Whats the smallest in diamond size you could go?

[Amys Bling]

Oh man, I could go for tiny little diamonds, as long as there are lots of them arranged to make a beautiful band

My probably soon-to-be-ex-husband bought me a GORGEOUS ring. It is 2.42 carat cushion stone with six 0.2 carat stones on each side side (it was inspired by the Tiffany Novo). While I LOVE the ring (and plan to remain the owner of the ring), the attention I received for it sometimes made me a little uncomfortable. It kinda made me feel like a walking stereotype.

I sometimes thought about downgrading to 1.5 carats so I would comfortable wearing it on a daily basis, but feared I would regret it.

Sorry to hear about the "soon-to-be-ex-husband", happy to hear about remaining the owner of such a beautiful piece of jewelry.

 

[Izzy03]

Sorry to hear about the "soon-to-be-ex-husband", happy to hear about remaining the owner of such a beautiful piece of jewelry.

Thank you, my next husband is going to have a hard time topping that ring

 

[Circe]

People tend to be more careful when talking about small diamonds because it often isn't a matter of choice. If you can afford a 3ct diamond, you can choose a 2ct if you think it looks better. If you love a 1ct but can only afford a 0.5ct, then you are out of luck.

I think it is all about the design. I wear a little 0.2ct a lot - it is set with the most delicate of prong to a band that is the exact same width, so it even stacks nicely. It is worn alone, with a black onyx band for an art deco vibe, with other bands and so on.

Bingo, on both these points. In reverse order, and to address the topic of the thread ... I'd be pleased as punch with just about any size stone, depending on the setting. One of these days, I quite want to get one of the 4mm wide Lucida bands with the bezel-set stone ... yummy!

And now, as to the bolded part - enthusiastic ditto. It's a bit disingenuous to claim you don't see the difference. The difference is privilege. Is it bad manners for someone to say the a large stone is ostentatious, gaudy, tacky? Oh, yes - but they're only insulting the wearer's taste. Insulting a small stone, though? It's assumed that that's not only insulting the person's taste, but their earning potential and possibly their social class. Yowza.

Think of it this way: in general, thinness is a point of envy in this culture, yes? So, for some reason, that envy justifies blunt discussion that, in my opinion, verges on being intrusive and insulting - my best friend is very slender, and many's the time some rude bint has marched up to her to inform her that she needs a burger. That's considered more acceptable than telling a larger person to put the burger down, because of the implicit social knowledge that, at the end of the day, we all know thinness is considered the status to aspire to: so too, the large diamond (or the ability to afford one).

Does it make it okay to be rude about it? No. But I think the difference between the two circumstances is pretty clear ....

 

[iheartscience]

I could wear a (quality) diamond of any size-there's no lower limit for me. It's all about the setting though. I love smaller diamonds in bezel settings or a tension-type setting where the band is the same width as the diamond.

 

[Autumnovember]

There is a big difference between insulting someone diamond by sharing an unsolicited opinion and posting your own real opinions about diamond size (or color or clarity or shape . . . ) in general in a thread explicitly *asking* for people to share their opinions. The latter is a situation where people are asking for input, the former is not. In my opinion, people need to approach threads that discuss preferences with an open mind and confidence that nobody is talking about *them* or *their stones* in particular, rather we are all engaging in a discussion about our mutual interest--diamonds. If someone with a large stone is going to be offended by others' opinions that large stones aren't their cup of tea, then I think that someone just shouldn't hang out in threads asking for opinions about large diamonds. (The same could be said of small diamonds, or diamonds of a certain color, or certain settings, etc.)

That is part of the reason I posted this thread Since we all *should* have that understanding as you pointed out and very much makes sense, I wanted to see a thread about what some people would consider -too small- for them without money being an object because ultimately, I'm asking the exact same question.

True.

--- no offense taken to other posters, please! ---

You wouldn't have written that in the other thread, right?! haha, thats exactly what I mean!

