Does anyone agree with me?

[ooohdiamonds]

Sometimes when I see celebrities and their engagement rings or some really over the top people ...
who wear ENORMOUS diamonds in settings with even more diamonds.... i believe it takes away the class of the ring. I find the super huge ring and extra diamonds kinda tasteless and tacky..........

examples I can think of include:

Paris Hilton''s ring from.. um... one of her previous fiancees
http://www.hollywoodrag.com/images/uploads/paris_hilton_sold_ring.jpg
Jenna Jameson (the pornstar)
even Eva Longoria''s set

I think each indiviudal ring is beautiful and elegant, but when the er and wb are put together, it looks tacky, over the top and empowers her entire hand! i prefer her thin micropave band with her er instead.


I was just wondering, does anyone else agree with me?

 

[Maisie]

I think some celebrity rings are nicer than others. It can be tempting for them to get the biggest diamond possible, but if its not a great stone or not in a pretty setting - it can look very gaudy.

 

[CLEICS]

I think I know what you mean. It isnt necessarily that big stones or detailed rings look bad (in fact most of the ones I see on here are amaaaazing. Its just there has to be a point where you think is this just too much!?!? Im all for a beautiful stone simply set but even more importantly that the ring suits the wearer! so rather than just go down the more bling the better route people choose a design that reflects their taste

 

[stone-cold11]

it is their money, they can spend it anyhow they like it, just like everyone else.

 

[bgray]

I agree BUT to each his or her own. There are many people, Paris Hilton as you mention, who are tacky and gaudy anyway--not sure their ring choice changes anything.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 3/18/2010 10:13:29 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
it is their money, they can spend it anyhow they like it, just like everyone else.

I agree with this, some celebrities or even non famous people like the ' Blingtastic' look and are prepared to spend vast amounts of money in achieving it. Personally I have different taste and prefer more classic, understated looks, preferably with a simple stone in a plain setting, but everyone is different. I am glad that these days there is so much choice available for anyone to be able to pick a style that suits them perfectly. Take Paris Hilton as an example, she is a very glamorous over the top character and to me a hefty stone with all the bells and whistles suits her look and persona.

 

[joxxxelyn]

I agree, since like you said most don''t keep the cut quality as they go up. I also don''t get the whole quantity rules idea for diamonds either once they get into the really large carat weights (3+). If you open a greeting card that has glitter on it, a few strategically placed spots of glitter are plenty. It''s got your attention. But a ton of glitter all over the card will annoy, frustrate, and detract from the message. Sparkles/scintillation and fire are so attention getting in their own right that one moderately sized well cut gem is perfect. I feel this is an oft overlooked fact of diamond beauty. I think most people look best with rings that provide between 15-50 % finger coverage. But I don''t hold it against celebrities or anyone else who has large carat weights. I believe in people having a right to buy and enjoy what they want and that purchases which legally contribute to the economy are always desirable. I want them to continue to make these purchases because I do enjoy seeing the variety. I think it''s interesting because larger stones show color and clarities differently, and being able to view that provides interest and entertainment. So while I may not understand, I think these things have their place and their role in society and that many people are enjoying them.

 

[PumpkinPie]

For my taste there is definitely a point where too much becomes gaudy and unattractive - but to each his/her own

 

[LadyJane83]

I think these celebrity rings fit their lifestyles and social circles. If someone wore a 10 or 20 carat diamond in real life people would assume it was fake.

 

[Bella_mezzo]

My faves are the celebs that wear gorgeous rings that aren''t ginormous, but I have to admit sometimes the hige blingtastic rings are quite drool-wrothy

 

[oldminer]

The super wealthy who are into yachts compete over who has the longest ship, who has the most horsepower, who can go the fastest and farthest. Those who buy exotic cars compete with one another over the most lavish interior, the largest engine, the biggest diameter wheels, the sleekest design, the way the doors open, the sound the exhaust makes. Those who buy huge homes and vast estates of land compete to have the most amenities, the fanciest bathroom fixtures, hidden huge TV screens and movie theaters, magnificent swimming pools, servants.

It only makes sense to those who are in that financial arena to do the same with diamonds and jewelry. Not all of them are happy because of their wealth and fame. Many would be far happier if they did not get all the attention from the press and the paparazzi. One thing they can control is what they buy. Much of their life is completely out of their control due to their fame and status, but what they choose to buy is one of their few freedoms. Since they have the money, they figure something very costly will make them happier than something less costly. People of lesser means also figure the same thing might be true, but it is my belief that happiness is not obtained or increased simply by making purchases of material things whether large or small. Giving a gift to someone else does increase happiness and I suppose the bigger the gift, the more it is meant to say whatever the message is that comes with it.

