Beauty Tips for Ministers

32 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. I went for a simple band and have been totally happy with that decision. (But I try to “live simply” as part of my spiritual practice.)

   Comment by Renee — February 29, 2008 #

2. (non pastor here, but I say) Wear that sparkling beauty with pride.

   Comment by Linda — February 29, 2008 #

3. Hmm, that’s kind of a hard one. Is “classic bling” an oxymoron? I’m thinking a biggish stone, simple band, aka a “solitaire,” then a plain band to go with for the wedding. But I’m a civilian, not a minister.

   Comment by Nancy (nanflan) — February 29, 2008 #

4. I don’t know exactly what you define as big, but mine is a very respectable .67 carat and is large enough to sparkle quite well in the sun. Church folks noticed it the first evening event after the engagement - and they were very happy for us.

   The spouse and I spent months learning about diamonds and discussing the characteristics I wanted in the ring and what I did not want in a proposal. (Mainly, don’t make me hunt for it in a piece of cake.) And I wanted something big enough to enjoy without needing a microscope. He did a great job making the final choices without me and with getting down on one knee for the big question even when I knew he would do so that night. The diamond almost means more than the band because of how we shared the experience.

   Given the case of two mature adults, I say create the ring together as part of creating the relationship and enjoying wearing it, whatever the size.

   Comment by jinnis — February 29, 2008 #

5. I went with a single carat sapphire and two side diamonds on my engagement ring, but I’m not a big diamond person myself. I do think a huge rock does not go well on a clergy hand–at least, it wouldn’t have gone well on MY clergy hand! Also, I was pretty clear that I wanted two separate engagement and wedding rings, not welded together, not a single ring. This way, I thought, if I found myself needing to go to Romania, for example, I could leave the engagement ring at home and still look married.

   Comment by Nurya — February 29, 2008 #

6. The diamond dilemma came up for me last summer, after I lost my wedding & engagement rings :-(. I now wear S’s grandmother’s rings: large marquis diamond ring and a very narrow platinum wedding band. This diamond seemed embarassingly enormous at first — and worth so much that I have the equivalent of a new back porch on my finger!

   But, having a family heirloom is a wonderful expression of love that connects to both past and future generations. Every heirloom starts somewhere, right? And can be lovingly passed to someone with our best wishes for happiness.

   Comment by Elizabeth J. Barrett — March 1, 2008 #

7. I just have an “ordinary-sized” ring & stone as an engagment ring. It has suited me well. I wore it while doing CPE in a homeless shelter and felt comfortable (not like I was detracting from interactions with the clients by bling). I would think of the variety of ministry settings you are in and reflect on how you would feel wearing a “bling ring” in all of those. I would also consider how it would feel in ministry you don’t do but want to be comfortable stepping into. I suspect that the answer to the size of the ring question varys by person depending on your ministry setting. Then ethical considerations are a different set of questions about lifestyle, wealth, the source of diamonds, etc.

   I like unusual and quirky things (including big rings) but I have never felt comfortable wearing things that display wealth so I know I couldn’t pull off a big diamond and look natural, but that is just me not ethical or pastoral concerns.

   I am not gentle with my hands, so I had the setting the stone is in shortened so I don’t catch it on things. It also had the effect of making the ring a bit more subtle. I am pretty sure you could carry it off a bit of bling PB, but for others the question would be could they pull off big jewlery. In the ceremony, we exchanged some simple silver bands, but so as to not irritate my skin with too much ring I normally just wear my engagment ring. My husband sometimes worries that someone look at our hands (his with wedding band and mine with an engagment ring) and will think he is a married guy running around with an engaged woman. I don’t think most folks look that closely and hope if they do they figure it is one of those modern rings that the band slides into to make what looks like just one symetrical ring.

   I know it has taken me a long time to get here but… now to your question, I would have to say my reaction would be different depending on whether it was a family heirloom or something bought new. To me a family heirloom has some sense of obligation to wearing it for tradition’s sake (though I am aware it doesn’t have to) and the buying of something gives one more freedom of choice.