 

[kenny]

Then again . . . if money was no objet you COULD go down to an 0.08 ct. diamond.



Close up

 

[Amys Bling]

There is a big difference between insulting someone diamond by sharing an unsolicited opinion and posting your own real opinions about diamond size (or color or clarity or shape . . . ) in general in a thread explicitly *asking* for people to share their opinions. The latter is a situation where people are asking for input, the former is not. In my opinion, people need to approach threads that discuss preferences with an open mind and confidence that nobody is talking about *them* or *their stones* in particular, rather we are all engaging in a discussion about our mutual interest--diamonds. If someone with a large stone is going to be offended by others' opinions that large stones aren't their cup of tea, then I think that someone just shouldn't hang out in threads asking for opinions about large diamonds. (The same could be said of small diamonds, or diamonds of a certain color, or certain settings, etc.)

That is part of the reason I posted this thread Since we all *should* have that understanding as you pointed out and very much makes sense, I wanted to see a thread about what some people would consider -too small- for them without money being an object because ultimately, I'm asking the exact same question.

True.

--- no offense taken to other posters, please! ---

You wouldn't have written that in the other thread, right?! haha, thats exactly what I mean!

nope, and I think circe hit the nail on the head... if you remark on a stone being too small, you may in some way be insulting because it could be that it's all that is afforded, and in that sense- you are remarking on the lack of privilege or affluence of the FI or couple, the inability to afford a bigger stone- and those saying that a stone of that size isn't good enough for you. Whether you mean it that way or not- it can be taken that way.

AN- if someone says to you- "that stone is too big"- I would think one thing to myself "she/he is probably jealous of the stone/ring or ability to afford something of that worth. most likely a defense mechanism as opposed to really disliking that size!

 

[Autumnovember]

People tend to be more careful when talking about small diamonds because it often isn't a matter of choice. If you can afford a 3ct diamond, you can choose a 2ct if you think it looks better. If you love a 1ct but can only afford a 0.5ct, then you are out of luck.


And now, as to the bolded part - enthusiastic ditto. It's a bit disingenuous to claim you don't see the difference. The difference is privilege. Is it bad manners for someone to say the a large stone is ostentatious, gaudy, tacky? Oh, yes - but they're only insulting the wearer's taste. Insulting a small stone, though? It's assumed that that's not only insulting the person's taste, but their earning potential and possibly their social class. Yowza.

Think of it this way: in general, thinness is a point of envy in this culture, yes? So, for some reason, that envy justifies blunt discussion that, in my opinion, verges on being intrusive and insulting - my best friend is very slender, and many's the time some rude bint has marched up to her to inform her that she needs a burger. That's considered more acceptable than telling a larger person to put the burger down, because of the implicit social knowledge that, at the end of the day, we all know thinness is considered the status to aspire to: so too, the large diamond (or the ability to afford one).

Does it make it okay to be rude about it? No. But I think the difference between the two circumstances is pretty clear ....

I'll have to disagree a bit because its not only offending the wearers taste. That is definitely not how it felt when both of the comments were made.

People DO make the decision to wear a smaller diamond over a larger one. We're acting as if people don't consciously make those choices. Some people LIKE the way a smaller stone looks on their hand and others LIKE the way a bigger stone looks. We've all had friends, I'm sure, that could have gone with a 1.50 but liked the way the 1.0 looked better.

Circe, I see the correlation to thinness. That is also another thing I'd never say to someone who is slender. It's rude...just like I wouldn't tell someone to put the burger down.

There is a lot of gray area here too, I think. Everyone's situations are different in terms of money. My FI may have saved up for that ring for years and years....others situations may not have been the same....its all relative.

 

[jewelerman]

Thanks.
Here's a newer pic of all 10 in the current Kennyllection.
It still qualifies for this small-diamond thread since the average weight is only 0.22 ct.

We all know that size isn't everything.
How it makes you feel is the main thing.

