The Elegant E-ring... 3cts. or don''t bother?

[kittykat]

Date: 4/5/2005 6

5

3 PM
Author: kaylagee

Date: 4/5/2005 5:21:45 PM

Author: kittykat

Does anyone know where to find Photos of these celebrities rings?

kittykat,


There are photos of the rings in _With This Ring: The Ultimate Guide to Wedding Jewelry_ by Penny Prodow and Marion Fasel.


I have the book so I''ll try to scan them in sometime today, ok?

Oops, where''s my message.  I meant to say thanks kaylagee I would really appreciate that!

 

[windowshopper]

thats disgusting

 

[kaylagee]

That''s it... I''m getting the Tessaro book *and* Dariaux''s book on men and rel''ps. my morbid curiousity has won.

 

[kaylagee]

No close ups of the band. this was the first ring. I wonder what she''s thinking...

 

[kaylagee]

MGM studio shot w/upgrade.

 

[kaylagee]

ready for it's close-up?

 

[kaylagee]

A. Hepburn''s band of bands. i love these!

 

[Jennifer5973]

I would take any ring--gold, silver, diamond, Ideal or not, .5 ct, .1 ct, 4 ct, or no carats, from the man I wanted to spend the rest of my life with, who put me and my needs above his own, who was sensitive, smart, handsome, witty and kind.

And I did.

 

[kaylagee]

why did this scan turn into a pencil drawing? It *is* a photo, but this looks weird.

oh well, such are my scanning and photoshop skills. nearly nil.

 

[kittykat]

Date: 4/5/2005 8

5:38 PM
Author: kaylagee
A. Hepburn''s band of bands. i love these!

Wow thanks for the pics!  I would love to get my hands on an identical baguette ring!

 

[Mara]

I LOVE vintage pieces...I always wonder about the people who owned them and like to see the differences in cuts from then to now.

A few years back I tried on a beautiful vintage 1906 (or around there) 3c Cartier platinum pave ring, the thing was so incredibly delicate...on here we talk about 2mm and 1mm but this thing was under 1mm and it was just stunning. Low pave basket head, like what we all drool over on here, but the real vintage deal. It was $35k or something, not too expensive for what it was I guess. I tried it on and it was just stunning of course.

But I really wondered about the previous owner(s) of the ring. Back in the early 1900''s, from what I have read, large stones like that were very uncommon and you must have been very well to-do to own jewelry like that. Not to mention a branded ring like Cartier. But there aren''t any SPECS on the previous owners!

I''ve often told Greg I would love for there to be a database history of diamonds and jewelry to show people who owned what, who they were, what their story was etc. aka is the history of your diamond..because many stones probably have been sold and resold and they are not sold as anything but new to the person buying. But alas nothing like that exists..he says I should create it.

 

[kaylagee]

Mara,

That sounds fun & fascinating!

Some more trivia from_ WTR_: Prince Ranier cabled Cartier in Paris for the upgrade after visiting her in Los Angeles and noticing the huge diamond e-rings movie stars were wearing.

Grace Kelly is also wearing the EC ring in the the movie High Society. (one of my favorities... I love the Turner Classic Movies channel)

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 4/5/2005 2:50:24 PM
Author: sparklish
, this might be a good guideline. For others it's not... I'd kill my BF if he bought a 3 carat ring - I'd never wear it!

Hopefully the guy knows his fiancee well enough to know which category she fits into!

Same here. I like the guidline approach. . .like, I'd state in my book, you must be sure to bestow upon your girlfriend three carats. . . this can come in the form of either a single-stone solitaire, a three-stone ring, or even a one-carat solitaire with 2 ctw studs depending upon her personal desires.

Of course, for those guys who cannot afford this/these items, they're not marrying material anyhow, so this is a moot subject!

 

[kaylagee]

LOL! ooooohh...

Mme Dariaux, c''est vous? Bienvenue a Pricescope!

(laughing)

 

[movie zombie]

replicas of marilyn monroe''s engagement and other jewelry:

http://store.yahoo.com/thehollywoodcollection/marmoncol.html

peace, movie zombie

 

[websailor]

Date: 4/4/2005 11:45:51 PM
Author: kaylagee

Date: 4/4/2005 6:51:33 PM
Author: FireGoddess
Hmmmmm...I think Genevieve's dishing out a load of horse poop.


...As for sims being somewhere on the order of pathetic imitation....it's laughable, really. But then I never really cared much about others' opinions of me either. I wear them for fun, sometimes I tell people outright that it's fake when they're admiring it, sometimes I don't. Depends on my mood. But that doesn't mean that by wearing it I'm trying to be something I'm not, or the jewel is trying to be something ITS not...IMO.

FireG,

ROFL at the horsepoop! I've tried nearly all of the sims including interlaps and ashas(mainly RBs), and I haven't found one that I loved enough to adopt yet. ForteKitty has a pretty one(a Flanders Interlap, I think). I like the signity cushion cut yellow too. To be fair, I haven't tried many fancy shapes in simulants. So that could be part of my problem w/ 'em.

I was totally drooling over that April Fools hoax oval that Websailor and Cflutist posted but WS admitted that camera skills were largely responsible for the look.

