Artists are the avant garde; why wait for "big companies" to do
it. Try it on your own and see what happens.
Sure, Kevin-- but I also said I don’t really make that kind of
jewelry, on the whole. I like to make wedding jewelry because it is
such a happy occassion, but my style does not really lend itself to
that except for rare, occasional customers (see
http://www.ganoksin.com/orchid/noel.htm). Plus, I do only a small
handful of shows a year.
I mentioned my idea because I thought it had some potential and I
had never heard of anyone doing it. There are many folks on this
forum who have much more opportunity to promote such an idea than I
do-- it was a philanthropic impulse.
Noel
I just was thinking that if Tiffany or De Beers latched onto this
idea and promoted it the way they have the right-hand ring,
I’m not going to leap into the general part of this - if you can sell
it, good for you. The right hand ring at one time was called a
cocktail ring, then it was a remount, now it’s a right hand ring.
There are subtle differences, I guess, but not much. Meaning they are
marketing terms for an already existing item - a more casual, “just
because” ring. It’s not actually an entirely new item or genre, just
a new label.
HI Chris, et al
Just received the new Spring 2008 NICHE Magazine. Chris has a great
ad on page 19 - gorgeous rings!
ALSO, one this very subject, there is a whole page ad by McKinney
"Enhancing Men’s Everyday Lives", with a great bracelet and ring
modeled by a very handsome guy.
Rose Marie in Denver
an engagement ring is given to a man.
Thank you Noel for this thought, it is a new idea to me at least, so
from now on I will be asking my customers that come for an engagement
ring for " her", well how about one for " him"? I think if I do it
right, at least it will get them thinking, and it might end up in an
add on sale, can’t hurt!,
cheers, Christine in South Australia
Men wear jewellery for different reasons then women do.... For a
[stone age] man to wear something attracting attention, meant
something else. It meant that his chances of becoming a target for
an attack were significantly increased, so to survive, one must be
circumspect.... This behavior is a part of our genetic code and is
not likely to change...
Leonid, I hate to discourage your speculations, but I don’t think we
know enough about Stone Age people to say how the sexes used
jewelry, and I doubt that any behavior of that type is “part of our
genetic code.” If Stone Age women had time to sit “around the fire,”
then so did men, and if men were at risk “of becoming a target for an
attack,” so were women.
Some recent research shows some Stone Age societies in some parts of
the world were much more egalitarian than our imaginations given them
credit for.
All the best,
Judy Bjorkman