[olmander]

My son got married in September. A week before the wedding we spent a couple of hours with my future daughter-in-law to choose a necklace for her wedding outfit. She is not a pearl girl at all - if something, black pearls do matter as somthing trendy, the rest not. We tried all sorts of pendants and necklaces (gold, silver, enamel) and finally I still imposed on her a very thick twisted pearl choker, made of many small oval FW pearls - nothing special, just trendy and a very good luster. Imposed - because her fiance (my son... sigh...) was strongly opposed against ANY pearls.

What do you think happenned? It was a total eyecatcher, especially on a tanned skin. Nobody passed by without 'wow'. And, surprisingly, not only it was approved by all the poshy friends but the next brides to be are already looking for the same

Do I deserve a prize for recruting new pearl fans? Yes!
Do I have an elegant daughter-in-law? Yes!


Olga

[nlerner]

Well done Olga!

Lots of luck to the young couple and to the whole family!

[pattye]

Three cheers for you, Olga!

She is a glowing bride; wishing much future happiness to your family on such a wonderful occasion!

[Pearl_dreams]

Gorgeous! (Why on earth would your son oppose pearls? Pearl overload at home? Ha ha...)

The photo makes me curious about something: what is the custom in your country regarding wedding rings and engagement rings? Your DIL's left hand is bare; in the USA it would have both rings.

[Sueki]

Wow ! Olga,
The wisdom and good taste of an older generation......
A beautiful bride, and even more stunning with those pearls !

Handsome groom, too....

My best wishes to them both for a long and happy marriage.

[olmander]

Originally Posted by Pearl_dreams

The photo makes me curious about something: what is the custom in your country regarding wedding rings and engagement rings? Your DIL's left hand is bare; in the USA it would have both rings.

That's a good question...

I think the tradition with engagement rings is altogether not very pronounced: many youngsters consider it to be not practical because anyway in a couple of months there will be a wedding ring. At least my son has negotiated it into engagement earings(!)

As for the wedding rings, there is a lot of fantasy invested in it, they are not just traditional plain rings but often designers' rings with fancy elements, small diamonds etc. If one is a Protestant or an Orthodox, it is on the right hand, if Catholic - on the left.

Before the war it was common that a plain golden ring was first an engagemnet ring (left hand) and later a wedding ring (right hand). Although widows also wear them on the left hand. Very confusing...

[Pearly Shell]

What a beautiful couple! And the choker is stunning!

Congratulations to you and your family.

[GemGeek]

I can't imagine how she could look better -- what a charming ensemble! Congratulations on being a successful MIL.

[Heidi]

Beautiful bride - the pearls suit her just perfectly.

Plus: How awesome that you have gone out and created some pearl converts!!

Originally Posted by olmander

That's a good question...

I think the tradition with engagement rings is altogether not very pronounced: many youngsters consider it to be not practical because anyway in a couple of months there will be a wedding ring. At least my son has negotiated it into engagement earings(!)

As for the wedding rings, there is a lot of fantasy invested in it, they are not just traditional plain rings but often designers' rings with fancy elements, small diamonds etc. If one is a Protestant or an Orthodox, it is on the right hand, if Catholic - on the left.

Before the war it was common that a plain golden ring was first an engagemnet ring (left hand) and later a wedding ring (right hand). Although widows also wear them on the left hand. Very confusing...

I like the idea of engagement earrings! They are wearable even if you are using your hands a lot. Plus no trying to fit something under a glove or otherwise worrying about the life of the setting.

[Pearl_dreams]

Originally Posted by olmander

That's a good question...

I think the tradition with engagement rings is altogether not very pronounced: many youngsters consider it to be not practical because anyway in a couple of months there will be a wedding ring. At least my son has negotiated it into engagement earings(!)

As for the wedding rings, there is a lot of fantasy invested in it, they are not just traditional plain rings but often designers' rings with fancy elements, small diamonds etc. If one is a Protestant or an Orthodox, it is on the right hand, if Catholic - on the left.

Before the war it was common that a plain golden ring was first an engagemnet ring (left hand) and later a wedding ring (right hand). Although widows also wear them on the left hand. Very confusing...

That is fascinating!

I personally think young people here spend way too much on engagement rings. It used to be that a 1/2 carat diamond was standard; now it seems most women expect at least 1 carat and preferably 1.5 or more. And this expenditure comes at a time of life when the money is needed to pay off school loans, save for a house, etc.

[Mervione]

Here in Sweden, half a carat is considered to be a rock by most people. Offtopic but thought it might be interesting.

[Pearl_dreams]

That is amazing Mervione!

Ah, well, size inflation affects pearls too. How often have we not said that bigger is better?

[olmander]

It's an interesting topic. Here in the Netherlands also the size in carats means much less than the quality of diamonds. I was told recently in one of large jewelry stores in Amsterdam that there is a clear distinction between customers: Americans tend to buy by size, even if the quality is low; the Chinese tend to buy small stones but with the top quality parameters; etc. The Dutch also mostly wear small stones, as far as I can see.

[Mervione]

I`m not an expert, but I think that if you don´t carry a loupe on you all the time you don´t really need top quality. I think SI quality can be just fine for example, depending on where the inclusions are. And you can´t really see the difference between D and E colour unless you are trained I´ve heard...

[dkan 168]

Originally Posted by Mervione

I`m not an expert, but I think that if you don´t carry a loupe on you all the time you don´t really need top quality. I think SI quality can be just fine for example, depending on where the inclusions are. And you can´t really see the difference between D and E colour unless you are trained I´ve heard...

Speaking from personal experience, I can only tell the difference between E and H coloured stones when they are placed side by side and in good light.

I had difficulty locating the inclusion using 10x loupe in a E VS1 1.19ct emerald cut (40th birthday present to myself), even when it was pointed out to me where to look

DK