Duchess of Sussex Jewels 1: November 2017 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Ista said:
Sorry, modern round brilliant. It's the cut most people think of when they think of diamonds.
Click to expand...

AH! Thanks!:lol: I usually just think of brilliant cut, which is why that acronym didn't register.
 
Ista said:
Yes, definitely not minimalist in that size, if they are diamonds. What does seem to fit with what we know of Meghan's aesthetic is the fact that they look like emerald or possibly cushion cuts, which have a whole different, more subtle look than some blingy MRB's in the same size. Whatever they are, very pretty earrings.
Click to expand...

Jewelry can be major, stone wise, and still minimalist. That -ist on the end means it’s not minimal as in small but minimalist in its setting (i.e. simple lines, few details, etc.).
 
I hope someday we find out the details on those earrings. Quite lovely whatever stone it is. I like them better than the diamond band ring.


LaRae
 
One of the blogs said they were her Birks bee chic white quartz and sterling silver earrings which are a few hundred dollars. She has worn them before
 
Correct they are not the same earrings as her Birks. These have not been ID'd by anyone who blogs on Meghan's fashion.


LaRae
 
So much exaggeration that I don’t even know where to start. :lol:

One interesting thing from the photo though. I never noticed the texture on the band on Meghan’s engagement ring until now.
 
jacqui24 said:
Considering who ET is relying on for this information. It's probably NOT an anniversary present.:lol:
Click to expand...

It is, according to multiple sources.

Reportedly, Harry also gifted Meghan a 'push' present but there are no plans for the couple to provide any details.
 
I really hope it's temporary but fear it is not. The original ring was an elegant synergy between the band and the stones whereas this band looks like it belongs on a cracker ring, messy, vulgar and way OTT.
 
MARG said:
I really hope it's temporary but fear it is not. The original ring was an elegant synergy between the band and the stones whereas this band looks like it belongs on a cracker ring, messy, vulgar and way OTT.
Click to expand...

You are right in that there was a classic simplicity to the original design.
 
MARG said:
I really hope it's temporary but fear it is not. The original ring was an elegant synergy between the band and the stones whereas this band looks like it belongs on a cracker ring, messy, vulgar and way OTT.
Click to expand...

I don't think the new design, if that is what it is, is messy and vulgar, precisely, but it certainly is not as pleasing to the eye and elegant as the previous iteration. I wonder why the change was made?
 
Its pretty clear to me that she changed it to match the eternity band purported to be an anniversary gift from Harry. Maybe Harry himself even made the change (in consultation). Or maybe she needed a new band because her old band was too small for her fingers? Who knows.

I liked the original setting, but I like this setting better with the wedding band and the eternity ring. Its more cohesive and less bulky with this smaller band IMO.
 
Zaira said:
Its pretty clear to me that she changed it to match the eternity band purported to be an anniversary gift from Harry. Maybe Harry himself even made the change (in consultation). Or maybe she needed a new band because her old band was too small for her fingers? Who knows.

I liked the original setting, but I like this setting better with the wedding band and the eternity ring. Its more cohesive and less bulky with this smaller band IMO.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think it would've been weird with the texture and just a plain wedding band. But with the eternity band, two textured bands flank the simple wedding band.
 
Is the new band made of diamonds?, it's too much if it is. I much preferred it as it was.
 
I can nearly see the changes on the ring. I see pave diamonds, three on each side, and the shank (back of the ring) is gold . The band is thinner too. The change is ring maybe to mark the anniversary (that Harry may have agreed to ) and to adjust to swelling fingers after the pregnancy. People are going on that this change is a ten carat monstrosity and it's not.
 
:previous: Ha. Exactly. I like the original ring and this new version too but even if I didn't, I certainly don't see what makes it messy and vulgar. It's still well within Meghan's minimalist style.
 
Abbigail said:
:previous: Ha. Exactly. I like the original ring and this new version too but even if I didn't, I certainly don't see what makes it messy and vulgar. It's still well within Meghan's minimalist style.
Click to expand...

I don't find it vulgar, but it definitely is a less minimalist style. Any ring with a large central stone, side stones and pave has definitely moved to the more ornate end of the spectrum. Whether someone likes that or not is a matter of personal taste.

Personally, I also think that jewelry that has been designed with one aesthetic that then has other elements added on sometimes don't look as harmonious as when the jewelry had been redesigned starting from a blank slate. We don't have clear enough photos to make make any kind of judgment on that so far, but that could also be what some people are reacting to. I'm hoping for some clearer photos at some point.
 
I like the new band. I liked the old one too. This one is more delicate and matches her new eternity band quite well.
 
sophie25 said:
Is the new band made of diamonds?, it's too much if it is. I much preferred it as it was.
Click to expand...
Yes the band is pavé set all around. I find it a shame as hers was one of the few engagement rings I have seen where the band and the stones were so beautifully balanced and but hardly minimalist all things considered.

The new incarnation does not look nearly as elegant nor balanced but rather somewhat topheavy for so fine a band IMO.

https://nyppagesix.files.wordpress....ngagement-ring.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=650
 
MARG said:
Yes the band is pavé set all around. I find it a shame as hers was one of the few engagement rings I have seen where the band and the stones were so beautifully balanced and but hardly minimalist all things considered.

The new incarnation does not look nearly as elegant nor balanced but rather somewhat topheavy for so fine a band IMO.

https://nyppagesix.files.wordpress....ngagement-ring.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=650
Click to expand...

That combination of a very slim band, usually around 2mm, and small pave diamonds has been a popular look for the last 8-10 years. There's been lots of discussion in jewelry forums about the durability of the rings made in this style, and whether the combination of honking big stones with very fine bands is proportional or not, but the changes to Meghan's engagement ring are certainly in keeping with current jewelry styles. I liked her original ring, and find it interesting that apparently she was longing for a more blingy upgrade just like many other women!
 
I don't mind the redesign of her engagement ring, but it looks odd next to her wedding band. The previous version matched well with her wedding band and the eternity ring. Now it looks disproportionate.
 
Markedly less elegant than before.. why would anyone add Diamond 'chippings' [almost so tiny they are 'Diamond dust'], to a ring with substantial stones.. it adds nothing good to the look of it.. merely 'change for changes sake', imo.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

iceflower
The Duchess of Sussex's Fashion and Style Part 1: November 2023 -
2 3
Replies
65
Views
8K
Granada
G
Blog Real
Genealogy of the Royal Family of Bulgaria
Replies
2
Views
1K
tihkon2
tihkon2
iceflower
  • Locked
The Duchess of Sussex's Daytime Fashion Part 6: May 2022 - November 2023
7 8 9
Replies
255
Views
32K
iceflower
iceflower
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
517
Tatiana Maria
T
Duke of Marmalade
Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York Jewels: January 2018 -
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
MsJulie
M

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom