Do the English, Europeans and Scandinavians find bling vulgar?

[bunnymother]

Here's a nice, tasteful question for you...

I saw the other thread asking about the value of people's wedding, engagement and eternity rings, and it got me thinking that quite often I notice big diamonds on American and, to a lesser extent, Australian women, but not so much on English, European and Scandinavian women. The people I am thinking of are all high earners (or married to), so its not to do with money. I am assuming its to do with taste/preference?

I think your right i was also in Dallas for a while and can confirm that diamonds are like everything else in Texas ....huge

The idea that 'bling = shallow' has a long history in the UK. (Linked to the ideas of 'mercenary' and 'vulgar' but not exactly the same.) Am not a Jane Austen expert, but isn't there is a scene early in Pride and Prejudice where one of Mr Bingley's sisters (the one newly married to a complete boor) is described as 'playing with her rings' ? Poor her. Austen is saying either that she is so shallow that she can be pleased by expensive flashy baubles even if the rest of her life is pretty pointless or else that she is so bored and unsatisfied by a miserable marriage that she has to seek shallow and pathetic consolation from her jewels.

Don't know whether others agree, but I think that the way in which many people in the UK wear jewellery has changed. Today, people wear flashy jewellery in the daytime, even to work. But even in the relatively past, anything bling was only worn in the evenings, with a posh frock. There was even a 1930s-1950s style of very big ring known as a 'cocktail' ring. Anything for daytime wear, however valuable or expensive, had to fall into the 'plain-but-good' category. Unless you were royalty, nothing showy!

I didn't mean it was bad to have new money but its certainly judged by some people as being in some way not as good as old money - certainly round these parts.

I also think Frugal has a very good point re. the easily transportable nature of jewellery.

Flora fascinating! I enjoyed reading etiquette manuals as a child and they were all about getting the jewels out only in the evening. There were lots of rules and it all was very coded. You could really embarrass yourself by being too flashy - that's what American heiresses often did in Europe in 19th century novels. Apricot silks and hothouse flowers and big jewels at the luncheon and the ladies in the know tut-tuting among themselves.

In France, the courtesans may have influenced fashion too - good wives wore certain things and the mistresses and kept women were naturally much flashier. Coco Chanel who made big-impact costume jewellery very fashionable got her seed capital and a lot of her stones from her lovers.

Americans in Paris still tend to miss the mark slightly and go OTT when entertaining. It takes them a long time to learn the Paris codes.

bonsoir you make a good point,about branded jewellery,for my graduation I was given earrings and bangle from bulgari,why? My dad believes that branded names like bulgari,cartier..etc,keep their value,and that they are better quality than other jewellery brands,he certainly proved to be right,and his choice was better than what I initially wanted back then,which was a famous brand that has good marketing,but quality wise is not so much,

Am I the only person who assumes 95% of bling is faked?
Eg big diamonds? Prob cubic zirconia? LV bag, a fake.
Mulberry? Nah.

I think if you have 'new money' then it can make you feel secure somehow to be able to clutch an expensive handbag, which you can look at and hold and cling to as a reminder of what you have and what you have achieved, that you won't starve or struggle for the basic things and can have a 'treat' that is a sheer extravagance. There is no actual and proper reason to look down on people who invest value in possessions - we all on S and B are vain and like to possess nice things and make ourselves look nice, surely? It's just classist snobbery to apply any other value than cost or perceived attractiveness to an item. Of course we make choices based on what clan we want to belong to, but it makes me barf to read people thinking they're morally superior because they hide their money. Why? Why not enjoy it, flash it around? The history of American flashiness and so on is interesting but still nonsensical and meaningless, pointless judginess from which as a relatively equal society, we should have moved on from and at the least recoil from rather than relishing in nudge-nudge 'new money' nonsense. Now did someone mention Cartier love bangles? Isn't Valentine's Day coming up? Hmm...

The Scandis are getting a lot of love at the moment what with all their bleak, murder dramas and sparten designs. Can't be doing with it myself, identify much more with the warm bloodied Meds with their big hair, even bigger sunglasses and their Jimmy Saville style gold jewellery...jangle jangle.

I'm vulgar and proud!

Blooded, not bloodied obviously

They're a passionate lot I'm sure things do get bloody from time to time, whacking each other with their Jim'll Fix-it badges!

Indeed squoosh, positive battlegrounds those piazzas are!

I think many English people do find bling vulgar. .... until they get something large and sparkling!

That's the classic Liz Taylore quote to Princess Margaret isn't it 'It doesn't look so vulgar now does it?"

At home w sick toddlers, so hoping I can finish this post.... Also, in sleep deprived fog so apologies for any incoherence.

Am in complete agreement with TheJump. Old money, new money, it's almost like the deserving rich and the undeserving rich. I have posted before about how I think the class system can be quite restrictive. Seems to limit social mobility (not good) and also original thought (if everyone continues doing the same thing due to class and expectations).

Re some traditions re Jane Austen etc, I wonder if those codes and norms were especially adhered to by women who actually had very little freedom and independence? Perhaps excluding / judging others was a comfort, a balm for a restricted, dependent life?