   I didn’t expect to, but I have to admit that the power of the expected wedding traditions sucked me in a bit. For instance, I am not a big fan of diamonds but when the time came I wanted a diamond. I am quite happy with my diamond engagment ring, but now (6 years later) I know that it would have been OK to get a pretty colored stone instead. I didn’t seriously consider it then, but I like the idea becasue it is colorful, can be inexpensive, and is unique. (Thought I must admit that for traditions sake I probably would have put two little diamonds on side of the colored stone. My aunt has a ring like this and it is beautiful with a big rectangular saphire. Wait, thats the blue stone right?)

   Comment by Mindy — March 1, 2008 #

8. I’ll wade in as a non-married (because I also believe single people should get to have nice rings if they want to…)

   For me, it’s about the stone. I really love sapphires. I don’t like rubies or emeralds, nor even diamonds, particularly (well, I like them, but don’t feel right in them). And I love the age and the permanence and the hidden beauty of them — the thought that deep in the earth, there are mysteries beyond measure.

   So (self justifying) I would say that if someone find the ring they love they should wear it. If you don’t care, and the only temptation is to ‘bigger is better’ then it’s not worth it, and you will be better off with something plain.

   But I think you are always always better to put whatever money you have into the best stone you can find, rather than the biggest.

   Comment by Kimberly — March 1, 2008 #

9. Wear it if you want to! What I did was get a matching, plain band. That way I can choose not to wear it if it would be distracting (that was my logic going in but I can count on one hand the times in 9 years that I’ve not worn it for that reason). I only wear the basics for liturgical use (wedding rings, small earrings, no watch).

   Part of the dissonance that came with really truly falling in love was the fact that some of my old prejudices and notions were proven untrue. Suddenly him loving the process of giving me this lovely ring and the subsequent pieces was more important than my preconceived notions of propriety or whatever. Every time I look at my engagement ring I smile to myself, not so much because of the ring but because of what it means to me.

   I took a lot of womens studies in college and in one of my classes we studied the history of marriage and all the related baggage. But you know what? when we all had to design our ideal wedding it almost always involved a lot of the traditional stuff. What is problematic in theory makes sense in reality, and I don’t think you owe anyone an apology for the way you go about manifesting your committment to one another.

   Finally–on a practical note: The comment about going for quality of stone rather than size is right on, but heirlooms are always good. If it is an heirloom definitely take it to a good jeweler and have it assessed and reinforced before you wear it . Getting it covered on your home insurance is not a bad idea.

   Comment by madgebaby — March 1, 2008 #

10. Dear all- here on the seminary campus, senior year, many young things are getting engaged- and there is a lot of talk about ethics and diamonds- as in, blood diamonds- so that, for some people, is also a consdieration. I have taken off my 2 engagement rings (one from my husband,, one from my mother, after my dad passed) at times, and worn only the wedding band (cheap- we got it at a discount house for 35$) because of the glaring difference between what I had (a life of privilege) and the people I was ministering with

    Comment by Nancy — March 1, 2008 #

11. First of all, I would get that man his OWN engagement ring! (When the time comes). He’s ’spoken for’, too! I asked my husband what he would want for an engagement present (I was thinking the traditional pocket watch) and he asked for a ring. I was since surprised to find out how many men have had engagement rings.

    Second, why go traditional? (Unless it’s a treasured heirloom and non-negotiable). Designing your own rings is a growing practice. My husband and I went to an artist in the Torpedo Factory in Alexandria VA, and worked with her to design our rings. I was uncomfortable with spending a lot of money on JUST ME, and I am SO rough on my hands in emergency work, and wanted something I could actually wear all the time. We decided to take the “average price” of engagement rings as according to the bridal mags, and spend that on our full sets. I have diamonds and rubies for my engagement band, with a simple enamel wedding band, and he has a large enamel engagement band with a carved and cast wedding band.

