How big is too big? ...well it was THIS BIG. update pg 13!

[MinDonner]

Just like a vampire with diamond-hard skin. :P

My mind has gone some really horrible places with that.

In combination with the Catholic thread, I was thinking earlier about the myths of Jesus's foreskin being supposedly used as a wedding ring for various saints in times past, and how that'd be about the crassest wedding ring you could get hold of... but thought it too vulgar to post (I know!) But now you've mentioned sparkly vampires, I can think of an even crasser version...

[Minaku]

I think it really comes down to how nice it looks on your finger. Mine is .9 of a carat spread out but I'm a small person, so it looks large enough on me.

My husband's wedding ring does not match mine. I got him a fairly awesome one.

[Jaxom 1974]

When in doubt, check to see if there are any family gems that can be used. That's what I did for Mrs. Jax. Grandma left a 1 carat diamond (which had belonged to her mother, in something the jeweler called a "European cut", which is supposedly and old way of doing it) that we put into a new setting with a couple of smaller sapphires. It works. It isn't too austentacious. And it means that, down the road when it's not a financial hardship (gotta keep the kids fed and in diapers right now), I can get her something bigger maybe.

Guys, if your intended bride expects you to spend spend spend on a ring, it's time to re-evaluate the relationship.

[Ixodes]

I was ignorant about the whole diamond industry when I bought Mrs. Ix's ring back in the day. If I had to do it over again, I would have went with a different gemstone altogether because ethically the diamond industry is rotten. I would gladly go against tradition to bypass DeBeers and all the shitty things they do.

That said, it was pretty neat that each stone I looked at had a different character. The diamond I chose just seemed to catch the light better than the others I looked at. It was the stone and the cut that mattered more than the size. IIRC, the stone is 0.5 carat but it sparkled better than the larger stones I looked at. I think the character of the ring (including practicality) is most important.

[Tears of Lys]

Oh... out of all three engagements and rings... I never got one back. If I ever get engaged again, I am going to go with hemp promise bracelets.

Bad form on the part of your fiancees. Unless YOU were the one who broke them off, leaving the poor dears with their wedding plans in shambles and banquet hall deposits unrefundable.

I've never understood why women would want to keep a ring from a failed relationship. Okay, maybe if the guy took you to the cleaners and that's the only way you could get back at him.

[quirksome]

Diamond value is determined by the 4 Cs : http://www.4diamond.com/4Cs/

A smaller diamond of higher quality might appeal more to discerning inviduals.

Yup I remember Chats/JungianQueen(WhiteQueen?) talking about this at some point. Thanks for the link, I should do some research into sparkly things!

The more I think about it, the more I confirm that the quality of the ring should come over the quanitity of the carats. Given that's my motto in the rest of my life, guess I must have been seduced by the bigger=better meme. I blame the current wedding fever in my friendship group and this bloody illness. Right, it's going to be small and pretty, not big and brash. Just like me. :leaving:

[Kalbear]

I was ignorant about the whole diamond industry when I bought Mrs. Ix's ring back in the day. If I had to do it over again, I would have went with a different gemstone altogether because ethically the diamond industry is rotten. I would gladly go against tradition to bypass DeBeers and all the shitty things they do.

This is truth.

Also, keep in mind that you can synthesize perfect gemstone quality diamonds for massively cheap prices. If you do want a diamond for some reason try to get a synthetic.

My wife got a very nice custom-made opal engagement ring. Our wedding bands are Mokume-Gane and look absolutely awesome but are not flashy or gaudy. Both were what we could afford, and she still loves hers. Ultimately the ring is only as importannt as the relationship.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

My mind has gone some really horrible places with that.

In combination with the Catholic thread, I was thinking earlier about the myths of Jesus's foreskin being supposedly used as a wedding ring for various saints in times past, and how that'd be about the crassest wedding ring you could get hold of... but thought it too vulgar to post (I know!) But now you've mentioned sparkly vampires, I can think of an even crasser version...

Given that when I first clicked on the thread, I had a brief moment wondering what the thread was actually about.... this particular theme of discussion actually seems more appropriate.

Also, not to lose my reputation as board killjoy, could we tone it down a little with how the idea that if someone is wearing a large and/or noticeable ring, it's always a woman, who is always the one whose idea it was, and it's always against both financial sense and her partner's wishes, who is always a man, and the partner is always stuck paying for it with no contribution from the wearer? I know where the stereotypes come from, but a woman isn't a greedy gold-digging irresponsible nagging wagon wh*re b*tch just because she wants/has a particular piece or jewelry, or because she and her partner have been affected by society's expectations and advertising.

