at what size would you switch to a CS

[Niel]

So let's assume your budget is itty bitty.

At what point would you switch and get a colored stone?

Half ct?

.25 CTS?

.1ct?

Never?

Would you rather have a cluster ring?

Just curious at what point you say screw it and goxan alternative route? I know some people do CHOOSE to get a colored stone e ring. Expensive ones at that. But I figured I'd ask the diamond side. I'm asking by his under the assumption you'd prefer a diamond.

 

[Laila619]

Never.

I would rather 1) get a cluster ring, or 2) get a small diamond in a double halo, or 3) just wear a thin platinum band and save up money for a few years down the road.

As much as I love colored stones on others, I just wouldn't want one for my e-ring (with the exception of maybe a yellow sapphire, and that would be hard to find).

 

[baby monster]

I'd rather have a plain metal band and wait until I can afford the size I want in a diamond.

 

[chrono]

And when they go the CS route, they will realize that shopping for a quality CS isn't necessarily less expensive yet comes with a steeper learning curve.

 

[Niel]

And when they go the CS route, they will realize that shopping for a quality CS isn't necessarily less expensive yet comes with a steeper learning curve.

Yes yes. Sorry I should have included more caveats

But I'm talking about affordable colored stone rings. (And ignoring the leading curve )

 

[distracts]

I think for most people they aren't interchangeable. I wanted a blue sapphire and wouldn't have been as happy with anything else. If I had to have a 4mm blue sapphire, I would have been happier with that size than an equally small diamond. If I couldn't get at least 4mm, I'd probably have preferred an engraved band, or maybe a green garnet. But I know I'm not the norm with this since I have a CS ring to start with anyway.

And when they go the CS route, they will realize that shopping for a quality CS isn't necessarily less expensive yet comes with a steeper learning curve.

*nodnod*

 

[Niel]

I think for most people they aren't interchangeable. I wanted a blue sapphire and wouldn't have been as happy with anything else. If I had to have a 4mm blue sapphire, I would have been happier with that size than an equally small diamond. If I couldn't get at least 4mm, I'd probably have preferred an engraved band, or maybe a green garnet. But I know I'm not the norm with this since I have a CS ring to start with anyway.

And when they go the CS route, they will realize that shopping for a quality CS isn't necessarily less expensive yet comes with a steeper learning curve.

*nodnod*

Maybe I'm the exception but if my budget was 300 I'd rather get an antique emerald cab or sapphire and diamond cluster or a zircon ring than an engraved band.

But I like color and diamonds (I joined looking for a colored stone e ring) so I dunno.

 

[FrekeChild]

I always getting annoyed when people come to CS looking for a colored stone ering "because they are cheaper than diamonds" and end up wanting an ideal colored sapphire, alexandrite, ideal colored ruby, etc. And all untreated. Unless you want quartz, some types of beryl or topaz or some really not-ideal color of other stones, it's not going to be a bargain basement engagement ring.

I got a pretty *cheap* engagement ring, with a blue color shift spinel and it still cost $800. Getting the same thing now would be much more expensive.

And word to Chrono's post. Colored stones are harder to shop for, rarer than diamonds and often more expensive than diamonds!

 

[maccers]

I think for most people they aren't interchangeable. I wanted a blue sapphire and wouldn't have been as happy with anything else. If I had to have a 4mm blue sapphire, I would have been happier with that size than an equally small diamond. If I couldn't get at least 4mm, I'd probably have preferred an engraved band, or maybe a green garnet. But I know I'm not the norm with this since I have a CS ring to start with anyway.

And when they go the CS route, they will realize that shopping for a quality CS isn't necessarily less expensive yet comes with a steeper learning curve.

*nodnod*

Maybe I'm the exception but if my budget was 300 I'd rather get an antique emerald cab or sapphire and diamond cluster or a zircon ring than an engraved band.

But I like color and diamonds (I joined looking for a colored stone e ring) so I dunno.

Is $300 what you mean by itty bitty budget? Itty bitty for me means ~1-2K if talking about an e-ring.

If we were talking about an e-ring, I'd have a hard time going with a CS. I love coloured stones and I have seen so many gorgeous examples on PS but I'm not sure I'd want one for an e-ring. So, my cut point for considering a CS as an e-ring would be under the 0.5 carat mark. Meaning, if my budget wouldn't allow for a 0.5 carat diamond, I'd consider getting a coloured garnet or spinel etc.

