I was just telling someone on Twitter today that my first fiancee broke off our engagement on the minuscule pretext that I ate apples too loudly. I think the real reason was that her brothers had arrived from South Africa to warn her off matching herself up with a no-hoper from NZ, and any excuse was good enough. Ce la vie.
Why do I mention this, because you can get trio sets from Reeds.com. Okay, you say, what are 'trio sets'? Are they string trio players doing a 'set' of popular classics? Not quite, I reply. In fact, all I know is that trio sets have something to do with engagement rings,
A bit more investigation shows that the trio consists of an engagement ring for the fiancee, and a wedding ring each for the bride and groom. Obvious, really. Naturally they come in diamonds. What else?
Now here's a marketing idea. And it would be an encouragement for the young couple to stay together too. Each major wedding anniversary - the silver, gold, ruby, etc - would be commemorated by yet another ring for the bride that fitted the original trio set. If the groom was keen, he could have one too. They probably wouldn't run out of fingers...
Showing posts with label ring. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ring. Show all posts
Friday, March 07, 2014
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Titanium
Is titanium more valuable than gold? Seemingly not, but it's a lot tougher. (If Aaron had made his golden calf of titanium he could have picked it up and run off with it - though probably God would have caught up with him just as quick, if Moses didn't get there first.)
I have a gold wedding ring that's 9-carats. I hadn't ever thought much about what a carat was, but seemingly you can't have more than 24 of them in any piece of gold -24/24 means basically 100% in gold terms. However, 24-carat gold is not much good for wedding rings: by the time your marriage was a few years old, a good deal of the gold would have rubbed off on your ring finger. Gold might seem hard, but it ain't. So even though nine carat gold isn't as valuable as 24 carat, it's a bit more sturdy - not because the gold is better but because the other 15-carats are made up of some other metal. A 9-carat gold ring is actually mostly something other than gold.
Of course you knew all this, even if I didn't until now. So, if you want a wedding ring that's more durable than gold, you can do one of several things: wear a steel one. Not so attractive maybe, and probably a good deal heavier. (I'm guessing here based on some bits of info I skimmed.) Or you can have a 24-carat gold wedding ring that's actually got a bit of titanium in it - 1% is enough to make the gold tougher, and that small percentage of titanium doesn't undermine the 24-carat value of the gold.
The other alternative is for people to wear titanium rings for their wedding bands (see the photo). Titanium rings can be found in all manner of designs, and are non-allergenic. They're durable, dent-resistant, non-corrosive and, most importantly, light weight. My wedding ring, on the other hand, is not so resistant to wear and tear: for many years now it's had a crack around the inside. I tried to see if this could be mended, but apparently it 'wasn't worth it.' So much for my 9-carat feller. However, our marriage has survived nearly 40 years, so I guess the value of the ring is mostly sentimental. If those wearing titanium wedding bands can do as well, more power to them!
I have a gold wedding ring that's 9-carats. I hadn't ever thought much about what a carat was, but seemingly you can't have more than 24 of them in any piece of gold -24/24 means basically 100% in gold terms. However, 24-carat gold is not much good for wedding rings: by the time your marriage was a few years old, a good deal of the gold would have rubbed off on your ring finger. Gold might seem hard, but it ain't. So even though nine carat gold isn't as valuable as 24 carat, it's a bit more sturdy - not because the gold is better but because the other 15-carats are made up of some other metal. A 9-carat gold ring is actually mostly something other than gold.
Of course you knew all this, even if I didn't until now. So, if you want a wedding ring that's more durable than gold, you can do one of several things: wear a steel one. Not so attractive maybe, and probably a good deal heavier. (I'm guessing here based on some bits of info I skimmed.) Or you can have a 24-carat gold wedding ring that's actually got a bit of titanium in it - 1% is enough to make the gold tougher, and that small percentage of titanium doesn't undermine the 24-carat value of the gold.
