November 30, 2005

Do you buy Christmas presents for yourself?

I'd heard some women do that. (Maybe men do it too.) Now, advertisers are openly encouraging the behavior with copy like this:
"Because I've been an exceptionally good girl, I deserve sweet nothings from Dolce & Gabbana Intimates to make my husband forget he's an accountant... and a tartine from SnAKS to fuel my shopping spree, a dress that's the height of chic from Elie Tahari and some flat boots from Jimmy Choo to keep me grounded, anything Marni and something Versace and divine peau de soie pumps from Roger Vivier that I can't get anywhere else."
That might seem laughably over-the-top, but it's beautifully written to reach out and grab a woman's deep longing. It's a nice touch that the ad-character has a husband, but he's such a nonentity -- an accountant! -- that women with no men (to buy them presents) can fully identify.

And have you heard of the Right-Hand Ring campaign?
The marketing campaign has successfully appealed to women with female-empowerment pitches like: "Your left hand says you're taken. Your right hand says you can take over."
Buy yourself a diamond ring. (I Freudian-slip-typed "diamond wring.") How do you palm that off as not pathetic? Well, have you seen the ads? They're mesmerizing.

65 comments:

SippicanCottage said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pastor_Jeff said...

"Women of the world are celebrating the Diamond Right Hand Ring!"

Yes, especially in Germany, Norway, Chile and Eastern Europe.

And what is up with the glowing ring on that Diamond is Forever site? Is that what unnaturally lengthened her forearm and turned it purple? Is a glowing ring really worth radioactive skin burn damage and osteoarthritis?

Bruce Hayden said...

I can see this pitch working with a lot of women. But for me, it seems supremely self-centered.

But this seems little different from the idea that some women (in particular) need to go out and pamper themselves. That has always seemed so self-indulgent. And what is it in a woman's life that makes her so much more deserving of that?

I am somewhat struck by the image of the accountant going away every day to an extremely dull job to support his family, while the woman is sitting at home indulging herself for having married someone so dull, when it is precisely his dedication to his family and his job that allows her to do that in the first place.

Pastor_Jeff said...

About 12 years ago at Christmas, we were opening presents when my brother-in-law came to a package for him "from the one who loves you most." He opened it up to reveal a very expensive and handsome sweater. However, neither his wife nor anyone else in the family would admit to having given it. My brother-in-law then proudly announced he had given it to himself.

It's now a family joke: "From the one who loves you most."

Meade said...

And then there's the ad: "Your left hand says We. Your right hand says Me."

Feminism. Narcissism.

Ann Althouse said...

Meade: It's just stupid advertiser's feminism, like "You've come a long way, baby" for cigarettes. It has little to do with real feminists. Frankly, if you're out in the world doing things for yourself, you don't want a ring on your right hand, if you're right-handed. The whole point of wearing a ring on your left hand is that you're not using that hand as much. It's backwards for the independent woman to want a ring on her right hand. (Unless she's left-handed.)

Mark the Pundit said...

So this begs the question: what is Althouse buying herself!?

dick said...

Would you even really want to know a woman who believes in this ad campaign?

paulfrommpls said...

No. Although if I did it might well be a Lynyrd Skynyrd boxed set, since "Sweet Home Alabama" is one of the greatest songs (super-popular category) ever.

DaveG said...

Hmm, being a sort-of engineer, I'm left wondering how a right hand ring differs physically from a left hand ring.

I mean, is this really a new product?? Nope, just another cynical play by the diamond consortium to push more useless rocks to gullible or emotionally insecure customers.

Ok, ok. I'll say it and save you the effort: Bah humbug.

Troy said...

Just what America needs more "looking in the mirror" and self-aggrandizement. Too bad the present for "self" is not a bag of toys for Toys for Tots.

amba said...

The whole idea of marrying yourself, and of pampering yourself, appeals to women as a fantasy antidote to their traditional service, put-others-first role. Granted that excessive feminism and narcissism are a yucky swing to the other extreme -- still, all you guys sound like scolds trying to put a woman back in her virtuous self-effacing place, the extreme of which can still be seen in traditional cultures where women do not even eat until the men and male children have had their fill and the dishes are washed.

Sure, our consumer culture has overvalued self-indulgence and we need to revalue the sense of service and dedication to others inherent in both traditional roles (as you good providers also stress). But pampering yourself is a forlron Oprah antidote to the sometimes unrelieved servanthood of housewifery; and marrying yourself can seem like a prudent move when you may get dumped at menopause.

amba said...