    See them at http://www.torpedofactory.org and click on Jewlery and look at Cynthia Corio-Poli. She’s AWESOME! The rings next to her name are ours.

    All that being said, we decided to get smaller, no-name simple cheapie bands for hiking and camping. He still wants to wear a ring, but we don’t want to ruin our beautiful custom rings on a mountain top. That might not be an issue if you are not going backcountry camping for your honeymoon.

    Comment by Rev Bee — March 1, 2008 #

12. Couple of things:

    In law, we only have to worry about looking tacky, not like we’re one of the people, so I am used to a more relaxed standard for such things.

    My engagement ring is vintage and about 100 years old. It has filigree setting that both downplays the size of the diamond and keeps it from getting caught on things.

    When people compliment it, they talk about how unusual it is and how much they like the design, not so much how big it is. So that’s awesome. I would suggest seeing if my potential spouse were cool with me getting the diamond reset to setting that would downplay the size.

    Also, I bought a band for my husband when we got engaged. The only downside to doing so is that his mother gave him major what-for over it as she thought we’d eloped!

    Comment by Chalicechick — March 1, 2008 #

13. I’m a non-pastor, but I think anyone in the helping professions, or who has kids who plan to attend college, or frankly, anyone who ever plans to retire (did I miss anyone?) can relate to that question. But here is what I think - if you want the pretty rock, it’s ok to have it. It’s not like you’re wondering whether driving around in a Hummer yelling “let them eat cake” as you tootle off in your stockbroker-scented exhaust is ok. We’re talking about an engagement ring. Somehow that doesn’t scream shallow conspicuous consumption the way other things might. (and to shatter anyone’s illusions, let’s face it - most people aren’t going to notice your giant rock, anyway. Sad, but true.)

    The nice ring is ok. But just don’t wear it when you’re picking Priuses out of the grille of your H1.

    Donna

    Comment by Donna — March 1, 2008 #

14. I’m a married pastor.

    When we got engaged, we were both students and pretty poor, so my engagement ring is pretty small and subtle. My husband actually wants to upgrade it a bit for an anniversary some year. He’s kind of ashamed of it, which he needn’t be, but he works with a lot of women whose husband provided much more bling, and he feel inferior. Silly man.

    When we go for the upgrade (if we ever do), I’m more concerned with the fairness of the purchase than the size. Given my passion for social justice, I do not want to support the murderous diamond industry, so we’ll go for either synthetic stones or fairly traded diamond, which are available from several different independent jewlers.

    Overall, if I can put my head on my pillow at night, I figure I’m wearing what I’m comfortable with.

    Comment by Becca — March 1, 2008 #

15. Two of my Lutheran pastor friends at whose wedding I preached had rings made. They were a combination of engagement and wedding ring and were made of the same material (silver and some kind of turquoise) but different shapes, though inspired by the same design — visibly matching but a little more stone for the woman and different sizes. It was a great solution, they were involved in the design and supported a local artist, there were no diamonds involved (this was back in the day when we were worrying about apartheid-era South African diamonds, though I can’t remember whether the provenance of diamonds was an issue for them because they were kind of broke and I’m not sure either of them could afford precious stones), and it was egalitarian. I’m definitely in favor of the man having an engagement ring too. Though as some above have noted, when marriage is on the horizon one falls back into all kinds of traditional and sentimental modes, and if those work for you and your relationship is a good one, more power to you. It’s all very contextual. I certainly wouldn’t oppose a stone on principle, but as a minister I’d watch for the ostentatious and tacky factors (if this ever involves you, this of course has no relevance since PeaceBang would NEVER wear anything tacky or overly ostentatious, except on vacation in the South Pacific - or South Florida ;-)) and for the message-of-privilege factor. I have also watched for the danger factor, i.e. when working in somewhat dangerous neighborhoods I’ve never worn anything that could be taken off me. Which is not to say that we should foreswear beauty or that people who are economically poor should do so.