Did I say "largely"? Oh well... I usually try to be more modest.

I debated inside my head whether I should post this here or over on the Major Upgrade thread... it doesn't matter I guess.

Here is a collage of the CZ pictures that we thought about using after cflutist rejected all the real diamonds (picky, picky, picky

). She has a set of loose 1 ct CZs of different shapes - the oval had the correct proportions. These are unaltered pictures, except the big one - you can compare the "before" and "after" to guage how much photography had to do with the final result.

The big picture of the ficticious 5ct stone (hence the big picture) is what was posted that generated a bit of excitement.

From the left top and down around, here are comments. The first picture we took on top of our granite counter - initially we thought it might make a nice contrast...Nope, it made the stone look kinda dull - too much color showing through.

The second picture, on an orange inclusion in the granite (LOL), is actually, IMHO, the best photgraph when it is blown up...but you can see the streak of orange countertop right thru the stone (9 o'clock position)...not good if this was a diamond!

For the third picture, we switched to a piece of white paper - look at the lettering to get an idea of how "small" this stone really was. It just looked too dark here.

In the fourth pictue I swotched to a paper towel because the stone kept falling over - I wanted to try to build a little holder for it.... When I saw the picture, it was instantly a no go - the size of the bumps in the tissue tells you right away that this is not 5 ct!

In the fifth picture, I built a v-shaped holder - this held the stone a lot better! I used the macro and got a good, clear picture. Too clear - you can see right thru the stone!

In the sixth picture, it was better - no macro, farther away, but when we blew it up, the folds of the paper showed too well.

The seventh picture is the original of what we finally used. It's not too clear, and when we got the picture cropped and zoomed, the paper folds nicely disappeared. It had some nice sparkles on it, and because I took it from a low down angle, you can't really see through it. Once we zoomed it up large enough, the 1 ct CZ almost looked like a 5ct diamond.

Deceptive? Hell, yes!!! Exactly what I was trying for, except in my original plan, I was going to use a picture of a real diamond - I figured it wouldn't be to hard to find one on the web. I just had not figured on cflutist's insistence that it be as "true" as possible to the proper proportions in all aspects

A final word - it is really, really hard to tell how good a stone looks on a PC monitor. If the average PSer saw this stone with their own eyes, it would instantly be recognized as "not a diamond". From five or more feet away, it might look good, but I think most PSers would still know it was not a diamond. From 10 ft away and more...well, it looks real nice....

 

[shoemortgage1979]

Date: 4/4/2005 6:10:35 PM
Author:kaylagee
I collect style/fashion books and this one arrived yesterday:
_A Guide to Elegance_ by Genevieve Antoine Dariaux, copyright 1964 & 2003.

I was surprised to read her views on jewelry(partic. diamond rings and simulants), being French and all. I didn''t think they went in for that sort of thing but I guess that she''s not one of the common, ''poor people of Paree''. I don''t see many diamond solitaire rings there at all. So, maybe they share her ''all or nothing'' attitude:

''An engagement ring is often the only real jewel that a woman owns. Therefore, to be brutally frank, it should not be too, too modest in size - let''s say, not less that three carats - because a baby diamond drowned in a sea of platinum is very touching but at the same time a bit pathetic. It is infinitely smarter and less likely to ruin a young husband at the very outset of married life to select an engagement ring paved with tiny brilliants and sapphires, for example, but beautifully designed and of respectable size.

Another formula is to eliminate the conventional engagement ring entirely and to invest one''s savings in a wedding band of baguette diamonds. The proud and happy bride can them satisfy her craving for gems by buying...

Costume Jewellery- First of all, an excellent necklace of cultured or imitation pearls - and that is all as far as ''imitation'' jewellery is concerned. Nothing is less chic, more unattractive and comparatively ruinous than an imitation jewel attempting to pass itself off for the real thing. It belongs in the same category as the nylon coat masquerading as mink, both of them an unpardonable offence against elegance.''

You''re Kidding me right??? Anything less than three cts. is "pathetic?" That is a harsh comment. Not everyone wants a huge diamond e-ring. Also, what if money is the issue?? The most important thing is the marriage itself to be symbolized by your wedding rings. No one

should feel pathetic with a smaller or even very small diamond!! I have a beautiful

platinum ring that has a center marquise that is a little over a .55 carat. Yet, everyone says, "oh, what a beautiful rock on your finger!" ANd that''s because it is a quality diamond and in a setting that is beautiful!!

Girls, be happy with your any size diamonds, and be happy you got a man!!!!!!!!

 

[Christy42]

Date: 4/5/2005 12:26:30 AM
Author: kaylagee

Date: 4/4/2005 11:28:29 PM
Author: Christy42



Amen!

3 Carats or none? Only someone that''s been denied nothing would have such a larger than life view....Altered perception maybe?

Well certainly she seems a bit spoiled and picky. LOL!

However, I''d guess that many PSers would seem spoiled and picky compared to the average jewelry consumer.

True.......

