If you had to do the Di/Kate ring over....

[T L]

I'm not sure if they're marquis shspes. Unfortunately, I've never seen a detailed clear photo of the DoY's ring. I like the ruby much better than the blue sapphire of the Diana ring, but to each his/her own. We all like what we like .

 

[pyramid]

The dark royal blue of Kate's ring I would say as a British person is more a British look. You don't see many people here wearing the lighter blue sapphires preferred by this board. There are reports the sapphire is a lovely royal blue in real life. My sister has seen it fairly close when Diana wore it and said it looks huge.

Sarah Ferguson's ring was reported at the time to be a Burmese Ruby surrounded by pear shaped diamonds. I think that is what they said on the tv over here when they got engaged.

 

[pyramid]

I think the darker coloured stones are more preferred here in the same way as smaller diamonds are. You may see some people with blue topaz but usually younger generation and also they are portrayed as being a cheaper option, meaning for a dress ring, a bit like amethyst. Most sapphires are dark blue to navy and I would say from a selection of maybe 25 you would find one Ceylon lighter sapphire and 24 darker.

It is just what most people prefer here, even those with money. Not many would wear a sapphire ring over 3 carats either a lighter blue sapphire would be maybe 30 points to a three quarter carat. Money here goes into housing and property more and some say fashion. Not many people are too interested in jewellery and when you wear something new it takes about a couple of months wear everyday before colleagues in the same building even notice it and most of them don't. Say 2 people out of about 100 may comment. It would just be got a new ring and then nothing more really said other than it looks pretty. Most engagement rings if diamond are about under half carat, maybe a few up to the carat mark.

 

[pyramid]

Another thought, people don't look long at a new engagement ring when someone gets engaged here, just a glimpse on the hand, that is why when I read here that people are saying about clarity and noticing something in someone's ring, I often think that would never be noticed here. I suppose the fact that stones at half carat size may make it easier too than say a 2 carat with a black carbon at I1. The four C's are hardly mentioned and cut on most of the charts in jewellers are showing cut shape and not cut proportions. It really is a different world where gems and diamonds are concerned. About half the people lay off their engagement rings when they have children and only wear a band. I remember thinking that the rings must not fit when they are older, but then again as the ring is usually £1000 or less, it is not seen as important to get it sized and just lays in jewellery boxes. I see more people fifty plus here wear crafted silver necklaces or bangles and just wedding ring or maybe half eternity ring on other hand of about 5 10 point stones or just stone set with melee.

 

[pyramid]

I have see the photo of Kate's ring with the messed up prongs being posted before, and I don't believe that is Kate's ring or it has been photoshopped or something. The Royals would never have a ring in that state. There is something that looks different about it too.

 

[pyramid]

I wouldn't change the Kate Middleton ring, especially like the 15 point each stone on the halo as it makes the centre appear larger. I differ from what most people write on here though, in that I preferred the ring on Diana to Kate. It looked larger and more outstanding I thought.

 

[sapphiredream]

I think the darker coloured stones are more preferred here in the same way as smaller diamonds are. You may see some people with blue topaz but usually younger generation and also they are portrayed as being a cheaper option, meaning for a dress ring, a bit like amethyst. Most sapphires are dark blue to navy and I would say from a selection of maybe 25 you would find one Ceylon lighter sapphire and 24 darker.

It is just what most people prefer here, even those with money. Not many would wear a sapphire ring over 3 carats either a lighter blue sapphire would be maybe 30 points to a three quarter carat. Money here goes into housing and property more and some say fashion. Not many people are too interested in jewellery and when you wear something new it takes about a couple of months wear everyday before colleagues in the same building even notice it and most of them don't. Say 2 people out of about 100 may comment. It would just be got a new ring and then nothing more really said other than it looks pretty. Most engagement rings if diamond are about under half carat, maybe a few up to the carat mark.

I have noticed the same thing about Europe compared to the US (I am European who has been living in the US for 20 years but frequently visiting back home).
Secretly, I think this is such a shame because there's nothing like beautifully crafted jewelry with large, amazing precious gemstone.
In Europe you can only seem to get true eye candy when the royals bring out their big guns ...but in the larger population...not so much. High budget/no budget Americans, however...these can really go to town sometimes.

