{"id":8577,"date":"2010-12-06T00:01:20","date_gmt":"2010-12-06T05:01:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wendybrandes.com\/blog\/?p=8577"},"modified":"2010-12-08T01:16:09","modified_gmt":"2010-12-08T06:16:09","slug":"jewel-of-the-month-heart-shaped-diamond-ring","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wendybrandes.com\/blog\/2010\/12\/jewel-of-the-month-heart-shaped-diamond-ring\/","title":{"rendered":"Jewel of the Month: Heart-Shaped-Diamond Ring"},"content":{"rendered":"

December’s Jewel of the Month had two inspirations. I first blogged about it in October<\/a>, when I mentioned that I was working on a ring that was partly a tribute to this photo of Yoko Ono.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This issue of Rolling Stone came out in October 1981. I was always attracted to the solemnity of this photo: the direct gaze partially veiled by the sunglasses and the black top enlivened, just the tiniest bit, by what appears to me to be a heart-shaped diamond pendant.<\/p>\n

I’ve had mixed feelings about heart-shaped gems because some are cut poorly and look too flat across the top — more triangular than heart-shaped. The same issue arises with bezel settings<\/a> for heart-shaped stones. I generally prefer bezel settings to prong settings, but it’s easier for a jeweler to create a setting that is more triangular than truly heart-shaped. Yoko’s photo made me want to create a bold jewel with a perfectly shaped and perfectly set heart-shaped diamond.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, I wanted to add to my collection of Gravity rings, so called because they’re extra hefty. I designed the original chunky Gravity ring in 2001 for my own wedding because I wanted something that didn’t look like a typical wedding band. (The fact that I wear it on my right hand — it’s too wide to fit on the same finger as my engagement ring — adds to that non-wedding-band effect.) Here’s the original ring.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

The original Gravity ring. Click for more information.<\/p><\/div>\n

While creating a wedding band for my gorgeous friend Jen this year, I went back to that 2001 concept. Jen didn’t have an engagement ring, so her wedding band needed to be an important-looking ring, not some wimpy little thing. Here’s the result:<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/a>

Click for the post on Jen's custom wedding band.<\/p><\/div>\n

You can’t miss it, right?<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"

Jen's ring on her wedding day. You can also glimpse the ring I designed for her husband, Kevin.<\/p><\/div>\n

There are no rings visible in this wedding photo but I had to share it anyway because it’s beautiful.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"

Jen and Kevin smooch.<\/p><\/div>\n

Anyway, after doing Jen’s ring, I started liking the idea of a single, chunky ring for certain customers instead of both an engagement ring and wedding band. As I saw with Jen, a big, modern-looking band makes as much of a statement as an engagement ring does. Other pluses:<\/p>\n