Though the traditional bands of gold probably aren’t going to get kicked off their pedestal any time soon, one only has to look at the comments on ours posts about wedding bands to know that silver rocks some brides’ worlds. And one of the nice things about silver is that it holds a deep dark tarnish in anything engraved thereupon – unlike gold and platinum which have to be antiqued artificially – so those words of love you’re considering having etched into your wedding rings will stand out.
So here is a handful of silver wedding-ready rings that will certainly inspire those who already heart silver and might even change a few minds!
What feels like a million years ago, but is really only five, I posted about acrylic wedding rings and the tone of my post was kind of sarcastic. I talked about space and the future and the word “um”.
After reading this post on Conversation Pieces, however, I feel rather differently about Alissia Melka-Teichroew’s acrylic engagement rings. I love that the author received one of the by:AMT diamond rings as an engagement ring, didn’t really want to upgrade because of the attachment she had to her original ring, and then found out that by:AMT sells a solid gold version of their acrylic diamond ring.
The main difference between the two rings, other than the materials used to create them, is $888 more for the standard width gold version. There’s also a thinner gold version for $600 and silver version for $180. I actually think I’d rather have the $12 acrylic engagement ring – as in right now, I want one, in pink. Target has a series of similar rings that don’t mention by:AMT or Alissia Melka-Teichroew, so I’m wondering whether Target ripped Melka-Teichroew off.
I’ve known plenty of guys for whom their wedding rings were the first piece of jewelry they ever really wore. For most, the option that appealed was the least ornamented one, i.e., the plain gold band or silver band or tungsten wedding band or stainless steel band. You get the picture. No diamonds. No engraving or fancy scrolling whatever. While there’s nothing wrong with that – I myself, wear a plain gold wedding ring these days – it can be a little meh. With that in mind, let me present to you a wedding ring you can play with.
Like, for example, the Gear Ring from Kinekt. Designed by Ben Hopson and Glen Liberman, it’s made of matte stainless steel, so hautement manly! And it features micro-precision gears that turn in unison when the outer rims are spun, so it gives the wearer something to do on buses and during boring phone calls and while trapped in waiting rooms. Of course, it could be just as fun on the right woman as women’s and men’s ring sizes aren’t like shoe sizes, meaning a 5 is a 5 and a 12 is a 12.
I love it. I wouldn’t wear it myself, but I love it. I don’t know what kind of care it would need to keep it turning smoothly for a lifetime, but I still love it. It’s different and maybe a good choice for the gearhead gal or guy who isn’t all that thrilled with the idea of something dripping with diamonds or polished to perfection. Maybe it would get a little grungy after a while, and that could be okay, too. What say you?
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.
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.
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.
Before I launch into this week’s LOVE/HATE, I have to admit that I’m not typical when it comes to rings. I had two engagement rings, both with semi-precious stones, and I wear them when they happen to go with the day’s outfit. I sometimes wear a beautiful ruby ring I received for my birthday last year in lieu of my wedding band. And that wedding band? It’s not even the one The Beard put on my finger on the day we said our vows. So suffice it to say, my opinions regarding finger baubles for the bride probably cannot be considered normal.
That said, I really cannot stand engagement ring wraps. Big HATE from NtB’s corner! I will never, ever, ever tell someone they shouldn’t wear one, nor will I look down upon those who think they are just spiffy. I’ll even smile and say I adore your ring, because I’m a sweetie like that. It’s all a matter of preference, right? You can love them, and I can loathe them, and we can all be friends and go for cocktails.
For those unfamiliar with the concept, the engagement ring wrap is basically a wedding band — with or without gemstones — sporting a hole in the middle that accommodates a solitary stone set in the usual way. They come in various metals and with various stones. They can be simple like the one shown above or rather complicated. There are single shank wraps, circumference wraps, and dual shank wraps. But whatever sort they are, their job is to make two rings look more like one for those who dislike two ring bling. Oh, and they can also safeguard more delicate rings by acting as a sort of bumper.
What say you? An easy way to customize an engagement ring? Or a great way to ruin one?
Previously, we’ve gabbed about the old wedding photography standards, like the bride applying her makeup in the mirror, the bride and groom touching foreheads, and the ringbearer sneaking a finger full of wedding cake buttercream. But how about the “look at our wedding rings” shot?
The Beard and I both thought of wedding ring photos as kind of silly, but we did it anyway and have a lovely photograph of his hand supporting my hand holding our rings on top of my bridal bouquet. And I’ll admit that I also took a picture of our wedding rings, still in their boxes, on top of our marriage license application.
While the hands of the bride and groom (or bride and bride and groom and groom) usually play a starring role in wedding ring portraiture, sometimes the rings themselves steal the show, like in this photo from Critsey Rowe Photography.
I’m leaning toward love, not just of this unique wedding ring portrait, but of ring photos themselves. Many long years ago, I didn’t really care for them, and I still don’t think that they are the kind of thing one looks back on and sighs. That’s reserved for pictures of the bride kissing her dad on the cheek before they head down the aisle or covert snapshots of quiet unplanned moments between the newlyweds. Still, I’m surprised at how much I’ve grown to like my own ring portraits, and I think they do make a fun addition to a wedding album.
Sometimes the public relations e-mails I get really raise my hackles, particularly when the companies advertising therein are trying to convince me (and thereby you) that their product or service is necessary to matrimonial or marital happiness. For example, I recently received an e-mail with this subject line: Is the recession costing women carats? Here is the FiLife poll doing the asking, where the actual question is “How many weeks’ salary is appropriate to spend on an engagement ring?”:
The more traditional seven to nine weeks is winning out over three to five weeks, but just barely. Personally, I think the appropriate number of weeks’ salary is however many weeks the giver can afford and is comfortable with. For some, that might be half a weeks’ salary. For others, it might be ninety-nine weeks’ salary. Twistie has her silver frog. I have two engagement rings, both of which sport semi-precious stones and were purchased via eBay. Most of my momfriends have these ginormous diamond engagement rings that kind of make my eyes glaze over. Different strokes for different folks, right?
But I guess not, since us ladies are apparently losing out on precious carats now that there’s a recession on. Poll comments like “I want a real ring to go along with my real marriage…If you are cheap don’t take champange (sic) to the beer store.” appear to confirm it. You know us women, all thinking math is hard and drooling slack-jawed over shiny bits of carbon. Seriously though, diamonds are definitely pretty, but precious carats? Precious carats? Goodness forbid we have to go through life without enough carats in our engagement rings!
My only consolation is that if the recession gets bad enough, we’ll all be too busy worrying about acquiring, ahem, precious carrots to give a thought to precious carats.
Manolo the Shoeblogger is not Mr. Manolo Blahnik. This website is not affiliated in any way with Mr. Manolo Blahnik, any products bearing the federally registered trademarks MANOLO®, BLAHNIK® or MANOLO BLAHNIK®, or any licensee of said federally registered trademarks. The views expressed on this website are solely those of the author.