(Closed) spin off: are heirloom diamonds ethically problematic?

posted 6 years ago in Rings
  • poll: wearing something that could be mistaken for a diamond contributes to the problem:



  • Post # 17
    545 posts
    Busy bee
    • Wedding: August 2013

    I don’t see the issue. I actually have a small collection of vintage fur coats from the 30s and 40s and I love them and honestly, I don’t really care about what happened to a bear 60 years ago so that I could end up with my coat. It happened, it’s been worn by who knows how many people and now I own it. I like having the real fur and I like that it’s vintage. I guess I feel less bad about vintage fur than I might about present day fur. 

    Post # 18
    1150 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: June 2014

    View original reply
    @BrandNewBride:  Yeah, that’s my thought with heirloom diamonds! At least with a new one, you can be positively or almost positively sure it’s non-conflict because of much greater controls and transparency in the diamond industry. 

    If a stone is from pre-Kimberley process times, there is a much greater chance that it is a conflict diamond. 

    However, if I had a heirloom diamond, I would wear it happily. I mean, at that point, what’s done is done. I feel differently about fur for some reason, but that’s just a personal thing. The concept is generally the same.

    Post # 19
    625 posts
    Busy bee
    • Wedding: September 2018

     There are plenty of diamonds already out there. Why make or extract a new one? Honestly, heirloom diamonds make the most sense to me and are the most green. They’re all ready out there and all the energy it took to extract it is already done, where as a new lab created diamond or a Canadian diamond takes a lot of energy to extract from the ground or create in a lab. 

    It’s like how companies create these new green product when in actuality the most green thing is to reuse verses buying something new. 

    Post # 20
    3658 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: January 2000

    View original reply
    @MrsSnowMountain:  ok, that is true.

    It never occured to me until I read this thread that moissys or other clear non-diamond E rings were propping up the evil diamond industry. NEVER. I guess that’s what caused my snark.

    So for my real answer: I like used stuff, used stuff is cool, sometimes it is antique which I tend to like even more than newly produced stuff.

    A strong second hand market will prop up the “new” market, but so what.

    I do not care if my ring is ethically problematic.

    Post # 21
    673 posts
    Busy bee
    • Wedding: August 2012

    Nope! The only way I’d consider owning a diamond is if it were vintage. 

    Post # 22
    576 posts
    Busy bee
    • Wedding: May 2000

    Well, I just bought a fur coat two weeks ago, and we’re buying a new diamond.  I’m not concerned about the politics of my choices.

    Post # 23
    36 posts

    If a person is morally against diamonds, they should not wear or own any diamond, heirloom or not. I believe those who claim to be opposed to diamonds for ethical reasons yet wear diamond simulants like moissanite and CZ are hypocrites. I’ve seen variations of this quote time and time again here on WB: “I love my new moissanite! We were against diamonds for moral reasons. The setting is .Xct. of diamonds. They’re only small chips so there can’t have been any conflict involved!”. It makes no sense to me to when a person claims to be completely opposed to the diamond industry, yet chooses to wear stones which most people would assume is a diamond – even sometimes having that stone set in a ring encrusted with diamond melee!

    Post # 25
    576 posts
    Busy bee
    • Wedding: April 2012

    As purely a thought exercise, I can see a rationale for secondhand diamonds being unethical or less ethical: if I didn’t use that (hypothetical) diamond, it would be used by someone else who might otherwise buy a new diamond. So instead of me having a used diamond and someone else having a new diamond, it would be better for me to not have a diamond, and someone else to have the used diamond that I could have had.

    In reality if I had been given an heirloom diamond with a family history that was special to me, I would have gladly accepted it because I’m very sentimental and the sentiment would probably trump everything else. I wouldn’t buy a used diamond from a store though, because of the reasons above, and I am ethically opposed to new diamonds. I’m not opposed to clear lab-made stones. (But I personally don’t like wearing clear stones in general.)

    Post # 26
    2142 posts
    Buzzing bee
    • Wedding: October 2015

    I see how theoretically it contributes to the trend of using diamond rings, and perpetuates that practice… but I think the impact of heirloom diamonds there is really minimal. This is a practice that is already really prevalent in our society. If anything, I think the growing number of people using heirloom/secondhand diamonds and diamond sims/other clear stones is raising awareness of other more ethical alternatives.

    Also, while I’m glad that people are so concerned about the origins of their diamonds, we should remember that almost all consumer goods are the result of ethical violations. You can never avoid everything bad, but one of the best things you can do is to consume less. So reusing things is usually a great in my book!

    The topic ‘spin off: are heirloom diamonds ethically problematic?’ is closed to new replies.

    Find Amazing Vendors