近日，中國一名消費者分享自己十年前購買鑽戒的慘痛經歷，引發社會廣泛關注。這位消費者十年前以1.8萬元人民幣購買了一枚鑽戒，當時抱著投資收藏與紀念意義的心態。然而，令他萬萬沒想到的是，當他最近將鑽戒拿去回收時，回收價格竟然僅為180元人民幣，折算下來價值貶損高達99%。如此巨大的價值落差讓他感到震驚與無奈，也引起不少網友的熱議。

這位消費者在採訪中感慨，當初以為鑽戒是一項穩定的長期投資，不僅有保值作用，也能作為傳家或紀念之用，但十年後實際市場回收價卻如此低迷，完全無法達到預期效果。他甚至打趣道：「不如直接買黃金」，以黃金保值的穩定性作為對比，表達對鑽石投資回報率的不滿。

事件曝光後，引發輿論對鑽石作為投資品的討論。許多消費者表示，鑽石首飾更多是情感和裝飾價值，而非真正的資產保值工具；而珠寶回收市場的價格常常與零售價相差懸殊，對消費者而言，購買鑽石更多是一種情感消費，而非理財手段。此次案例也提醒社會公眾，在購買高價珠寶時應理性評估其流通性與實際價值，避免因期待保值而造成財務損失。

整起事件折射出珠寶市場的價格泡沫問題，以及消費者對珠寶回收行情認知的落差，亦引起部分專家呼籲，投資應該選擇更穩定的金融或實物資產，而不應過度依賴高價首飾作為保值手段。

Recently, a consumer in China shared a frustrating experience regarding a diamond ring they purchased ten years ago, which has attracted widespread public attention. The consumer had bought the ring for 18,000 yuan, with the expectation that it would serve both as a collectible investment and a commemorative piece. However, to their shock, when they recently tried to resell the ring, the buyback price was only 180 yuan—meaning its value had depreciated by a staggering 99%. The enormous gap between the original purchase price and the current resale value left the consumer feeling both stunned and helpless, sparking intense discussion online.

In an interview, the consumer expressed regret, saying that they had believed the diamond ring would be a stable long-term investment, preserving value while also holding sentimental significance. Ten years later, the actual market resale price proved to be extremely low, far from the expectations. The consumer even jokingly remarked, “I might as well have bought gold,” highlighting the comparatively stable value of gold and expressing disappointment with the return on diamond investment.

The incident has sparked broader debate about diamonds as an investment. Many commentators have pointed out that diamond jewelry primarily holds emotional and decorative value rather than serving as a reliable asset for preserving wealth. Resale prices in the jewelry market often differ dramatically from retail prices, meaning that purchasing diamonds is largely a form of emotional consumption rather than a financial strategy. This case serves as a reminder to the public to carefully evaluate liquidity and actual market value before investing in high-priced jewelry, so as to avoid financial loss due to overestimated resale potential.

Overall, the case highlights issues of price volatility and market perception within the jewelry industry, and experts have suggested that investments should focus on more stable financial instruments or tangible assets rather than relying on expensive jewelry as a means of preserving wealth.