Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamonds?

[Imdanny]

Set in gold.

The title wouldn't let me finish.

I look at PS now and I think "WOW" so many choices- platinum, gold, fancy shapes, many sizes, halos, etc.

When I was a kid growing up in a middle class family I don't remember any of that.

Most women had 1/3 ct diamonds in simple yellow gold settings.

Maybe in the 80's marquise were popular in more elaborate settings.

But what happened?

Did our standard of living rise this much?

Or are more women interested in diamonds?

What do you think?

My mother had a gold band. She didn't even have an engagement ring. She certainly could have had one. She just didn't want one.

She had various jobs working with her hands and stopped even wearing her wedding band.

I asked what kind of jewelry I should get her. She said earrings.

Another subject but the earrings I want to buy her are Elsa Peretti chrysoprase in silver and they're $1000.

Green is her favorite color and I have a feeling this would be her favorite green color.

I also have a feeling she might kill me if I spent $1000 on some silver earrings.

Any suggestions?

 

[AGBF]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

My maternal grandmother wore a thin yellow gold wedding band as her only everday jewelry. My mother wore a thin white gold wedding band as her only everyday jewelry. For the past year or so I have worn a thin 24K (therefore very yellow) gold wedding band as my only everyday jewelry. Not much has changed here.

Deb/AGBF

 

[kelpie]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

Well, what you describe is still the norm in a lot of America. I just got back from the wedding reception of two older people (both widow/ers) and the bride received a .30 princess. She was thrilled because her first husband never even gave her a wedding band. I think a lot of it just coincides with the cultural shift of women having a voice about how money is spent and men being willing to discuss the lady's tastes. Maketing too. Debeers created the myth about 1 month's salary, then it was two, now when I go to their website it says "most people spend three month's salary as a rule of thumb". Bull.

 

[diamondringlover]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

Yep I do remember, I remember the 80's more, I got married in 1984 and most people had very small diamonds, they were very expensive back then, my hubby bought me a .18ct diamond in 1985 and even back then the jeweler wanted around $360 for it, heck I can buy it way cheaper now then back then. So with that being said I think the invention of the internet changed they way the world thinks about diamonds, there is so much more competition and availability and choices that were not there in the earlier years.

 

[Anastasia]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

In the 70's women were getting married younger, and therefore didn't have as much money to spend on rings. Now couples are waiting longer to marry, and I think that the couples are generally more financially stable by the time they tie the knot, and therefore can afford better bling!

Fancy shapes were definitely available at the time. I just think that round has always been the most popular shape. As far as metals go, that is just a matter of what is stylish at the time. My mother (married in 1955) had a platinum ring. When I got engaged in 1991, very few people had anything other than yellow gold. It's all cyclical.

 

[perry]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

1/2 carat was also a popular size. I was rare to see larger diamonds than that on most people.

The biggest change - is that people have fallen for de beers marketing since then - and people in general have shifted their spending habits to buy more "things" and save less. Marketing of products had a lot to do with that.

If you want to see a similar trend - look at the complexity and cost of weddings most people now have compared to then.

Of course - many boy toys have also seen a similar shift (high powered motor boats, snowmobiles, etc).

Perry

 

[missy]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

In the 70's women were getting married younger, and therefore didn't have as much money to spend on rings. Now couples are waiting longer to marry, and I think that the couples are generally more financially stable by the time they tie the knot, and therefore can afford better bling!

Fancy shapes were definitely available at the time. I just think that round has always been the most popular shape. As far as metals go, that is just a matter of what is stylish at the time. My mother (married in 1955) had a platinum ring. When I got engaged in 1991, very few people had anything other than yellow gold. It's all cyclical.

I agree with this. My parents married in 1963 with just a simple platinum band for my mom as my parents were young and had no money. However, in 1965 my dad insisted on buying my mom an engagement ring though she didn't want to spend the money. Anyway, he got her a 3.5 carat (platinum) solitaire. It is gorgeous.

 

[JewelFreak]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

people in general have shifted their spending habits to buy more "things" and save less. Marketing of products had a lot to do with that.

If you want to see a similar trend - look at the complexity and cost of weddings most people now have compared to then.

Perry

I agree with this. TV started changing attitudes even before the internet. Kids working in bars or coffee shops on tv live in huge apartments w/neat furniture & wear different (expensive) clothes in each scene. People watched & wanted more stuff. You see someone on tv with big gorgeous bling & decide you can have that too.

I'm not sure little diamond rings have changed a whole lot in most of America. Some. A tiny tiny fraction of people are interested enough to go online & learn in places like PS. But better fakes are also available for those who want big but can't afford the real thing. (Bless 'em for not spending the mortgage on a ring.) I've heard, though, SO many stories from women getting divorced who took the big fancy ering to sell & found out it wasn't real after all. What a shock!

