royal engagement rings... do you have a favorite?

[saqsay1]

I was going to post these on the tiara thread, but thought it was too off topic.....
I saw these and was really surprised how they range from gaudy to tasteful to boring.

 Sapphires
Left to Right:  Diana, Princess of Wales; Tatiana Blatnik; Marie Chantal, Princess Pavlos; Princess Anne (from her first husband)

Rubies
Top Row, Left to Right:  Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Queen Sonja (Sonja gave hers to Haakon when he proposed to Mette-Marit); Sarah, Duchess of York; Princess Mathilde; Crown Princess Mary
Bottom Row, Left to Right:  Princess Diana of Orléans; Clotilde, Princess of Venice and Piedmont; Princess Alexandra, now Countess of Frederiksborg (from her first marriage to Prince Joachim); Princess Märtha Louise

[saqsay1]

Other and Multiple Colored Stones
Left to Right: Princess Marie (Joachim's second wife); Princess Máxima; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor

Diamonds, Small to Average Size
Left to Right:  Princess Madeleine (it may have been given back now, but it was nice while it lasted); Crown Princess Victoria; Princess Alexia of Greece and Denmark; Princess Nathalie of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleberg; Lady Sarah Chatto

[saqsay1]

Diamonds, Climbing Up the Size Ladder
Left to Right:  Queen Elizabeth; Sophie, Countess of Wessex; Autumn Philips; Princess Letizia; Queen Beatrix


Diamonds, Holy Crap Category
Top, Left to Right:  Queen Margrethe; Princess Grace; Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall
Bottom, Left to Right:  Crown Princess Sarah of Brunei; Princess Soraya of Iran; Queen Saleha of Brunei; Queen Paola of the Belgians

[oldmancoyote]

Interesting how few of them are stonking big rocks, and even fewer are diamonds.

Just to show how the perception that a big diamond is a necessary ingredient of a "proper" ER is just that - a perception!

ETA - cross posted, but still valid observation (I think)

[Trinkette]

I agree. Also, I was thinking that CDIers have a heck of a "royal" collection of our own. It is a little sobering to compare, don't you think?

[clgwli]

You know it's odd to think about the diamonds vs gemstone engagement ring.  When I got engaged hardly anyone had heard of a gemstone being used.  I just said "Princess Diana's is a sapphire" and they went "oh, really?"  The perception at least here in the US is that diamonds are it.

Now personally I never would pick the gemstone I did again due to how soft it is, but I still love a good precious stone ring for one.  I like the halos in general but I don't think I have a favorite.

[Trinkette]

Throughout history, colored gemstones have been the choice for ERs and important jewelry. That didn't change until the marketing savvy of Debeers during the last century convinced Westerners to think of diamond as the be-all, end-all ER gem. Even so, Debeers had a much more difficult time convincing Easterners to purchase diamond engagement rings.

And, if you think "right hand ring" is just a phrase coined by accident, think again, LOL!

[clgwli]

Yeah "RHR" is a wonderful more recent term that they came up with to sell even more diamonds.  They aren't stupid people.

They remind me much of Hallmark.  A good way to make people spend money on something on things they feel they need to do... because they are told to do in so subtle ways

I remember reading that the whole "A diamond is forever" was coined in 1947.  That is not to say that diamonds were never used as engagement rings prior to that.  But I would imagine in general the size of the stones were much much smaller than now even before then.

one of my rings is from 1925 and made for my grandmother's aunt's 2nd engagement (her first husband died)  It's a beautiful ring but the stone is estimated to be 11 points.

I think most people in the US would think that 11 points was not worth much of anything.  Then again a set of my earrings is 10 points each.  It is interesting to read the average size of rings now and how that relates to where the owner is located.  Most of my friends have 1/4-1/2 carat rings.  Very few of my friends have anything over that.  I can think of 2 3/4s and 1 carat and then one more that I can see to be over 1 carat.  The rest are in the smaller range. 

Total rambles but this totally interests me to look at.  Even in europe from what I understand the average size is significantly smaller than the east and west coast here.

[GIAGirl]

Interesting how few of them are stonking big rocks, and even fewer are diamonds.

Just to show how the perception that a big diamond is a necessary ingredient of a "proper" ER is just that - a perception!