Small diamonds can inspire your heart too.

kenny, please tell us about your colored diamond collection!!!seriously that collection of color not only inspired my heart but stopped it for a second!!!I don't think im the only one who would find the details of how you came to own each one fascinating.That emerald cut raspberry fancy is killer!Spare no details!

 

[Autumnovember]

There is a big difference between insulting someone diamond by sharing an unsolicited opinion and posting your own real opinions about diamond size (or color or clarity or shape . . . ) in general in a thread explicitly *asking* for people to share their opinions. The latter is a situation where people are asking for input, the former is not. In my opinion, people need to approach threads that discuss preferences with an open mind and confidence that nobody is talking about *them* or *their stones* in particular, rather we are all engaging in a discussion about our mutual interest--diamonds. If someone with a large stone is going to be offended by others' opinions that large stones aren't their cup of tea, then I think that someone just shouldn't hang out in threads asking for opinions about large diamonds. (The same could be said of small diamonds, or diamonds of a certain color, or certain settings, etc.)

That is part of the reason I posted this thread Since we all *should* have that understanding as you pointed out and very much makes sense, I wanted to see a thread about what some people would consider -too small- for them without money being an object because ultimately, I'm asking the exact same question.

True.

--- no offense taken to other posters, please! ---

You wouldn't have written that in the other thread, right?! haha, thats exactly what I mean!

nope, and I think circe hit the nail on the head... if you remark on a stone being too small, you may in some way be insulting because it could be that it's all that is afforded, and in that sense- you are remarking on the lack of privilege or affluence of the FI or couple, the inability to afford a bigger stone- and those saying that a stone of that size isn't good enough for you. Whether you mean it that way or not- it can be taken that way.

AN- if someone says to you- "that stone is too big"- I would think one thing to myself "she/he is probably jealous of the stone/ring or ability to afford something of that worth. most likely a defense mechanism as opposed to really disliking that size!

Yes, of course its what I thought but I'm not so sure she necessarily was. However, its not the *only* thing I thought. It can be taken the same way though, with a big stone. I *could* have thought that it wasn't good enough for her because its big. I also thought about the jab she was taking at my FI for *spending* that kind of money. My point is, either way it's insulting. Either way, people need to be mindful.

When I say that I wouldn't want anything smaller than a 1.50 if money was no object, its STILL the same thing as someone saying they wouldn't want a 2.50. It's too small, it's too gaudy. Same stuff to me.

 

[Autumnovember]

Then again . . . if money was no objet you COULD go down to an 0.08 ct. diamond.



Close up

Those pictures look DELICIOUS!!!!!!!!!! I want to eat that right up. Very creative, Kenny.

 

[Circe]

People tend to be more careful when talking about small diamonds because it often isn't a matter of choice. If you can afford a 3ct diamond, you can choose a 2ct if you think it looks better. If you love a 1ct but can only afford a 0.5ct, then you are out of luck.


And now, as to the bolded part - enthusiastic ditto. It's a bit disingenuous to claim you don't see the difference. The difference is privilege. Is it bad manners for someone to say the a large stone is ostentatious, gaudy, tacky? Oh, yes - but they're only insulting the wearer's taste. Insulting a small stone, though? It's assumed that that's not only insulting the person's taste, but their earning potential and possibly their social class. Yowza.

Think of it this way: in general, thinness is a point of envy in this culture, yes? So, for some reason, that envy justifies blunt discussion that, in my opinion, verges on being intrusive and insulting - my best friend is very slender, and many's the time some rude bint has marched up to her to inform her that she needs a burger. That's considered more acceptable than telling a larger person to put the burger down, because of the implicit social knowledge that, at the end of the day, we all know thinness is considered the status to aspire to: so too, the large diamond (or the ability to afford one).

Does it make it okay to be rude about it? No. But I think the difference between the two circumstances is pretty clear ....

I'll have to disagree a bit because its not only offending the wearers taste. That is definitely not how it felt when both of the comments were made.

