Wedding ring dilemma

Georgiegirl256

peachyprice wrote: »

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.

Totally agree. Also as well as a look that will date, I'd assume wearing a ring with that much bling would get pretty tiresome pretty quickly. It's also more of an eternity ring than a wedding ring IMO. But each to their own I guess.

consultant31

Lily-Rose wrote: »

Not sure what the question is sorry. Are you asking us if you should get the cheaper one because it's £400 less for basically the same ring?

When did wedding rings get so expensive BTW?! :eek:

Its nearer £1000 more for the Rox one.

Both lovely rings, but definitely not a wedding band.

Threebabes

I love both the rings too, gorgeous.

Again on a practical level not sure they would work. Mind I do take mine off when im in the house or on an evening when I come in.

I bought a dress ring and what a nightmare it was snagging on everything.

Elfbert

My engagement ring is titanium with a diamond and four sapphires (but it's super-chunky, at 8mm wide, however titanium is so light it barely weighs a thing), if we ever get around to getting wed I'll get a plain titanium band to go with it - very hard wearing.

I have to take my rings off for work, but still wouldn't want anything too showy.

The only value the engagement ring really has is sentimental, I think it cost about £300, and that was made completely to my specifications - stone clarity/size, metal grade, design, everything!

I think you should go for whatever you want, OP, but remember it's the value it has to the two of you that matters, not the money it cost!

peachyprice

consultant31 wrote: »

Its nearer £1000 more for the Rox one.

Both lovely rings, but definitely not a wedding band.

OP wants the Fraserhart one in 18ct, which is £1050, so only £445 difference.

stellamartin673

Second ring is more attractive then first one. I personally liked second ring because that ring is more attractive and impressive.

victory

I like the rings but would go for a plainer band, cheaper and much more daily wearable

lostinrates

OP, I am strongly in gavur of letting your taste not tradition win. But practicality has to have some part too.

Do you always do your housework wearing gloves? How will you feel when you possibly inevitably lose and have to replace a stone?

My wedding band has one stone in it. I kept it simple because of much the reasons sea nymph gives, and plan to have a nother each decade ven the one inset stone ( tiny but of very high quality) is noticeable to me on occasion, in a distracting way.

If you love them, get one, but consider they will possibly require maintaining. It might be prudent to buy a simple inexpensive white metal band for housework, taking on holiday, and other mundane things, but wear the ring you love at other times.

msb5262

Another thought has just occurred to me - I sometimes look at people's rings to try to work out their marital status, and to be honest neither of these looks remotely like a wedding ring to me. If I saw these on someone's hand, I'd be referring in conversation to "your partner" or "your fiance(e)" rather than "your husband/wife". I don't know if you care, but when I was married I wanted people to see my wedding ring and know I was married (if that makes sense).

Tiddlywinks

Less is more... Your engagement ring is large enough without needing to add more 'bling'.

Have you actually thought through the practicalities of that ring? It's setting will collect all sorts of fluff etc, may pull on clothes when getting dressed, will not be practical for everyday baby care as it may scratch and will be hard to clean when covered in puke etc.

From a technical perspective, that setting is NOT designed to be worn 24/7 forever and ever... they are dress rings and intended as occasional wear... not to be worn when washing hands, showering, gardening, DIYing etc.

Still, I guess for some people it's all about style over substance.