--- Laurie

 

[VRBeauty]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

People were also still debating the merits of "women's lib" in the early 70's, women were still considered "the weaker sex," gender discrimination was largely accepted in the workplace, and fewer women worked outside of the home. Although I'd agree that marketing is probably the biggest factor, I suspect that increases in women's participation in the workplace and earning power - and as a result, in a couple's financial welfare - has influenced engagement ring trends as well.

 

[lyra]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

My mom never owned a real diamond ring. She had a gold band and some rings much later that were just 1 pointers in a cluster, that sort of thing. She loved jewelery too. I regret that I didn't at least even get my mom a .25ct diamond during her lifetime. She was gone too soon. I think you should get your mom the earrings if you can afford them, or something else that's nice. I wish I had the chance to do that for my mom.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

I was engaged in the 70's with a .78 solitaire. I had only wanted a .50 (what most others had) so this was quite something!

The generation before me had the wedding sets - an ering with a diamond in the center with metal all around to make it look bigger, two stones on each side both embellished, and a wedding band that matched. My mother's were fishtail mountings.

So, the solitaire paired with a gold band was a more modern update to what our mothers had. Imagine that! Now think of some of the simple settings that folks have gravitated back to like LynnB's BGD set. Granted, she has a very big and very well cut stone but the simplicity of it never goes out of style. I just hope those old wedding sets never come back in style!

 

[Miss Sparkly]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

First, no I don't remember. I'm not close to that old What's been popular for my gen. is the illusion setting of 4 or more smaller princesses put together to make a big looking one. What happened? I think it's a bit of greed but also I think with people having longer engagments, less children and women making more more money that couples have been able to afford a larger stone.

 

[Octavia]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

I'm 28, and have a 1/3 carat engagement ring. We could afford something much bigger, but choose to spend our money on other things. Once I get my .5ctw studs, I'll be very happy with my diamond jewelry wardrobe. I'm really not about size, although I do want a massive rainbow of colored stones...

I do agree that our society is more "showy" than it was even when I was a kid, though. High-end brands have gone mainstream (maybe it's where I live, but Mercedes and BMWs, Burberry scarves, Tiffany fashion jewelry, etc. are EVERYWHERE and not really that "special" anymore). It's a better-is-better mentality, and for many people, size makes a piece of jewelry better. I understand the phenomenon, even if I don't necessarily buy into it completely.

 

[february2003bride]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

My mother's wedding band was a 8mmish hammered gold wedding band. Her original engagement ring was a .40 round in a simple white gold setting that my dad paid $90.00 for. She never wore them together. Both of Aunt's wear 2mm yellow gold bands.

But what happened?: I think with everything, if it's bigger, it's better (homes, cars ,diamonds, bags, etc). It's not something I agree with because I've seen that mentality with friends and certain family members lead to massive debt.

Did our standard of living rise this much?: I think so.

Or are more women interested in diamonds?: I don't know if women are more interested in diamonds or rather that it's expected that when a man proposes, he will give his fiancee a diamond e-ring. It used to be .50 was the "gotta have" size. Then .75, then 1.0, now it seems 1.25+ is the wishful size. But most of my friends never take off their rings nor clean them. So I wouldn't classify them as interested in diamonds at all.

 

[HollyS]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

Celebs have always had the bigger, better, fancier rings; i.e. Grace Kelly's 12 carat ring in an era when the average woman was lucky to receive a diamond at all. The difference today is that a larger segment of society spends more time and effort aspiring to, and attempting to emulate, the lifestyle of the more rich and famous.

However, Pricescopers often forget . . . we are the minority. The majority of ring buyers in the US and elsewhere don't spend the PS average on a ring. And the majority of ring receivers are happy with whatever they've been gifted with, and don't even know what the term 'upgrade' means.

 

[MissMina]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

I was married in 1976
My ering was/is a 1/3 carat marquise cut
set diagonally in brushed yellow gold
and paired with a matching wide wedding band
At the time I thought it was the bees knees

My mom never had an ering
Her mom didn't either

 

[swingirl]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

Diamonds were more expensive. My poorly cut 0.5 ct stone was $1000 in 1981. Today I can get a 0.5 ct Hearts and Arrows J VS1 for under $1000.

In 1981 most newlyweds I knew were more interesting in putting their money into a house. Honeymoons were a camping trip or a few nights at a nice hotel. I am talking middle class. The wealthy always had fancy weddings and expensive jewelry.

