Go to main Forum page »
I was in my friend’s workshop recently. He’s a goldsmith, the proper kind, with a laser welder, a magnifying glass tucked above one eye, and old fashioned tools he uses to make expensive things even more expensive. We were there because Suzie had lost a claw from the setting of her diamond engagement ring. One of those four tiny prongs that holds the whole romantic enterprise in place had simply given up, which made Suzie anxious until he fixed it in about ten minutes flat.
The argument about whether I should pay him lasted considerably longer than the repair. Once that was settled, badly from his perspective, we sat drinking coffee and he told me something I found genuinely fascinating. It doesn’t fit neatly into a financial story. I’m sharing it anyway.
Suzie’s ring has a half-carat main stone. Half a carat was what we could stretch to at the time, and we could only manage that because the owner of the business I worked for happened to know someone in the wholesale jewellery trade who let us in through the back door of the pricing. Without that connection, we’d probably have been looking at a very nice cubic zirconia or a microscope diamond.
But here’s what my goldsmith friend explained, coffee in hand, in that particular tone of a man sharing trade knowledge he suspects you’ll find more interesting than you have any right to. The cost relationship between the diamond and the gold in a ring like Suzie’s has completely reversed since the day I bought it.
Forty-odd years ago, the rough split was 80/20, eighty per cent of the ring’s cost was the diamond, twenty per cent was the gold. Today, that ratio has essentially flipped. The gold now accounts for around eighty per cent of the cost. The same ring, the same design, but with an entirely different financial story.
The reason is twofold. On one side, gold has undergone a massive price increase that makes my portfolio return look rather sad. On the other side, diamonds, once the symbol of geological rarity and therefore value, have been ambushed by science. Synthetic diamonds, which were the stuff of science fiction when I was growing up, are now indistinguishable from the natural thing and available at a fraction of the price.
The lab-grown diamond market has grown so rapidly that it has effectively crashed the value of stones. The earth spent billions of years making something rare, and then chemistry spent about fifteen years making it commonplace. The result is a complete inversion of what everyone assumed was a fixed truth about jewellery.
Diamonds may still be a girl’s best friend. But the simple 18 carat band of gold that holds one in place has become the serious money in the relationship. The romantic centrepiece has become the affordable bit. The humble supporting act is now the star.
Suzie’s ring is over forty years old. It seems that gold was a good investment all along. But as far as I’m concerned, I struck gold the day I married my youthful bride.
Mark, another great piece – thanks.
Two thoughts.
Firstly, my wife has a very simple wedding ring that she likes. No idea how many karats of anything might be involved. But Cindy likes it, and that’s all that matters. I didn’t get a wedding ring, as I have never worn any jewelry. Cindy and I agreed that it was pointless to purchase something that I wouldn’t wear.
Secondly, I think your article makes a really nice point about gold, diamonds, Bitcoin and a range of other non-productive assets. There is no sensible methodology to determine what the fair value of any of these speculative assets should be. As many other comments have noted, investing in income-producing assets just makes a lot more sense to me.
Greg, on your second point. I think a lot of that speculative value rests squarely on the shaky foundation of the greater full theory.
Agreed Mark, I was just trying to be “diplomatic” with my words!
Mark,
Your writing style sparkles like diamonds ;).
Seriously… another well-written, entertaining article.
Andy, thanks for your kind words, although it could be argued that I simply ramble on a bit too much 😉
As I understand it, there has been a large excess of natural diamonds for years. The price of diamonds was carefully controlled because one supplier dominated the market, and it was able to control that world supply, stockpiling diamonds to keep them off the market. With the availability of diamonds kept low, the market-clearing price of diamonds could be kept much higher than would be merited in a freely competitive market, and the profits to the dominant supplier would be maximized. The stranglehold of that single supplier has eroded, though not completely.
Artificial diamonds also carried a stigma for a while, because there was a view that “if you really loved me, you’d buy me a real diamond regardless of the price.” But that stigma has eroded, too. People seem finally to be recognizing that love shouldn’t be measured by the price paid for the ring.
Martin, instead of video killing the radio star, artificial diamonds killed the De Beers business plan.
I think there is an important lesson here. You can invest in assets that generate cash flows, with businesses being an example. You can also invest in assets that don’t generate cash flows, with commodities being an example. I wouldn’t be surprised if 25 years ago, there were people who advocated owning diamonds as an investment. Human beings think of better ways to generate commodities.
Admittedly, assets that generate cash flows are not without their problems. Companies that supplied horse and buggy transportation would be an example. But diversification can decrease that risk.
Bruce, I’ve never quite felt the pull of commodities as an investment class — and I’ve never been able to put my finger on why. As an index investor, I figure if horse and buggy manufacturers ever stage a comeback, I’ll already have a slice of that pie waiting for me. And as of Friday, apparently, I’m now the proud part-owner of a spaceship company. The index giveth in mysterious ways.
Thanks for this great story Mark, and keep them coming. My wife’s ring is now 58 years old, the diamond is 0.4 carats is small but the band is 18 karats Gold. But really, the only important thing is we are happily married and enjoying our grand kids. Smiles.
William, I couldn’t agree more with your sentiments.
This made me think of Prof. Galloway’s observation that young men need credible ways to signal commitment and future potential.
An engagement ring has traditionally served that purpose.
Lab-grown diamonds may change the economics, but not the underlying social function. The challenge remains showing commitment without confusing the price of the ring with the value of the relationship.
My wife didn’t want an engagement ring, but I insisted. I wanted it for the symbolism. Only a 1/5 karat, we bought it at a craft fair, we attended shortly after I proposed (nothing fancy). Married 44 years ago in August.
David, call me an idiot. I was so far from the reality of the whole getting married thing, It didn’t cross my mind about a ring. Suzie updated my knowledge on the whole business 😉
Mark, your final sentence is spot-on. Interestingly, as lab-grown diamonds have pushed prices down, the average size of the diamond in modern engagement rings has actually gone up. It seems romance is surprisingly price-elastic.
I’ve never understood why any woman would care for a diamond ring. We married with no engagement ring and two $31 gold bands. They’ve worked just fine for 48 years. I won’t wear metal rings, I wear a silicon one now, after witnessing a friend lose a finger in fall.
Steve, although I have a wedding ring, I only ever wore it the day I got married. I just don’t like anything on my fingers!
One of the guys in my new lunch group does not own a cell phone. I know it isn’t because he can’t afford it, he once mentioned to me that his Required Minimum Distribution (he comes of age this year) is going to push him over the IRMAA cliff, which puts his income well over $200K. Rather, it’s because he doesn’t want his wife to call him when he’s out of the house. This is 180 degrees from my attitude, and based on the final sentence, apparently yours as well.
Thanks for another interesting article, Mark.
Dan, I’ve known a few guys like that over the years, could never understand the attitude.
😀 Now I don’t feel so bad that Doug settled on a simple jade charm on a chain to celebrate our engagement, followed by two gold bands, costing less than $100 total in 1973. From time to time, I think about getting myself something in diamonds, but now I think I’ll stick with my small collection of Native American bracelets.
Linda, that’s a unique choice. I think the symbolism of what it means is more important than the actual object.