Timeless vs. Trendy?

[VuittonGal]

I read the question about hearts and arrows diamonds being a fad and it made me think about timeless shapes vs. trendy shapes. What shapes (aside from RB) do you think will still be considered timeless decades from today and which shapes do you think are a fad (if any) ???

 

[dani13]

IMO, timeless shapes include ovals, pears, rounds, and emeralds. Those shapes have always been the classics. Marquis was popular a while back, but definitely was a fad at that point. Asschers and cushions seem very in style right now, but I also think they will be be added to the list of classics. As long as you like it, who cares if its in style!!

 

[curlygirl]

I think it''s been said before, but I''ll say it again: all diamonds are timeless.

 

[Nicrez]

And all diamond can be recut if need be!

Rounds will never go out of vogue.

The branded cuts that are shaped like octagons, and such may be fads, depending on their marketing, but the most classic shapes to me will probably be the round, usually under 2-3cts, then the emerald cuts, Asschers, Radiants, pears, ovals, cushions in that order. Not sure why, but I think the princess will loose it''s #2 shape spot, but I could be wrong...

 

[Mara]

To me the Timeless cuts are the cuts that have been around for many many many years....the ones which come to mind right away are rounds (in various shapes and forms aka RB vs Old Euro etc); Old Mine Cut; Asscher/Square Emeralds; Emerald/Step Cut.

I don''t know much about when the other shapes started making their way into popularity, maybe some are more ''timeless'' than I think...but I tend to view Princess as being a more recent thing (do we really see alot of vintage princess cut rings?); Marquis; Pears; Radiants all seem ''newer'' to me.

Does anyone have a timeline of when diamond shapes were first introduced? That would be fun.

 

[IrishEyes]

Ok, please don''t kill me! I really like the look of halos, but I have to wonder how timeless they will be. They seem very trendy and while I do like them, I have to wonder if they will look outdated in 10 or 15 years? and I also always wonder how you wear a wedding band with them? I guess if the center stone and surrounding halo sit up high, then you can squeeze a wedding band next to it. But the ones that are lower, I guess you just have a gap between the two rings? I think sometimes people may get caught up in designing the halos that they don''t think about how a wedding band will look next to it. Just my honest opinion, hope I''m not offending anyone, I know many people like them here.....

 

[LadyluvsLuxury]

Interesting question, I think the trillion and heart shape stones are trendy as a center stone. However, I disagree with most that the princess cut is trendy. I think that although it is newer than the emerald cut for instance, it is appeals to a completely different type of consumer and will remain a strong competitor in the future.

 

[IrishEyes]

I agree with you LadyLuvs, I don''t think princess will go out of style. But then I am biased, I have one!!

 

[Kaleigh]

Although a newer cut, I think Princess cuts are here to stay. The halos are very popular now, but they were very popular way back when. All you have to do is visit Fay Cullen, there are many antique diamond rings that have halos.

 

[Mara]

I agree re halos being classic...anything that was around in the early 1900s for me is timeless. Eternity pave, halos, filigree, etc.

There's nothing better than a trend that actually turns timeless or was timeless to begin with! Then you are 'vintage' or 'estate' until it comes back into style.

 

[elepri]

Date: 7/12/2005 8:17:16 PM
Author: IrishEyes
Ok, please don't kill me! I really like the look of halos, but I have to wonder how timeless they will be. They seem very trendy and while I do like them, I have to wonder if they will look outdated in 10 or 15 years? and I also always wonder how you wear a wedding band with them? I guess if the center stone and surrounding halo sit up high, then you can squeeze a wedding band next to it. But the ones that are lower, I guess you just have a gap between the two rings? I think sometimes people may get caught up in designing the halos that they don't think about how a wedding band will look next to it. Just my honest opinion, hope I'm not offending anyone, I know many people like them here.....

I actually feel the same way about halos, they just seem to be getting a bit too trendy now. I know they're very deco but then weren't they out of style for a few decades up until now? I wonder if they'll go out of style again in a few years, which of course doesn't mean they won't make another come back sometime down the line.

 

[Jodi]

I feel that if you are very concerned about being too trendy, then you should go completely the other way and just bask in a perfectly simple style. Nothing says timeless like a simple platinum banded ring with the absolutely largest center rock you can afford.

My opinion is that round brilliants or emerald cuts are the top classic cuts. RB is as sparkley and simple as it comes, EC is naturally simple and elegant because it has clean lines. The rest of the shapes seem trendy, going in and out every five/ten years. My mother got married in the 70s and her ring was a big pear on a thick yellow gold band. I got married in 1989 and every other girl wanted a marquise with side stones. Today, I don''t see or hear as much about the marquise, unless you go antique-y and set it east/west. Meanwhile, pears are even less talked about. So, I think that some stones are trendy...and unless you have always loved one cut and could care less about the trends, then just go simple.

To me, I don''t think that anything is truely timeless except the Tiffany-style ring with the rock center-stage. Styles are always changing. Today, everything is very ''pave-ish'' and ''halo-ish'' - antique and lovely, the more filled with teeny stones the better. But, in my mother''s time, that was considered crusty and old and totally in the way of way you were really meant to see...the center stone. My mother told me, why spend the money for all that diamond dust when you could put that much more money into something you can actually see.

The truth is that the setting that seems just stunning now may seem old and crusty in fifteen/twenty years...and the designers may show starkly clean settings again, who knows? Or they may stay in this look for another fifty years, who knows?

So, you''ve got two choices - go simple and bask in the perfection of being classic. Or, buy whatever encrusted sparkley thing that you can''t get enough of looking at...and console your more conservative side with the rationalization that it is inevitable that you will, one day, either want to change out your setting or upgrade the ring entirely at some landmark engagement.

I thought that my mother''s advice was good - so I did have a simple look for a while. Then, 15 years later (AKA now) I got the most encrusted thing I''ve ever laid eyes on, just teeny stones on top of more teeny stones. I figure that, one way or another, I just had to have it both ways. And you may too!

Good luck in choosing the best ring ever!

 

[Joane]

I would agree with curlygirl the diamonds themselves are pretty timeless, regardless of the cut if it''s well cut. It''s the settings that come into and go out of style. Agree too with Jodi that of the settings the Tiffany style is the most timeless.