yes another WG vs Plat question

[firebirdgold]

Ok, my sister is having trouble deciding between a WG or Platinum wedding band. She is an obsessed equestrian whose main sport is eventing. If you've never seen it on the olympics, part of it is composed of dashing about the countryside leaping over giant complicated jumps at a gallop wearing mud-encrusted safety gear including what looks like a bullet-proof vest. Not exactly up there on the safest horse sport list. She spends all of her spare time at the barn or in the field with her two giant horses and an overeager 80lb puppy.

She's getting married in a couple of months and is having trouble deciding on what sort of metal for her wedding band would survive her lifestyle the best. Titanium is out because the field medics on the x-country courses are unlikely to have the sort of thingy it takes to cut one off, and not being able to get a ring off in a hurry could cost her the finger someday. (yes it's unlikely but once our mother has her teeth into a worry it's best to just give up the fight).

She's obviously not going to have an e-ring, but she does want to wear her wedding band all the time. So what metal do you guys think would stand up to the sort of daily abuse this poor piece of jewelry is going to have to survive? 18k WG or Platinum?

 

[FireGoddess]

People may disagree with this, but if she''s gonna be rough with the ring I tend to vote for white gold. It can take a beating and still look decent and is less easily gouged and scratched up IMO. If she does platinum and will love the patina-ed, weathered look that would be okay. White gold is also going to be a much lighter feel than a platinum ring would. I don''t think she could go wrong on either count but I would go with white gold.

 

[JulieN]

Oh, a wb...it could go either way. She's probably going to have to replace her wb eventually if she goes with gold, so if she's sentimental like that, I'd go with plat.

 

[firebirdgold]

Just a wedding band, not an e-ring. She''s (brace yourselves) not into diamonds.

And completely fails to see the point of an engagement ring.

In fact I think she actually disapproves of the idea.

(sore point between us)
anyway, I think they just want plain matching bands but are having trouble deciding on what metal would be best.

 

[FireGoddess]

Here''s one thing to consider re: the sentimental thing. When you polish platinum, you don''t lose as much metal as when you polish gold, so you will lose less metal over time. This could sway her to platinum. But it will get marked up and scuffy faster than the gold would.

 

[codex57]

I''m gonna vote for WG. Sounds like she''s not gonna be too sentimental so if worse case comes, it''s cheaper to replace a WG ring. I doubt she''ll be repolishing and replating all that often. I actually don''t think WG is that much tougher than Plat. My wedding band is WG. I''ve been married for about 6 months now. It looks like crap. It''s stood up better than the worn down part of my wife''s e-ring (which is plat), but it''s still scratched enough that I don''t think it matters cuz it definitely looks very worn. However, it''s cheap so I don''t feel quilty. Since she''s gonna be so active, I think she should go with the cheaper ring.

Next year, I''m gonna replace this thing with a tungsten carbide one, but I don''t think your sis wants that since I believe it has the same problem as Titanium.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Not too long ago I was looking at men''s wedding bands and there was another white metal, not paladium, that was supposed to be more durable. Maybe someone here can think of the name of it.

 

[Selkie]

Tungsten?

ETA-Sorry, that was already mentioned above.

 

[Selkie]

Given that no matter what she gets is going to get some hard wear, and that neither metal is impervious to damage and may eventually need to be replaced, I would personally vote for gold based on economy alone. And probably 14K rather than 18k for the additional durability.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 5/15/2006 8:56:22 PM
Author: Selkie
Tungsten?

ETA-Sorry, that was already mentioned above.

Yes, that was it...I didn''t see it mentioned either.