Are solitaires for younger women?

[braga123]

Ok, without offending anyone, because that is not my intention, I want to run another poll.
My eye gravitates to solitaires--at the mall, at restaurants, at Costco, and the majority of the wearers are recently engaged or the under-40 demographic, it seems. I can attribute this observation to the marketing of the Tiffany solitaire, the fairly inexpensive stock solitaire (VC,, SK, LM,, etc, excluded), the advice that PSers give to newbies when they tell them to put their money toward the rock, not the setting. Whatever the reason may be, I would like to know if PSers feel that solitaires are starter rings and thus, look better on younger women. I know that we should all wear what we love, etc., but I am curious to see what others think.

 

[CymoneD]

I personally do not think that soliataires are FOR younger women I think they just happen to be the ones you find wearing them most of the time.

 

[heididdl]

When Barbara Streisand got engaged she got an ideal cut 1 carat Tiffany RB.. in a solitaire setting need I say more (she was in her 60s

 

[braga123]

When Barbara Streisand got engaged she got an ideal cut 1 carat Tiffany RB.. in a solitaire setting need I say more (she was in her 60s

Actually, that brings up another observation. I do notice solitaires on older women in Streisand's age category, and typically, these are .50 carats or so, and seem to have been their original set.

 

[TC1987]

solitaires:

the majority of the wearers are recently engaged or the under-40 demographic, it seems

It might be that the "over 40 demographic" is wearing halos or something more elaborate due to combination of more disposable income, whatever rings they started with might be hideously out of fashion now, the original set might have worn out, they saw all of the treasure trove of new styles, they just received a significant upgrade ring, etc. Or, they already wore a solitaire for decades and tired of it and they want something else now.

1. Styles changed. White metals came back in fashion sometime in the mid '90s, maybe, and much later than that in the rural areas, small towns, etc. But for a long time, yellow gold was all you saw everywhere. "Bold gold" in yellow gold was hot in the '80s and '90s. Maybe the middleaged women you have seen have changed their setting or gotten a new ring anytime from 2003 or so to the present, so they are wearing something that's current fashion now: White metal, pave, vintage, and/or halo. And "fancier" than the original solitaire.

2. Anniversay upgrades. Women might get an upgrade ring to mark a major milestone anniversary like 20 or 25 years or more. So women age 40 and up might be in that peak stage of upgraded ring now.

3. Pent-up demand finally satisfied. Now we have availability and relative affordability of many different styles of mountings now but that wasn't true 20-30 years ago. Even if you could find platinum mountings in the early '90s, for example, they were mostly plain-Jane traditional solitaires. I looked for something antique, vintage, "old European", or just plain "different" in platinum back in 1993-1994 or so, and there just wasn't anything. I didn't want a solitaire, but it's what I settled for out of frustration. (It was solitaire, or some hideous wedding set, usually a frothy-looking concoction in yellow gold with a blitz of small diamonds and swarm of baguettes. ) Back then there was no Internet, no PS, no access to variety unless you went to a major city. For inspiration, we had the bridal magazines, mags like Town and Country, whatever few catalogs that local b&m jewelers had, and also the overpriced remount events held at local jewelry stores. There simply wasn't the plethora of mountings to pick from then. Nor the ability to make the connections to get your dream ring designed using CAD and wax models, etc. Many jewelers didn't work in platinum in the '70s - '90s. If you lived in a small town or a moderately sized city, you might even have trouble finding a good bench jeweler who could make you a superb custom setting. In short, most people got whatever their local jewelers sold.

 

[TC1987]

Younger women with children might choose the solitaire for durability to stand up to daily wear in a child-rearing household. No pave' stones to fall or to scratch a child. Less fussy ring to repolish. Solid construction that stands up to harder use. Less costly setting to repair or replace if it gets damaged. It's more practical for their lifestyle, in other words. Older women may not have to be as concerned about those issues. Or they may wear their old solitaire at home and wear the fancy ring out of the home, wherever you saw them.

Another oddity that I have run across, and it's all been younger women who have had their diamond e-rings anywhere from a short time to 1-3 years, is they don't often wear the e-ring. I think that's kind of nuts, but they keep it locked up someplace and only wear it occasionally. All of those women like that, that I know anyhow, have a diamond set in a basic solitaire mounting. I presume that's either because they are not that into jewelry and don't care, or they or their beau couldn't see spending big money on the mounting for a ring that's seldom worn.

