Within the past 5-10 years, many jewelry stores and manufacturers have targeted women in their advertising by featuring beautifully-detailed, stand-alone “right-hand rings” of higher quality than the usual “cocktail rings” seen for occasional right-hand evening wear in the past. The idea was to acknowledge that whether married or single, women are now of sufficient financial “liberation” that they can afford to gift themselves with a knockout ring of sufficient quality to stand up to a lifetime of everyday wear.
At the same time, with the added attention that’s been given to "retro" fashion in general in recent years (always somehow attributed to Sarah Jessica Parker–so I thought I’d just mention her and get it over with), there’s also been an upswing in brides selecting “estate” wedding rings, in styles from Art Deco and ranging through the 1940’s–and giving them a second trip down the aisle. At first, it was just brides lucky enough that a lovely and unique estate ring was available within the groom’s family–or even hers–at the right time. But as each generation falls away, more and more of these rings are finding themselves re-polished , re-plated and sparkling again in antique and estate-jewelry shops, making them more available to others. Many came from a time when wedding sets were not yet in fashion; some had probably been worn alongside plain bands; and some had perhaps been long-separated from their bands. Although these rings are not necessarily inexpensive, with the current popularity of platinum, these beautiful-crafted, unique rings are still offering a more-affordable way to wear that expensive metal well. The idea has gained sufficient momentum that today, there are modern jewelry shops offering brand-new “retro” rings–with or without a separate coordinating band.
Another of the jewelry industries’ ad campaigns–for the 3-stone, “Past, Present and Future” rings, often featuring quite sizeable diamonds and targeted as a higher-end “anniversary” ring for affluent couples celebrating milestone anniversaries, is also being seen as an engagement ring–sometimes paired with a plain band at the wedding ceremony, but also used all by itself to segue into the role of single wedding ring.
With all of these single-ring options being so openly “on the table” for today’s bride, I’ve noticed a mini-trend: a number of brides are falling in love with a single ring instead of a wedding set , and are choosing not to detract from it by adding a wedding band: the rings they show off happily upon announcing their engagement are going solo up the aisle on the ringbearer’s pillow, and are doing double-duty by transitioning from engagement ring to wedding ring with the words “I do.”
This isn’t a “fad,” which is initiated by copying someone else; and it’s probably even a bit less than even a trend . But it IS a telling sign: brides are doing some thinking outside the (jewelry) box of the tiresome inter-bridal competition of putting such great importance on the size of the ring’s focal stone (don’t deny it; there will be some who look at your ring only to compare it to their own); of finding a way of honoring beauty (or sentiment) from the past; and best all, of taking advantage of these additional choices to go whichever way suits them best, personally. More choices is always better.
So if your great-grandmother’s ring has been kicking around in the bottom of your mother’s jewelry box since you were 10, and you just remember it as looking “old” and hopelessly out of style, take another look. Now that you’re grown up, visualize it polished up and sparkling like new–and you may find that the expanding window of fashion may now allow you view it as just exactly what you’d like. (And think how happy that would make the "bride" who wore it before!)