The other alternative is for people to wear titanium rings for their wedding bands (see the photo). Titanium rings can be found in all manner of designs, and are non-allergenic. They're durable, dent-resistant, non-corrosive and, most importantly, light weight. My wedding ring, on the other hand, is not so resistant to wear and tear: for many years now it's had a crack around the inside. I tried to see if this could be mended, but apparently it 'wasn't worth it.' So much for my 9-carat feller. However, our marriage has survived nearly 40 years, so I guess the value of the ring is mostly sentimental. If those wearing titanium wedding bands can do as well, more power to them!
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Hidden in the recesses of time
Thinking not very deeply about diamond stud earrings, and other such flashy items (like nintendo jewellery) and reflecting a little on a letter to the editor that appeared in today's Otago Daily Times about Prince William's gift of his mother's engagement ring to his wife-to-be. The writer was irate that William was giving Kate a second-hand ring. Surely that's a very recycling thing to do, apart from any sentimental associations?
My wife received a secondhand ring too, when we got engaged. We weren't particularly well off at that stage, and it seemed reasonable enough. One of my daughters subsequently dropped it down a hole in the stairwell wall and that's the last we've seen of it. (I have no idea what my daughter was doing playing with it.)
I didn't give my wife-to-be my mother's engagement ring because I'm not even sure if my mother had one. She was married in wartime, and I suspect engagement rings were regarded as a bit of an extravagance. Apart from that my mother was still alive when I got married, so if she did have an engagement ring, she may not have been keen to part with it.
On the other hand, my grandmother's ring is something I do have - my English grandmother, that is. (Again, I don't know if my New Zealand grandmother even had an engagement ring - she had nine children in due course, which probably would account for any lack of rings in the house.) My English grandmother's ring could easily be recycled too: it looks exactly like a curtain ring. It's perfectly round and thin as can be. How it came to be in my possession is something that I no longer remember - not because I'm losing my marbles but because I don't actually recall ever knowing. Maybe my mother received it at some point, perhaps when my grandmother died. Who knows? Hidden in the recesses of time.
My wife received a secondhand ring too, when we got engaged. We weren't particularly well off at that stage, and it seemed reasonable enough. One of my daughters subsequently dropped it down a hole in the stairwell wall and that's the last we've seen of it. (I have no idea what my daughter was doing playing with it.)I didn't give my wife-to-be my mother's engagement ring because I'm not even sure if my mother had one. She was married in wartime, and I suspect engagement rings were regarded as a bit of an extravagance. Apart from that my mother was still alive when I got married, so if she did have an engagement ring, she may not have been keen to part with it.
On the other hand, my grandmother's ring is something I do have - my English grandmother, that is. (Again, I don't know if my New Zealand grandmother even had an engagement ring - she had nine children in due course, which probably would account for any lack of rings in the house.) My English grandmother's ring could easily be recycled too: it looks exactly like a curtain ring. It's perfectly round and thin as can be. How it came to be in my possession is something that I no longer remember - not because I'm losing my marbles but because I don't actually recall ever knowing. Maybe my mother received it at some point, perhaps when my grandmother died. Who knows? Hidden in the recesses of time.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Diamond Anniversaries
In the last week, the Queen has celebrated her Diamond Wedding Anniversary. It was fairly low key, in some respects. The days of huge pomp and ceremony almost seem to be fading.
My own diamond wedding is still a long way off; in fact, my wife and I are only just over halfway there. (Ours will be in 2034!)
The Queen's Anniversary brought out a number of news stories about other couples who were celebrating their Diamond. Two couples were even invited to the Queen's celebration.
One couple that didn't go, but who were written about were the Welsh pair, Gladys and Norman Mason, who met through their mutual love of music; though with her being a soprano and him a bass player, I don't suppose they found much music they could actually perform together.
Of course the writer of the article had to drag out the usual puns: their relationship was hitting
the right notes and the rather curious sentence: Norman said their love of music had ensured they stayed in tune with. I don't know whether this is a way they write in Wales, but it seems a slightly shortened sentence to me.
Apparently the Masons got married on the cheap, so it's likely there were no diamond rings (especially any that looked like the one in the picture) on the day. But diamond rings don't a Diamond Anniversary make. Love, music and humour did the trick according to this couple.
