by sapphiredream » Dec 6, 2017 I don't have any particular bling to post at this moment but I realized I would love to read a variety of perspectives, stances and "philosophies" on a "jewel-ogical" dilemma. I guess I can focus mainly on the e-ring, but the question can be extended to any kind of jewelry piece. Specifically: If one must compromise, what is most important? The authenticity/natural quality of the stone or the overall beauty of the jewelry piece, when all is said and done? I know there are many views out there regarding what is MOST important in a jewelry piece - when choices or compromises must be made. And yes, I do understand that each person is different and everyone should choose what's most important to THEM, what makes THEM happy, etc. But the reality is that what will make every person "happy" will still be influenced by a variety of established social views and conventions. And it seems to me there is still a lot of confusion, apprehension and insecurity out there about any potential "faux pas" in the world of "choosing jewelry". For example, some will say "I would never go non-natural", yet others say "I just want my jewelry to make a statement and look great on me". This led me to reflect on the ultimate purpose of wearing a jewelry - and I concluded it is to "beautify the wearer". I think it's safe to say that, for the most part, women wear jewelry to make themselves pretty; to show off something that looks beautiful on them. Of course, e-rings are special in that they represent the bond with someone else, love and commitment, etc; and then you have the cases of heirlooms that can be worn strictly for sentimental reasons; but all in all, jewelry is still chosen with the "beauty" criterion in mind. In an ideal world, every piece of jewelry would be not just "a work of art" - but "a work of art on the right person". That would involve not only a gorgeous-looking stone, but also a finely-made, artistic setting and a sense of grace and harmony with the woman's size, stature, proportions, personality and even social position (if this is not too undemocratic to mention). The end result would be that the wearer is rendered a bit more beautiful by wearing that piece. In the real world, however, most people have to compromise on some dimension, somehow. Some will choose to compromise on stone quality, others on authenticity (go with simulant/lab-created), others on setting and others on size, proportions and "fit" with the wearer. I have often noticed that purists tend to emphasize the "natural-ness" of the stone first, followed by stone quality, then everything else...with the "correct" view being that "stone size should be the least important". For example, it is widely considered "de bon ton" to wear a natural, very well-cut, small diamond in a basic, highly common solitaire setting. This has been so even in situations where such a piece of jewelry, overall, may not necessarily flatter the wearer the most or it may come across as plain uneventful on her. (Unless, of course, we assume the wearer is wearing just a stone, in and of itself, and not a piece of jewelry). I have seen such technically beautiful stones - very high-quality but small, set in a common, rather dainty setting. Some make for a ring without much of a personality, especially on the wrong person. Sure..the stone sparkles its head off...but...is the woman wearing just some sparkly carbon or a piece of jewelry she would look BEST in? Then there's the size issue. Most people seem to think of size as "wealth/success-signaling"; but how about sense of fit, proportion and harmony with the wearer? Size is about that too. I have seen many wearers who are simply NOT flattered by the classic, small solitaire in a dainty, basic setting - be it with a very sparkly, authentic stone in the middle. Because ...well...Audrey Hepburn - they're not. In my humble opinion, women who are larger, taller, bigger-boned, with stronger/fuller hands or even with a stronger, more "stately", dramatic or formal personality are NOT necessarily BEST served by such dainty, common pieces; not even when the small stone itself is an expression of a gem cutter's highest skill. In such cases, I truly believe that a gorgeous, lab-created, larger stone in a beautifully executed, artistic, custom-made setting with a personality, would be a better, more daring and more romantic compromise than the purist, "gemologically-correct" approach "natural stone at any cost". I may be wrong, but to me, the principle "The "REAL thing", even to the detriment of all other parameters (including size, when needed!) can come across as primarily status-seeking behavior. I think that going for the overall look of a jewelry piece in relation to the wearer - is more along the lines of seeking beauty, in and of itself, as opposed to status. What are everyone's views on this topic? I would love to read a wide variety. PS: The dilemma applies to other precious, natural stones too, not just diamonds, as they can get VERY expensive when size and quality go up.