 

[Niel]

I always getting annoyed when people come to CS looking for a colored stone ering "because they are cheaper than diamonds" and end up wanting an ideal colored sapphire, alexandrite, ideal colored ruby, etc. And all untreated. Unless you want quartz, some types of beryl or topaz or some really not-ideal color of other stones, it's not going to be a bargain basement engagement ring.

I got a pretty *cheap* engagement ring, with a blue color shift spinel and it still cost $800. Getting the same thing now would be much more expensive.

And word to Chrono's post. Colored stones are harder to shop for, rarer than diamonds and often more expensive than diamonds!

this isn't to offend anyone. Clearly high end colored stones are expensive. As I mentioned.

But there are lots of stones that aren't. And as maccera noted when I say a small budget I mean small 300-700.

You are 100% correct. High quality, highly desirable, rare gemstones are more expensive. But we aren't talking about those

My sincerest apologies if this came across as knocking down CSs. Its not. But fact is there are lots of of colored stone options that are less expensive and more impactful than a small diamond.

I was just wondering at what point a collection of people who prefer diamonds would switch to something else.

When people come here with a really low budget, the first question a lot of people ask is "would they prefer a colored stone?"

 

[chrono]

Niel,
The thing is, that for those coming from the diamond world, most of them only know the big 3, which are ruby, emerald and blue sapphire and they are more familiar with the rich vibrantly coloured ones. If you say "chrysoberyl", they go "chryso-what" and don't want it because they are concerned that other people might think they are wearing citrine. I also noticed that the CS vs Diamond camp is quite distinct. It is rare for a diamond lover to want a CS e-ring and vice versa.

 

[Niel]

Niel,
The thing is, that for those coming from the diamond world, most of them only know the big 3, which are ruby, emerald and blue sapphire and they are more familiar with the rich vibrantly coloured ones. If you say "chrysoberyl", they go "chryso-what" and don't want it because they are concerned that other people might think they are wearing citrine. I also noticed that the CS vs Diamond camp is quite distinct. It is rare for a diamond lover to want a CS e-ring and vice versa.

True.
It does take a bit of going out of a comfort zone to Montana sapphires, yellow sapphires, or spinels, and so on.

And I suppose people who are traditional enough to want a diamond often aren't open to other things. sometimes. But I dunno even as a diamond person if I was offered a second hand vintage zircon or a .25 ct solitaire I'd pick the zircon (depending on styling)

 

[dk168]

Given the choice, I would go for a CS for my next e-ring, as I like it to be a heart shaped neon pink sapphire, and already have a design in mind.

Just need to find that special someone first!

Or I shall have it made as a RHR myself when I have the means to do so.

I would not say no to a heart shaped H/G diamond in a suitable setting, however, I prefer a neon pink sapphire instead.

DK

 

[FrekeChild]

I always getting annoyed when people come to CS looking for a colored stone ering "because they are cheaper than diamonds" and end up wanting an ideal colored sapphire, alexandrite, ideal colored ruby, etc. And all untreated. Unless you want quartz, some types of beryl or topaz or some really not-ideal color of other stones, it's not going to be a bargain basement engagement ring.

I got a pretty *cheap* engagement ring, with a blue color shift spinel and it still cost $800. Getting the same thing now would be much more expensive.

And word to Chrono's post. Colored stones are harder to shop for, rarer than diamonds and often more expensive than diamonds!

this isn't to offend anyone. Clearly high end colored stones are expensive. As I mentioned.

But there are lots of stones that aren't. And as maccera noted when I say a small budget I mean small 300-700.

You are 100% correct. High quality, highly desirable, rare gemstones are more expensive. But we aren't talking about those

My sincerest apologies if this came across as knocking down CSs. Its not. But fact is there are lots of of colored stone options that are less expensive and more impactful than a small diamond.

I was just wondering at what point a collection of people who prefer diamonds would switch to something else.

That's the problem though. And this isn't particularly directed at you, Niel, but diamond people in general. It happens so often when a poster is like, "I can't afford what I want" and someone will almost always say, "You should try colored stones, they are cheaper than diamonds." And then almost every single time, they come to colored stones and say, "I want a bright blue sapphire in 2+ct size!" and then we have to say, "Sorry, that's not going to happen. That'd be more expensive than the diamond you originally wanted."

