michela002
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2004
- Messages
- 469
First of all, I''m intentionally NOT posting this in the coloured gems forum.
I want to guage opinions about a non-diamond engagement ring from people who are addicted to diamonds (I think I''m in the right place, lol!), not those who have ethical issues with diamonds or a love of coloured stones etc. i.e. I want "diamond people"s opinion of non-diamond engagement rings.
What do people think about getting a non-diamond engagement ring, given the following factors:
I am not someone who loves coloured stones. (I don''t, for example, love emeralds, or anything like that.) I love diamonds. Lol. I have no coloured stones that really "speak" to me.
But see, the settings I love seem like they need a large stone, as they are quite intricate and wouldn''t fit with a less-than-one-carat stone. And I think approximately a carat (diamond) is the figure aimed for in the engagement ring hunt.
For example, the Daniel K Union Square is huge in my mind at the moment:
But alas, settings like the Daniel K (or a Michael B one) are NOT cheap settings. They are easily several grand for the setting, and while I would love to be a hotel heiress or something, this is the real world and money means something and has a limit.
I know most people pick the diamond then the setting, but I have always been a little backwards! So since there''s a budget and I love a certain (expensive) setting, that leaves very little for a diamond, and very little for the size diamond that such a setting requires.
So is it stupid to consider choosing a setting I love, with a coloured stone instead of a diamond? Since coloured stones are infinitely cheaper I could probably get a stone large enough to look good with the setting for a quarter of the price of the same thing in a diamond.
The only coloured stone I would go for is some kind of pale, ice-blue stone, maybe an asscher or cushion cut. Anyone who knows something about coloured stones, what kind of stone would I be looking for?
I am not someone who overly cares what others think, but everyone does a little, and since the expectation upon engagement is a diamond ... does a coloured stone (for a reason other than love of coloured stones) seem like the cheapskates option, or silly, or a disappointment to people who want to ooh and ahh over a diamond?
What are people''s opinions of choosing a coloured stone because you want a certain setting, and can''t afford the diamond to fit with the setting? (And if I won the lottery maybe I would upgrade the stone to a diamond but I will probably keep the coloured stone for ever, it''s not a "temporary" stone. I don''t want to fake it with a CZ or anything.) What''s wrong with a non-diamond engagement ring?
People on pscope are so good at pointing out considerations I wouldn''t have even thought of - any advice?
Michela.
PS. Sorry I wrote an essay. I am completely incapable of being really concise ...
I want to guage opinions about a non-diamond engagement ring from people who are addicted to diamonds (I think I''m in the right place, lol!), not those who have ethical issues with diamonds or a love of coloured stones etc. i.e. I want "diamond people"s opinion of non-diamond engagement rings.
What do people think about getting a non-diamond engagement ring, given the following factors:
I am not someone who loves coloured stones. (I don''t, for example, love emeralds, or anything like that.) I love diamonds. Lol. I have no coloured stones that really "speak" to me.
But see, the settings I love seem like they need a large stone, as they are quite intricate and wouldn''t fit with a less-than-one-carat stone. And I think approximately a carat (diamond) is the figure aimed for in the engagement ring hunt.
For example, the Daniel K Union Square is huge in my mind at the moment:
But alas, settings like the Daniel K (or a Michael B one) are NOT cheap settings. They are easily several grand for the setting, and while I would love to be a hotel heiress or something, this is the real world and money means something and has a limit.
I know most people pick the diamond then the setting, but I have always been a little backwards! So since there''s a budget and I love a certain (expensive) setting, that leaves very little for a diamond, and very little for the size diamond that such a setting requires.
So is it stupid to consider choosing a setting I love, with a coloured stone instead of a diamond? Since coloured stones are infinitely cheaper I could probably get a stone large enough to look good with the setting for a quarter of the price of the same thing in a diamond.
The only coloured stone I would go for is some kind of pale, ice-blue stone, maybe an asscher or cushion cut. Anyone who knows something about coloured stones, what kind of stone would I be looking for?
I am not someone who overly cares what others think, but everyone does a little, and since the expectation upon engagement is a diamond ... does a coloured stone (for a reason other than love of coloured stones) seem like the cheapskates option, or silly, or a disappointment to people who want to ooh and ahh over a diamond?
What are people''s opinions of choosing a coloured stone because you want a certain setting, and can''t afford the diamond to fit with the setting? (And if I won the lottery maybe I would upgrade the stone to a diamond but I will probably keep the coloured stone for ever, it''s not a "temporary" stone. I don''t want to fake it with a CZ or anything.) What''s wrong with a non-diamond engagement ring?
People on pscope are so good at pointing out considerations I wouldn''t have even thought of - any advice?
Michela.
PS. Sorry I wrote an essay. I am completely incapable of being really concise ...