STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

Kelly · Hermes

fake engagement rings?

erin · Chanel

i have an invisible engagement ring.

Kitty · Hermes

I am a total snob, and I wanted a nice engagement ring. I would not be cool w/ a fake one.

As far as the worry, you can get it insured, so from a financial standpoint, you don't have to worry about it (of course, there's a lot of sentimentality in a ring).

I would feel guilty, though, if my SO couldn't afford a diamond, though. I'd probably help pay for it if that were the case.

AllieGurl · Marc Jacobs

mossianite stones look just like diamonds and can be set in white gold or platinum for those who done have th $$ for a diamond or have issues with diamonds.

I think those rings start at $500.

Kelly · Hermes

Kitty wrote:
I would feel guilty, though, if my SO couldn't afford a diamond, though. I'd probably help pay for it if that were the case.

agreed. I guess a good way around that would also be to get a fake stone in the beginning and replace it with a real one for the 5th anniversary or something. That just ocurred to me.

I don't know why I'm thinking about rings all the time these past couple days! I know BF isn't going to propose at least for two more years, which is fine by me, but lately all I can think about is rings and weddings. I guess it doesn't help that a huge portion of my friends are getting married and engaged :-p

greendiamond · Marc Jacobs

Knowing that it's the sentiment behind the ring that counts, I'd like to say I am okay with a fake diamond ring, however, I am not. Thankfully, my stones are real.

I knew a couple who got engaged with what is seriously the worlds smallest diamond. When they got married about 3 years later he replaced it with a larger stone, but it was still awfully small. If I were her, I would have rather had a plain band.

I am in full support of a plain band.

But, knowing that a ring can be insured, I think that a man should just buy whatever ring he can afford and call it a day.

A friend of a friend got engaged with a $40,000 ring at age 22. The poor guy will be paying it off forever. And, I'm sure we can all think of a wealthy couple whose wife wears a modest ring. I think it's neat to see how far they have come.

I would be livid if my man tried to pass a fake as a real stone though.

-gd

Kitty · Hermes

Ha! Trying to pass of a fake as real, is just TACKY!!!

That sucks about your friend who got a $40k ring and he's still paying it off. I wouldn't want my SO to go into any kind of debt over my ring...that would be some serious guilt.

greendiamond · Marc Jacobs

I bet they will be divorced before it's paid off.

terrible but true.

-gd

Hedvig · Coach

I've never understood the necessity of getting an expensive engagement ring but I don't like the idea of fake stones, either. My diamonds are real (it's a three-stone setting), the ring was not at all expensive - and I love it. smile

cahabo · Kate Spade

I personally don't like fake. I'd rather have a small diamond than a huge CZ fake. And here is a piece of advice from past experience: Don't pay for your own rings! I'm not going to explain this one. wink

-- Edited by cahabo at 20:55, 2007-04-10

sfclinevandy · Coach

I LOVE my ring and I know I'm fortunate my fiance could get me exactly what I wanted with real diamonds, but if that wasn't the case I would have rather had a plain or pave band than one with big, fake stones.

BUT, I'm going to go out and buy a really good fake to wear when I travel because if anything happened to my ring (even though it's insured) I would be devestated.

-- Edited by sfclinevandy at 23:37, 2007-04-10

lynnie · Chanel

i'm fine with it. its only fake if you're told its real and its not.
What about a stone other than a diamond? i think what matters most is that you like it and that it fits your style. i've personally never understood the hype with expensive wedding rings. i understand wanting something nice, but that doesn't necessarily mean a huge rock. i actually think one really small diamond could be cool in a minimalist way.

kealoha · Kate Spade

lynnie wrote:

its only fake if you're told its real and its not.

This is so true. Personally, I would rather have a smaller diamond than a CZ.

On the other hand, I have an aquamarine which I love. I loved the idea of getting a colored stone b/c it fit my style more than a diamond.

jacL · Coach

I think it is fine. In fact, I would do it if I had to (and I may just have to), with the intent of replacing the stones with diamonds. I don't think it is any different than upgrading the diamond (which I know some people do not like either).

-- Edited by jacL at 11:32, 2007-04-11

Farrah · Marc Jacobs

Not to sound like a snob or anything, but I wouldn't buy something fake for myself so my SO damn well better not try to either. Personally though, I do not think that people should push themselves past their level of affordability either. If you can't afford a diamond how can you afford to get married? It's all relative. Luckily, when the time comes my BF can afford to buy me something nice and will not go into debt to do it. To him, what he puts on my finger is a reflection on him and how he feels about our relationship. I feel the same way.

-- Edited by Farrah at 11:21, 2007-04-11

jacL · Coach

The more I think about it, the more I realize that while I might be okay with it and think it is okay for someone to do, my SO would NOT at all be okay with it.

