Wedding ring dilemma

natley

Thanks for all the replies so far. Tried both on and both looked amazing. The sparkle was great too it was just hard to compare the weight of them as one was 9ct and the other 18ct.
I wouldn't wear an eternity ring as I am not really a fan of 3 rings on 1 finger and having a sparkly wedding ring would compensate.

natley

Annisele wrote: »

I'm not sure about wearing an 18ct ring and a 9ct ring together. In theory the harder one would wear away the softer one - but it might take a few years to do it.

I'd be a bit more worried about whether the shapes would match. When I bought my wedding ring, the jeweller did something to it to make sure it would fit next to my engagement ring. (There's a technical term for what he did - I've forgotten that, but basically he shaved a bit of it off). I don't think it would be possible to change the shape of either of those rings.

I won't be wearing 9ct and 18ct gold - the 9ct gold ring would be made in 18ct. I thought that I would need a ring with a shape but the rings were perfect together.

natley

shegirl wrote: »

Honestly,I would want better quality diamonds in the more expensive ring and can easily buy them at a reasonable price!However,the stones in the first ring don't look great either.What were they like in store?

It's up to you really.Who quoted you to have one made?

The jewellers quoted me. Where would you buy loose good quality diamonds from?

shegirl

Personally,I'd go for something like this so there's much less risk of an expensive mistake
http://theperfectringcompany.co.uk/product/blue-sapphire-alternated-flush/

shegirl

natley wrote: »

The jewellers quoted me. Where would you buy loose good quality diamonds from?

Depends on the quality.But the ones in the expensive ring don't seem great,although their colour isn't given

skintchick

The colour of the expnsive ring was given as I, which is OK, but the clarity isn;t very good, it's just given as SI.

theoretica

The expensive ring also has a higher weight of stones so the sapphires at least will be slightly larger - I didn't count the diamonds to see if they will be larger or just more of them.

Three rings? When did the jewellery trade manage to introduce that?

PenguinJim

theoretica wrote: »

Three rings? When did the jewellery trade manage to introduce that?

I know! I'm still gobsmacked people spend thousands on one ring!

And discuss it on the MSE forum, no less!

Do these people believe every TV advert and buy everything with marketing?

Sent from my latest-model iPad, I buy the new one every year and throw the old one in the bin.

Seanymph

I am not a fan of taking my rings off all the time - I've too many friends who have lost theirs!

So I ensured that my rings were wearable whilst I was doing anything - from cleaning out the horses to making pastry.

Dress rings are lovely - I have some too - but the humility of marriage, and the sanctity of the union isn't about a sparkly band, but the words and commitment - so my wedding band, although studded with diamonds, is flat - it's also an upside down V shape to incorporate the engagement ring which is similar to yours, a large stone surrounded by diamonds.

They are lovely rings, and I speak as a jewellery coveter - but I think they look a little high maintenance.

paddyrg

From a purely practical viewpoint, in 3/5/10/20/40/60 years time when everyday wear means you lose a couple of stones and have to take it for professional cleaning after gardening, it may look quite ragged quite quickly. Or you'll take it off all the time, which is kinda against the point and guaranteed to lose it sometime.

For a wedding ring, something you're planning to wear all day every day until you die, it may be with sacrificing some bling for some longevity.