LOVE/HATE: The Never Too Thin Edition

Lately I’ve been coming across brides shedding weight, but instead of dropping poundage of hips and thighs, these ladies and losing bulk in their ringular regions. That’s right, I’ve been seeing slimmer, smaller, more delicate wedding bands and engagement rings gushed about on more and more blogs written by actual brides-to-be.

simple engagement ring

The warm champagne diamond ring above was crafted by jewelry artist Sara Westermark and can be found in her shop, while the simple hammered wedding band below was created by Raina Lee Scott and can likewise be found in her shop. Both are stackable, but look just as lovely worn alone.

slim wedding band

Now this is a trend I can unequivocally say I LOVE. Big honkin’ diamonds and thick gem-encrusted eternity bands have their place, but they can sometimes seem somewhat lacking in soul when compared to a simple and pretty hammered band of gold.

What say you?

25 Responses to “LOVE/HATE: The Never Too Thin Edition”

  1. Toni January 28, 2010 at 10:58 am #

    I love these, especially since I’m not a fan of bulky rings.

  2. Dr.FabulousShoes January 28, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    Love it. My engagement ring looks very similar to the lower picture but bonus: it was my grandmothers wedding ring from 1937 (my fiance got her blessing to use it before she died). My mother totally lost her stuff when she found out I didn’t get a diamond, but I love the delicate look.

  3. Al January 28, 2010 at 12:50 pm #

    I asked my fiance to get me the smallest diamond possible. We don’t have a lot of money but he wanted to get something a little bigger. And I was like nope! Smallest! It’s plenty big. I don’t want my finger to be all ring.

  4. Sarah M January 28, 2010 at 12:51 pm #

    This is a really great idea! Unfortunately, some women will still want that big fancy ring to show off.

  5. Mae January 28, 2010 at 2:22 pm #

    You don’t know how happy this makes me. When I tell people I want a sapphire that is no bigger than .5 carats they flip out at me.

  6. Gina January 28, 2010 at 2:36 pm #

    As a person with a size 4 finger, I love the thin rings!

  7. Giggles January 28, 2010 at 4:14 pm #

    My rings are elegant in their simplicity and I love them. Anything bigger or bulkier wouldn’t have matched my style at all.

  8. La BellaDonna January 28, 2010 at 5:18 pm #

    These are dainty, delicate, and darling. And while I love (and have) some beautiful antique rings, since I am neither dainty, delicate, nor darling, I have a fondness for rings that extend from knuckle to knuckle. Not that I need them laden with diamonds! Alas, I watched Dark Shadows in my formative years, and have had a fondness for the Great Huge Ring ever since. (And yes, I now have a Great Huge Ring that looks A LOT like the one Barnabas wore.) Also, since I am bound – bound, I tell you – to bash my hand into something hard and painful, it isn’t a bad thing if I never acquired a traditional solitaire, sitting way up high and vulnerable, with its sweater-catching prongs. I like a gemstone that has a certain amount of filigree and granulation wrapped around it to protect it. Possibly with some guardian gemstones looking out for it, too. I also like cabochon gemstones, mine- or rose-cut stones, and rough-cut stones.

    Huhn. And I just realized I’m Liar Liar Pants On Fire: on my left hand, I have a trio of gold rings – two are teeny – one has a row of channel-set teeny stones, one’s a very delicate open-work claddagh with a diamond the size of a Courier 10 period, and the other one’s a bit sturdier, but dainty for all of that, with a little twisted ropework and some granulation, and more period-sized diamonds hiding in some scrolls. However, the right hand DOES have a Great Huge Ring: a rough cut 20-carat ruby set in sterling, fortified with ropework, granulation, and a nice snug collar of silver to keep it safe.

  9. Rick from Novell wedding bands January 28, 2010 at 5:33 pm #

    It’s kinda funny to see such narrow rings. But the hammered finish hides everyday wear-and-tear pretty well. And if you stack three or four thin wedding bands on your finger, it looks pretty interesting as well.

  10. sterlingspider January 28, 2010 at 6:00 pm #

    Super pretty, but as a crafty sort of gal with a tendency to beat on my jewelry I would probably mangle either of those rings within months.

  11. La Petite Acadienne January 28, 2010 at 8:06 pm #

    I love a slender ring like that, as it’s very, very flattering on the hand and makes the fingers look long and graceful. As sterlingspider mentions, though, I’d be likely to inadvertently bash or bend those rings. So they’d have to be made of a very, very durable material, and not soft gold.

  12. ChristianeF January 28, 2010 at 11:08 pm #

    Love! I have very small hands so often times larger rings look odd on me, like I’ve been playing in my mother’s jewelry box. I really like the hand-wrought look of them, too.

  13. Deanderthal January 29, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    I think that people look best in jewelry that reflects who they are…I am not a gemstone person really, so my engagement/wedding ring is a band of white and rose gold with an inscription on the outside – I’m wordy and like words and I love rose gold….its perfect because it reflects who I am.

    Other friends have big round stones and chunky bands….because that’s who they are. Some have delicate little solitares or would feel weird in anything over 4mm, so they have the thinner rings….it all comes down to taste.