 

[zoebartlett]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

My mom and dad got married in 1970. The RB diamond in my mom's engagement ring was 1/3 ct. and it was set in YG. My dad had gotten it in Vietnam when he was in the war. She kept the diamond over the years but she did change the setting (it was still YG and it was still a fairly simple band, but a bit more unique than the original one). She actually lost her ring (diamond and all) in Boston last year. It never turned up and she's so sad about it.

 

[soocool]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

a couple of my friends were engaged in the late 1970s and I remember small diamonds in yellow gold (usually solitaires). In the 1980s a few other friends went absolutely nuts over the 1 carat round brilliants they got and they were set in white gold (solitaires also). My sister was engaged in 1978 qnd she got a (1/4) marquise in yellow gold that was part of a wedding set. After 10 years she upgraded to a 1 carat marquise that she later reset again with a halo.

My mom was engaged in the early 1950s and all she wore was a simple gold band. Over the years my dad bought her diamond cocktail rings that she only wore on special occasions. She never wanted an engagement ring.

 

[shihtzulover]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

I'm in NC, and that still seems to be the norm around here. I have noticed lots of smaller diamonds in marquise and even trillion settings. Here though, most of the bands that I see aren't plain, and they look as though they were all sold in a set (with the matching curved wedding band).

I have actually been surprised, because at my workplace, I have only seen a couple of rounds and no princess cuts (which I have heard are the second most common cut). Instead, I see the marquise and trillion cuts a lot.

My FF and I already had my e-ring made, and it is a princess cut (I have always loved them the most), but on a plain platinum band - so it's pretty different from what I see the most at work. I have noticed that my generation has seemed to change things up a little bit though; I have seen mostly rounds and princess cuts among us, and mostly thin bands (with or without side diamonds).

 

[Lady_Disdain]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

Yes, I think that we see this in all aspects of life: things that were once a treat are now everyday, trading up brands and getting more/bigger/more expensive things. Not that long ago, it would have been crazy to consider getting a new cel phone or computer every other year. It is very common today. How many products, in the 70s, had people lining up overnight to buy on the first day? Today we see this in everything from books to technology.

Unfortunately, there are more downsides than upsides to this - people are, generally, saving less and feeling more stress; enviromentally, it is a disaster; it is one of the causes of financial inequality; etc. However, the economy is now at a place where, if this cycle of trading up and throw away things ended, it would tank, creating a lot of unemployment, etc.

 

[reader]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

My mom got married in 1964, with a matchy set (the sort that ends up on the Bistro for about $100 now, fishtail head) I think they spent about $300 for it then?
Diamond prices have gone down, and my generation of women in my area usually have a round at a .5 in white or yellow gold. A girl I went to highschool with, and got married at age 21 was thrilled to get a 1 ct round and a pair of yellow gold matching bands.

 

[texaskj]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

Danny, have you tried looking on Etsy for earrings for your mom? There are some very talented folks on that site and I'm sure you could come in way under $1000.
http://www.etsy.com/search_results.php?search_query=sterling+chrysoprase+earring&search_type=all

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

My mother and mother-in-law got married around 1950 and both had half cart diamonds in platinum solitaire settings and 2mm plain wedding bands. I got engaged in 1976 with a one carat diamond in a yellow gold tiffany setting. However, I had a custom made bead-set diamond wedding band (diamonds just across the top). I guess I was always into jewelry! I changed to platinum for our 30th anniversary, though. I agree that things go in cycles.

 

[TravelingGal]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

Diamonds were more expensive. My poorly cut 0.5 ct stone was $1000 in 1981. Today I can get a 0.5 ct Hearts and Arrows J VS1 for under $1000.

You'd be hard pressed to find this in a B&M store, I think.

With the age of the internet, you can do business online. Not as much overhead to pay, and most likely cheaper prices as a result.

 

[Arcadian]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

My mom and dad were married in the 60's. whooosah their wedding pictures...totally off the chain! Mom made their wedding outfit (red white and blue checks!) but they were stylin.

My mother didn't have an engagement ring, just a wedding band. Later of course my dad got her earrings and necklaces and such according to her, she never wanted a ring to compete with her wedding ring. she did have several right hand rings and did inherit a few pieces from my grandmother as well.



-A

 

[Kismet]

Re: Do you remember the 70's and women having 1/3 ct diamond

Another subject but the earrings I want to buy her are Elsa Peretti chrysoprase in silver and they're $1000.

Green is her favorite color and I have a feeling this would be her favorite green color.

I also have a feeling she might kill me if I spent $1000 on some silver earrings.

Any suggestions?

Artistic Colored Stones has these chrysoprase for $57. The color of this particular pair doesn't look to be the best but sometimes his photos can be meh. I've seen (and have purchased) some nice chrysoprase from him so perhaps he has (or can get) more. Setting them in gold should cost way less $900.

For reference, here are my chrysoprase earrings.