People DO make the decision to wear a smaller diamond over a larger one. We're acting as if people don't consciously make those choices. Some people LIKE the way a smaller stone looks on their hand and others LIKE the way a bigger stone looks. We've all had friends, I'm sure, that could have gone with a 1.50 but liked the way the 1.0 looked better.

Circe, I see the correlation to thinness. That is also another thing I'd never say to someone who is slender. It's rude...just like I wouldn't tell someone to put the burger down.

There is a lot of gray area here too, I think. Everyone's situations are different in terms of money. My FI may have saved up for that ring for years and years....others situations may not have been the same....its all relative.

So, could you elucidate further ... how did you feel?

Extrapolating (and hopefully not going too far) it's an interesting point: insulting a larger stone might, in context, also be considered an insult to the wearer's priorities (ugh, you rent but you have such a big diamond? you send your kids to public school, but you have such a big diamond? and so on and so forth), or possibly a comment on their background (thinking about an observation Black Jade made in another thread about, I think, high society Bostonians and diamonds). But at that point, the assumptions being made become sub-culture specific, and not culture specific overall, at least not if the culture in question is 21st c. American.

Me, I'm not sure if I do know too many people who went smaller out of a sense of aesthetics. I know plenty who were limited by budget ... and a few more who were limited by the self-imposed limitations of having to apply said budget to a Cartier or HW ... but for the most part, in the cities where I've lived, size is the priority. It's the most visible C, and the quickest way to advertise status. After true love ( ), that is one of the primary social functions of the diamond ring, no?

 

[Farleysmom]

Then again . . . if money was no objet you COULD go down to an 0.08 ct. diamond.



Close up

OMG Kenny....that 2nd close up picture is breathtakingly beautiful and wonderfully creative. You truly have an artists pallet of coloured stones. You should seriously think of putting your 12 most amazing bling photos together for a calendar. "Be still my heart"

 

[kenny]

kenny, please tell us about your colored diamond collection!!!seriously that collection of color not only inspired my heart but stopped it for a second!!!I don't think im the only one who would find the details of how you came to own each one fascinating.That emerald cut raspberry fancy is killer!Spare no details!

Thanx.
I bought all 10 from Leibish & Co. aka www.fancydiamonds.net
Actually, over time I bought 15 and returned 5.

They all came with GIA reports indicating natural-origin (mined from the earth, as opposed to lab-created) and the color itself is also of natural origin, even that green OEC round.

Here are the gory details...

 

[Autumnovember]

People tend to be more careful when talking about small diamonds because it often isn't a matter of choice. If you can afford a 3ct diamond, you can choose a 2ct if you think it looks better. If you love a 1ct but can only afford a 0.5ct, then you are out of luck.


And now, as to the bolded part - enthusiastic ditto. It's a bit disingenuous to claim you don't see the difference. The difference is privilege. Is it bad manners for someone to say the a large stone is ostentatious, gaudy, tacky? Oh, yes - but they're only insulting the wearer's taste. Insulting a small stone, though? It's assumed that that's not only insulting the person's taste, but their earning potential and possibly their social class. Yowza.

Think of it this way: in general, thinness is a point of envy in this culture, yes? So, for some reason, that envy justifies blunt discussion that, in my opinion, verges on being intrusive and insulting - my best friend is very slender, and many's the time some rude bint has marched up to her to inform her that she needs a burger. That's considered more acceptable than telling a larger person to put the burger down, because of the implicit social knowledge that, at the end of the day, we all know thinness is considered the status to aspire to: so too, the large diamond (or the ability to afford one).

Does it make it okay to be rude about it? No. But I think the difference between the two circumstances is pretty clear ....

I'll have to disagree a bit because its not only offending the wearers taste. That is definitely not how it felt when both of the comments were made.

People DO make the decision to wear a smaller diamond over a larger one. We're acting as if people don't consciously make those choices. Some people LIKE the way a smaller stone looks on their hand and others LIKE the way a bigger stone looks. We've all had friends, I'm sure, that could have gone with a 1.50 but liked the way the 1.0 looked better.