That's "forlorn."

jeff said...

Feminism, or the desperate attempt by the diamond monopoly to expand their market?

My wife's wedding set is diamonds - but those are probably the last diamonds I'll ever buy. I prefer colorful stones myself.

amba said...

Where I'm coming from: my disabled husband has an enormous sense of entitlement to my time, attention, and care. I'm glad he does, because it would be much harder to take care of someone who was compulsively independent and in a rage at being helpless (which is how I would, or will, be). But in this I also see that he has regressed to the time when he was a small child from a wealthy family and had his own personal, female servant whose job it was to take care of him. (After that, he was arrested by the Red Army and thrown into a Soviet slave labor camp. His entire life and character has been composed of such extremes.) I often feel like a servant, and I recognize that this is a central part of the timeless female experience. It's one of the reasons why the women in traditional cultures go to church so much more than the men do -- Christianity, at least, consoles by ennobling service as a spiritual path.

Dave said...

I buy presents for myself all the time.

Next on the list: an XBOX 360.

As long as I pay my taxes and don't kill or maim anyone I don't see the harm in being self-absorbed. Note that just because one buys a gift for one's self does not mean one doesn't buy gifts for others.

In the broad spectrum of things, buying gifts for one's self seems rather harmless.

tcd said...

Yes, I hated that diamond right hand ring ad campaign since it came out about 2 years ago. It's descpicable on sooo many levels. One, a diamond ring is supposed to represent your husband's eternal love and commitment to you. Two, a diamond ring is not empowering to women. If you want to empower women, encourage them to invest their money and save for their retirement. Do not encourage them to go into debt by wasting their hard-earned dollars on some frivolous, over-priced piece of jewelry that will give them no return on their investment. Ugh, I hate Madison Avenue people!

Lou Minatti said...

I honestly don't. I'd rather buy stuff for my kids. Even if I had the bucks for an Xbox 360 I don't think I'd buy it except for them, then mooch off it when they're asleep.

Pre-kids? Darn right I would.

katiebakes said...

For the past five or so years, I have bought myself the Valentine's Day present of a nice spa treatment.

(Purchased, I guess, by the one who loves me most!)

Mark the Pundit said...

Jeff,

You can always buy pink diamonds for the wife!

DaveG said...

I wanted to buy an Xbox 360 for my 86 year old mother-in-law. She always re-gifts back to us anyway, so....

Of course, my nefarious scheme was derailed by the evil Bill Gates, who apparently only made 50 of the darn things.

More or less back on topic, I recently offered my wife an upgrade to the relatively small engagement ring I was able to afford way back when. She was having none of it. Her reason: the one she has reminds her of the early days of our relationship when we had to watch every penny. The ring's worth to her isn't the size of the rock, it's the sacrifice that went into buying it.

Well, maybe that's not back on topic after all. Never mind.

Slocum said...

Yes, I hated that diamond right hand ring ad campaign since it came out about 2 years ago. It's descpicable on sooo many levels. One, a diamond ring is supposed to represent your husband's eternal love and commitment to you.

It seems the new campaign is offensive, but the old one is so internalized nobody notices. Boy, I hate the 'diamond ring represents a husband's eternal love'...

It seems clear the actual symbolism of the 'the rock' is this...look everyone -- my man has a big wallet and he's willing to spends what's in it on me, me, me so I can wear it as an outward, visible sign of his wealth and inner willingness to fork it over. Gack, gack, gack. Did I already say, gack? I really love the part where the jewelers helpfully suggest a recommended number of months of salary a man should spend on his fiance's ring ;)

Along with diamond commercials, I also get a gag reflex from the Lexus commercials showing the hubby buying his wife a new SUV with a big red bow.

david bennett said...

Bruce Hayden:

I think it a bit questionable to assume the accountant is financing the woman's splurge money.

I suppose there is a bit of typical contradiction in the woman allegedly choosing stability, then deciding it's also wimply, and that wimpy can be reformed by naughty clothes, but...

I'm not sure if accounting is "dull."

And yes the motto being marketed probably mostly to women that, "you deserve it" is a bit worrisome, but I can look at all the male toys and know they're a big part of the negative savings rate we achieved last summer.