My own diamond wedding is still a long way off; in fact, my wife and I are only just over halfway there. (Ours will be in 2034!)
The Queen's Anniversary brought out a number of news stories about other couples who were celebrating their Diamond. Two couples were even invited to the Queen's celebration.
One couple that didn't go, but who were written about were the Welsh pair, Gladys and Norman Mason, who met through their mutual love of music; though with her being a soprano and him a bass player, I don't suppose they found much music they could actually perform together.
Of course the writer of the article had to drag out the usual puns: their relationship was hitting
the right notes and the rather curious sentence: Norman said their love of music had ensured they stayed in tune with. I don't know whether this is a way they write in Wales, but it seems a slightly shortened sentence to me.Apparently the Masons got married on the cheap, so it's likely there were no diamond rings (especially any that looked like the one in the picture) on the day. But diamond rings don't a Diamond Anniversary make. Love, music and humour did the trick according to this couple.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Wedding bands (not bans)
When I think of wedding bands, I don’t immediately think of the rings that go round your finger - although obviously that’s an integral part of a wedding - but of the groups that play at weddings. Having been involved in a number of weddings in my long and illustrious career, I know the stresses and joys of playing at weddings.
Of course most wedding bands are groups that actually play at the reception. My experience (thank goodness, say I) has been limited to playing during the wedding service. I’ve played at weddings by myself, with other musicians - both experienced and inexperienced - and with singers. For some reason it’s always a bit of a nightmare: the musicians don’t often get to rehearse when all the other people are rehearsing, and in a number of cases, various musicians who’ve never played together before are called together for the day and expected to sit down and make the best of it.
I don’t know which is worse, playing for a wedding by yourself, where the whole onus of the couple’s future happiness seems to be falling on any dud notes you play, or playing with an ad hoc group who do their best to come in together, to play the same sort of rhythms and in general keep their ears at full pitch in order to achieve something reasonable.
Of course I know that the couple’s happiness doesn’t depend on what the musicians do. If most couples I’ve known are anything to go by, they barely notice the music. The groom is standing nervously for hours (so it seems to him) before the bride arrives, and when she does arrive the last thing his focus is on is the music. The bride has far more important things to worry about, like whether the flower girl will actually make it down the aisle without (a) dropping the flowers, (b) bursting into tears and wailing for her mummy, or (c) deciding that she’s the sole focus of attention and making sure everyone in the church notices her.
So on most occasions the musicians could play what they like and only a few attentive members of the wedding party would pick it up. And as long as the musicians get their little envelope with the amount of cash inside, everyone’s happy.
Of course most wedding bands are groups that actually play at the reception. My experience (thank goodness, say I) has been limited to playing during the wedding service. I’ve played at weddings by myself, with other musicians - both experienced and inexperienced - and with singers. For some reason it’s always a bit of a nightmare: the musicians don’t often get to rehearse when all the other people are rehearsing, and in a number of cases, various musicians who’ve never played together before are called together for the day and expected to sit down and make the best of it.
I don’t know which is worse, playing for a wedding by yourself, where the whole onus of the couple’s future happiness seems to be falling on any dud notes you play, or playing with an ad hoc group who do their best to come in together, to play the same sort of rhythms and in general keep their ears at full pitch in order to achieve something reasonable.
Of course I know that the couple’s happiness doesn’t depend on what the musicians do. If most couples I’ve known are anything to go by, they barely notice the music. The groom is standing nervously for hours (so it seems to him) before the bride arrives, and when she does arrive the last thing his focus is on is the music. The bride has far more important things to worry about, like whether the flower girl will actually make it down the aisle without (a) dropping the flowers, (b) bursting into tears and wailing for her mummy, or (c) deciding that she’s the sole focus of attention and making sure everyone in the church notices her.
So on most occasions the musicians could play what they like and only a few attentive members of the wedding party would pick it up. And as long as the musicians get their little envelope with the amount of cash inside, everyone’s happy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)