    ‘course in places like Germany, you wear a gold band on your left hand, which means you are engaged, and then when you get married you place it on your right hand (yes, right hand is the married hand in Germany and in some parts of Central and Eastern Europe) and that is that. Again with the context.

    Which is another consideration. Engagement-ring messages are contextual. If you or the person who is thinking about this is not working in the US, the message may be different. Not that other countries don’t have engagement bling (they do in France and other Western countries) but you want to consider the country factor.

    I really appreciate everyone’s comments above.

    Comment by Caroline Divine — March 1, 2008 #

16. For clergy (and conscientious parishioners) there is the question of perception and what it does to others. Even if it is uninentional, an ostentatiously big rock communicates your concern is with wealth, even if that was not the original intent behind it. Unintentional communication is still communication, is it not?

    Why would this aspect of your outfit be any less subject to scrutiny than any other simply because its more emotionally loaded? Wear what is appropriate. If you’re in a poor congregation, they’ll appreciate that you’re not flaunting it. If you’re in a well-to-do congregation, you’ve just communicated some priorities other than the ones of our prevailing culture. Sure, you have the liberty and freedom to flaunt the six-carat diamond in a platinum setting, but what does that do for others?

    If you’re lucky enough to have a six-carat heirloom impossible to part with, I’d assume you’d also share the story of it freely among those you wore it around, and refrain from wearing it in certain settings.

    All I requested of my fiancee (now husband) was that the ring not be a single big rock, or I was going to catch it on everything And he obliged.

    Comment by meredith — March 1, 2008 #

17. Also, I cannot recommend e-weddingbands.com heartily enough. They have a great selection, good feedback on Ebay where they also sell some things, and incredible prices.

    The same plain white gold wedding bands that would cost $200 and $400 here were $60 and $115 respectively (and we had them inspected when they arrived to make sure all was well).

    Comment by meredith — March 1, 2008 #

18. One more comment, about the ethics question and the debt question:

    I fretted about these for a long time beforehand. It is way more complicated from an ethical perspective than a yes or no; like coal in appalachia in the preunion 60’s or things made in China today, the conditions that we may find deplorable are usually far preferable to not having a source of income at all. There are ways to buy bling that are socially responsible.

    But, if you can’t afford it as a couple, it’s silly to buy an expensive ring.

    Comment by madgebaby — March 1, 2008 #

19. As a layman, I say to any minister getting engaged to wear that ring with pride. It’s YOUR ring, not the church’s (if it is then we need to have a serious talk), so the cogregation should not be that big a factor.

    And since I’m another person who is not big on diamonds, I wish more people would pick out rings that mean something to them, not just tradition.

    Comment by Kim Hampton — March 1, 2008 #

20. My partner and I recently got engaged (we are both women and both in the ministerial profession or about to be). We went the route of having a set of rings made for us by a local artist, and the result has been something truly unique that expresses who we are. The engagement bands are silver and shaped to fit together with the commitment bands, which will be gold. Neither of us have a particular attachment to diamonds, and we also tend to be hard on our hands, so our engagement rings have each other’s birthstones in a completely flat setting. The artist sourced the stones from old settings, so we didn’t have to worry about the ethical side of their origins, even though one is a ruby.

    As we went through the design process, I don’t think either of us was very worried about what message we would send to our current or future congregations about wealth and priorities. We were much more concerned with whether her ring would be noticeably identifiable as an engagement band, as she is not out to her parishioners in her current job (but hopefully will be in the next). Then again, having a big rock was not really an option for us anyway from a financial standpoint.

    Rings send so many messages in our culture. In the end, I think the most important thing is to choose rings that will be meaningful for you and express something about your relationship. After all, you are the ones who have to live with them day in and day out!

