I think no matter what you are into, it speaks of an era- either the metal colour, the setting, the shape, or how it is paired with other band/bands. So anything is a trend that could potentially be in or out.

I think there is a happy medium between solitaires and side stones. I don't like the plainness of a solitaire- but I hate the messiness of a bunch of tiny diamonds in a setting. Just a personal opinion I would never openly state in person.

I got an emerald cut solitaire flawless diamond set in platinum 23 years ago. I feel it’s timeless. I have a plain platinum wedding band because I always lifted weights/worked out and I can wear it alone at the gym.

I love my halo ring ( got married 10 years ago). But like another poster, so glad my husband didn’t spend 10k on an engagement ring. I legit knew a couple where the guy wouldn’t propose until he could buy a 15k engagement ring. I’d rather have the husband and the marriage than wait for a ring that expensive.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know, I love my rose gold, halo ring, and got tons of compliments on it when we actually went places. To each their own.

I love rose gold too. It was pretty common in antique gold. I love my antique jewelry.

I love my engagement ring, which is a family ring in an art deco setting.

I think the rose gold comments are funny. I hadn't thought about it, but the two women I know from work who've gotten engaged in the past year both have a solitaire on a rose gold band. I think it's pretty but, yeah, probably will date the ring to this era.

Anonymous wrote:Engagement rings are a trend. And they are the worst.

Except that they have been around so long it is a mainstay, not a trend.

I’ve told this story many times, so telling it here will put me to certain people. But it’s too on topic not to share:

Back when I was still single, I went to a friend’s bachelorette. Most of the women there were married or engaged, except me and one other friend. We were all late 20s.

Midway through the night we were sitting around a table waiting for drinks, and one of the other women was admiring the bride’s ring. So then a different woman said “Oooh, let’s all put our rings in a circle so we can compare!” And then they did. I’ll never forget the way all those diamonds looked on their dumb fingers, shoving them in each other’s faces. And I’m also never forget the look on the bride’s face when it happened. You could tell she was horrified.

It was extremely gross. I didn’t have a formal engagement but when my husband and I picked out wedding bands, I was torn between two narrow gold bands that together cost the same as his band. So we bought both. I love them and they don’t impress anyone and that shouldn’t be the point of wedding rings as far as I’m concerned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I'm looking at a catalog: halo, pave, all-platinum-everything, and I super-hate the additional matching wedding band that frames or locks around the engagement solitaire like a puzzle piece to embiggen the whole setup. Anything that lends toward trying to make the ring look bigger or shinier than it actually is jumps out at me as try-hard.

But I am an anti-engagement ring person so I have no ring to offer for comparison. In reality, if you like it I love it. If it makes the person wearing it happy who tf cares what I think?

This x 1 million.

Also the specific diamond shapes people choose to try to make the ring look bigger (marquis, oval, pear). Those shapes can be really pretty but it's deeply tacky when the main goal is to make the diamond look huge.

What's it to you? I have a nice solitaire that I wear, no other ring as my wedding ring fell off in the ocean. So, I don't meet your definition of a try-hard. But, better to be that than a judgmental bitch.

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone remember when the "floating" stones were popular? And insurers refused to insure them because they would pop out?

Oh I used to want one of those so badly.

I actually still wear my engagement ring, because it's not a diamond ring. It's sapphire, which I love, so I wear it because it's pretty. Otherwise, I'd just wear my wedding band.

I love my rings, because the stones were a gift from a family member and have a wonderful story behind them. We had our rings hand made by an artist who was able to use the gold from the setting the diamonds were in and create matching rings for my husband and I that are unique and perfect for us.

If the diamonds hadn’t been heirlooms we would have gotten a different stone - there are so many beautiful options and no reason to contribute to the diamond trade.

I can't believe I forgot about heart shaped diamonds. Like how are those a thing??

Does anyone remember when the "floating" stones were popular? And insurers refused to insure them because they would pop out?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure it's a "trend" but I hate when someone has 4 tiny stones pushed together to make it look like one big stone.

Ugh, yes. Zales or Jared or whatever just suckered you into taking their teensy trash diamonds off their hands and making you think you got a "big" engagement ring. It's visually just ugly to boot.

Aw, my husband got me a ring like that when we got engaged a decade ago. We just thought it was pretty - we weren't trying to pretend it was a bigger ring than it was! I actually thought the ring was too big even like that.

Anonymous wrote:Not sure it's a "trend" but I hate when someone has 4 tiny stones pushed together to make it look like one big stone.

It is a trend. It’s been around for about a hundred years and was made up by clever advertising folks at DeBeers. It doesn’t mean what you think it means. And personally, when I see a large one I think the DH must be inadequate. It’s like dudes who drive flashy cars are lame AF as people in general. And I like cars, just not douchey ones.