This is just a new play on a well established theme.

I do at times became fascinated by a general aspect of popular culture in the last few decades. Once things were more proper and made the pretense of being an effort at finer things. Thus Ms. Manners would insist a gift is something that you chose because you felt it was somehow true to the other. There was an appeal to something higher in the etequette, but greed and all the things we show more blatantly nowadays were always a big part of the equation.

There does seem to be a greater baring of emotions and behaviors once disguised. Whether this "honesty" (I think in some ways it is, some ways it isn't) will lead to an evolution to "higher" feelings or whether acting out the "better" feelings is the best way to develop them I have no idea.

The result is pretty wild with all kinds of contradictions. For example in gift giving proper people know cash isn't quite right, but increasingly accept gift cards.

tiggeril said...

If I had the money to do so, hell yes, I'd buy myself a diamond ring. I'm not waiting around for some guy to shower me with gifts.

I don't celebrate Christmas, though, so maybe that's different.

tcd said...

Slocum,
You must lead a pathetic lonely life or else your wife is a blind homely woman. Whatever.
Yes, I love the big rock my husband gave me but I also love him more.

AJ Lynch said...

Yeah I buy myself Xmas gifts all the time. In fact, most of the gifts I give are stuff I like - am not that vested in whether the recipient likes it- though that is a byproduct sometimes.

Re the diamond- it was fun to shop for my first wife.

Undercover Christian said...

I guess I don't understand the expensive shiny rocks thing in general. I can't imagine paying thousands of dollars for a shiny rock, even a really really shiny one.

I'm a fan of my plain, gold band.

As for buying myself Christmas gifts: absolutely! Usually around Christmas my husband and I each make a large purchase and then tell the other, "Look what you got me for Christmas--thank you!" (Our meaningful gifts to each other are always cards with our thoughts written inside.)

Buck Pennington said...

Do I buy myself presents? Hell, yeah! If I didn't, who would? :-)

I'm getting a new PC for Christmas, but only because I know the laptop is dying...

Scipio said...

Orthodox Christians wear their wedding rings on their right hands already. Blatant Western-Euro centrism, this.

pr9000 (paul) said...

but slocum is onto something, at least in the circles i'm in. the ring IS a sign of all that, and then some.

i'm sure love isn't excluded, but the bling-bling veblen-esque "look at what my man can buy!" aspect is impossible to deny.

tefta said...

I wouldn't have thought that today's career woman who can afford to by herself expensive jewelry would have tastes that run to the vulgar and ostentatious. The rings in the ad look like something that would appeal to the little girls who want a Barbie at Tiffany's for Christmas.

Is understated elegance out?

bearbee said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
bearbee said...

WorldVision

tefta said...

I mean "buy" herself, although it might be a Freudian slip, since the poor thing is also "by" herself.

tiggeril said...

Eh. What's elegant and understated to some is dreadfully boring to me. I prefer ostentatious and vulgar Indian jewelry to the yawn-inducing and overpriced stuff from Tiffany's.

It's all subjective, after all. Including the snobbery.

Slocum said...

Slocum,
You must lead a pathetic lonely life or else your wife is a blind homely woman. Whatever.
Yes, I love the big rock my husband gave me but I also love him more.


Uh, no, I have a lovely wife who I married absurdly young (by modern standards) and we are now pushing 25 years. As for rings, she and I both wear plain gold bands, and what money we spend on luxuries, we spend together on non-symbolic things like nice vacations and our cottage on the river. It is great to be married to a woman who does not (even subconsciously) think of gifts as displays of devotion, and I appreciate it. (The Lexus commercials make her gag also, BTW)

dick said...

I keep thinking of my dad when he told me that the thing that really made him appreciate my mother was that she was the only girl he ever went out with who was interested in him and not what he could buy her or take her to. They were married very happily for almost 40 years until my mother died. He would never think of marrying anyone else after that. I agree with Slocum on this totally.

knoxgirl said...

I think a lot of people buy as many gifts for themselves as they do others when they go Christmas shopping. All those runs on discounted plasma-screen tvs at Wal-Mart? People are buying that stuff for themselves.

The right-hand ring campaign is kinda gross, but it was a brilliant idea, and I bet they've sold a ton of em. I don't really think there's anything wrong with a woman buying jewelry for herself.... If she can afford it, more power to her!