    Comment by Rad In a Collar — March 1, 2008 #

21. I wear an unusual heirloom diamond ring that is much fancier than anything I ever thought about owning, but I love it. It’s about 3/4 carat, with some littler stones around it. It was designed by my grandmother, and the stones are from my great-great aunt and my great grandmother. People always comment on it, and I love feeling connected to the history of the women in my family, wondering what their marriages were like - I love telling the story of the ring, how it was almost lost when my grandmother died, etc. I’ll keep wearing it when I’m in the pulpit, I think.

    There is a great story about Dorothy Day (Catholic Worker’s Movement - worked in a lot of soup kitchens) and diamond rings: one day, someone gave her a big, beautiful ring. That night, she gave it to a destitute women who was a regular at the kitchen. One of her associates was shocked, and confronted her about how much they could have used the money from the sale of the ring to support the kitchen. Ms. Day replied that poor people deserve diamonds too.

    There’s a difference between flaunting bling and sharing beauty. I think we can go too far in the other extreme when working with “poor” people - we hide our lives of privilege behind a screen, fearful that they will notice we are not poor, instead of being honest about how we live when we are not around them. I’m not saying that we should wear ballgowns to the shelter, but false modesty is more offensive than a fancy ring.

    Comment by superju — March 1, 2008 #

22. I once was almost engaged in seminary. (I’ve been married, too) I had great fun in the jewelry store. My almost fiance said to the salesman, “She can have anything she wants.” “I said, I don’t want anything very big.” I kept turning down huge diamonds. I must also say that we were in one of the two or three wealthiest counties in the US at the time, so the rocks were HUGE.

    I am a pastor, used to work for Habitat for Humanity. I just don’t like showing up looking wealthy. (I am well off, earned and inherited.) Also I’m an old fashioned southerner who doesn’t believe in flaunting wealth. (My almost fiance used to tease me because all my sweaters were cashmere but no one I was around knew they were expensive–and they weren’t expensive cashmere either.)

    I struggle with wealth, with doing what I want to do which may not be what God wants me to do.

    My advice: spend the $$ on a honeymoon, put some away for a house, college ed for your kids (if you desire them).

    And by the way, congratulations. [I’m NOT GETTING ENGAGED, I SWEAR!! I’m just ASKIN’! But thanks for the congratulations. I’m commitment-phobic, so it will be a long time before anyone puts a ring on my fing. - PB]

    Comment by Rebekah — March 1, 2008 #

23. When my husband and I got engaged, he was a poor graduate student and I was working for an anti-apartheid organization, so we couldn’t afford a diamond either financially or morally (this being 1988 during DeBeers boycott). We picked out a square-cut garnet in a gold filigree setting, and nearly 19 years later, I couldn’t be happier with it. It’s unusual, pretty, and garnets are reasonably inexpensive, so hubby has given me garnet necklaces, pins and earrings to go with it over the years.

    I think it’s important to pick out a ring that reflects your values. At different times, that may mean avoiding certain stones from certain countries. It may mean accepting a humongous heirloom diamond because of the family ties that it brings with it. It may mean picking a simple setting so your ring won’t get clogged with crud when you are working in the soup kitchen.

    Comment by Rev Janet — March 2, 2008 #

24. When Will surprised me by asking me to marry him, he gave me a ring that his grandfather had given his grandmother when they got engaged (after he returned from WWII). I think it is the most beautiful ring in the world. I love Will’s family, and so I was honored to be given an heirloom, and I felt that the fact that the ring was an antique removed it from the ethical issues of mining practices. The diamond is set into a white-gold box setting with spirals on the side, and it has a yellow gold band. I think the diamond is about 0.10 carats and it sparkles prettily. I would never have dreamed of suggesting that we sell the ring and donate the proceeds to a good cause. But it is a delicate, modest-sized ring.

    I might have felt differently if it had been a huge ring (because those also never strike me as looking comfortable to wear) and most definitely would not have wanted him to buy an extravagant engagement ring.