Then again...as pyramid noted, there's no better "eye candy" like prime real estate in Europe. The fashion part...I don't quite understand. My aunt in Italy has buried a fortune in designers and couture over the years; but when it comes to her jewelry box...it's plain gold, some Lapis Lazuli, some coral and some ...meh.

At least serious jewelry with serious gems can hold its value pretty well.
Fashion...not so much.

 

[Maisie]

I absolutely LOVE Sarah Ferguson’s ruby ring. I was 15 when they announced their engagement and it was the first time I saw a ring that I loved. I also thought her wedding gown was beautiful. I didn’t like Diana’s at all.

 

[chrono]

The ruby is an oval. An untreated ruby is far more expensive than an untreated sapphire, all else equal.

 

[LD]

I'm a Brit and can honestly say that I do not believe that dark sapphires are "preferred" in Europe. I think that very few jewellers in the UK stock good quality sapphires and so the "norm" is dark blue. If there were more lighter sapphires available, I think they would become the preferred colour.

 

[lambskin]

I love the size of the halo diamonds. But the setting looks low exposing the prongs-way too many prongs. Center stone should be lighter in color. I would rather have an all diamond than colored stone ER and save the colored stone rings for the other hand. Plus with an all diamond ER it would not clash or compete or clash with the various colored stone Royal Jewels she will be wearing elsewhere.

 

[sapphiredream]

Another thought, people don't look long at a new engagement ring when someone gets engaged here, just a glimpse on the hand, that is why when I read here that people are saying about clarity and noticing something in someone's ring, I often think that would never be noticed here. I suppose the fact that stones at half carat size may make it easier too than say a 2 carat with a black carbon at I1. The four C's are hardly mentioned and cut on most of the charts in jewellers are showing cut shape and not cut proportions. It really is a different world where gems and diamonds are concerned. About half the people lay off their engagement rings when they have children and only wear a band. I remember thinking that the rings must not fit when they are older, but then again as the ring is usually £1000 or less, it is not seen as important to get it sized and just lays in jewellery boxes. I see more people fifty plus here wear crafted silver necklaces or bangles and just wedding ring or maybe half eternity ring on other hand of about 5 10 point stones or just stone set with melee.

Pyramid,

As LD hinted, I am afraid it has to do with affordability, in the end.

Who would not want beautiful, precious-stones jewelry if they could afford it?
Sure, the modest silver, uber-small stones or "poor-by-trade-standards" color can be worn as a reactionary, "dislike-what-you-can't-have" statement; but in the end, it's Marx all the way.

The reality is high-end jewelry with beautiful, sizeable stones is incredibly expensive - the ultimate luxury item. Given that social stratification in Europe (save a few at the very top) is less savage than in the US, I think most Europeans end up with a bit less disposable income in their pockets than many Americans do.

Plus, in the US you also have the "success" culture - so many people will have the incentive to make efforts and invest in that big bling to signal "I made it!" - which Europeans are less likely to do.

Having spent the past two decades going back and forth over the Atlantic, I learned you have higher odds of getting a glimpse of nice eye candy in the US than in Europe. You just have to be in the "right" parts of town .
In Europe, you need to be inside Buckingham or equivalent - for the most part.

On the other hand, there's also an avalanche of ugly, frumpy jewelry in the US - which I think you are much less likely to see in Europe. (OK, Western Europe).

I have noticed that even the not-so-expensive/"commoner" jewelry in Europe is made with much more finesse and artistic flair than what the average "mortal American" is willing to wear.

My aunt in Italy once gave me a ring with a lab created emerald and a CZ halo (yes, the Di/Kate thing) - set in an 18K delicate gold setting. Even though it's virtually a trinket due to the fake stones and probably not expensive at all...the way that gold setting is made is just divine and makes for an overall very pretty ring which I haven't taken off ever since my jeweler removed the beryl in my main ring - which is now waiting for the stone of a lifetime.

