(no subject)
Jul. 13th, 2010 08:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vicarzI was looking at the fingers and toes of our secretary yesterday...no really, I was. Her toes are bright fluorescent orange like a radioactive tree frog, and her fingers have entire rugs patterned into her giant fu man chu nails. I thought she was just lazy, but clearly she has been tortured into a disabling condition which prevents her from working by keeping her fingers inches away from any keyboard or paper.
Diamonds - she had dozens of diamonds on 3 of her fingers. Each one was a lie, an illusion of sparkle made up of collections of trashy cheap stones thrown together in an effort to look bigger and fool you into believing she possessed wealth. First of all...she's a secretary. Really, you want me to think you have wealth and class? Why not chop those nails and order me some toner you lazy cunt. I know how much you make and so does everyone with an internet connection - I wear cheap rags because impressing you is not where I spend my money.
Diamonds - they are ghetto, they are Texas. Idiots get diamonds and try to fool people into thinking they have money, taste, and class - and unintentionally show how little they have of each. Texas likes things big, jewelery, cars, and makeup that screams tv preacher or crayola. Cheap diamonds are usually large and in clusters. Good diamonds are typically worn as solitaires.
Here's how it works:
The most common illusion is the 3 stone ring - you put the best one in the middle, and then put stones on the side to try and make it look bigger as an optical illusion. It's not too tacky, but it's kind of tacky. Next runner up is the gelatinous chip blob where leftover tiny diamond pieces are globbed together to try and create the same illusion, only with cheaper rock parts. Lowest on the class totem pole are the bands with chips all around them - ugly, uncomfortable, and obviously of the lowest possible quality.
The thing is, diamonds have a size aspect - but they also have quality measures. Size is not everything, not with rocks. For instance, the best diamonds are used as rings since they get looked at the most. The cheapest lowest quality diamonds are used as earrings where they are never looked at closely. Get it?
Diamond color ranges from D, almost colorless, to z for very yellow. A typical US ring is between F and H color.
Diamond quality ranges from flawless, which is so rare that only billionaires and diablo players ever see them, to I3.
It's like this: Flawless, VVS1, VVS2, VS1, VS2, SI 1-3, I1-3
Flawless, insane and even microscopes can't find any flaws.
From VVS1 to VS1, you need a scope and formal training to find flaws. People buy these rings but often cannot tell the difference between this or another - it's a status symbol that you can't actually read unless you show the certificate on the stone.
From VS2 to SI2 you can make out some flaws with a jewelers 10x scope. Many people steer away from these ... well in case your materialistic aunt stares at the ring with a magnifying glass? In case some douche asks for an appraisal? Some argue that you can see the difference in sparkle (which has a lot to do with cut) but I highly suspect an actual measured refractory spread would not determine anything the human eye can detect. It's all status that nobody can see?
From Si2 on down you get the Kay Jeweler, mall stores, and Jareds...trash level jewelry. Often these are the diamonds you see mixed up together trying to look bigger than they are. These are the jewelers of nightclubs, strippers, and secretaries - cheap and trying to look classy, only showing how incredibly cheap they really are in the process.
A jewelry selling friend of mine notes that a manufactured stone called moissanite is actually more reflective than diamonds and nearly as hard (only instruments can detect the difference). The entire diamond industry is up in arms about them because most jewelers can't tell the difference, and even machines made to detect fake diamonds cannot tell unless calibrated specifically to note this difference. The reason most are detected is due to their color (they're more likely around an I color, as the process isn't yet able to get colorless) or because people get them so big that when you see a large stone so flawless, especially on someone not-rich, you immediately suspect it is not real. Kind of like fingernails.
Diamonds - she had dozens of diamonds on 3 of her fingers. Each one was a lie, an illusion of sparkle made up of collections of trashy cheap stones thrown together in an effort to look bigger and fool you into believing she possessed wealth. First of all...she's a secretary. Really, you want me to think you have wealth and class? Why not chop those nails and order me some toner you lazy cunt. I know how much you make and so does everyone with an internet connection - I wear cheap rags because impressing you is not where I spend my money.
Diamonds - they are ghetto, they are Texas. Idiots get diamonds and try to fool people into thinking they have money, taste, and class - and unintentionally show how little they have of each. Texas likes things big, jewelery, cars, and makeup that screams tv preacher or crayola. Cheap diamonds are usually large and in clusters. Good diamonds are typically worn as solitaires.