(Tiffany actually has some really cool stuff, not that *I* could ever afford it...)

Meade said...

Some great comments here, especially david bennett's:

I think it a bit questionable to assume the accountant is financing the woman's splurge money.

Questionable indeed. Some would even, perhaps impolitely, describe the attitude behind that assumption as "sexist."

I would.

tefta's Freudian spelling slip gets to the heart of the issue:

I mean "buy" herself... [but] the poor thing is also "by" herself.

Helen Gurley Brown, recently mused and waxed nostalgic over her magazine, Cosmopolitan: "The message was: So you're single. You can still have sex. You can have a great life. And if you marry, don't just sponge off a man or be the gold-medal-winning mother. Don't use men to get what you want in life - - get it for yourself."

But in 2005, it's the CosmoGirl School of Feminism conundrum: Yes, woman, you can have an exciting career, money, power, exciting travel experiences and multiple orgasms. You can even look good doing these things. After all, you have the means to receive diamond rings from the person who loves you the most - yourself (thanks, Pastor Jeff). But can you truly, after all, "have it all?"

Turns out none of us, neither men nor women, can have it all. I doubt either of Dick's parents had it all. Apparently, though, they had something many of the rest of us wish for and it's nothing any stupid advertisers can sell us.

HaloJonesFan said...

Slocum:
>As for rings, she and I both wear
>plain gold bands...

Why? What's so special about shiny yellow metal?

Bruce Hayden said...

Ok, maybe my comments did sound a little sexist. I went and reread the article and it doesn't sound any better. The pertinent quote is:

"Because I've been an exceptionally good girl, I deserve sweet nothings from Dolce & Gabbana Intimates to make my husband forget he's an accountant," one newspaper ad proclaims, adding, "and a tartine from SnAKS to fuel my shopping spree, a dress that's the height of chic from Elie Tahari and some flat boots from Jimmy Choo to keep me grounded, anything Marni and something Versace and divine peau de soie pumps from Roger Vivier that I can't get anywhere else."

There was no indication there that the woman earned the money herself, and making her husband forget that he is an accountant could be read as her trying to make his life better - which is maybe where I got the idea that she thought that accounting is boring (I should add that I am probably reading my own experiences into it too - I had enough accounting to sit for the CPA exam, but changed directions because I found the field extremely boring).

My big problem with the whole thing though is the idea that since she has been a good girl, she should reward herself with a bunch of Christmas presents.

But, to me, that negates the whole idea of Christmas giving. The idea for me is the giving, and not the receiving. Here, the emphasis is on the receiving, and if no one is going to give her what she thinks she deserves, she is going to give it to herself.

But that is just the opposite of the idea, at least in my view, of Christmas giving. And, maybe that is my problem, and not hers. But back in my childhood, I routinely would get upset because I didn't get what I wanted for Christmas (my mother would instead give us what she thought we needed). And then one year, some 30 years ago, I woke up and realized that it was much better to give than to receive. And so, since then, I have gained a lot more joy from the appreciation of those to whom I have given, than what is given me.

tcd said...

Slocum,

Good for you that your wife is not materialistic, but then neither am I. A cottage by the river? How did you pay for that? With seashells or with money? What you spend your money on may be different from what my husband spends his money on. It doesn't make you a better person than he nor your wife a better wife than me. But thanks for the judgmental, holier than thou posts though. Good luck on the next 25 years in your oh so virtuous partnership.

Undercover Christian said...

tcd's post

Ouch. Remember the old quote about protesting too much. . .

amba said...

Bruce Hayden --

"Because I've been an exceptionally good girl, I deserve sweet nothings from Dolce & Gabbana Intimates to make my husband forget he's an accountant . . . "

That wasn't a real woman talking. It was written by an ad copywriter! Have you ever seen a character in an ad who was anything like anyone you'd ever met walking around?

Meade said...

I have, amba. I think you and I are both old enough to remember, "Mother... PLEASE! I'd rather do it mySELF!"

vbspurs said...

Do you buy Christmas presents for yourself?

Yes. But I don't wrap them!

One is sad. The other, pathetic.

Cheers,
Victoria

vbspurs said...

Why? What's so special about shiny yellow metal?

It stands for something. It's symbolic of something of deeper meaning and import.

You know -- like a kiss.

Cheers,
Victoria

vbspurs said...