ETA - cross posted, but still valid observation (I think)

Yes, but when you are wearing hundreds of carats of diamonds on your head, who cares what is on your hand...well I do....but I still want a tiara.

[oldmancoyote]

[snip]
Total rambles but this totally interests me to look at.  Even in europe from what I understand the average size is significantly smaller than the east and west coast here.

I'd say that (from anecdotal observation) the custom in large cities in Europe are pretty close to your friends's distribution. More than 1 ct is rare and more than 2 is considered gaudy, unless there is something rather special about the ring itself (design, history or both)

[saqsay1]

Current Carat Weight Average and Differences Seen in Various Areas

Today, the national average for the diamonds chosen for engagement rings with regard to carat weight is 0.38 carats. In general, the carat weight averages of engagement ring diamonds are increasing. However, in order to truly understand the average relating to diamond carat weight for engagement rings it is important to look at the specific regions in which the engagement rings are being purchased as trends can be seen throughout these areas as well.

Larger cities such as Boston, Philadelphia and New York City have an average of 1.6 carats as it relates to diamond engagement rings. When viewing diamond carat weight averages in some of the Southern states and "Bible Belt" regions, the carat averages are anywhere between 0.25 and 0.40 carats. The state of Alabama has an average of 0.50 carats when it comes to diamond carat weights for those who are about to be married. When considering the entire state of California, the diamond carat weight average has been seen as over 1.0 carats. Focusing in on a more specific region within California such as the La Jolla/Del Mar area, the carat size is quite generous and is stated to be around 2.75 carats. When looking at carat weights with respect to engagement rings outside of the United States, such as in Europe, the average there is 0.30 carats and the stone within the engagement ring is not always a diamond gemstone.

In general, the average size of one's diamond engagement ring is increasing. With regard to the cost of such a beautiful ring, the average price spent on a diamond engagement ring these days is somewhere between $2500 and $3000.
 I

[clgwli]

Very cool saqsay!  That sound much like what I have seen here and traveling elsewhere.

It really interests me as to why some areas put more weight into the size of the stone and why others don't.

I live in the midwest and I imagine we are really just average here in general.  I did forget the friend who had her stone fall out 4 days after wearing itt said hers was 98 points, but it was very deeply cut and looked much smaller.  So she said if they can replace it after going to court, going down in size isn't an issue.  I'd be interested to see what my friends who are in their 30s now get when engaged vs those of my friends who were engaged in the last 5-10 years.  I know money and age can play into things (less money if younger) but I wonder if my friends will wind up with larger than average just because that's a trend?   Just stuff that makes me wonder.  Though I always say you should buy what you like, not to compete.

OMC, just curious about gemstone rings in Europe as well.  I've noticed here that big costume sized gemstones are rather popular as well.  Do you notice if in general the size of most rings over all is more petite so to speak?  I truly have issues buying here sometimes due to small hands.  A lot of gemstone rings absolutely overwhelm my hand.  Interestingly enough about 15-20 years ago I could find smaller and more subtle pieces and now that I have the money to buy things I have a harder time locating ones.

[Trinkette]

Saqsay, please, what is your source? Is the material dated? I've read info like this before, so, I'm just curious.

[oldmancoyote]

I'd say in general in Europe jewellery tends to be more modest - partly out of custom, partly no doubt out of higher prices

[Awestruck]

Here in the UK there`s many jewellers where you`d be hard pushed to find more than a few engagement rings over 1 carat. Prices are expensive because of our VAT tax and will be even more expensive when it rises again next year.
Simple solitaires still seem to be the most popular rings and even when I was a little girl ( many moons ago lol ) I had a fascination for jewellery but my Mother declared it " wasn`t right " to wear ones ornate jewellery during the day, only for evening or special occasions, it was considered vulgar. Consequently my Mother and all of my female relatives seemed to have a uniform of a plain narrow wedding band, a simple solitaire or a 3 small stone ER usually with a central sapphire, a watch, a brooch on their coat and a string of pearls. I can only remember seeing them wear anything vaguely ornate at weddings or evening functions.
When I got engaged back in 1971 big cluster rings had just become fashionable and my Mother tut tutted and said they resembled knuckle dusters and only thugs should wear them lol.