Colored stones are NOT necessarily cheaper than diamonds, but when someone can't afford a diamond they want, telling them to go with colored stones as the first alternative sets up false expectations for the hypothetical OP. Sure, amethyst and the like is cheap, but people don't often want an amethyst engagement ring! They want sapphires and rubies and emeralds. Which can be far more expensive than their diamond counterparts.

So a blanket statement of "colored stones are cheaper than diamonds" is just blatantly false, and I really wish people would stop saying it.

Also, with the way jewelry prices are going, I can't imagine finding much of anything new that you could buy for $300. Unless it's silver or a really cheap gold solitaire setting with a cheap center stone. If the budget is that low, I'd go with something antique/used or a cool gold band.

 

[Candygrl]

If that were my budget I would choose a dainty diamond band. Just something really small and simple. I love colored stones but not for an engagement ring. FWIW my initial budget for a ring when we got married almost 10 years ago was $100. After a year we upgraded to .90 and 9 years later I now have a 1.8 so I'm glad I started out small and worked my away up. I would not have been happy with a colored stone or a cluster ring. Just my opinion.

 

[Niel]

I always getting annoyed when people come to CS looking for a colored stone ering "because they are cheaper than diamonds" and end up wanting an ideal colored sapphire, alexandrite, ideal colored ruby, etc. And all untreated. Unless you want quartz, some types of beryl or topaz or some really not-ideal color of other stones, it's not going to be a bargain basement engagement ring.

I got a pretty *cheap* engagement ring, with a blue color shift spinel and it still cost $800. Getting the same thing now would be much more expensive.

And word to Chrono's post. Colored stones are harder to shop for, rarer than diamonds and often more expensive than diamonds!

this isn't to offend anyone. Clearly high end colored stones are expensive. As I mentioned.

But there are lots of stones that aren't. And as maccera noted when I say a small budget I mean small 300-700.

You are 100% correct. High quality, highly desirable, rare gemstones are more expensive. But we aren't talking about those

My sincerest apologies if this came across as knocking down CSs. Its not. But fact is there are lots of of colored stone options that are less expensive and more impactful than a small diamond.

I was just wondering at what point a collection of people who prefer diamonds would switch to something else.

That's the problem though. And this isn't particularly directed at you, Niel, but diamond people in general. It happens so often when a poster is like, "I can't afford what I want" and someone will almost always say, "You should try colored stones, they are cheaper than diamonds." And then almost every single time, they come to colored stones and say, "I want a bright blue sapphire in 2+ct size!" and then we have to say, "Sorry, that's not going to happen. That'd be more expensive than the diamond you originally wanted."

Colored stones are NOT necessarily cheaper than diamonds, but when someone can't afford a diamond they want, telling them to go with colored stones as the first alternative sets up false expectations for the hypothetical OP. Sure, amethyst and the like is cheap, but people don't often want an amethyst engagement ring! They want sapphires and rubies and emeralds. Which can be far more expensive than their diamond counterparts.

So a blanket statement of "colored stones are cheaper than diamonds" is just blatantly false, and I really wish people would stop saying it.

Also, with the way jewelry prices are going, I can't imagine finding much of anything new that you could buy for $300. Unless it's silver or a really cheap gold solitaire setting with a cheap center stone. If the budget is that low, I'd go with something antique/used or a cool gold band.

Diamonds are one thing. Colored stones are a a lot of things. In that regard yes some colored stones, Even ones suitable for e rings, are cheaper than diamonds don't think its offensive or innacirate to say to someone that they might consider a different stone than e ring to get a larger stone or more look for their budget.


Not every stone. Not a lot of stones. But some stones.

I'm not trying to argue. I just thought this would be a fun discussion on what people would do with itttyy bitty budgets.

 

[pyramid]

I think that the $300 colored stone is much the same as the cheap mall diamond of maybe 15 points or 30 point very included. I used to like cheap colored stones and have some I thought they were a lovely color, these were cheap sapphires etc. However once you hang around the colored stones forum you learn and see things like saturation and realise the blue sapphire you had was not a blue which really showed up and it may have been a bit grey (w hen you learn about tone) then there is hue. So you would probably wa nt to go up the ladder same as we do with diamonds, want higher color or higher clarity or better cut.

