The Imitation Jewellery Paradox
People buying jewelleries
The prevalent motivation behind donning jewellery is the embellishment of one's aesthetic. Less prevalent motives are metaphysical beliefs, spiritualism, faith and superstition, investment and derivation of personal aesthetic satiation, or hubristic self-fulfilment. The latter, and any others do not concern the discussion hereby. It concerns the most frequent motive that of appearing aesthetically embellished to others.
The act of donning jewellery is mostly an expression of seeking acknowledgement from contemporaries.
Spare a very meagre fraction, almost all gold jewellery-buyers, traders and recipients rely on tests prior to purchase and after receipt, typically a touchstone, alluding to their abject inability and non-surety in adjudging the virtue of a piece of jewellery of being gold. The masses thus, inherently lack an eye for adjudication of genuineness of gold, even whilst freely inspecting and scrutinising a piece in their possession. This is applicable to other gemstones as well. Given the modern levels of imitative perfection, a casual or even fastidious look from a human eye can't tell a genuine from a fake, let alone do so at lack of proximity. Humans, at least those without expertise lack an inherent or acquired whatsoever, sense to tell them apart.
However, the demand for jewellery amongst the wealthy and the economically or imperially privileged persists, in stupendous measures. The most common reason being aesthetic enhancement and the desire to "look good" before other people, kith and kin, acquaintances or otherwise. They are a status symbol and an expression of pride and glory as well. Typical viewing distances at close quarters conversations, as the likes frequently encountered in friendly public gatherings and recreational events, anniversary commemorative functions, and get-togethers, are obviously greater than the ones whilst inspecting a piece of jewelry for its ingenuity, at one's own leisure.
Most of the affluentials, still near invariably insists on opting for the genuine, the authentic-most high-grade materials being used for fashioning their ornamentation. This is in spite of, and largely notwithstanding the strident leaps in replication techniques and imitational finesse, thanks to scientific and instrumental advances.
With no means and know-how of manual ascertainment, at least by bodily faculties alone, informal jewelry is falling into decline in the third world, as emphasis on genuine-certifications and hallmarks is on the rise. This is an indicator of a general trend of rising stress on formal assurance of puritan integrity.
This constitutes a paradox, as on one hand, genuinely rare-sourced precious jewelry and its readily-available imitation are virtually indistinguishable to ordinary human eye but on the other, the former is insisted upon, by those who can afford it, despite mainly serving the intent of drawing attention and eliciting acknowledgement from fellow humans.
In the event of playing a bluff, the second person has no way of visually or via any other non-intrusively mode of determination, discerning whether something is high-karat near-solid gold or merely gilded (surface-coated in gold water).
The prevalent occurrence of this paradox points to the corresponding prevalence of a tantalising causative behind this: The Human attraction to the thrill of expenditure and spontaneous ascription of value to physical actualities and direct superficial objectivities than prior most causative actualities. Humans ascribe value one-to-one, subconsciously associating aesthetic vis-a-vis gold. The social prescription of the aesthetic follows from its direct attribute of preciousness vide its rarity. Humans tend to fail to acknowledge their own foremost intent, the primary causative of ostentatious display of ornamentation to others, from a utilitarian perspective, instead attributing it to the secondary causative of donning precious ornamentation , which is in turn, caused by the former. The fact of non-precious items being indistinguishable from previous ones, in the eyes of the otherly, refutes the societally long-wrought notional association of preciousness with aesthetic, a norm trickled deep into the collective, mass-subconscious that most beings are up brought into.
Because humans wearing jewelry to merit worth, appropriation and acceptance is not societally explicitly-acknowledged, at least, as much as the aesthetic connotation of rare minerals and elements, and because imitation jewellery has been perfected beyond casual visual perceptory bounds lately (about a century prior), the syllogistic association of otherly-acknowledged self-value with aesthetic, and aesthetic with rarity yields association of otherly-acknowledged self-value with rarity, despite this implication itself not being frequently recognised by consumers.
Humans don't face the facts obvious in Meta cognition of their own driving emotions, motive intents and root impulsions, which are the actual prime causatives, and acting in accordance to which would lead to material efficiency and optimisation. However, primary efficaciousness doesn't seem to satiate the instinct to the extent that fulfilment of the direct (secondary) cause does.
The urge to buy jewelry is often as much about self-acknowledgement and confidence in one's material worth, and constant hubristic satiation of status to self, as it is about the desire to be commended by others.