Of course, many of the diamond companies, and De Beers in particular, should have started losing influence even before we stopped calling countries Rhodesia. However, N.W. Ayer & Son -- and Frances Geraty -- are/were brilliant at their jobs.

[Nichole]

I always liked the idea of getting a ring with a different precious stone in it, like an emerald, or a ruby, or a sapphire or something. So long as the cut doesn't make it look like costume jewelry they're almost always significantly prettier then diamonds (IMO) and much, much less outrageously expensive. Also you could match it up with her birthstone if she's into that.

ETA: Took me 5 seconds to find this emerald ring. Sure its lab-created but its still awfully nice, and only $165, imagine what you could get for $500 or so, which is still significantly less then a diamond ring would cost you.

I have an emerald and even though it is not a large stone, I get a lot of comments about it. I have to admit, I love it. I never expected to have a ring that I would like so much so it was such a surprise when my husband picked it out and gave it to me.

For my husband though, he had no interest in wearing a ring so I bought a ring that cost $20 off of Overstock. I lost it when we moved.

[quirksome]

Bad form on the part of your fiancees. Unless YOU were the one who broke them off, leaving the poor dears with their wedding plans in shambles and banquet hall deposits unrefundable.

IIRC, according to English custom (or law? Hereward care to chip in?) if a chap proposes to a gal with a new ring and she accepts, then either party breaks it off, then she gets to keep the ring. Possibly it's compensation for not getting married? But if it's a family ring of great heritage (can't remember exact wording) then I think the guy could reclaim it even if he broke it off. Seemed like a way for aristos to go around breaking troths but hey it's a good story.

[Minaku]

Yes, quality over all. Really. You do NOT want a 1 carat ring for $1,000. That thing is going to have so many inclusions in it, I'd be able to see them from three feet away. And it won't sparkle. I remember a girl in one of my classes at college...she had one of these rings. I felt sorry for her. I used to sell engagement rings, so I have a pretty good background in knowing what I'm looking at.

Again, like Aiofe said, also keep in mind that your finger size will dictate what carat you want. I've got very slender fingers, so even a 2 carat ring would look ostentatious on me. 1.5 carats is just perfect. Darling had a family ring that worked out really well :) It's got an excellent cut (Old European, so sparkles like nothing else), clarity (VVS2), and the color isn't bad - it's an I for color, which is a little warm, but not enough to be apparent to the naked eye.

On the other hand, you don't want to go so small that you essentially have a diamond chip. I know another girl like this; her ring is 1/3 of a carat, and she has such large fingers that, unfortunately, the stone is just lost. She would have been MUCH better off with another stone, like a lab-created sapphire.

I recall looking at your ring when we went to your place and thinking holy crap, I might go blind. VVS2? Amazing.

[quirksome]

Chats - thanks for the advice. Could I ask what ring size you are? I'm USA 6 and UK M (usefully the same as my dress size!) so not sure how many points count as "appropriate" for my stubby fingers.

Given your expertise, if you're on a budget, which of the 4Cs would you compromise on if you had to? I'm thinking in order of priority: Cut, clarity, colour, carat.

Argh all I would like in a ring is for it to be be classy and sparkly. And preferably an Edwardian or Art Deco setting. And the stone to be round brilliant or European cut. Can't believe I now know all the technical terms for this fol-de-rol!

[MinDonner]

I'd just find a decent antique jeweller's and go try some on. The better places should be really happy to help you find a ring that suits you and your needs. If you are anywhere near Brighton then give Fidra a go (OK, my mate is the manager), I've often seen them pull out a whole range of stock for customers to try out, with nice comfy chairs and everything, and I imagine lots of other places do similar.

[Swordfish]

My jaw hit the floor at the idea that anyone can get a 1 carat diamond solitaire for $1K.

Regarding too big...my friend's 2 carat solitaire gets a lot of comments. Big enough to be noticed, for sure, but most people don't seem to think it looks tacky. People have commented on the expenditure it must have required in kind of a bitchy way though. Anything less than that probably isn't going to warrant a lot of commentary in most circles, which would be a plus in my book.

Why men don't straight freak the fuck out at the prices of these things is really well beyond me.

Oh, we do... believe me......

[Jaxom 1974]

(Old European, so sparkles like nothing else),

Wait. The jeweler wasn't blowing smoke to make us "ooh and ahh"...beacuse it's true that Mrs. Jax's diamond is very sparkly. Puts a vampire to shame it does.