Circe, I see the correlation to thinness. That is also another thing I'd never say to someone who is slender. It's rude...just like I wouldn't tell someone to put the burger down.

There is a lot of gray area here too, I think. Everyone's situations are different in terms of money. My FI may have saved up for that ring for years and years....others situations may not have been the same....its all relative.

So, could you elucidate further ... how did you feel?

Extrapolating (and hopefully not going too far) it's an interesting point: insulting a larger stone might, in context, also be considered an insult to the wearer's priorities (ugh, you rent but you have such a big diamond? you send your kids to public school, but you have such a big diamond? and so on and so forth), or possibly a comment on their background (thinking about an observation Black Jade made in another thread about, I think, high society Bostonians and diamonds). But at that point, the assumptions being made become sub-culture specific, and not culture specific overall, at least not if the culture in question is 21st c. American.

Me, I'm not sure if I do know too many people who went smaller out of a sense of aesthetics. I know plenty who were limited by budget ... and a few more who were limited by the self-imposed limitations of having to apply said budget to a Cartier or HW ... but for the most part, in the cities where I've lived, size is the priority. It's the most visible C, and the quickest way to advertise status. After true love ( ), that is one of the primary social functions of the diamond ring, no?

When the first person said it, I felt like she was completely -judging- me. I felt like she decided that because I'm 23 it made no sense that I have a diamond of that size. It's so hard for my to put my finger on it exactly but I could care less if she was insulting my personal preference. It felt like she was completely insulting FI too, who had worked hard to afford something like that. It felt like she didn't think I deserved it. It felt like jealousy, for sure but it felt like a lot more than that too.

The second one, while I did feel maybe she was jealous, there was also more to it than that. She mentioned my ring being too big not once but twice. Once to my face and another time when a friend of our was talking about picking a 1.0 over a 1.50 because it looked gaudy on her finger. When she said it, it felt more like "you have THAT kind of ring, but you're a student?!" kind of thing. It's weird. It's not easy to explain. My ring certainly doesn't match my occupation: professional student or the way I dress. I'm sure it throws some people.

Lots of social status symbols out there. I guess for some diamonds are definitely one of them, no doubt.

 

[Dancing Fire]

If money was no object to me, I would not wear anything smaller than 1.50. I'm sure there are people who may read that and feel a bit offended BUT its that same twinge of offense when someone says "2.5 carats looks gaudy!" It's like me saying "wow! that .50 diamond looks like a spec!" Right? It's so much easier for someone to say the latter and not think twice about it.[/quote]


perfect size for me i wanna look gaudy...

 

[Autumnovember]

If money was no object to me, I would not wear anything smaller than 1.50. I'm sure there are people who may read that and feel a bit offended BUT its that same twinge of offense when someone says "2.5 carats looks gaudy!" It's like me saying "wow! that .50 diamond looks like a spec!" Right? It's so much easier for someone to say the latter and not think twice about it.

perfect size for me i wanna look gaudy... [/quote]

Good point, DF! Haha.

 

[Haven]

Autumn--I say forget those people who say nasty things about your ring. They're saying much more about themselves than anything else (your ring included) when they do that.

DH and I were recently talking about how it's sometimes hard to just *own* who you are (or the choices you make, or your priorities, etc.) in the face of criticism from others. This might be something that comes with age, because even at my young age of 30 I'm now much more inclined to think "this is me, deal with it" when people criticize than I was even five years ago. My FIL's companion said something nasty about my original engagement ring that really bothered me at the time, but now I'd be more likely to respond with a big smile and extended eye contact, and the temptation to say "This is my ring, deal with it."

The other thing I wanted to share is that I don't really care when other people don't like what I like. I'm not sure why this is, but that is something that's never bothered me, even if it's clear that their preferences mean they wouldn't like my specific ring. I'm the one who gets to wear it every day, so my opinion is the only one that matters. My husband's cousin is the opposite, he takes everything personally and gets very offended when people state that they dislike something that he happens to like. I'm not sure what accounts for this difference in reactions, but I can tell you that I think *I'm* the happier one of the two of us!