In the UK engagement rings are popular as in people still get them if they choose to get married, however you don't see many over half carat and most as about quarter carat or third carat. Here people are either into getting a colored stone or getting a diamond, I don't think it is seen as diamond is better but it is usually just a little more expensive if going for size of half carat, as most people just get the included 25point diamond or a colored stone. In the 80s when Princess Diana got engaged you could have said that about 8 out of 10 people getting engaged had a black sapphire and diamond ring with a round or oval sapphire or had a quarter carat solitaire in a plain setting. Nowadays more young people get a half carat but most young people don't seem to get engaged until maybe in their late 20s or so or else they get married after having children and don't bother with engagement rings just wedding rings of a fancy design in metal. See lots of diamond wedding rings in the jewellers but never seem to see anyone wearing one.
This is in cities as well as more rural areas. I work with about 40 females under 40 and only about 7 of them wear engagement rings to work, most are in relationships but not engaged.

 

[FrekeChild]

Diamonds are one thing. Colored stones are a a lot of things. In that regard yes some colored stones, Even ones suitable for e rings,]are cheaper than diamondsI don't think its offensive or innacirate to say to someone that they might consider a different stone than e ring to get a larger stone or more look for their budget.


Not every stone. Not a lot of stones. But some stones.

That's exactly the problem. Irradiated topaz can be found for $20/carat, a not-spectacular-blue sapphire is $2k/ct. That's a MASSIVE PRICE DIFFERENCE.

Chrono described it best in a post above. When you tell a newbie poster "Oh, you can't afford that 2ct diamond, maybe you should look at colored stones, they are cheaper." It's putting ALL colored stones in the same category, which they clearly aren't. And you know this because you've spent time in CS, but people still continue to say it, and it's frustrating to have to kill people's expectations when it happens.

This is perhaps how it should go:
OP: I can't afford the size diamond I want! What should I do?
PS poster: I don't know if you would be interested, but you could look into a variety of colored stones with our Colored Stone forum. They might be able to help you find something in your budget. Be warned though, with your budget, it won't be a top sapphire, ruby or emerald.

When did I say anything about it being offensive to offer a colored stone? Quite the opposite, coming from me. It's the GENERALIZATION being made that's the problem.

 

[Niel]

Diamonds are one thing. Colored stones are a a lot of things. In that regard yes some colored stones, Even ones suitable for e rings,]are cheaper than diamondsI don't think its offensive or innacirate to say to someone that they might consider a different stone than e ring to get a larger stone or more look for their budget.


Not every stone. Not a lot of stones. But some stones.

That's exactly the problem. Irradiated topaz can be found for $20/carat, a not-spectacular-blue sapphire is $2k/ct. That's a MASSIVE PRICE DIFFERENCE.

Chrono described it best in a post above. When you tell a newbie poster "Oh, you can't afford that 2ct diamond, maybe you should look at colored stones, they are cheaper." It's putting ALL colored stones in the same category, which they clearly aren't. And you know this because you've spent time in CS, but people still continue to say it, and it's frustrating to have to kill people's expectations when it happens.

This is perhaps how it should go:
OP: I can't afford the size diamond I want! What should I do?
PS poster: I don't know if you would be interested, but you could look into a variety of colored stones with our Colored Stone forum. They might be able to help you find something in your budget. Be warned though, with your budget, it won't be a top sapphire, ruby or emerald.

When did I say anything about it being offensive to offer a colored stone? Quite the opposite, coming from me. It's the GENERALIZATION being made that's the problem.

Makes total sense.


Lets refraise.

if your budget could only afford you a .2 ct diamond solitaire. Would you rather have a colored stone of more unique varieties to add more impact for your budget? A cluster ring? a plain band? Or something else

 

[pyramid]

Although there are a lot of colored stones to choose from the difficulty is too that only ones that are a 9 on the moh's scale and some 8s are suitable for engagement rings as they are softer and so scratch and then lose their beauty unless they were dismounted and polished. 9s are either sapphire or ruby and so not cheaper than diamond and most rubies are heavily treated now that I wouldn't buy one anymore, although I have a few cheaper ones.

Some people who love colored stones go for say tourmalines or types of garnet and that is fine as their colored stones are their hobby like diamond people so they can use them as engagement rings and baby them, taking them off when they come home from work etc, but the average person who wants to get engaged just wants a ring to wear all the time so all they could use would be sapphire really. Emeralds are heavily treated but also although fairly hard have a tendency to chip so that is not really a stone for someone who is not a gemstone lover who would treat the ring carefully.