But, to me, that negates the whole idea of Christmas giving. The idea for me is the giving, and not the receiving. Here, the emphasis is on the receiving, and if no one is going to give her what she thinks she deserves, she is going to give it to herself.

Nice exposition, Bruce.

For a moment, I thought you were a sexist jerk. Now, I see Kerry-like nuances to what you meant.

Cheers,
Victoria

vbspurs said...

And what is up with the glowing ring on that Diamond is Forever site?

This is all very well, Pastor_Jeff. But I can outdo everyone in the pathetic Christmas stakes.

Does anyone else have the "Diamond's are Forever" De Beers theme by Karl Jenkins on mp3...like I do?

I thought not. *scurries away*

Cheers,
Victoria

Slocum said...

Good for you that your wife is not materialistic, but then neither am I. A cottage by the river? How did you pay for that? With seashells or with money? What you spend your money on may be different from what my husband spends his money on. It doesn't make you a better person than he nor your wife a better wife than me. But thanks for the judgmental, holier than thou posts though. Good luck on the next 25 years in your oh so virtuous partnership.

Pffft. You suggest that either I'm pathetic & loney or my wife is blind & ugly and then get offended? Please.

The distinction is that a diamond ring (the bigger the rock the better) calibrated to some number of months of a man's salary is inherently a display of wealth and status, and the pleasure newly engaged women have in displaying their 'big rocks' has a lot to do with, "See, look, I got me a man with a wallet this big who's this stuck on me". If it were only pleasure in being loved & betrothed, then any ring (being a symbol) would be as wonderful an any other. But, of course, that is plainly not the case.

I'm not suggesting my wife and I lack money, BTW, or don't enjoy spending it. I'm saying I appreciate that my wife is not interested in presents as tests of my financial means & devotion and that serve as visible advertisements to others -- and a 'big rock' engagement ring is THE quintissential example of that.

Given how often new, young married couples have trouble with money, this is a really bad way to start off -- with the idea that a man shows his love for his wife by stretching to spend money on bling for her to show off.

While you're at it, ask me how I feel about the tradition of 'giving' the bride away. At my daughter's wedding they'd better not ask me "who gives this woman in marriage", because my answer could only be, "she is a person, not a possession and she gives herself as her husband does". Some traditions deserved to die.

HaloJonesFan said...

>[A gold ring] stands for
>something. It's symbolic of
>something of deeper meaning and
>import.

But Slocum claims that diamonds aren't symbolic; why should he think of gold as anything different? Is it just because gold's less expensive? Yeah, there's a great symbol! "Honey, as a symbol of our love, I'm buying something that's not expensive."

Undercover Christian said...

But Slocum claims that diamonds aren't symbolic; why should he think of gold as anything different?

The ring is symbolic. Gold is just the metal it's made out of so that it won't turn your skin green. Plus the gold makes it identifiable as a wedding band, and, unlike a diamond, is relatively inexpensive.

tcd said...

Slocum,
So your objection to diamond engagement rings is that they are a visbile sign of someone's wealth. And your cottage by the river is not a sign of your wealth? Is it an invisible cottage? Can your neighbors not see or know how much you spent on it? Did you not enjoy telling everyone here that you own a cottage by the river? How is your spending money on a cottage more virtuous than my husband spending money on a diamond ring for me? I don't get your point at all. Then again I don't understand how to live one's life with such self-righteousness.

Undercover Christian said...

tcd, I think the point is that something like a cottage has use beyond a display of wealth and status while a diamond generally does not. (Though I suppose if one needed to cut something very hard, a diamond would be a great help.)

tcd said...

Oh so it's a utilitarian argument now? Well, diamonds are shiny, beautiful things and beautiful things make me smile. How's that?

dick said...

Meade,

Thanks for the comment on my parents. You are so right. They did have enough of what it took to make a true gift for each other and that gift was respect and love. Talk about a gift that keeps on giving!! I only wish I could have found it for myself. Came close but it didn't last.

I think at this time of year about that O. Henry story "The Gift of the Magi." Do they still teach that one? I would love to hear the commentary on that story from some of the people who think they deserve it all. I guess maybe they are trying to compensate for what is lacking otherwise?? Maybe??

Slocum said...

So your objection to diamond engagement rings is that they are a visbile sign of someone's wealth. And your cottage by the river is not a sign of your wealth? Is it an invisible cottage? Can your neighbors not see or know how much you spent on it?

