Memo to Hollywood: bigger is not always better!

[michela002]

Oh my god. I spotted a picture of Nicky Hilton''s (ex) engagement/wedding/rock of gibraltar ring in Who/People Magazine''s Celebrity Wedding issue, and I would just like to know, what has happened in Hollywood? How is it possible that there are rings out there making the standard Hollywood 4 or 5 carat ring look puny?!

Nicky Hilton, Anna Kournikova, as two examples ... there is a certain point at which bigger is NOT better -- a diamond just becomes too ridiculously big for a person''s finger! It is so unnecessary and, dare I say it, tacky. If you really want to purchase a diamond that big why not put it in a necklace or something? What twenty-something year old (or anyone, really) can possibly carry off such a large stone without it looking like a ring pop!

Man, enough is enough. Imagine what that kind of money could be used for! I just don''t geddit ...

Sorry, I just had to vent.

Live and let live I guess ...

 

[valeria101]

These are just show-off things, what isn't

Change diamond to whatever, engagement with 'night at the opera' and 40 carats starts to sound just fine. There seems to be some kind of jewelry fit to wear with each and every occasion. Is there even a recipe for what engagement rings must be like ? Those cannot be rings to wear all day, every day unless one takes up the function of "ring bearer" for a living...

 

[Spartan]

OMG!! On Elizabeth Taylor maybe...but Nikki Hilton??? I she even old enough to drink (in legal terms, of course)? I''m surprised her body''s able to support such a thing.

 

[mdx]

Michela

Did you see the 70ct Bra thread?

Johan

 

[Jennifer5973]

These people have so much money, they don''t know what to do with it (or themselves for that matter). it''s kind of sad, in a way...

 

[denverkat]

I think once you reach the quarter-billion mark, something happens to your brain that screws with systems of measurement, so 1ct becomes equivalent to 10ct, 1 dollar to 100 dollars, a one-bedroom to 10 bedrooms, and so forth.

Once I become a gazillionaire celebrity, I''m only going wear diamonds at least as big as my head (how else are paparazzi going to shoot them without a telephoto?), and then when I get old and my faculties fail I''ll buy a continent or microsoft or every horse in the world with them.

-Kat

 

[fortheloveofdiamonds]

I saw a woman at my gym that was wearing a ring that had to be at least 7-10 carats. It was monstrously huge and totally out of place in the gym. The setting was hideous. She had it in a tiffany-style six prong, set in yellow gold... All I saw was a gigantic bauble with metal because the prongs were so big, bulky and gaudy. I always thought i''d be dazzled by a stone that big, but this one was definetly NOT a talker. It had 0 scintillation in the fluorescent gym lights. So no, bigger is not better! I''d have definetly gone for the *smaller* 4-5 carats and maximized quality if I were in her shoes.

 

[Hest88]

LOL Kat!!!

A disproportionately large stone on a women just makes me think of a mid-life crisis man in his flashy car trying to make up for his teeny self-esteem.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

Hollywood needs bigger (ie normal) women and smaller (ie normal) diamonds

 

[fortheloveofdiamonds]

diamondgeezer! Amen to that!

 

[Jennifer5973]

Date: 11/13/2004 6:42:56 PM
Author: diamondgeezer
Hollywood needs bigger (ie normal) women and smaller (ie normal) diamonds

No truer words...

 

[michela002]

Johan - yes I actually saw a pic of the 70ct diamond bra in the newspaper. I can''t believe a diamond that size exists, lol.

But somehow the idea of a 70ct bra, for promo purposes, just doesn''t seem as bad to me as the ridiculousness of such a large diamond on a bony twenty-year-old''s finger. Honestly, the only people who can pull that off are the very rich much older women and only if their hand will support it! And even then, a smaller more beautiful diamond would still be better!

It''s just so wrong that Hollywood has the largest diamonds, and yet the shortest marriages. They should rent the rings, not buy them.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

It's just so wrong that Hollywood has the largest diamonds, and yet the shortest marriages. They should rent the rings, not buy them.

maybe that is why they have the shortest marriages, because they are not based on love and commitment

it may be a huge diamond, but it doesn't symbolise anything other than their inflated bank balance and the skewed priorities of our society

 

[orbaya]

The ring is beautiful, even if it is too large for her finger. It would definatly look MUCH better as a necklace. Of course, if that pink diamond ring was offered to me...I certainly wouldn't refuse it! But a rock large wouldn't be my first choice either. Heck, I don't think I'd even choose a 4-5ct diamond for my finger even if I had the means to purchase it. I would say 3cts would be the max I would go. Anything bigger would look like a ring out of a cereal box...at least on my 4.75 finger.

But I guess if one has the means to purchase a ring like that and that's what she wanted...then she should have it.