Even there have been photos on here showing sapphires where a woman has worn the ring for say 40 years and done gardening and everything and the facets have worn completely down so the stone looks like a cabochan or rather is a cabochan now.

I love colored gems and absolutely love diamonds and I would consider a sapphire as an engagement ring.

I still love one a local jeweller had in the window for £17000 although it was too big for me, it must have been about 7 carats. The color of it and the silky look was just better than any sapphire I have seen since. There is one now for £11000 and it looks the same and I wonder if it is the same stone never sold and been reduced, this is like 15 years later, but think it is probably another ring. He has other sapphires for say £3000 and £5000 with diamond side stones but to me they just look a lovely mid shade blue but there is nothing there, I wouldn't turn them down but not like the color in that large stone. I loved slksapphire's ring she got which is posted in colored stones forum and it was something like over $50,000 if I remember correctly. I love a beautiful ruby and there have been some posted but very expensive. Also these stones over maybe $10,000 need a lab report too the same way diamonds do and not any lab report but one in specific, is it AGL lab report if I remember correctly.

No colored stones are really just the same as high quality diamonds. Unless looking at $300 - $700 and then they are just like the equivalent priced small diamond in a mall store in my opinion. I see amethyst and citrine as right hand ring occasional stones. A chrysoberyl I see as a person who is into colored stones unusual acquisition and not what I would think of as a cheaper engagement ring. More a connoiseur's choice, like there was fads (if you can call it that) of people getting pink tourmalines, then spinels, tsavourite garnets, spessartite garnet. Not really engagement rings more like a hobby as fine diamonds are to some who get OEC, OMC, AVR etc.

 

[CRYSTAL24K]

DH was on a very modest income during our early years when I realized that he was serious about making me his wife. I encouraged him to be sensible and to get me a colored stone for an engagement ring if he was looking to propose. He surprised me with my beautiful diamond (slightly deep but super sparkly) which I love because it is from him.

I also would have been fine with a beautiful thick engraved antique gold band with some diamonds scattered throughout.

I am sure that if he gave me a colored stone that I would have had it reset into a 3 stone at this point though. I do love diamonds

I do see myself owning a beautiful large sapphire or tsavorite in a simple yellow gold solitaire setting at some point. I love all jewelry, but as a stay at home mom- I am not sure that my toddler twins have the same appreciation for it that I do-LOL

 

[Gypsy]

Yeah. Colored stones that can stand everyday wear and tear and frankly expensive.

I would just get a nice band with some diamonds on it. Or a pre-owned antique ring with an illusion head. You can get one of those for a few hundred bucks.

 

[Niel]

Yeah. Colored stones that can stand everyday wear and tear and frankly expensive.

I would just get a nice band with some diamonds on it. Or a pre-owned antique ring with an illusion head. You can get one of those for a few hundred bucks.

Not all of them.

There's a absolutely lovely illusionish halo on ruby lane for under 400.all diamond though.

 

[Gypsy]

That said I did help someone IRL who was on a strict budget of 1000, and my solution was to buy a colored stone engagement ring and was able to get them a great deal on an unheated stone from Simple Sapphires and a nice inexpensive Stuller setting for it. The wedding band was also on a budget of $750 and I worked with Gabriel and Co. for the beautiful wedding band. Here is the story [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/our-friends-beautiful-engagement-and-wedding-rings.171767/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/our-friends-beautiful-engagement-and-wedding-rings.171767/[/URL]

If only works if the people are reasonable and you can find a nice stone for them. Most people aren't reasonable.

 

[Niel]

That said I did help someone IRL who was on a strict budget of 1000, and my solution was to buy a colored stone engagement ring and was able to get them a great deal on an unheated stone from Simple Sapphires and a nice inexpensive Stuller setting for it. The wedding band was also on a budget of $1750 and I worked with Gabriel and Co. for the beautiful wedding band. Here is the story [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/our-friends-beautiful-engagement-and-wedding-rings.171767/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/our-friends-beautiful-engagement-and-wedding-rings.171767/[/URL]

If only works if the people are reasonable and you can find a nice stone for them. Most people aren't reasonable.

Haha.