No, it is not -- friends and neighbors here cannot see it, not because it's invisible but because it's not nearby. Casual acquaintances don't know we have one. And just knowing about a said cottage doesn't tell you if it's a little, falling-down shack or new 4,000 sq foot McMansion being quaintly referred to as a 'cottage'. Nor do you know that now. People with widely varying incomes around here have cottages in one form or another--knowing someboy has a cottage of some kind doesn't tell you much of anything about figures on their pay-stub.

Did you not enjoy telling everyone here that you own a cottage by the river? How is your spending money on a cottage more virtuous than my husband spending money on a diamond ring for me? I don't get your point at all.

Sigh -- the point was simply that my wife and I aren't the sort of people who've taken vows of poverty. We're not anti-materialists.

But I see you don't get my point. I'm afraid, though, that I can't think of any way to explain it again differently.

Then again I don't understand how to live one's life with such self-righteousness.

Thinking that the tradition of expressing love through costly and conspicuous displays of bling is a bad one and saying so -- that makes me self-rightous?

Look at your assumptions -- your first response was that either:

A) I must be a pathetic loser unable to attract a woman or afford the bling to keep her happy, or

B) My wife was so ugly that she was not 'bling-worthy' anyway.

The implication is that you think the size of the rock should be scaled not only to the husband's means but the wife's beauty. And you're really puzzled why somebody wouldn't think this is not one of humankind's finest traditions?

knoxgirl said...

dang was there something about the Iraq in this post because there are some ANGRY comments

Undercover Christian said...

I have a question: If the point of buying diamonds is that they are beautiful, why doesn't everyone buy cubic zirconia, moissanite, or white sapphires instead? (These look the same as diamonds, but they cost less.)

Be said...

Knoxgirl: I have to agree with you here. Maybe this is why Virgina Postrel mentioned at a talk on Substance of Style once that it's not good policy to judge others' choices based on our own sets of (aesthetic) values.

That said, the magpie in me loves bright and shiny things(particularly that bright yellow gold from Southeast Asia). Have bought myself jewelry for major milestones (graduating college, 30th birthday). However - don't see myself falling for that deBeers line and would never expect my boyfriend to buy me a rock as proof of his love.

tcd said...

Slocum,

You may not be anti-materialist, but you like to criticize other people's brand of materialism. And I'm not the only one making assumptions here. You say that diamond engagement rings are "costly and conspicuous displays of bling." So what is the implication in that statement regarding couples who choose a diamond ring as a symbol of their union? Are our unions somehow less worthy or geniune than couples like you and your wife who exchange "plain gold bands"? What is the implication other than that your spartan gold bands bespeak the truth of your union and that my diamond ring is merely evidence of conspicuous consumption?

Be,
You (and Virginia Postrel) are absolutely correct. And no, the size of the diamond is not proof of his love.

Be said...

Should mention that I really like cottages on the water, too. The 'camp' I visit every year's a built-by-hand one with no plumbing or electricity. Contrasts pretty starkly with the MacCottages that have cropped up in the neighborhood. The fear is that we'll not be able to afford the taxes on it anymore, what with the way property values have been skyrocketing.

Steven said...

Well, er, um, the reason to go with diamond instead of white sapphire is . . . . diamonds are fractionally harder, a Mohs 10 instead of a 9? I mean, as a practical matter, there is no difference in wear resistance, but it is a slight advantage to diamond.

Certainly, as a symbol of eternity, the thermodynamically stable crystals of aluminum oxide are a better choice than metastable tetrahedral carbon, which will eventually decay into graphite. But as a practical matter, diamond won't significantly decay on human timescales.

Goddess said...

Diamonds were used orginally so a woman could know what kind of life she was going to live. Big rock - cushy life- no rock, not so cushy. It was bought and paid for way before the wedding.

What is wrong with buying diamonds? If you and your wife did not wish them, that is great, but if someone else does, so be it.

Ads are ads... they are silly all the time.

As for me, I want a diamond. It could be the smallest diamond on the face of the planet, as long as it is the best diamond that he could afford. If you are going to buy one, dont buy that carat for 1,000 bucks. It isnt worth the money you spent on it. Instead, get something smaller, that is worth the investment that you have made in buying such jewelry.

exFinancier said...

Women of the world are celebrating the Diamond Right Hand Ring!"