Hermes

ttara - I'd be happy to help you find a ring on ebay when you're ready. I got an antique ring with a .60 pt. center and two .50 pt stones surrounded by 5 pt. stones (tdw approx. 2 ct.) I have the papers and I think the diamonds are H-I SI1, and I got it for only $500. I know what to look for with antique rings, and you can always have stones reset.

that said, I have a fake ring to wear when I travel, especially to high crime areas. I bought it at TJ maxx for like $75. It's a simple wide band with a grid of princess cut czs. no one is any the wiser.

I have also seen my share of yellow and heavily included diamonds - I think a clear and white cz looks much better over a yellow cloudy genuine diamond.

The value of a diamond is all in your perception. Yes they sparkle really pretty if they're real (and clear), but you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference if you hold a cz next to a genuine diamond. The cost of diamonds is driven by marketing - it's not like they're rare. I do have a lot of diamonds, and I do like the way they refract light, but I've only bought them when I can get a good deal. With my wedding ring, we were fortunate enough to get a good deal at a diamond cutter in Amsterdam - 1.5 ct G SI for approx. 4,000 and had it set in the states. The same diamond would probably go for 10,000 - 12,000 here in the states.

-- Edited by D at 13:05, 2007-04-11

Hermes

This article my help you look at the value of diamonds differently:

(this is a portion of the article, the whole article can be found here)

Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond?

An unruly market may undo the work of a giant cartel and of an inspired, decades-long ad campaign

by Edward Jay Epstein

.....

The creation of the idea that diamonds are rare and valuable, and are essential signs of esteemis a relatively recent development in the history of the diamond trade. Until the late nineteenth century, diamonds were found only in a few riverbeds in India and in the jungles of Brazil, and the entire world production of gem diamonds amounted to a few pounds a year. In 1870, however, huge diamond mines were discovered near the Orange River, in South Africa, where diamonds were soon being scooped out by the ton. Suddenly, the market was deluged with diamonds. The British financiers who had organized the South African mines quickly realized that their investment was endangered; diamonds had little intrinsic valueand their price depended almost entirely on their scarcity. The financiers feared that when new mines were developed in South Africa, diamonds would become at best only semiprecious gems. The major investors in the diamond mines realized that they had no alternative but to merge their interests into a single entity that would be powerful enough to control production and perpetuate the illusion of scarcity of diamonds. The instrument they created, in 1888, was called De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd., incorporated in South Africa. As De Beers took control of all aspects of the world diamond trade, it assumed many forms. In London, it operated under the innocuous name of the Diamond Trading Company. In Israel, it was known as "The Syndicate." In Europe, it was called the "C.S.O." -- initials referring to the Central Selling Organization, which was an arm of the Diamond Trading Company. And in black Africa, it disguised its South African origins under subsidiaries with names like Diamond Development Corporation and Mining Services, Inc. At its height -- for most of this century -- it not only either directly owned or controlled all the diamond mines in southern Africa but also owned diamond trading companies in England, Portugal, Israel, Belgium, Holland, and Switzerland.De Beers proved to be the most successful cartel arrangement in the annals of modern commerce. While other commodities, such as gold, silver, copper, rubber, and grains, fluctuated wildly in response to economic conditions, diamonds have continued, with few exceptions, to advance upward in price every year since the Depression. Indeed, the cartel seemed so superbly in control of prices -- and unassailable -- that, in the late 1970s, even speculators began buying diamonds as a guard against the vagaries of inflation and recession.The diamond invention is far more than a monopoly for fixing diamond prices; it is a mechanism for converting tiny crystals of carbon into universally recognized tokens of wealth, power, and romance. To achieve this goal, De Beers had to control demand as well as supply. Both women and men had to be made to perceive diamonds not as marketable precious stones but as an inseparable part of courtship and married life. To stabilize the market, De Beers had to endow these stones with a sentiment that would inhibit the public from ever reselling them. The illusion had to be created that diamonds were forever -- "forever" in the sense that they should never be resold.In September of 1938, Harry Oppenheimer, son of the founder of De Beers and then twenty-nine, traveled from Johannesburg to New York City, to meet with Gerold M. Lauck, the president of N. W. Ayer, a leading advertising agency in the United States. Lauck and N. W. Ayer had been recommended to Oppenheimer by the Morgan Bank, which had helped his father consolidate the De Beers financial empire. His bankers were concerned about the price of diamonds, which had declined worldwide.In Europe, where diamond prices had collapsed during the Depression, there seemed little possibility of restoring public confidence in diamonds. In Germany, Austria, Italy, and Spain, the notion of giving a diamond ring to commemorate an engagement had never taken hold. In England and France, diamonds were still presumed to be jewels for aristocrats rather than the masses. Furthermore, Europe was on the verge of war, and there seemed little possibility of expanding diamond sales. This left the United States as the only real market for De Beers's diamonds. In fact, in 1938 some three quarters of all the cartel's diamonds were sold for engagement rings in the United States. Most of these stones, however, were smaller and of poorer quality than those bought in Europe, and had an average price of $80 apiece. Oppenheimer and the bankers believed that an advertising campaign could persuade Americans to buy more expensive diamonds.Oppenheimer suggested to Lauck that his agency prepare a plan for creating a new image for diamonds among Americans. He assured Lauck that De Beers had not called on any other American advertising agency with this proposal, and that if the plan met with his father's approval, N. W. Ayer would be the exclusive agents for the placement of newspaper and radio advertisements in the United States. Oppenheimer agreed to underwrite the costs of the research necessary for developing the campaign. Lauck instantly accepted the offer.In their subsequent investigation of the American diamond market, the staff of N. W. Ayer found that since the end of World War I, in 1919, the total amount of diamonds sold in America, measured in carats, had declined by 50 percent; at the same time, the quality of the diamonds, measured in dollar value, had declined by nearly 100 percent. An Ayer memo concluded that the depressed state of the market for diamonds was "the result of the economy, changes in social attitudes and the promotion of competitive luxuries." Although it could do little about the state of the economy, N. W. Ayer suggested that through a well-orchestrated advertising and public-relations campaign it could have a significant impact on the "social attitudes of the public at large and thereby channel American spending toward larger and more expensive diamonds instead of "competitive luxuries." Specifically, the Ayer study stressed the need to strengthen the association in the public's mind of diamonds with romance. Since "young men buy over 90% of all engagement rings" it would be crucial to inculcate in them the idea that diamonds were a gift of love: the larger and finer the diamond, the greater the expression of love. Similarly, young women had to be encouraged to view diamonds as an integral part of any romantic courtship.Since the Ayer plan to romanticize diamonds required subtly altering the public's picture of the way a man courts -- and wins -- a woman, the advertising agency strongly suggested exploiting the relatively new medium of motion pictures. Movie idols, the paragons of romance for the mass audience, would be given diamonds to use as their symbols of indestructible love. In addition, the agency suggested offering stories and society photographs to selected magazines and newspapers which would reinforce the link between diamonds and romance. Stories would stress the size of diamonds that celebrities presented to their loved ones, and photographs would conspicuously show the glittering stone on the hand of a well-known woman. Fashion designers would talk on radio programs about the "trend towards diamonds" that Ayer planned to start. The Ayer plan also envisioned using the British royal family to help foster the romantic allure of diamonds. An Ayer memo said, "Since Great Britain has such an important interest in the diamond industry, the royal couple could be of tremendous assistance to this British industry by wearing diamonds rather than other jewels." Queen Elizabeth later went on a well-publicized trip to several South African diamond mines, and she accepted a diamond from Oppenheimer.In addition to putting these plans into action, N. W. Ayer placed a series of lush four-color advertisements in magazines that were presumed to mold elite opinion, featuring reproductions of famous paintings by such artists as Picasso, Derain, Dali, and Dufy. The advertisements were intended to convey the idea that diamonds, like paintings, were unique works of art.