    For our wedding bands (I felt strongly that he should wear a wedding band as well), to get around the ethical/environmental issues of gold mining practices, I bought him a band made from gold taken from recycled computers (and had it engraved for him with a verse from the Book of Ruth). Will bought me an antique gold band (and had it engraved with a verse from Song of Solomon).

    I wear my diamond engagement ring every day with my wedding band. I have worked with children and teenagers in urban and rural poverty. No one has ever seemed put off, or even particularly interested in those rings (one girl did figure out from them that I am married, and asked me how long I had been so). My kids wear a lot of bling that I assume HAS to be costume jewelry– perhaps they assume my engagement ring is the same? Either way, the kids are much more interested in the ring I wear on the middle finger of my right hand: it is a clear plastic dome over a picture of a white skull on a black background. The class has ventured many guesses about its origin and significance.

    Comment by greenseagirl — March 2, 2008 #

25. My sweetie had more ethical qualms than I did, so he bought me a ring from Leber Jewelers in Chicago. The gold is all made from recycled materials, and the diamond is mined from Canada, so no persons, animals, or minerals were harmed in its creation.

    Comment by Sarah K — March 2, 2008 #

26. I was not yet “in the process” toward ordination in the Episcopal Church when my husband and I got engaged/married. My engagement ring has a 3/4 ct. solataire with some small diamonds on the sides. My wedding ring is a plain band that I wear on the same finger. I also have a 3 stone anniversary ring my husband gave me for our 5th anniversary. The diamonds are small and it is not nearly as noticeable as the engagement ring.

    I work for an upper east side (manhattan) congregation where my rings are tiny in comparison to what others have. I also work among the poor and homeless in a soup kitchen and clothing closet. I wear my rings for everything; folks I meet know by my clothes, my coat, my manner of speaking, even the way I cut my hair that I am materially comfortable. Taking off an engagement ring isn’t going to hide that. I don’t really wear any other expensive jewelry. just silver hoops and a basic watch. I’m just not particularly interested in expensive jewelry, but the rings do mean a great deal to me because my husband took such delight in giving them to me.

    One side note - it is not really appropriate for your rings to “flash” the congregation while you celebrate communion. Have someone check this out in the space and lighting you normally use. I would make an exception to leaving my engagement ring on in this case. I don’t want parishioners to be distracted from the Eucharist by my rings.

    Another time I made an exception to leaving my rings on was while imposing ashes on Ash Wednesday at St. Paul’s chapel (across the street from Ground Zero in nyc.) I wore a black cassock, black flats, and just my wedding band. I wanted people to think about the message of the ashes, not what I was wearing on my hands.

    Comment by Sophia — March 3, 2008 #

27. When my husband and I got engaged, we were poor college students amoungst generally wealthy fellow students. I was working in the cafeteria on campus and my fellow co-workers were among the poorest in the community. When I showed my 1/4 carat ring to my fellow students they were clearly unimpressed. My co-workers, on the other hand, were raving about the huge rock on my hand. I felt kind of embarrassed to wear it to work because of the undue attention it brought to me. I think it is all about context.

    Our priest wears a simple gold band. As Sophia said, I think that is good for celebrating Eucharist.

    If I had known anything about the diamond industry at the time I would not have bought a diamond at all.

    Comment by indie — March 3, 2008 #

28. As a non preacher gal who knows many of them, I can only tell you what I’d think … if I saw a UU preacher gal sporting a 3 carat rock I’d probably be taken aback - I don’t expect bling on ministers. But it’s such a personal thing, I wouldn’t assume anything about them for it. I would say ministers - like everyone else - should go with something that suits their personality and lifestyle.

    For my part, I think bands are the most tasteful and modest thing, and look forward to upgrading (downgrading?) from the engagement ring (sapphire and 2 tiny diamonds) to the wedding band.

    I like the suggestion of the person(s) who talked about the experiences of picking them out as a couple. At the end of the day, the ring is just a symbol. Few people are going to ask what you spent on it. Why not have it symbolize time spent together, teamwork, creativity, and a meeting of minds? As opposed to stress and a luxury tax?

