Post # 33
Hmmm I thought my plain low set 1.5mm solitaire and plain 1.25mm band were minimalist as well but since I’m not sure where the line is drawn for what’s too big to be considered minimalist I won’t post a photo. I’ve never seen someone get picked apart for posting a smaller stone on a thread about “bling.” To me a solitaire is about as minimalist as it gets, though.
Post # 34
This shit is too much 😂😂😂 good Lord.
Post # 35
ok. I described my set to OP and her response made me think my share was wanted. I dont consider my set minimalist, but everyone’s definition is different and i thought they fit within OP’s definition, as my set is a lower carat weight than many on here and my bands are all metal, no pave
Post # 36
- Wedding: September 2005 - A Castle
thank you 🙂 I’m pretty smitten!
Post # 37
I 100% wasn’t trying to pick it apart, or disparage you sharing your ring. Sorry if it came across that way.
Post # 38
- Wedding: May 2019 - York, ME
Not married yet, but this will be my set! My Fiance proposed with a “stand in” solitiare. I picked out a new solitaire setting and we turned the old one into the wedding band.
Post # 39
- Wedding: April 2011 - Hummingbird Inn
The Kardashian world, maybe? 😂deannamarie :
Post # 40
Here is mine. 0.75 carat. Not to shabby here in the UK but tiny compared to USA sizes lol. Simple rose gold setting. Wedding band is just plain rose gold. Cant wait to wear them both together come March!
Post # 41
Minimalism definition since there seems to be some confusion: (per wikipedia) Minimalism is any design or style in which the simplest and fewest elements are used to create the maximum effect.
Minimalism has nothing to do with size and everything to do with simplicity and effectiveness. Hence the decades’ long reign of the solitaire setting.
Post # 42
Thats all I was saying. Some of these bees are just kind of catty, and uninformed.
Post # 43
deannamarie : pearfectprincess :
I think when we consider minimalism, a few candidate dimensions come to mind: cost, size, and complexity. I am inclined to place most weight on the last. For example, I’m more likely to consider an airy gallery on the Upper East Side of Manhattan minimalist than a cluttered thrift shop in Missouri. I think the rebuke of your pear diamond speaks to some subconsious jealousy and attempt to shame. I doubt a similarly sized less expensive gemstone would have the same reaction. Furthermore, I am hesitant to consider cost alone in the definition of minimalism as, if we consider analogs in clothing, there are many minimalist couture pieces. I am also less inclined to consider size alone, as few would suggest plus-sized wearers cannot dress minimalistically. Therefore, I am disposed to weigh more the complexity of design when I characterize minimalism. Thus, while LouiseN
‘s ring would meet my threshold of minimalism, I would consider it less minimalist than your solitaire, despite the differential in cost and likelihood to garner attention. Personally, I would not consider nykkee
‘s ring minimalist, despite the carat weight, given its multiple embellishments and various competing themes.
Post # 44
I would consider my e-ring fairly minimalist. It does have hidden filagree with tiny diamonds underneath the Cathedral setting though.