Monday, September 13, 2004

Of Russian diamonds

My sister's 21st birthday is coming up next month, and I still haven't gotten her a present yet. Since it's her 21st, I feel I must get something more lasting and more "dai-fong" as my mother would put it, rather than the usual clothes/accessories genre. Unfortunately, something lasting also translates into something more expensive.

I have recently acquired some knowledge on how to look at diamonds, thanks to an eager-beaver friend who made it his business to find out about the ENTIRE diamond industry when he was out shopping for an engagement ring. He now can tell me that the price of diamonds has gone up, and is the proud owner of a special tweezer to hold stones, magnifying glass and one of those pink thingies jewellers look through to determine the cut and clarity of the diamond. He practises looking for flaws in diamonds by shading his lamp with tissue paper and peering through the glass at a loose cubic zirconia. I think he would make a very good gemologist.

Anyway, because some of this new knowledge that has been imparted to me, I have been looking around town off and on for something for my sister. Diamonds are very expensive lor. Yesterday I looked at the Goldheart display and saw a teeny-weeny diamond dust ring for $700. I could barely see the diamonds in that ring, might as well not wear lah!

Then, when I was wandering around Isetan Scotts, I discovered another kind of diamond. Russian diamonds i.e. look and sparkle like diamond kind. Fwah they were very big and super sparkle-sparkly. But somehow, I think they still look a little fake, maybe because of the cheap setting. Or maybe the colour isn't so good. "Quite yellow", my mother knowledgeably intoned. But I did see a loose pink diamond solitaire of about 2 carats that looked quite good. "Eh, quite real leh", my mother said. And it only costs about $200. With another $100 to set it into a ring, maybe I have found my sister's birthday present after all, hehe.

6 comments:

Unknown said...

Cliched, but the nicest presents aren't necessarily money-able... some thoughts:
a. a pop-up book of photos of both of you!
b. teddy bear.. I can send u the links if you want..

littlecartnoodles said...

Re engagement rings : is it true that the rule of thumb is that it must cost at least 3 months' salary of the guy ?

I've a friend who quotes that rule as if it's a natural law of physics. How preposterous ! Which skank started it ? Why 3 months and not 1 or 2 or 12 ?

Unknown said...

brudder, the 3-month rule is a nasty woman-trick.. the sooner you disbelieve it the better!

it's actually a 2-month "best practices guideline" that originated from the states, but that's unfair cause diamonds cost the same (in real dollar terms) here and there, and they earn what we earn in USD.. so it's much easier for them to spend USD7k than for us to spend S$12k..

littlecartnoodles said...

Ain't that the truth, bro !

I've been asking ladies not to spread that venomous notion around. Otherwise, I'll have to understate my income when my time comes to buy a rock ...

Unknown said...

hahah... under-declaring is futile.. women have a way of sussing out how much you earn and are worth.. :o)

JellyGirl said...

Woof!: Thanks for the suggestions :) My sister isn't much of a teddy bear person, but I think the photos idea is quite good.

CZM: 3 month rule? This is news to me. Actually I have to admit I had nooo idea how much diamond solitaires cost until I followed my friend diamond-shopping. I very suaku.

Anyway, I think having such a big rock is not that big a deal, I would rather my (future) man save the money for the wedding, or spend it on something else...for me. hehe.