ETA:

RE: Diamonds as a social status

This is something I find to be very interesting about diamonds and what they represent in society's view, in general.
The interesting part is how people from different backgrounds perceive large diamonds. To some, they scream wealth and status, but to others they scream gaudy and nouveau riche.

My grandmother Helga came from an old moneyed family and she was flat out appalled when she saw my original engagement ring. She said something in German that I didn't understand and didn't want to, and she told me that she was embarrassed that I would wear such a gauche ring, and I was going to look like trash dressed up in diamonds, and I was an embarrassment to the family. (The thing with old money is that the outlook remains long after the money is gone, by the way.)

Helga and I had the kind of relationship where she could say those things to me, and frankly I expected it from her, anyway. I know that much of my family on my mom's side finds the size of my diamond just appalling, but that's okay. I lurve it and I don't care if I look nouveau riche because you know what? I *am* nouveau riche--that old money disappeared and they came to this country and we had to make something of ourselves all over again and that's who I am and I OWN that, thankyouverymuch. There is no shame in the fact that we've done better for ourselves and can now afford luxuries we did not have access to as a birthright. I'm not ashamed that I work for a living and that I enjoy wearing a relatively large diamond, and if anyone has a problem with that, frankly I don't give a damn.

 

[kenny]

Gaudy?
Here's a gaudy diamond . . . .it's only 022 ct. but it'll set you back $112,000.

Unfortunately it has a purple modifying hue.
That lowers the price.

http://www.fancydiamonds.net/red_diamonds

 

[Autumnovember]

Autumn--I say forget those people who say nasty things about your ring. They're saying much more about themselves than anything else (your ring included) when they do that.

DH and I were recently talking about how it's sometimes hard to just *own* who you are (or the choices you make, or your priorities, etc.) in the face of criticism from others. This might be something that comes with age, because even at my young age of 30 I'm now much more inclined to think "this is me, deal with it" when people criticize than I was even five years ago. My FIL's companion said something nasty about my original engagement ring that really bothered me at the time, but now I'd be more likely to respond with a big smile and extended eye contact, and the temptation to say "This is my ring, deal with it."

The other thing I wanted to share is that I don't really care when other people don't like what I like. I'm not sure why this is, but that is something that's never bothered me, even if it's clear that their preferences mean they wouldn't like my specific ring. I'm the one who gets to wear it every day, so my opinion is the only one that matters. My husband's cousin is the opposite, he takes everything personally and gets very offended when people state that they dislike something that he happens to like. I'm not sure what accounts for this difference in reactions, but I can tell you that I think *I'm* the happier one of the two of us!

Haven, I've been told that is something that definitely comes with age! It's a great attitude to have.

When these two individuals said it, did it bother me a bit? Sure. Now? Nah.

Since my FI is older than I am...he has definitely rubbed off his "this is me, deal with it 'tude." I'm definitely not completely there yet but I'm much better than I used to be.

I just thought the topic was an interesting one to talk about anyway, even if nobody ever said anything about my ring being too big..I'd probably still be just as curious about the original question I posted.

P.s. I'd like to say....anytime I respond to your post's after you edited my personal statement, I worry that I'm being very grammatically incorrect hahah!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Sorry to hear about the "soon-to-be-ex-husband", happy to hear about remaining the owner of such a beautiful piece of jewelry.

Thank you, my next husband is going to have a hard time topping that ring

the next one must be bigger and better...

 

[Haven]

Autumn--I'm laughing about your grammar fears! (With you, not at you.) Please, don't even worry. My posts here are riddled with errors, so much so that I often cringe when I go back and reread them.

I am *not* a grammarian, and I definitely am not the type to cringe when I see errors in others' writing, so no worries.

