Thoughts? Is this too blingy? Is that even a thing? Lol

posted 2 years ago in Rings
  • poll: Thoughts?

    Keep looking or other suggestions in comments...

    Love the Neil lane (link with video)

    Neil lane is too blingy

    Prefer the simple 3 stone

  • Post # 2
    Member
    364 posts
    Helper bee
    • Wedding: April 2019

    View original reply
    purplefae :  a three stone ring will always be classic and beautiful. I think clusters tend to lean towards looking a little cheap to me, like *more bling for your buck* was the goal more than a classic style..? With the exception of those flower clusters that look kind of vintage, those are lovely. That’s just my opinion though. 

    Post # 3
    Member
    493 posts
    Helper bee
    • Wedding: August 2017 - Orange County, CA

    I love the three-stone ring! The Neil Lane has too much going on for my taste. I dislike the princess-cut with a halo and those baguette side stones look out of place. Agree with PP and it looks too busy and “cheap”

    Post # 4
    Member
    7981 posts
    Bumble Beekeeper

    I don’t think the neil lane is too “blingy” but I definitely prefer the 3 stone.

    Post # 5
    Member
    3512 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: June 2017

    3-stone hands down for me. 

    Post # 6
    Member
    1425 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: September 2021

    I think the Neil lane looks like a cluster ring, which I’m not a huge fan of as they are usually quite blingy but cheap, I don’t mean to offend anyone who has one, but I personally think they look quite tacky. I would always go for solitaire over a cluster as they look more classy and expensive imo. 

    Post # 7
    Member
    2598 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: City, State

    Definitely a fan of the 3 stone. The Neil Lane isn’t doing it for me. It’s not too bling, necessarily. Just too busy and kind of cheap looking. 

    Post # 8
    Hostess
    10429 posts
    Sugar Beekeeper
    • Wedding: March 2014 - Chicago, IL

    Echoing PPs – not a fan of the Neil Lane, but I love that 3 stone. Classic and beautiful – and it will give you great finger coverage!

    Post # 9
    Member
    3098 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: November 2017

     

    View original reply
    purplefae : Both are nice. The 3 stone is more generic.  I’m a fan of vintage.  I like the Neil Lane, it has a Victorian vibe to me.

    Post # 10
    Member
    344 posts
    Helper bee

    I completely agree with 

    View original reply
    pearfectprincess :  , no offense to anyone who has a cluster or the type of ring in the video. I don’t know if I would say “too much bling” per se but it just looks cheap and kind of 80s. But take my opinion with a grain of salt, because I also don’t like most halos or diamonds on the band. I tend to prefer plain bands so you can actually see and appreciate the stones.

    Post # 11
    Member
    5461 posts
    Bee Keeper

     Their “sale price” is a lot of money for a ring with such a small center stone. My friend has a 3 stone that looks just like the photo and it’s really nice and looks good on her. You can always bling it up with an eternity band. My friend actually paired it up with a 4 stone diamond wedding band almost exactly like mine which I thought was awesome and looked great with her e-ring.

    Long story short: the 3 stone, definitely.

    Post # 12
    Member
    851 posts
    Busy bee
    • Wedding: September 2016

     I prefer the 3 stone ring, and I would work with a local jeweler instead of Kay. 

    Post # 13
    Member
    791 posts
    Busy bee

    The three stone is 100% a classic/timeless look.  IMO, rings like the Neil Lane with all that “extra” seem like they are trying too hard/over-compensating…even halos that are poorly done/not to scale/double and triple halo/too prong-ey/split shank with pave, etc. give me that impression. Don’t get me wrong, I think a nicely done halo and/or nicely done pave can be lean towards more classic/timeless, but I think too often they are not well executed for the sake of the extra bling and detract from the center diamond/overall look rather than enhance it.  Just my opinion though.  Plenty of people love that “extra” look.  Of course, you can bling up a three stone (or a solitaire) with a nice blingy band.  To each his own. 

    Post # 14
    Member
    60 posts
    Worker bee
    • Wedding: City, State

    I have a  3 stone ring, just like your picture but in yellow gold.  I love it, it’s classic.

     

    Post # 15
    Member
    37 posts
    Newbee
    • Wedding: June 2008

    Love the three-stone look, and agree with PPs that it will always be in style. Another option would be pear or baguette side stones if you want even more finger coverage.

    Leave a comment


    Find Amazing Vendors