    Comment by h sofia — March 3, 2008 #

29. From the other end of the clergy/ring spectrum…

    My now-husband’s father is a gem dealer. I have access to any stone I want, which sounds amazing but presented some real problems when it came to picking an engagement ring. He sells everything but diamonds (clear=boring), which took care of the “blood diamond” question, but also made choosing a stone more difficult in some ways. At one point my mother-in-law passed me a 5-carat pink tourmaline (and I mean HOT pink!) for my consideration! It was an absolutely gorgeous stone, but I simply could not imagine wearing something that eye-catching in the pulpit, in the hospital, while giving stewardship campaign talks, etc.!

    I finally settled on a teeny-tiny 3.25 carat sapphire, with small (.3 each?) aquamarines on either side. Blue is my favorite color, and I wear it a lot. The sapphire chipped in a freak bathroom-counter incident about a month after the ring was done, so we replaced it with a slightly smaller amethyst. It is a big ring, but it’s big enough to be a “conversation piece” and people are comfortable asking me — which means that my congregation knows the story/situation and it’s a non-issue for all parties. I suspect that it’s one of those things that makes me feel self-conscious sometimes, but that other people don’t focus on nearly as much as I do.

    If I were showy or attention-seeking with my giant rock, that would be a different matter. But I’m not an ostentatious person, and I generally wear very little in the way of jewelry or accessories. I do wear the ring daily, and that means that I’ve got it on during Sunday mornings. If it is a distraction, no one has ever told me so. My head is still bigger than the amethyst, and my mouth is moving more than my hands.

    If, in 10 years or so, my father-in-law still has that pink tourmaline sitting around in his workshop, I will probably come up with something creative to do with it; I’m thinking pendant. Otherwise, someone who pays full price can enjoy it instead.

    Comment by HolyKnitter — March 3, 2008 #

30. I’m a civilian, for what that’s worth.

    I don’t care one whit what size, cut, or setting you choose or are given in a diamond. (Or aren’t given/ don’t choose!)

    Wear whatever choice you or your partner makes with joy and pleasure.

    But please, whatever it is, do your best to make sure the stone and gold are sourced ethically. It’s getting easier to find gems you can be pretty sure weren’t acquired through the blood diamond trade.

    Comment by Kate — March 5, 2008 #

31. I’d suggest looking into laboratory created diamonds too. They are apparently the real things as far as material, crystal structure etc., (hubby is a geologist, I’ll take his word for it) they just get a helping hand from people instead of mother nature. This keeps the price down, the quality good and the $$ out of the hands of DeBeers.
    As for the ring itself-go with what looks right on your hand. I have pretty big hands with long fingers. My .5 carat could even be a little bigger and not look ostentatious, I think. But I also got small stones in the wedding band, so I think that balances out. On the other hand (pun intended), I have a colleague who got a rock the size of a skating rink with smaller stones dripping off the sides of the band and I think it just looks plain tacky. It screams, “Look at me!! Notice me and my need for attention.” Anyway, I think that unless it’s way over the top, it’s fine to get something that makes you feel good. Hey! It’s supposed to be a symbol of your love, you don’t want people to think he’s only a *little* in love with you, right?

    Comment by Rebecca — March 9, 2008 #

32. Though I am currently wearing my great-grandmother’s diamond, my fiance will eventually make enough money that there is the opportunity to “upgrade”. A lot of other women my age are rocking some major bling but not me. I am very pleased by my extremely nice diamond in a simple half-bezel setting that I LOVE. We will be exchanging simple white gold bands because he wanted ours to match and he needs something simple since he’ll have to slide latex gloves over it in the OR.

    Since reading this, it makes me think that I won’t want to “upgrade” the setting of my e-ring or get an anniversary band coated in diamonds. I’d rather us spend the money and travel somewhere awesome for an anniversary.

    Comment by Kira — March 12, 2008 #

Leave a comment