    What I *don’t* like is when the ‘industry’ tries telling me that my 7mm ring is too ‘masculine’ for me or that what I really want must be sparkly. Sorry, I don’t kowtow to that kind of crap. And it makes me sad to see people buying into it.

  14. Deanderthal January 29, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    I don’t mean to imply that people are or that anyone else in the comments was, by my last sentence…ack! I realized it could be taken that way….

  15. Twistie January 29, 2010 at 2:47 pm #

    @Deanderthal: I’m completely with you. The ring should reflect the wearer. I think these are wonderful…but I’d never wear them because even though I have small hands, they’ve always looked odd with really delicate rings.

    And as a rugged individualist, I insisted on a silver frog whose butt fits perfectly in the dip of my late mother’s triple silver band wedding ring. Mr. Twistie was confused at first, but when he realized he could make me wildly happy and save big bucks at the same time, he became far more enthusiastic.

    If I’d allowed the WIC to tell me what my engagement and wedding rings ‘had’ to look like, not only would everybody be able to tell what year I got married by looking at my rings, but I wouldn’t be happy with them, either.

    Make sure you love the ring(s) you choose, ladies and gentlemen. If things go the way you hope, you’ll be wearing them for a long, long time. Whether the fashion of the moment speaks to you or not, be thoughtful and wait for the one that makes your heart as happy as your beloved does.

  16. Pencils February 1, 2010 at 12:10 pm #

    I think it’s nice that thinner or thin rings are coming back into fashion. I’m very tall, with big hands, but my fingers are long and slim, so chunky rings annoy me and don’t look right in my opinion. But I think everyone should choose for themselves. Hopefully, these are the rings you’re going to wear for a very, very long time. You should love them.

  17. Glinda February 2, 2010 at 2:44 am #

    Glinda comes from rather hearty peasant stock, and thus has hands that are suitable for playing sports and/or wielding large things.

    So.

    My ring had to be large lest it get lost on my large hands.

    But the best thing about my ring was that my husband and I designed it from scratch, and built it together

  18. Johanna February 2, 2010 at 4:26 am #

    I’m personally more partial to the ‘less is more’ fashion but I’m also for everyone choosing the ring that suits just them. Actually I thought others would be for it as well but I have been looked at funny for not wanting any kind of gold and/or diamonds. I have small hands too and wear a delicate feminine silver engagement ring and a bit more masculine dark titanium wedding band. I don’t know about customs in other countries but here we wear both on the ring finger (left) and I’ve come up with stacking very delicate silver trinkets with the actual rings, mostly for protecting the silver piece from titanium but also giving me a chance of bling whenever I feel like it, and I don’t think it’s gauche. I can buy different shades of cabochon rings every anniversary to match any nail polish. ;)

    I must promote titanium to other clumsy ones out there! It is a very light but extremely strong metal so it’s comfortable to wear and I can’t break or bend it by banging my hand on stuff. And it’s beautiful!

  19. sara westermark February 2, 2010 at 2:21 pm #

    Thanks so much for including my delicate diamond stacker. I have found that more and more brides are wanting something handmade and versatile for engagement and wedding rings. I’ve also had more requests for sterling bands too. Thanks again.

  20. HeidiAphrodite February 5, 2010 at 3:34 pm #

    I think they’re really pretty, but like others here, I have larger hands and very long fingers and such a tiny thing would get lost on me and look awkward. I also tend to do a lot with my hands and worry about these thin bands not being strong enough. But gosh, they’re awful pretty, and such a nice alternative for my smaller-fingered blog sisters.

  21. Jessica February 9, 2010 at 7:20 pm #

    I work in the jewellery industry and as much as I like the look of these, wedding bands are supposed to be forever and WORN forever and I’ve got to say, this isn’t going to last at all. A ring that thing is inevitably going to bend and eventually break as well and become ridiculously thin at the back due to the constant wear.
    I’ve seen ladies come in with their 3-5mm thick bands worn dreadfully at the back and snapped at that weak point, so in comparison, it wouldn’t work. I definitely wouldn’t want to have to replace my wedding band. It just wouldn’t be the same.

  22. rabrab February 10, 2010 at 10:12 am #

    ^ I’d rather replace or repair my ring than wear one that doesn’t fit my style, preference, or look good on my hand. If dainty rings work for you, then go for it.

  23. Anmari February 10, 2010 at 7:34 pm #

    My engagement ring is not as dainty as the ones pictured but compared to the ones of my friends it is very simple. A small sapphire with a smaller diamond on each side.

    I love it… it is ‘me’ but it is hard to see the reaction of the people who ask to see the ring. I usually get things like ‘ oh that is different’ or ‘hm.. nice’

    Kind of wish more people would embrace simple beauty!

  24. Juliet August 18, 2010 at 4:11 pm #

    There is something so very romantic about receiving a very modest ring. It feels somehow more symbolic than materialistic. I love this ring!

  25. H. Anderson September 3, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    I wear this with my solitair set in platinum, it looks amazing, adds some color and I get dozens of compliments on it. I love it and the seller was easy, honest and quick.