Sapphires for two

From yesterday’s posting “This day”, mostly about my man Jacques and me (October 11th being the day we had chosen as our wedding-equivalent anniversary), on contemplating gifts for a 45th anniversary — the sapphire anniversary, if you’re hawking gems — for a male couple:

J and I were indeed fond of sapphires (and rubies and emeralds too), but never conceived of accessorizing with them (or with the much more affordable spinel imitations). (Our wedding-equivalent rings were hematite and — when the hematite ones kept getting shattered — plain steel. I know, so butch.)

Ah, negotiating fabulous + butch. J was leanly muscular and athletic, but far too sweet and engaging to project as butch. Meanwhile, I was pretty good at being outrageous, but no damn good at projecting fabulosity; other gay guys sometimes accused me of being deliberately straight-acting, of putting it on, and so of mocking them, with their more flamboyant presentations of themselves.

Still, back in the last century, we had masculine jewelry, though nothing quite like some of the things I found on a net search yesterday

From the A&J jewelry trove, unworn for a great many years now (my poor arthritic fingers can’t cope with any of it) — displayed here on a suitably masculine denim jacket:

(#1) (in no particular order) A silver mesh choker; a bold silver choker (J and I shared the chokers); a plain silver chain; a big pendant for a chain (mine); a black anodized aluminum chain with rainbow links (for gay events; J and I shared it); a very delicate chain with a square silver pendant with a stone set in it (surprisingly, J’s); a silver bracelet with an oval onyx stone; a plain silver bracelet (the bracelets were mine, for my thin wrists); silver cufflinks with malachite stones (from Brighton SX, a gift from me to J)

Then onto the net, where I found the Diamondère website, with a ton of stuff, including this men’s ring, which struck me as some kind of triumph of fabulous + macho:

(#2) Princess-cut natural blue sapphire, .85 carats in 10k blue gold; $1,919 (plus tax), so ca. $4,000 (plus tax) for a matched pair

Diamondère’s blue gold is an intermetallic compound, of gold (46%) and indium (54%).

While I was on the site and looking at gemstones, I found this more conventional men’s ring, also flashing a pretty stone:

(#3) Princess-cut blue topaz,.79 carats in 14k white gold; $1,904 (plus tax), so again, ca. $4,000 (plus tax) for a matched pair

White gold (imitating platinum) is an alloy of ca. 75% gold and 25% nickel and zinc.

Love the stone, but the band looks brutal.

The company. From their site, this hyped-up description (lacking names, locations, and other significant details):

Diamondère was founded by two brothers who graduated from Stanford and Cornell and then decided to offer public access to their family’s 131-year legacy of exquisite jewelry design.Their family started out as exclusive designers for celebrities, dignitaries and Royals, specializing in customized jewelry only. Later generations were then groomed in mass-producing fine jewelry for the global audience. Even today, their fathers [this looks like a semantic reversal, for sons] travel the world to source the best gemstones, anticipate jewelry trends and create world-class designs

Apparently, they are located in Redwood City CA! (Redwood City, whose city motto is “Climate best by government test” — a few miles up El Camino Real from where I live.)

In related news. From my 9/12/20 posting “Hard-core gendering”, on:

Manly Bands, wedding rings and engagement rings for real guy guys: deeply masculine bands that avoid the mere prettiness of so many of the usual rings (and any possible associations with femininity) — and are advertised with over-the-top testosterone-steeped prose.

There you can find a Many Band in brutal black.


Leave a Reply