While researching, I came across an old New York Times article that made the argument that, generally speaking, it was the older, more sophisticated brides, who chose colored stones, as opposed to diamonds for their engagement ring.  The choice, it was decided, was based on making an “individual” statement (Anne Marie Schiro, 4-13-86).

Over 20 years has passed and now the “hot topic” in today’s wedding market is ecology (the relationship between humans and their environment).  Younger women are learning more about “Conflict Diamonds” and how their choice affects the environment.

Consider this, mining is destructive.  It’s not only punitive for the environment, but also for humans, both in the trade and as a result of the trade.  “Conflict Diamonds” out of Africa fuel civil war spawning human rights abuses and even terrorism .  “Diamonds have..been used by terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda to finance their activities and for money-laundering purposes (globalwitness.com).”

Something else to consider,   Vintage rings are hot this year.  They were hot five years ago, when I married (I have one) and their filigree is unmatched, in my opinion.  Going vintage can be your “something old;” it can be an heirloom or just your excuse to lighten the load on your environment.

Jennifer Howze of the Wall Street Journal Free Edition wrote that, “.. 93% of all engagement rings bought annually in the U.S. are diamond-only rings, according to DeBeers, and in the U.K., only 3% of engagement rings don’t contain diamonds” (5-18-07). 

I can not claim to be a proponent for the gemstone engagement ring, but this argument wouldn’t be complete without disclosing that style icons, such as Jacquelyn Bouvier Kennedy and Princess Diana received mixed gemstone engagement rings, that I am certain were lovely – add to that idea, recycled or heirloom diamonds and you’ve made an “individual statement” leaving your eco-conscious footprint.