Wedding ring dilemma

peachyprice

I wouldn't pay that much money for a white gold ring that is going to fade and lose it's colour over time and will require replating.

I guess it's down to personal taste, but IMO that's far to much bling on one finger and is a look that will date badly.

shegirl

Have to say that everyone I know ,who has gone for that amount of stones,has ended up not wearing them after a while.Sometimes it doesn't take long either as it's just not practical.

One full of stones tends to be ok,but going over that and you'll tire of it,especially as you get older

19lottie82

I got my engagement ring from fraser hart, and I looked at wedding rings there but tbh I was shocked at how expensive they were.

In the end I got one of them from ebay and another from here

http://www.thebeautifulcompany.co.uk/

they seemed so cheap I was a bit paranoid, but my friend, who used to be a jeweller, told me that they are exactly the same rings as the ones you get in a shop, they are just cheaper as they're not paying for a posh shop and loads of staff.

Cottage_Economy

Something you'll need to consider with white gold is wear and tear.

When my husband was choosing my engagement ring, he knew I liked white metal and did briefly consider white gold. However, the jeweller told him that it might need the rhodium plating redone in a few years as it wears away revealing the yellow gold underneath, especially if I have hobbies where I use my hands a lot.

As I'm a keen gardener and DIYer that wasn't going to work and he knew it, so he opted for a platinum solitaire, which I later teamed with a platinum band.

That was back when platinum was relatively cheap though (about 8 years). I've just had a look at our wedding bands on the site we bought them from and they are now four times more expensive that we paid! Four!!!

downshifted

Hilarious. My 9ct gold band cost twelve quid in 1974 and still looks fine. It's the marriage that's important, not the trappings.

CH27

I think a plain band means you can wear it at all times which to me is the purpose of a wedding ring.

Pollycat

natley wrote: »

I wanted something different from the 'normal' wedding band and also something with a thick band as most of the rings i tried on I felt were a really thin band and can't imagine them lasting 40/50 years!

Personally, I can't see either of those rings lasting 40/50 years.

natley wrote: »

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 might be mistaken but I thought that the difference between 9 carat & 18 carat gold was that 18 carat had twice the gold content - not double the weight.
So a 9 carat ring could weight the same as an identical 18 carat one but the 9 carat one would only have 37.5% gold content but the 18 carat would have 75% gold content.
24 carat is pure gold.

Re the colour & clarity of the diamonds - in the Fraser Hart ring the total diamond weight is .4 carat and the Rox ring is .45 carat so the stones are not going to be that big for colour and clarity to be really noticeable.

The description on the Rox ring actually says it is an eternity ring (not wedding ring).

heartbreak_star

Another vote for a plainer band here - if nothing else from a practical point of view, as another poster said some employers would not allow rings with stones to be worn for work.

Plain bands are harder wearing too - Dad wore his for nigh-on 40 years, and since he passed away I've worn it and that was 4 years ago. It's still going strong and I do a lot with my hands

HBS x

hazyjo

shegirl wrote: »

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/

Would definitely choose this one than the blingy one! Personal taste though, I guess... Something tasteful rather than showy.

You can always wear a sparkly eternity ring on another finger.

I'm another who says it'll drive you mad catching on things - and probably rubbing your finger.

I sincerely believe a wedding band should literally be a symbolic circle (not a blingy and) which is what they were invented for, (but then I've been divorced twice so feel free to ignore me lol).

Jx

shegirl

Pollycat wrote: »

Personally, I can't see either of those rings lasting 40/50 years.


I might be mistaken but I thought that the difference between 9 carat & 18 carat gold was that 18 carat had twice the gold content - not double the weight.
So a 9 carat ring could weight the same as an identical 18 carat one but the 9 carat one would only have 37.5% gold content but the 18 carat would have 75% gold content.
24 carat is pure gold.

Re the colour & clarity of the diamonds - in the Fraser Hart ring the total diamond weight is .4 carat and the Rox ring is .45 carat so the stones are not going to be that big for colour and clarity to be really noticeable.

The description on the Rox ring actually says it is an eternity ring (not wedding ring).

An 18K gold ring will be a little heavier than a 9K gold ring,not twice the weight though.Gold is heavier than,say,silver (used in 9K white gold)and palladium (used in 18K white gold) is also heavier than silver.

9K white gold is usually a silver mix.18K,if decent,is a better palladium mix.So it is heavier