-- Edited by D at 13:03, 2007-04-11

-- Edited by D at 13:07, 2007-04-11

Drew · Gucci

I had the invisible engagement ring for four years, a promise ring/1st engagement ring for two years, and then finally after six years of being engaged I got the diamond, and DH and me have discussed upgrading the diamond in the future. I was able to rationalize the cost of the ring because we didn't spend money on a wedding or reception. If we were to spend the traditional amount of money on a wedding, I am sure I would have gotten a much smaller diamond, but hey, that's where my priorities were.

I wouldn't ever be happy with a fake diamond because I wouldn't want to tell anyone it's fake, and I wouldn't want to lie either. Plus, symbolically I feel like it's a bad omen or something to start off the relationship with something fake that is supposed to represent a diamond which symbolizes the ability to last a lifetime. I don't know, it just doesn't seem right to me. I would definately rather just have a band than a CZ.

Kelly · Hermes

Thanks for the article, D! I had always known the gist of the fact that diamonds werent' really worth so much, but of course never the complete story (I read the whole article...very interesting!)

I'm sure I'll come to you guys further down the road if I need help picking out a ring...even though I logically know that a CZ ring could be as pretty as a diamond one, I have to admit that my sentimentality will probably have me wanting one that has some real part.

jacL wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I realize that while I might be okay with it and think it is okay for someone to do, my SO would NOT at all be okay with it.

That's exactly what I thought BF would be like, but I mentioned my whole mode of thinking to him, about how a fake ring may not be so bad IMO, and he didn't seem to care either way!