If Tiger Woods manages to save his marraige, I imagine we will see some very substantial make-up gifts over the next few years for all the trouble he got himself into. I don''t care if she wears these gifts or not, but I sure hope he buys lots of jewelry in hopes of saying "I''m really sorry." Just put them in the vault and save them for a rainy day. That''s not tacky, but just smart.

 

[Natylad]

No intention to threadjack, but i was just wondering what kind of ring OUR PS celebrity, Lorelei, is wearing

 

[kswanson]

Date: 3/18/2010 2:22:30 PM
Author: oldminer
The super wealthy who are into yachts compete over who has the longest ship, who has the most horsepower, who can go the fastest and farthest. Those who buy exotic cars compete with one another over the most lavish interior, the largest engine, the biggest diameter wheels, the sleekest design, the way the doors open, the sound the exhaust makes. Those who buy huge homes and vast estates of land compete to have the most amenities, the fanciest bathroom fixtures, hidden huge TV screens and movie theaters, magnificent swimming pools, servants.


It only makes sense to those who are in that financial arena to do the same with diamonds and jewelry. Not all of them are happy because of their wealth and fame. Many would be far happier if they did not get all the attention from the press and the paparazzi. One thing they can control is what they buy. Much of their life is completely out of their control due to their fame and status, but what they choose to buy is one of their few freedoms. Since they have the money, they figure something very costly will make them happier than something less costly. People of lesser means also figure the same thing might be true, but it is my belief that happiness is not obtained or increased simply by making purchases of material things whether large or small. Giving a gift to someone else does increase happiness and I suppose the bigger the gift, the more it is meant to say whatever the message is that comes with it.


If Tiger Woods manages to save his marraige, I imagine we will see some very substantial make-up gifts over the next few years for all the trouble he got himself into. I don''t care if she wears these gifts or not, but I sure hope he buys lots of jewelry in hopes of saying ''I''m really sorry.'' Just put them in the vault and save them for a rainy day. That''s not tacky, but just smart.

Its awesome what you said, so right. Goes back to the whole to each his own.

I think engagement rings are very subjective. I think as long as it means something to them, then who cares if its a cz or a huge diamond. I think my problem with the rings some celebrities wear for example, its almost like they get engaged just to wear that ring. Put it on the right hand and don''t make a joke out of something, so many still view as precious.

 

[Black Jade]

This is sort of mean thing to say, but I think most celebrities are tacky by definition. They get into that lifestyle because they like attention and everything they do, wear and say seems to me to be calculated to GET attention, whether positive or negative, I don''t think they care. It makes sense that they would be wearing OTT jewelry, because everything else is OTT.

I am not saying that larger jewelry is automatically OTT. Over on the Royal Jewels thread, you see jewelry that is large but much more classy, in my opinion. How big was Princess Diana''s engagement ring? The sapphire was something like 18 carats, if I recall correctly, and was haloed with diamonds, yet this was a refined and elegant piece. Princess Grace (Yes, I know she started life as an actress,but she was the epitome of class) also had something like a 12 carat diamond, yet she was not having the Paris Hilton effect.

It''s not just modern celebrities who are tacky. I''m thinking of Joan Crawford and her what was it--60 carat emerald ring--that was tacky, too. And I do think Elizabeth Taylor was anything but ladylike. But then, that wasn''t her goal in life.

 

[Black Jade]

Mrs. Woods seems to have the right priorities. She seems like a quiet lady who values her children and her home--you never saw her in the news before this scandal of Tiger''s. Far from collecting jewelry in return for his infidelity, from what I read, she stopped wearing the ring she had for a while. She seems to be trying to do her best in a super difficult, public situation and her goal seems to be to keep the marriage together for the sake of the children, which I respect.
I believe she has money of her own--her father is a wealthy man in Scandinavia, I believe, and her mother is a well-known politician. So she doesn''t need to stash up jewelry from Tiger for security (not that jewelry is good security, in any case. It doesn''t exactly resell for what you paid for it, does it).
On the other hand, between you and me, no matter what Tiger says, I do think she hit him with that golf club. And while it may be very politically incorrect, if you lie to your wife and she finds you texting a floozy, you DESERVE a conk on the head. Hopefully some sense was knocked into him and for the sake of the children he will try in future to behave himself. I would like to see their marriage stay together, they have two very little children. I have heard that Mrs. Woods is a child of divorce (as am I) and that is why she is trying so hard to allow her children to have two parents who are together.

 

[AprilBaby]

Everyone has their own taste. That''s what makes the world an interesting place.