Try to do this on a budget - and the whole thing soon becomes a nightmare.

 

[T L]

Well I think the Diana ring did more to overprice and sell unattractive low grade overly dark sapphires more than anything. Even if Diana's stone was beautiful in person, all photos of it are representative of a lower grade color sapphire, and that's what 99.999999% of the public has to go by. Very few people on the planet have seen it in person.

It is an iconic ring though, but so was almost everything Diana wore. I miss her, RIP.

 

[sapphiredream]

Well I think the Diana ring did more to overprice and sell unattractive low grade overly dark sapphires more than anything. Even if Diana's stone was beautiful in person, all photos of it are representative of a lower grade color sapphire, and that's what 99.999999% of the public has to go by. Very few people on the planet have seen it in person.

It is an iconic ring though, but so was almost everything Diana wore. I miss her, RIP.

That makes sense. Most of the sapphires I have seen in jewelry stores and on people's hands have that dark, opaque feature.

You rarely see the vibrant, brilliant kind.
I recently saw these two in a higher-end store and they were asking 5000-6000$ for the one of around 2 ct (setting included) and 10,0000 for the one around 3 ct.


They were vividly colored because I remember not being sure whether they were tanzanites, I had to ask the sales person; and they sparkled beautifully, so great cut.
But you rarely see sapphires of this type anywhere.
When you do, they are overpriced.

Most are Diana-ish but much smaller - dark and opaque.

 

[bludiva]

"On the other hand, there's also an avalanche of ugly, frumpy jewelry in the US - which I think you are much less likely to see in Europe."

Agree w/ @sapphiredream on this one. There is so much blech jewelry in the US, esp. the mass market stuff but even a lot of high end jewelry. I love window shopping in other countries esp the Mediterranean, the jewelry design there is often more fluid & graceful.

 

[LJsapphire]

Well I think the Diana ring did more to overprice and sell unattractive low grade overly dark sapphires more than anything. Even if Diana's stone was beautiful in person, all photos of it are representative of a lower grade color sapphire, and that's what 99.999999% of the public has to go by. Very few people on the planet have seen it in person.

It is an iconic ring though, but so was almost everything Diana wore. I miss her, RIP.

Mine isn't the brightest most vivid blue, but the fact that I'd only ever seen dark sapphires is what drew me to it. My Mum's engagement ring has a sapphire that looks pretty much black. (Looking at mine now, it needs a clean!)

 

[sapphiredream]

Mine isn't the brightest most vivid blue, but the fact that I'd only ever seen dark sapphires is what drew me to it. My Mum's engagement ring has a sapphire that looks pretty much black. (Looking at mine now, it needs a clean!)

My mom too. So that's the larger market, I guess.
But to be honest....I wonder what would happen if one got a smouldering, out-of
-this-world Kashmir blue sapphire that would look like it swallowed the skies of the Mediterranean, and then everybody would think it's something else...like maybe a blue zircon or something.
You pay all those money and then you look like you're wearing a semi-precious stone because everybody recognizes sapphire by its dark blue?
You'd have to be in the social stratosphere to be convincing with such a stone.

I really want a vibrant blue one but at the carat weight I am aiming for (around 3), I heard a really vibrant one that doesn't turn black or dark gray in low light can set one back around 100,000.

I never thought it would be SO difficult shopping for sapphires.
Much more difficult than diamonds. And you don't even really get the price advantage over a diamond because these little uptight gems are so dense that they show up smaller than a diamond the same weight would. So those who need big, need to buy really big.

To me, the Di/Kate faces up just right in size ...and Good Grief, it is 12 carats!

 

[T L]

I believe it's eight carats, based on the dimensions. I forget where, but it was mistakenly thought of as 12 carats, but I believe the 12 really refers to the number of diamonds in the halo. The 12 somehow got confused with the carat weight.

 

[sapphiredream]

I believe it's eight carats, based on the dimensions. I forget where, but it was mistakenly thought of as 12 carats, but I believe the 12 really refers to the number of diamonds in the halo. The 12 somehow got confused with the carat weight.

OK, that sounds better. I need at least a 3!