[Tempra]

I ultimately decided to go "smaller" on carat size (1.25) and higher quality color/cut/clarity. My wife is very happy that I made that decision. We both find a very sparkly diamond more appealing than a larger, duller rock. Unfortunately, from my limited experience, it is cheaper to get a large diamond with poorer cut/clarity/color than a smaller, higher quality diamond.

When I see a very large rock (say 2+ carats), I generally assume it is fake unless I have a reason to believe otherwise.

[Guest Raidne]

A ring can be sold.

For one-third of retail.

Oh... out of all three engagements and rings... I never got one back. If I ever get engaged again, I am going to go with hemp promise bracelets.

That's heinous. IMO, an engagement ring is given in consideration of marriage. If you don't get married, don't keep the engagement ring.

Sorry, I just don't understand spending that much money on a ring. Do people actually look at your bling and make a judgment? Those are not people I want to be associated with.

No offense, I like you. I do. But this kind of smugness annoys the piss out of me. Guess what? People look at everything about you all the time and make a judgment. You, and everyone else posting stuff like this, are also making judgments about people based on what they say, talk about, etc. One of those many factors may be the kind of engagement ring someone has. It's no different than saying you tell a lot about a man by his shoes. So, for instance, if I know a couple who was nearly destitute, but she's walking around with a $25K ring on, I'd judge them the same way that Chats has that hard-on for maligning lovers of flat screen TVs and granite countertops. From this thread, every time I look at someone with a non-traditional engagement ring, I will note that it's correlated with being really judgmental about people who made a different choice, like the South Park episode about the Prius. Yes, your ass emits a wonderful bouquet. Or is that aroma? I'm sure you can tell me.

ETA: Took me 5 seconds to find this emerald ring. Sure its lab-created but its still awfully nice, and only $165, imagine what you could get for $500 or so, which is still significantly less then a diamond ring would cost you.

I don't really know about lab-created diamonds yet, but lab-created gemstones often look like costume jewelry. They are SO perfect, so lacking in inclusions, that they look gaudy. They lack the warmth of a mined stone. Although I hear this is becoming less of a problem.

But really, if we're going to be that way, why buy a ruby? Garnets have a much warmer tone. Because we've been conditioned to like sapphires, rubies, and emeralds, because they are rare, and therefore expensive. It's not like experts got together and decided that they are the most aesthetically pleasing or anything.

With a diamond, I can't see why it would be a problem, but I think getting a true colorless diamond out of a high-pressure, high-heat or chemical vapor deposition is really the same price as buying a mined diamond. There are places that advertise "lab-created diamonds" or whatever that are seriously cheap, but it's false advertising. Those are diamond simulants, i.e. moissanite and the like. I read something somewhere where someone shattered one by putting it in a tension setting.

As long as we're on the subject, I personally think memorial diamonds are about the coolest thing ever. Hey, I'm going to reset grandma into a pendant - what do you think?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Laura wanted a Pearl engagment ring so we found a lovely one at an antique store in Charleston. I still like it.

[Fez]

I don't really know about lab-created diamonds yet, but lab-created gemstones often look like costume jewelry. They are SO perfect, so lacking in inclusions, that they look gaudy. They lack the warmth of a mined stone. Although I hear this is becoming less of a problem.

But really, if we're going to be that way, why buy a ruby? Garnets have a much warmer tone. Because we've been conditioned to like sapphires, rubies, and emeralds, because they are rare, and therefore expensive. It's not like experts got together and decided that they are the most aesthetically pleasing or anything.

With a diamond, I can't see why it would be a problem, but I think getting a true colorless diamond out of a high-pressure, high-heat or chemical vapor deposition is really the same price as buying a mined diamond. There are places that advertise "lab-created diamonds" or whatever that are seriously cheap, but it's false advertising. Those are diamond simulants, i.e. moissanite and the like. I read something somewhere where someone shattered one by putting it in a tension setting.

If the lab-created don't look quite right, even when mined up by child slave labor pretty much all the other precious stones as significantly cheaper then diamonds. (and look better too, imo).

As for lab-created diamonds, as I recall the problem is that when done cheaply but properly and are real diamonds they are yellow, not colorless.

[quirksome]

Ser Scot - Laura's pearl ring sounds lovely and v personal. If you don't mind me asking, does it stand up to daily use? with a full pearl the setting plus jewel seems to stick out an awful lot, I'd most likely hit something with my florid gesticulation then cry at the scratches.

Chats - Hmmm maybe I muddled up the details. You know best for etiquette your side of the Atlantic :)