Here's how it works:
The most common illusion is the 3 stone ring - you put the best one in the middle, and then put stones on the side to try and make it look bigger as an optical illusion. It's not too tacky, but it's kind of tacky. Next runner up is the gelatinous chip blob where leftover tiny diamond pieces are globbed together to try and create the same illusion, only with cheaper rock parts. Lowest on the class totem pole are the bands with chips all around them - ugly, uncomfortable, and obviously of the lowest possible quality.
The thing is, diamonds have a size aspect - but they also have quality measures. Size is not everything, not with rocks. For instance, the best diamonds are used as rings since they get looked at the most. The cheapest lowest quality diamonds are used as earrings where they are never looked at closely. Get it?
Diamond color ranges from D, almost colorless, to z for very yellow. A typical US ring is between F and H color.
Diamond quality ranges from flawless, which is so rare that only billionaires and diablo players ever see them, to I3.
It's like this: Flawless, VVS1, VVS2, VS1, VS2, SI 1-3, I1-3
Flawless, insane and even microscopes can't find any flaws.
From VVS1 to VS1, you need a scope and formal training to find flaws. People buy these rings but often cannot tell the difference between this or another - it's a status symbol that you can't actually read unless you show the certificate on the stone.
From VS2 to SI2 you can make out some flaws with a jewelers 10x scope. Many people steer away from these ... well in case your materialistic aunt stares at the ring with a magnifying glass? In case some douche asks for an appraisal? Some argue that you can see the difference in sparkle (which has a lot to do with cut) but I highly suspect an actual measured refractory spread would not determine anything the human eye can detect. It's all status that nobody can see?
From Si2 on down you get the Kay Jeweler, mall stores, and Jareds...trash level jewelry. Often these are the diamonds you see mixed up together trying to look bigger than they are. These are the jewelers of nightclubs, strippers, and secretaries - cheap and trying to look classy, only showing how incredibly cheap they really are in the process.
A jewelry selling friend of mine notes that a manufactured stone called moissanite is actually more reflective than diamonds and nearly as hard (only instruments can detect the difference). The entire diamond industry is up in arms about them because most jewelers can't tell the difference, and even machines made to detect fake diamonds cannot tell unless calibrated specifically to note this difference. The reason most are detected is due to their color (they're more likely around an I color, as the process isn't yet able to get colorless) or because people get them so big that when you see a large stone so flawless, especially on someone not-rich, you immediately suspect it is not real. Kind of like fingernails.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 01:43 pm (UTC)as a government secretary, my salary is in fact, published. this is quite possibly one of the most venomous things i have ever read & actually made me feel like shit. until i realized that there are seretaries here who probably make more than a lot of people.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 02:14 pm (UTC)I don't understand why you'd feel bad - the above is about huge trashy low quality things on people who don't make a ton but try to look like the red carpet stars, but you describe very tasteful small things from your family.
I'm probably not into the band or the 3 stone ring, but the reason for the 3 stones actually sounds quite nice. Sorry? I don't see you in the post above?
no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 02:31 pm (UTC)Or maybe it's just nice to have nice things, and that's ok. I don't know.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 04:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 04:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 04:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 04:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 05:39 pm (UTC)The diamond issue reminds me of people on the Eastern Shore (where I was, poor) with huge caddys outside their trailer homes
no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 05:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 05:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 10:24 pm (UTC)Retail = base
Price you pay = 10 - 25% less than retail
Appraisal / insurance value = 25% more than retail
Used value = 1/3 to 50% of retail
Pawn value = 1/2 of used value (they sell at used or more if you'll pay more)
no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 06:46 pm (UTC)tl;dr but also this part is mean as shit; it just makes you sound like a classist, sexist asshole.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 10:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-15 12:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 07:38 pm (UTC)http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2524/is-a-diamonds-price-a-true-measure-of-its-value
no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 10:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 08:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 10:27 pm (UTC)I also have a huge problem with this individual personally, but that's not obvious from my post.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 10:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 11:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-13 11:41 pm (UTC)Yes. Yes, it's you ;P
no subject
Date: 2010-07-14 12:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-15 06:01 pm (UTC)- Holly Golightly aka Audrey Hephburn