[saqsay1]

Saqsay, please, what is your source? Is the material dated? I've read info like this before, so, I'm just curious.

http://ezinearticles...-2008&id=1034380

You know trinkette, I never noticed that this was a 2008 article, so I guess it is somewhat dated. It sounds about right though, because somewhere I read that only 25% of all women in america have a 1.0 CT or greater ER. I don't know where I read it... so it isn't gospel or anything.

[Trinkette]

Thanks for the link saqsay, I'll check it out later. BTW, as far as the big picture goes, I certainly consider 2008 current.

[oldmancoyote]

Here in the UK there`s many jewellers where you`d be hard pushed to find more than a few engagement rings over 1 carat. Prices are expensive because of our VAT tax and will be even more expensive when it rises again next year.
[snip]

I'm not sure it's VAT. It certainly doesn't help, but at the end of the day the difference in tax vs. the US Sales Tax regime is "only" about 10% (NY and CA are both over 8%), and the difference in the price of jewellery, like-for-like, is many times that 10%. I think the overall level of costs is higher (payroll taxes/NI contributions, rents/land), and the market is very different - I have never heard of anyone of my friends here "upgrading" her ER. Getting another ring, yes. Getting another piece of jewellery to celebrate a meaningful event, yes. Upgrading - no.

[saqsay1]

Hhmmmmm. thats interesting OMC. now that I think about it, the concept of the 'upgrade' seems to be a fairly new one. I think it is a clever selling point really, because how else would most people ever be able to afford, say, a $30,000.00 dollar, or more, diamond ring?
   I actually hope to have a 3+ct stone someday....  but for now I'll suffer with my 1.64ct  

[ah2bqat]

When I got engaged back in 1971 big cluster rings had just become fashionable and my Mother tut tutted and said they resembled knuckle dusters and only thugs should wear them lol.

   What a great line!  In our family only 'sluts wear heels with ankle straps'  per my own mom, and that holds true until you get to my nieces.  Strange, the customs you find on various sides of the 'pond'.

[clgwli]

I'd consider 2008 to be recent as well.  Particularly with the recession!

I do appreciate hearing what the average person in other parts of the world does.  I do think that here in the midwest we are closer to what those in Europe talk about.

I really don't see any upgrades.  Only replacements usually if lost, stolen or damaged badly.  Like 2 of my old rings were cheap and so they've been scrapped once broken.  And obviously like I said most of my friends do have smaller rings.

I did forget my one friend who is in court today.  I need to check facebook before I post more about it, but her stone was 98 points.  I am curious if the being close to a carat thing was important to her fiance or not or if it just happened to be what he could get.

I am curious why jewelry in Europe is so much more expensive though.  10% taxation does sound a lot to me though.  But we're still whining that we pay 6.75% sales tax (used to be 5.75%)

[Awestruck]

Clgwi the current VAT tax here in the UK is 17.5% and a possibility of it rising to 20% next year.
Consequently many many things, not just jewellery, are far more expensive than in the States.

[Trinkette]

 

[clgwli]

Awestruck, I understand about the VAT tax, but I was wondering about the extra costs that OMC mentioned that are higher.  What makes them much more higher in Europe than in the average part of the US.  Though in many cities & areas the cost of living is outstanding.  Like my in-laws keep trying to get us to move to Washington DC area saying the pay is soooo much better.  But the reason the pay is much better is because we'd have to pay 2-3 times the amount for the same house.

Yep total moving away from royalty but the whole idea about how different everyone lives interests me.

I do know I have read that even when adding in all the extra charges with importing, people from Europe can get a much better deal than they can locally.  I know the exchange rate can help some, but I've heard many in different countries say that buying abroad is almost always cheaper.

Oh and I must be a total slut.  I like high heels since I am only 5' tall.  Half of mine have straps around the ankles   Oh well LOL

[ah2bqat]

Squigs - I thinks straps on high heels make perfect sense - it's just, well, one doesn't cross my Mom.  Ever.  Probably not even when she's gone on to her just reward.  Very particular, that woman, and not afraid to let you know it. 

I was still in silent rebellion at the tender age of 40 when I got my tattoo.  Boy howdy, did the feathers fly when she caught sight of it a couple years later.  You'd think I'd thrown poop at the Pope from close range, the way she carried on; but it still wasn't as bad as her reaction to ankle straps on high heels.  Just not worth the hassle for my sis and me.  The g-kids just don't wear them around her.  They're young enough and both flat gorgeous, so they look great in that sort of thing.