Post # 1
I find myself shifting between those two views when it comes to rings. I’m really attracted to elaborate, highly detailed rings. Also, I truly appreciate the beauty and comfort of simple bands.
Where do you stand on this view: “Less is more” or “More is more”? Please post pics as well, of course 🙂
Here’s my less is more:
And my more is more:
Post # 3
@Scintillante: I voted more is more because well.. I love bling! My ER is all diamonds (centre, halo, band) and my wedding band is going to be a larger eternity style band, but thats just me! Im very girly and I love drama and sparkle in that regard.
I should point out though that’s the style I like for ME. I have seen so many divine rings in all shapes and sizes on other ladies!
Post # 4
@Scintillante: I voted “Other”. Less CAN be more sometimes…and more CAN be much less IMO.
Post # 5
I vote “more is more” when it comes to diamond size! I’m debating whether I want one or two wedding bands and leaning towards a Tiffany Etoile and a full eternity if I go with two – but it depends on which ering he chooses!
Post # 6
@Scintillante: I voted more is more because my set is fairly blingy and detailed. I wouldn’t describe my style as simple EVER. It just would have been out of character for me to have a simple e-ring
I do have a simple solitaire RHR that I occassionally wear as a replacement, but I already have plans for the stone involving an intricate double halo.
Post # 7
@Scintillante: Its all good. I LOVE the super blinged out rings I see on the ‘Bee. I also love elegant solitaires, and that’s I what I like on me. Its all awesome!
Post # 8
OMG I’m glad you asked because I’m SO of the mindset less is more. Nothing is more beautiful to me than something simple and modest. It is so romantic and beautiful in it’s own right.
Post # 9
I voted ted less is more – my engagement ring is reasonably big but in a very simple setting, and I love that. I think when I get a wedding ring I’ll get something very simple so as not to take away from my ering.
Post # 10
@Scintillante: I like the two bands with stones but I have never gotten the stacking them under the e-ring. Why not have the e-ring between the two?
Post # 11
- Wedding: June 2010 - parent's backyard
I prefer subtle, simple looks.
Post # 12
@Scintillante: i’m in both. I love the simplicity of a beautifully detailed band like the ones posted, but I also love my bling. I say less is more though, because I often feel like the big blingy rings are so great on their own, they actually lose something when you add bands – I feel like your bling is awesome on it’s own or your bands are awesome, but all 3 they all lose something.
Post # 13
@aliciaspinnet: I love the way your band looks like its holding the stone. Lovely!
Post # 14
I think I’m in the “less is more camp”. I love intricate, big blingy rings in pictures and on other people, but I’ve come to realize that I like smaller, simpler pieces for myself.
Post # 15
More is more, definitely. Nothing quite like a huge center stone in a beautiful and elaborate singlestone, jbeg, or victora canera setting 🙂
Here’s our jbeg rings
Post # 16
I lean toward less is more. There’s beauty in simplicity.
Ornate can be beautiful, but not easily. It also has a higher propensity to get “old” faster. And, there are fewer appropriate occasions for it.
The more there is, the more can go wrong.
This is not just the case for rings but how I feel about design elements more generally. Loud elements can be fun…. but they are much more difficult to work with, especially long-term.