I did something similar. That ring is lovely. I did something very similar for my sister in law. Ring was under 800. I know her wedding bands between the two of them will be under 300

 

[distracts]

Maybe I'm the exception but if my budget was 300 I'd rather get an antique emerald cab or sapphire and diamond cluster or a zircon ring than an engraved band.

But I like color and diamonds (I joined looking for a colored stone e ring) so I dunno.

I love color too and have a billion colored stone rings but I can't think of a single one that is under $500. Most of that is due to the settings. And since I'm very picky about settings, I personally would rather a nice band than a pretty stone in a crappy setting.

If we are opening it up to preowned/antiques rather than the usual e-ring "buy new", then I don't know why they couldn't just hold out for a diamond at that price. I've got several half carat diamonds I paid $500 each for and several .3ish diamonds I paid under $200 each for. All are beautiful stones. But all were found by bargain-hunting. Which most people aren't willing to do. And there was an element of risk - two were bought with crappy pictures, and two were bought with NO pictures whatsoever.

Personally if my budget was $300 for an e-ring, it had to be a solitaire as opposed to a band, and I had to BUY NOW so couldn't hunt or buy used, I would go for a synthetic sapphire or moissanite (could you even get a moissy solitaire for $300?). Durable enough for daily wear, a color I like, etc. But we can't talk about or recommend alternatives like that here, which is why I think people suggest colored stones, because THAT at least is something we can help with, we like to help, and it seems nicer to give them an alternative than say "nope, we can't help you here."

 

[pyramid]

Alexandrite is my birthstone. I got a little third carat one with very small diamond size stones, it cost about $700. It is a beautiful green and changes to another color not sure what it is blue or maybe a bit of purple in it. I wanted an alexandrite, and it is just a fun right hand ring to me. I was under no illusion, I know a large alexandrite of good quality is mega expensive and very rare to find. I remember years ago on here maybe 10 or so ago, someone got one for an engagement ring and it was antique but cost her $20,000. She had to get it appraised to be sure it was alexandrite.

 

[distracts]

I do also think part of the problem, once people get to CS, is the way Pricescope regulars work. We usually point out all the ways something deviates from perfection/trade ideal and then are like "DO YOU STILL LIKE IT NOWWWWWW" which is fine for US because we know that you should always be aware of everything about something before buying it, but the phrasing is... problematic. Like if someone points out a pretty blue sapphire and it's a little grey, everyone is immediately like "well, it's not the best blue," which, yes, if you mean "best" as in "most expensive" then that's true, but it doesn't mean it's a BAD blue, just that it's not the most expensive blue and should not be priced as such. I personally LIKE a dash of grey in my blue and the trade-ideal blue does nothing for my feels. I appreciate it in an abstract way but I don't want it all up on my finger. But it took a while of frequenting CS to figure out that was what they meant, and I think that's intimidating to new people and part of why CS is so much cliquier than RT.

 

[Circe]

My first engagement ring, back when I was 19, was a pretty gold ring shaped like a heart with wings. Loved it to pieces, though the engagement didn't work out. I strongly preferred it to the poor-quality solitaire that would have been the alternative on our college-student budget.

A decade later (give or take), when I got engaged to my husband, I wasn't expecting a ring at all: I did the proposing, and was kind of figuring we'd follow Swedish tradition and get matching engagement bands (which we also did), but I was quite pleasantly surprised when my husband wanted to get me an engagement ring, too. I wouldn't have wanted a cluster ring - no shade to anybody who has one, they can be quite lovely, I'm just rough enough on my hands that I figured more stones just meant more stones to *lose* if we were talking a 24/7 ring. If I hadn't gone for a solitaire, I would have, a) gotten the wedding band first, and had the solitaire as my ring to use at the ceremony, and, b) maximized my money by going second hand. You can get some hella blingy bands for surprisingly little moola!

As much as I adore colored stones, though, I don't think I would have gone for one for an ering. Like I said, I'm tough on my hands ... I had a sapphire solitaire I wore day-in, day-out for a few years straight. Poor thing is visibly abraded.

 

[tyty333]

I would probably just switch to a plan band before I went to a CS. Maybe later after I had saved more money I would go with a
colored stone or diamond. I would love it if Americans started wearing more colored stones (nice ones) for engagement rings.
I truly think you should buy what you love (that is durable) and in my case diamonds would be my first love.