 

[Christy42]

You know what''s funny? Look on the last page of the E-ring eyecandy, don''t have time to get the thread right now, but there is a .79 carat, I think, in a very wide band, ring size 3ish. It looks huge on her hand! So I guess size can be judged by the wearer as well. A 3 carat would have taken up two of her fingers. That would look pathetic! I wish I had small fingers again.....then I could save so much money on stones that I could buy more!!!!!!

[$$)]

[$$)]

 

[shoemortgage1979]

Date: 4/6/2005 2:24:53 PM
Author: Christy42
You know what''s funny? Look on the last page of the E-ring eyecandy, don''t have time to get the thread right now, but there is a .79 carat, I think, in a very wide band, ring size 3ish. It looks huge on her hand! So I guess size can be judged by the wearer as well. A 3 carat would have taken up two of her fingers. That would look pathetic! I wish I had small fingers again.....then I could save so much money on stones that I could buy more!!!!!!

[$$)]

[$$)]

Preach it sister!!! I couldn''t agree more with you....

 

[Mara]

Christy that is SO TRUE re finger size...

Luckyhonu''s finger I think is something like a 2.75 on ring finger, the ring/diamond she had then looked huge in person, and then she went and upgraded to a 1.65c I think after I saw her! So that 1.65 probably covers most if not all of her tiny finger...I also wish I had tiny fingers becuase then as you noted, smaller diamond looks so much bigger, and it''s cheaper! My coworker has size 9.5 fingers so anything she gets has to be larger and substantial, aka more money! I have somewhat average fingers I guess at size 6, but still...a 3c on my finger will probably look huge but not over the top. I tried on a 5c oval and it was TOO BIG..though it amazes me to say that. But yes, put a real 3c on a tiny finger and it looks probably double.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 4/6/2005 2:24:53 PM
Author: Christy42
A 3 carat would have taken up two of her fingers. That would look pathetic! I wish I had small fingers again.....then I could save so much money on stones that I could buy more!!!!!!

[$$)]

[$$)]

My fingers are small and this is totally the case. I''ve never even bothered to try on a three carat because the only two carat ring I''ve tried on made me look like I was playing dress up with one of those sucker pop rings. The diamond''s spread was so wide that it touched both my pinky and my middle finger, making the size rather uncomforable for doing any sort of activity aside from staring at my stone all day.

 

[kaylagee]

Is there an average ring size? Is it 6?

After having our son, I'm up to a 4.75 or even 5 in a thick band design. They get a bit loose in cold weather, but not enough to pass the knuckle.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Yes, I think size 6 is about average. Isn''t this the size that most jewelers have their showcase rings in?

All I know is every ring I try on is too big for me and I''m a 4.5-4.75.

 

[kaylagee]

Date: 4/6/2005 8:16:29 AM
Author: websailor

Did I say ''largely''? Oh well... I usually try to be more modest.

LOL! No need to be modest...you guys totally worked some major wizardry on that cz. WOW!

 

[kaylagee]

Date: 4/6/2005 5:10

1 PM
Author: MichelleCarmen
Yes, I think size 6 is about average. Isn't this the size that most jewelers have their showcase rings in?


All I know is every ring I try on is too big for me and I'm a 4.5-4.75.

It seems like 6s and 7s a lot. Unless it's a shop with vintage, estate..then you can find smaller sizes.
I was 4.25/4.50 for years. Not sure if that's going to happen again. Unless I'm in a pine box.

Won't matter much then, will it?

I never thought there'd be any benefit to having smallish fingers( I was a bit self-conscious of them for a while..they seemed spindly and long nails only made them more ETesque)..I guess I should be thankful now.

 

[innerkitten]

Fortekitty, your response made me laugh.

Kaylagee, I love looking through jewelry books too especially when they have good photos.
There is one right now around the corner from my house ( local book shop) all about antique Tiffany jewelry and full of nice color pics.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/6/2005 5:25:37 PM
Author: kaylagee

Date: 4/6/2005 5:10

1 PM
Author: MichelleCarmen
Yes, I think size 6 is about average. Isn''t this the size that most jewelers have their showcase rings in?


All I know is every ring I try on is too big for me and I''m a 4.5-4.75.

It seems like 6s and 7s a lot. Unless it''s a shop with vintage, estate..then you can find smaller sizes.
I was 4.25/4.50 for years. Not sure if that''s going to happen again. Unless I''m in a pine box.

Won''t matter much then, will it?

I never thought there''d be any benefit to having smallish fingers( I was a bit self-conscious of them for a while..they seemed spindly and long nails only made them more ETesque)..I guess I should be thankful now.

I''m confused. Are you saying that vintage jewelry has smaller sizes? If so, that is definitely the case. People had tiny ring fingers earlier in the century.

 

[innerkitten]

She has a book about men too lol... I''d love to hear what she has to say about men given her views on diamonds!

 

[innerkitten]

Grace Kelly was so pretty, great rings and she''s so good in Rear Window. I love Audrey Hepburns three ring idea so she could pair it with different outfits. She had a simple elegant style that people still imitate to this day. And of course Marylin Monroe''s ring is lovely. Did you know it sold at auction for about $750,000 not too long ago and her happy birthday mr. president dress sold for over 1 million dollars.