 

[braga123]

Younger women with children might choose the solitaire for durability to stand up to daily wear in a child-rearing household. No pave' stones to fall or to scratch a child. Less fussy ring to repolish. Solid construction that stands up to harder use. Less costly setting to repair or replace if it gets damaged. It's more practical for their lifestyle, in other words. Older women may not have to be as concerned about those issues. Or they may wear their old solitaire at home and wear the fancy ring out of the home, wherever you saw them.

Another oddity that I have run across, and it's all been younger women who have had their diamond e-rings anywhere from a short time to 1-3 years, is they don't often wear the e-ring. I think that's kind of nuts, but they keep it locked up someplace and only wear it occasionally. All of those women like that, that I know anyhow, have a diamond set in a basic solitaire mounting. I presume that's either because they are not that into jewelry and don't care, or they or their beau couldn't see spending big money on the mounting for a ring that's seldom worn.

Wow! Now that is a shame!

 

[momma2boys]

Hello! There is a reason that solitaires are often called timeless and classic - it's because they ARE! It has nothing to do with the age of the owner. You need to find a ring that you absolutely LOVE 100%, regardless of trends, age, and other people's opinions.

 

[heididdl]

Hello! There is a reason that solitaires are often called timeless and classic - it's because they ARE! It has nothing to do with the age of the owner. You need to find a ring that you absolutely LOVE 100%, regardless of trends, age, and other people's opinions.

EXACTLY

 

[JulieN]

Outside of PS, many men choose the rings with little input. And guys know little to nothing about settings. I know many men who spend a goodly sum of money on a diamond, and then plunk it into a cheapo solitaire.

 

[LetItShine]

I had a setting "similar" in style to yours. My main stone is much smaller though at 1.4 ct. The setting was beautiful and I received tons of compliments on it. I always felt though that it took away from my center stone. It just never felt right. I recently switched to a solitaire with 12pt eternity band (to keep the bling). There are threads showing before/afters if your interested. I don't regret the decision at all. I still get tons of compliments and I think it makes my stone look bigger...I have short fingers and have been told my diamond is huge...at least 2+ct (funny!). I like that I can wear each ring separately. If my fingers were longer I would love to stack different bands. I think a solitaire is a classic. You can add detail to the gallery/basket. I'm 43 and initially thought I wanted a more elaborate setting but I enjoy the simplicity of my solitaire.

 

[Indylady]

No. Most of the women I know in their 20's have halos--it probably depends on where you live and the amount of disposable income the wearer has to use for the ring.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Outside of PS, many men choose the rings with little input. And guys know little to nothing about settings. I know many men who spend a goodly sum of money on a diamond, and then plunk it into a cheapo solitaire.

And I know many women who spend big bucks on a setting and then hate the setting after a few months...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I voted classic and timeless for all ages because it is still my preference for a modern round brilliant today (and I have grown children). I now have an AVR and plan to set in an antique style setting, but I will always love a classic Tiffany setting. It is still the setting of choice for some who have upgraded once or more than once...mom2boys has around a 3.6 ct diamond, Phoenix upgraded to 5 cts., Bliss to almost 4 cts, etc. A solitaire lets an outstanding diamond be the star and you can wear a diamond wedding band with them.

 

[spicyitalian]

Classic definitely!

 

[marcy]

I think they are classic and never go out of style.

 

[SB621]

From my stand point.

I got engaged at 22 and picked out a ring that was inexpensive, but sort of trendy. Now at 30 I have changed my setting a few times. I think in my 20's I'm still figuring out my style like most 20 somethings are. That is typically why I recommend a solitare. They are classic and you really can't ever go wrong with them. I like that they are versatile with stacking bands. Once a person has a better idea of what style ering they want to wear forever it doesn't seem as big of a deal to change it out over a cheaper solitare. Where as if you have a more eleborate expensive settings I have noticed most wont' change, even if they don't love it.

 

[alene]

I started with a solitaire nearly 10 years ago and changed to a halo setting more recently. But most women I know who got engaged in the past few years actually have pretty elaborate settings (mostly halos). I think it's just what's in these days.

