

I also agree that some of the gemstones are as nice or nicer than diamonds. Not much prettier than a good quality, well cut blood-red ruby, or a sparkling kelly-green emerald...and sapphires...ah the color variation of good quality sapphires...blue...blue...blue....

My wife has several rings/earring sets of matching colored stones. NONE are lab-created except one Chatham Emerald ring that I bought just because it was so unique.

Pearls are about the only area where her jewelry collection is lacking. She likes them, but isn't crazy about them...so I rarely buy any...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Vic
A properly cut diamond will reflect light like no other substance in the universe.

Except light.

Anyone who thinks a diamond is more important than food and a roof over your head, has too much money to worry much about how ugly they are.

Light is not a substance. And I didn't see anyone suggest that diamonds are more important than food or a roof. The discussion here is that diamonds are ugly, which is silly IMO. There are many beautiful gemstones, and diamonds are rightfully considered among the most beautiful and precious of those.

I won't argue the poor quality of the diamonds sold in mall jewelers, but VS clarity diamonds should not have inclusions visible to the naked eye, not even a trained one.

Here's a cool trick to do with a diamond for those who think they're ugly. Shine a laser pointer through one in a darkened room.

 

[Throckmorton]

Most diamonds are shallow cut to retain more of the material-- the angles are not optimal for exploiting the dispersion of a diamond.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Vic
A properly cut diamond will reflect light like no other substance in the universe.

Except light.

Anyone who thinks a diamond is more important than food and a roof over your head, has too much money to worry much about how ugly they are.

Light is not a substance. And I didn't see anyone suggest that diamonds are more important than food or a roof. The discussion here is that diamonds are ugly, which is silly IMO. There are many beautiful gemstones, and diamonds are rightfully considered among the most beautiful and precious of those.

I won't argue the poor quality of the diamonds sold in mall jewelers, but VS clarity diamonds should not have inclusions visible to the naked eye, not even a trained one.

Here's a cool trick to do with a diamond for those who think they're ugly. Shine a laser pointer through one in a darkened room.

Oh really?

Light consists of wave-packets in neighboring E-Strings. On it's way toward it's target, a wave-packet will follow the geometry of these neighboring E-Strings. This description of light embodies duality, i.e. light possessing properties of a mass-bearing particle as well as a wave packet.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Vic
A properly cut diamond will reflect light like no other substance in the universe.

Except light.

Anyone who thinks a diamond is more important than food and a roof over your head, has too much money to worry much about how ugly they are.

Light is not a substance. And I didn't see anyone suggest that diamonds are more important than food or a roof. The discussion here is that diamonds are ugly, which is silly IMO. There are many beautiful gemstones, and diamonds are rightfully considered among the most beautiful and precious of those.

I won't argue the poor quality of the diamonds sold in mall jewelers, but VS clarity diamonds should not have inclusions visible to the naked eye, not even a trained one.

Here's a cool trick to do with a diamond for those who think they're ugly. Shine a laser pointer through one in a darkened room.

That's odd. I suggested it. I think I qualify as anyone, or more correctly, someone. Is there some unknown reason why you would even bring this up at all as some point of debate?

It was pretty clear why I made that comment. Since it implied those who covet them for the most part are those who aren't really concerned with trivialities like FOOD OR A ROOF OVER YOUR HEAD. Since that is the case, I think it was ON TOPIC. Thanks for being overly anal-retentive about my post, though. :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: Vic
A properly cut diamond will reflect light like no other substance in the universe.

Except light.

Anyone who thinks a diamond is more important than food and a roof over your head, has too much money to worry much about how ugly they are.

Light is not a substance. And I didn't see anyone suggest that diamonds are more important than food or a roof. The discussion here is that diamonds are ugly, which is silly IMO. There are many beautiful gemstones, and diamonds are rightfully considered among the most beautiful and precious of those.

I won't argue the poor quality of the diamonds sold in mall jewelers, but VS clarity diamonds should not have inclusions visible to the naked eye, not even a trained one.

Here's a cool trick to do with a diamond for those who think they're ugly. Shine a laser pointer through one in a darkened room.

Oh really?

Light consists of wave-packets in neighboring E-Strings. On it's way toward it's target, a wave-packet will follow the geometry of these neighboring E-Strings. This description of light embodies duality, i.e. light possessing properties of a mass-bearing particle as well as a wave packet.

That's nice, but light is massless, and substances are material by definition.

And your food and roof comment might have been on topic in your opinion, but it was still "out of left field," and was presented by you in such a manner as to cause any reasonable person to assume that you were making it in reference to something I said.

Don't be a tool.

 

[toekramp]

I don't know, but these pretzels are making me thirsty!

 

[Koing]

Not ugly but I would not buy myself something like a diamond ring...too expensive and not for me. I'm not in to jewlery but I like watches

Koing

 

[mrrman]

overhyped marketing