 

[Autumnovember]

Autumn--I'm laughing about your grammar fears! (With you, not at you.) Please, don't even worry. My posts here are riddled with errors, so much so that I often cringe when I go back and reread them.

I am *not* a grammarian, and I definitely am not the type to cringe when I see errors in others' writing, so no worries.

Hahahahha, I'll keep that in mind! Usually when I do the "..." thing, its because I can't figure out the correct punctuation positioning if that makes sense. Ha!!!

 

[marcy]

I like all sizes of diamonds and gemstones - as long as they as they are pretty I would certainly wear them. My own personal taste is to choose diamonds or gemstones in the .50 to 1 carat range because I don't care for larger jewelry on me.

Kenny, your rainbow of diamonds is absolutely gorgeous.

 

[Izzy03]

Sorry to hear about the "soon-to-be-ex-husband", happy to hear about remaining the owner of such a beautiful piece of jewelry.

Thank you, my next husband is going to have a hard time topping that ring

the next one must be bigger and better...

DF~ Yes, the husband AND the ring

 

[Dreamer_D]

People tend to be more careful when talking about small diamonds because it often isn't a matter of choice. If you can afford a 3ct diamond, you can choose a 2ct if you think it looks better. If you love a 1ct but can only afford a 0.5ct, then you are out of luck.

I think it is all about the design. I wear a little 0.2ct a lot - it is set with the most delicate of prong to a band that is the exact same width, so it even stacks nicely. It is worn alone, with a black onyx band for an art deco vibe, with other bands and so on.

Bingo, on both these points. In reverse order, and to address the topic of the thread ... I'd be pleased as punch with just about any size stone, depending on the setting. One of these days, I quite want to get one of the 4mm wide Lucida bands with the bezel-set stone ... yummy!

And now, as to the bolded part - enthusiastic ditto. It's a bit disingenuous to claim you don't see the difference. The difference is privilege. Is it bad manners for someone to say the a large stone is ostentatious, gaudy, tacky? Oh, yes - but they're only insulting the wearer's taste. Insulting a small stone, though? It's assumed that that's not only insulting the person's taste, but their earning potential and possibly their social class. Yowza.

Think of it this way: in general, thinness is a point of envy in this culture, yes? So, for some reason, that envy justifies blunt discussion that, in my opinion, verges on being intrusive and insulting - my best friend is very slender, and many's the time some rude bint has marched up to her to inform her that she needs a burger. That's considered more acceptable than telling a larger person to put the burger down, because of the implicit social knowledge that, at the end of the day, we all know thinness is considered the status to aspire to: so too, the large diamond (or the ability to afford one).

Does it make it okay to be rude about it? No. But I think the difference between the two circumstances is pretty clear ....

Exactly. IMO there is no mystery about why there is a double standard around this issue. Honestly, diamonds are very expensive symbols of wealth. You cannot discuss diamonds without discussing the power and status.

 

[yssie]

Kenny ohhhhh I missed that sunshine asscher!!!

I covet your entire collection, but *that* one is giving me butterflies

 

[Amys Bling]

Sorry to hear about the "soon-to-be-ex-husband", happy to hear about remaining the owner of such a beautiful piece of jewelry.

Thank you, my next husband is going to have a hard time topping that ring

the next one must be bigger and better...

DF~ Yes, the husband AND the ring

ABSOLUTELY!

 

[kenny]

Kenny ohhhhh I missed that sunshine asscher!!!

I covet your entire collection, but *that* one is giving me butterflies

Thanks Yssie.
Yeah, that's a really special FCD.

Being Yellow, it is almost 1/20th of the price of the much-smaller Fancy Intense Green or the Fancy Vivid Blue, but I LOOOOOOVE it.
You just don't find Fancy Vivid VVS1 FCD Asschers growing on trees.

In person it has tons of scintillation, fire,Hall-of-Mirrors effect and contrast.
It is a real Drooler!

 

[Guilty Pleasure]

I'm not sure how small I could go...