Post # 1
I love looking at everyone’s beautiful rings on the site, but it got me realizing that simple solitaires (like mine) seem to be the exception where they used to be the norm. I feel like all the women in my family had simple solitaires, and now it’s all halos and diamonds around the bands…when did rings get so elaborate?
Post # 3
I think when the economy fell, the market pushed halos and clusters and fancy gold designs over large centers and pretty solitaires because people couldn’t afford a big centerstone, so they found ways of making the diamonds either bigger looking or fancier so we are less conscious of the size.
Post # 4
I think it’s because options became available. Celebrities would get custom designed rings or do something out of the norm and jewelers would take notice and try to offer similar things on a smaller budget. I always knew I wanted something ‘different’ and my Fiance contacted a jeweller to custom make something that was more ‘me’. I think when offered a chance to get something so symbolical a little more personalized, a lot of people would take it. However I find solitaires to be gorgeous and they stand the test of time, they will always be timeless.
Post # 5
I don’t think solitares are the exception. I do think trends with jewelry come and go the same way they do with fashion. Right now halos are big, they’re beautiful though, so I can see why. I agree with both of the PPs, 1. diamonds on the band or in a halo are a good way to increase the bling factor in a ring for less than it would cost to add carat weight to the center stone and 2. there are more options now.
Post # 6
I have a solitaire and sometimes I feel like I’m in the minority here, especialy within my social circle. I agree with PPs who say there are more options. Things like moissanite and asha are also letting people get more for their money, so they can get the bling.
Post # 7
Solitaires are still the norm here and they’re usually much smaller.
Post # 8
I live in NJ… maybe it’s our area?
I have a (beautiful, plain and simple) solitare ring, it’s not big and it’s very “me” (my man spent a few weeks designing it with the jeweler just for me, how sweet) but usually, when I show it to someone the reaction is “Oh, it’s so… nice!” in an “oh I thought this would be nicer” tone of voice. It’s not upsetting to me, more surprising than anything else.
I think the PPs are right, people are looking to show they have some moolah. My fiance mentioned that in his ring research, he realized that sometimes (not all the time) people hide a less expensive diamond (maybe slightly colored, or smaller than it seems) in an elaborate setting to make it look glamorous. It makes sense!
I have a friend who is getting married in a year, yet she’s saving up to buy a more ornate band to replace her original Tiffany-style engagment setting. Her personal preference! I have nothing against those kinds of settings, but then again I am a very simple jewelry person so I am quite happy with what I have.
Post # 9
- Wedding: June 2013 - Country Club
I have a solitare setting, marquis cut. 🙂 I feel like it’s still a pretty large stone, though.
Post # 10
I have a solitaire, but I asked for one. I like simple because I am pretty traditional and not much for jewelry.
Post # 11
It sounds like many people think that people do halo/more intricate settings in order to hide something about the center stone or make it look like they spent more money than say something like a solitaire. That seems like a pretty unfair judgement to me. I have a halo setting, and the solitaire just didn’t look or feel right on my hand. I think it’s more of a preference issue than a money issue.
Post # 12
I agree – there is beauty in both simple and elaborate settings. No need to reduce preference down to generalisations.
Post # 13
I’m more of the “When did rings become so simple?” mind setting.
Browsing through places specializing in antique pieces, it’s amazing how elaborate and well crafted rings were. Think about it, during the Great Depression and WWII, those were not times for being elaborate or flashy, so small, simple solitaires or less elaborate settings were more appropriate and continued on for some time.
I think we’re really just getting back into appreciate the artistry of more elaborate pieces. Partly because with casting they are much easier to produce than they were 100+ years ago, and partly because many people enjoy having a wide variety of options to choose from and that in turn has also spurred the ability to find something for everyone.
What any single generation grew up with or is used to seeing is only a glimpse of the history of jewelry styles. “Traditional” solitaires were only really pushed starting around a hundred years ago, which in the grand scheme of things is a very short period of time.
I think it’ll be interesting to see what styles are resurrected and what changes in the future. Eventually I think diamond e-rings as “traditional” will be replaced, just as they replaced the traditional plain gold bands before them. But, we’ll see!
Post # 14
glad someone else said this. My center stone is 3ct & i have a 3 sided pave halo. I wasn’t trying to make it look bigger, I just like sparkles from all angles
Post # 15
If you look at vintage engagement rings, they can be incredibly elaborate and ornate (circa 1910s or even earlier, on to present times). There’s always been all sorts of styles for everyone’s distinct tastes. Thank goodness for that!
Post # 16
I think solitaires are beautiful, but they just are not my style. I love the ring I picked out! I don’t think it’s right to judge people based on the ring they chose, especially to assume that they are trying to show the kind of money they have.
I chose my ring because I like blue/white together…and it looks like a flower to me. My name is a flower! And I lubbz it.