 

[LLJsmom]

I started with a solitaire nearly 10 years ago and changed to a halo setting more recently. But most women I know who got engaged in the past few years actually have pretty elaborate settings (mostly halos). I think it's just what's in these days.

+1. I think it's younger women who get halos cause it's what is trendy. My cousin has one, an under 1 carat with a halo. She fot married this year. I still would have preferred a solitaire. Then us 40 something's see the trend and like it too. Not saying that a halo is not classic but it is also what is popular now.

 

[bgray]

I think solitaires are classic but they are also seem dated. I see a classic Tiffany style solitaire and it seems very 70's, 80's 90's to me regardless of the color of the metal. I do not agree with gold going out of style. Platinum and white gold have been around and very very typical for engagement and wedding bands for 125 years and more. I never wanted a solitaire. I grew up with a mother and grandmother with a lot of jewelry platinum deco and edwardian, big brooches from the 50's and gold and tortoise from the 70's and 80;s. However I always wanted a platinum ring with side stones and some sort of the elaborate mounting. In fact I got engaged and married without an e-ring because I couldnt find what I wanted. Again solitaires are truly timeless but I rarely see them anymore and they are typically on young brides or older women

 

[SouthernSunset]

I'm in my early/mid twenties and see two groups.

A lot of people around here become engaged/married very very young, 17-20. And most could only afford solitaires.

However those who engaged around 21-25, are ALL halos. Halos with smaller diamonds, it seems instead of spending more money on stone there are many ornate, antique style settings(tacori, ritani ect).

 

[oakleaf]

I voted timeless.

I think it depends on where you live. Most jewelry I see on a daily basis tends to be simple and modest. I am in the Midwest, FWIW.

I have a solitaire (small diamond), and I am 34. My everyday ring is a 5mm comfort fit stainless steel band that cost $50. I can scratch it, get it dirty, bang it on the counter, etc and not worry about it. With 2 young children, we don't have much extra income for jewelry upgrades, so it will be easier and probably cheaper to get new wedding bands and stacking bands instead of changing my setting if I want a completely new look.

 

[flash_and_fire]

I'm in my 40's and live in the western region of the US. I see mostly blingy rings and not necessarily from the size of the diamond but the setting. I agree w/the previous comments that it depends on where you live, the influences surrounding you, and what you can afford. I see a lot of halo styles where I live on younger and older women alike. I got engaged over a year ago (long engagement), but for a woman my age and getting engaged again later in life, I wanted more substance on my finger though I do think the solitaire style is timeless. So I have a solitaire stye setting in a pave band, and the wedding band is also a half eternity pave band for that extra bling factor.

 

[Acinom]

To my eyes the solitaire is a timeless classic for all ages, so that's what I voted.
I feel that it indeed depends on where you live. I live in the Netherlands and people here are mostly very modest: we see an occasional larger diamond here, but 0.50 - 1 cts seems to be the norm, mostly set in a modest solitaire setting.

To me a solitaire flatters small as well as very big diamonds and young as well as midlle aged or older ladies.

It's probably a matter of taste, culture and sometimes budget.

 

[bunnycat]

I think it just depends on personality. I think solitaires are classic and can appreciate the look on others, but do not like them for myself. I have a halo because I like halos not because of trends. Everything trends and then recedes. It's probably more popular to have a halo right now, or a vintage/vintage style setting but solitaires will always be around, just like halos have been around for many years in some form or other also.

 

[AprilBaby]

I see almost no solitaires, the young brides all have halos. We older women all have three stones or centers with side stones. That said, I think a solitaire is classic.

 

[Rena7]

I see almost no solitaires, the young brides all have halos. We older women all have three stones or centers with side stones. That said, I think a solitaire is classic.

This is what I see as well.

 

[Laila619]

I love solitaires! I think they're timeless and elegant.

Most young brides around here wear ornate, blingy halos or pave settings.

 

[Missy]

I love solitaires for any age. They are classic and elegant. Having said that though you should wear what you love, period.

 

[tweeter8177]

I personally think that younger women go with elaborate settings, because that is what the mall stores mostly sell! My area is dominated by chain stores, so there is little choice. I have considered a solitaire to make my diamond be the star, but my husband thinks I would not be happy with it long-term. I am guessing he is right...but I am not sure if I will ever have a forever setting! Too many styles to try!