Yes re portability of wealth in jewellery - comment along those lines was made to me by an elderly French antique jewellery dealer - I imagine he has seen many instances of it being helpful in troubled times. Lots of instances of people fleeing their homes in Europe w jewellery secreted about them. Apparently in times of uncertainty, jewellery/gold becomes more valuable.

Which leads me to the investment angle. Jewellery can actually be a very shrewd investment, and it's interesting how various asset classes have performed differently over time. For example, another antique jeweller told me how an elderly couple were buying something from him and mentioned that after WW2, they had inherited a house. But couldn't afford the running costs and the house (in the English countryside) was a nuisance, with little value. So they sold it, and bought a diamond brooch with the proceeds. Looking back, now, not a good investment, but interesting to compare the value of a house to a brooch (which was worth about £10k now, although brooches are out of favour, so not achieving optimal prices). However, some blue chip shares and London properties (negative equity, anyone?) would have been a worse investment over the last 5 years than certain items of jewellery.

Anais - I haven't seen that program, but it sounds great.

Milly - Despite living in a conservative part of London for several years, I have, merely narrowed my taste in bling to Art Deco diamond jewellery. The unarguably refined Daphne Guiness wears her inherited pieces (her Deco diamond clips are divine), often with her commissioned Shaun Leane (sp?) diamond hand armour. Not at all understated, but quite wonderful and fun, IMO.

Re what is bling? It depends. I was thinking precious jewellery either with big stones (1.5 carats and above, I guess) or encrusted with many stones.

Do I assume bling is fake? Not usually, no.

Re africanexport - if you are buying bling purely as a ticket to somewhere (like Grace Kelly's mother in To Catch A Thief? I liked her character), and don't actually like it, why not buy good fakes from Carat?

My young daughters love sparkle, and are instinctively drawn to my jewellery, costume or otherwise. Perhaps it's human nature to love a bit of flash, but we cultivate / educate ourselves otherwise, sometimes?

Ha ha impty and MrsCB!

When I visited NY 7 years ago, I noticed the majority of women wore bling rings. Some were OTT and not at all classy more in your face.

'The deserving and the undeserving rich'

That is such a good way to think of it I think.

And I don't want to stir any hornets' nests but it is the elephant in the room that a lot of women posting on MN buy jewellery / bags / expensive clothes with money that their husbands have earned on here, yet it is rarely said that they are any less deserving of high class status than others who earn their own Chloe bags or whatever. In fact it seems to me that women who spend money their husbands earn on expensive unnecessaries are often the most defensive of their rich club status. I don't care personally, I'm happy to spend DH's money on handbags him not so much but I find the selective judginess very interesting.

I believe it depends on who wears the bling on how they wear it, same as with leopard print.

The Duchess of Windsor had a jewelry collecton to die for and wore a lot of jewels at the same time and looked great whereas the same jewels worn by say, Marilyn Monroe might have looked OTT and brash.

I do have to say that the British tendency to attach class distinctions to everything (jewelry, clothes, handbags, education, jobs, housing, food, children's names etc) is baffling and at the same time weirdly fascinating to a Continental European like me.

Interesting thread.
I'm English and very understated in my tastes.
I like quality but not bling.
I don't wear my engagement ring. I'm just not a ring person. I just wear my plain platinum wedding band.
I think in part it's because I'm very petite. I feel that very loud clothes or very bling jewellery end up wearing me rather than me them.

Linus - do you not think you have made the judgement that MM wouldn't look as good as a royal wearing lots of bling, based on class distinctions yourself? Take away the word 'class' and try to describe exactly why the royal looks better. Is it an 'old money' thing?

Well, the Duchess was quite severe looking and wore very restrained clothes, so perhaps her physical appearance was more suited to such extreme jewellery. Whereas MM was quite overtly sexual looking, so perhaps the jewellery would get lost amongst that ie what to look at first?

I'd not really considered your point re SAHM expenditure. I am SAHM, but was previously well paid [cringe], and I think the deal with some of the higher paid jobs is that they are so demanding that the high earner needs the household / family support their partner provides in order to do that job. Therefore, it's a joint effort and the income is happily split between the two.

The thread has been humming along without any great discord or personal attacks, so I hope it can continue to do so - it's fascinating reading.

I don't agree TheJumped.

Granted, the Duchess of Windsor married a royal but she was from a fairly ordinary American family and most her jewels were bought by her husband(s), not inherited.

I chose Marilyn Monroe as the antithesis of the dark-haired, very thin,conservatively dressed Duches of Windsor.

A Blonde Bombshell dripping in Cartier jewelry is a totally different look than a woman dressed in a black skirt and jacket wearing the same jewels.

I was thinking about their image and look. You choose to make it about class.

X-post bunnymother

I agree totally with you bunny - I'm also an ex-high earning SAHM and don't agonise over my right to spend our family money!

But it's related to where money comes from I think, in terms of new money / old money, and judging other women on whether they deserve to wear expensive things. Not just 'I don't like that piece of jewellery' or 'that bag isn't worth what she would have paid' but more class based, more personal criticism somehow, not just of her outfit but her entire personality, and the old/new money thing reminds people they cannot hide their true selves, very anti social mobility as you have said. Maybe I'm on a bit of a tangent