what''s wrong with this banner?...

The shadow suggests to me that some sort of terrible finger-eating monster is lurking, ready to swallow the unwary digit.

What happened to the bottom two bands on the right side? It's one thing for them to meet on the side/back, but to disappear completely? It looks like they used an editing program to erase parts and left a little pointy spot where at least one band should be....

I think what Lenoid means is that this should not say "give HER a right hand ring". We're supposed to buy the right hand rings for ourselves, ladies! At least that's what Debeers says.

That was my first thought, but I figured they were hitting up the men to buy anniversary rings. I know I've already talked to my B/F about wanting a jubilee for our 1-year, and I don't even have my e-ring on my finger yet! LOL

Shiney is right, but perhaps someone also came close with the shadow.

The shadow would indicate that the light is coming from behind the ring, and yet the diamonds are sparkling as if the light was coming from the front.

It's missing a hyphen.

interesting...im with vertical on this one..maybe the light is not quite right for the shadows and the bling!
do tell...tell!!!

Besides the missing hypen, there are sapphires in the ring. All the RHRs being produced under DeBeers guidelines incorporate diamonds only (I believe), no colored stones, and a diamond of at least .20 cts. t.w. This ring, if it's meant to be a part of the Diamond Information Center RHR campaign, doesn't conform to the set standards.

Mara: inconsistent, and greedy ... and the campaign isn't working b/c the original designs were ugly and nobody wanted to buy them! Now, they're appealing to the guys as a way to unload those ugly rings that the women didn't buy for themselves.
Actually, the latest styles in Vegas were an improvement. I might buy one.

You're right, guys. Women are supposed to buy right hand ring themselves This Mondera's banner I found on Amazon.

Funny how MOST peoples first instinct is to critique the photograph....not the message! Of course women should buy themselves right hand rings, left hand rings, pinky rings and toe rings!!!!! It's the 21st century...let's NEVER look back!

----------------
On 6/16/2004 6:22:21 PM Mara wrote:

---

I have only liked about 1 out of all the right hand ring designs I have seen.

Personally I would love to build my own right hand ring...rather than buy some pre-made one that countless other women will have...because there are so few designs out there now. I would build something like a 3 stone or a different shape with a filigree setting or similar. It's entirely YOUR creation...no male input necessary! Fun!

----------------

Right hand ring styles don't appeal to me either. I'd love to have an assher cut stone for a right hand ring or like you said Mara, a three stone, possibly and assher three stone OR an emerald three stone. About one carat center stone

Michelle

I don't like most RHR designs either. I'm thinking an emerald cut set east west in a low setting. Very simple, very modern, non-e-ring looking.

The whole marketing concept behind RHR bothers us beyond the point that most of the designs "dedicated" to the right hand are not attractive in the least... A local jeweler here in Roseburg wears a button on her jewelers apron that reads "Great News! Women have two hands!" which is supposed to prompt people into asking about right hand rings, but it just seems like lame marketing to us... If a woman wants to buy a ring for herself, she will... But all the sudden we have guys asking whether the ring that his S.O. has expressed an interest in can be worn on her right hand if he buys it for us and we find ourselves thinking "Ba-a-a-ah, Ba-a-a-ah" what a wonderful sheep this guy would make... It's stupid.

But thanks for the laugh Leonid! We're glad to see the DeBeers RHR campaign being put to good use.

While this campaign certainly has its flaws, there is at one huge benefit everybody in the trade benefits from: those ads get people talking about diamond jewelry, period. Every brand and jewelry maker can ride the coattails of interest the generic (in the sense that no company is named) ads generate---it's the local jeweler's job to educate and interest his customers in particular products.

Yet another product placement:

----------
The Diamond Trading Co. and Warner Bros. Pictures will team for a new promotion for right-hand rings hinging on a scene in the movie Catwoman starring Halle Berry, which is scheduled to hit theaters in July.

During the scene, Catwoman puts a diamond ring on her left hand, but reconsiders and moves it to her right. This moment will be supported by new versions of the "Women of the World, Raise Your Right Hand," ad campaign, featuring a picture of Catwoman wearing a right-hand diamond ring. The ads will run in consumer publications between July-September.
---------

Catwoman Pounces on Right-Hand Ring

And one is forced to ask:

Does DTC really believe that women who are in a position to afford diamond rings (worn on the right or left hand) would be persuaded by what a comic book figure does...in a movie?

The prime target audience must be quite young and unsophisticated, hence the general consensus here about the ugliness of the original RHR designs.

I read a statistic once that said that less than 1 percent of women will ever in their lifetime own a diamond of 1 carat or more. That doesn't stop most advertisor's from (often successfully) convincing us that it is average/typical for guys to get their girls +1 carat diamond ring.