I basically don’t wear jewelry except my wedding ring and sometimes a watch. The watch could be a very understated sports watch of the $20 kind or something a little nicer. I have a couple of bracelets, but I don’t wear them. They were more appropriate (maybe) when I was 30, than at my present age.
I wear two rather simple rings, one on each hand. But my necklace of a treble clef and an 8th note NEVER leaves my neck unless it breaks and I have to fix it or I take it off to clean it.
I only wear simple earrings for special occasions.
@DrWorm In a world of ubiquitous smartphones that have prominent clocks on them, watches are now mostly just jewelry with a minor bit of functionality. I would say smart watches and fitbits are not jewelry because generally they are neither attractive nor lacking in functionality. Wrist bound timekeeping devices though? Totally jewelry these days.
@DrWorm@infornography It’s only jewelry if it’s decorative.
Using your phone to check the time is common, but it’s also awkward and lame. It’s also impractical if you do things that actually get your hands dirty. You don’t want to be smearing mud or grease all over your phone.
I’d argue smart watches and fitbits are closer to being jewelry because they’re at least trendy.
But sure, if you’re buying much above a low-end watch it’s absolutely jewelry.
@DrWorm@infornography Disagree. If it provides any type of non-marriage related information benefit, it’s not jewelry. However, it does blur the lines a bit and can be both, but a watch cannot exclusively be jewelry because it provides you the wearer with information.
Disagree with your disagreement. Some women’s watches are so pointedly made useless for actually serving as a watch that the fact that one might be able to extract time-of-day data does not provide a level of utility sufficient to override the decorative-bracelet nature, particularly when the face bears the name of a manufacturer known more for bling than bang. I was gifted a couple of those at one point. I’m still looking for an appropriate person to gift them onward to.
I would argue that regardless of who’s wearing it, a Rolex is always jewelry because their movements are so fecking fragile. One hard bump, and it needs a jeweler to get it working again. One buys a Rolex as a status symbol, not an actual timepiece (if you actually want to be able to know what time it is, anyway); one buys almost anything else if one wants to be able to reliably use it for timekeeping.
@werehatrack Disagree with the disagreement of the disagreement. Just because a movie sucks, it doesn’t cease to be a movie. Likewise a watch does not cease to provide, or attempt to, information. You’re also using the exception or less frequent condition to dictate the overall categorization.
cheap and/or functional? Maybe I would consider jewelry that was geeky, like something clearly from a fictional universe that I enjoy. Then it serves the function of advertising my interest in that world. Still wouldn’t spend terribly much on it though.
I have no interest in jewelry for purely decoration.
As I noted in another reply, I am of the opinion that a Rolex is always jewelry. The damn things are so fucking unreliable and so easily rendered inoperable by a minor bump that nobody in their right mind is going to buy one in order to be able to know what time it is. Why spend $2,500 on a Rolex when a $25 Casio will do the job better? Only one reason, status. And that makes it jewelry.
@earl_danger@werehatrack Interesting. I rarely bother to wear a watch these days, but my 40±year-old, unadorned, stainless steel Rolex is still going and is still reliable, even though it regularly got banged around on Army deployments and dropped in odd places. It has been in the shop twice to be cleaned and serviced and had one cracked crystal replaced. I bought it long ago at a factory outlet in Bern, Switzerland, and no one would ever look at it and call it jewelry. The interesting thing is that its market value is now over four times what I paid for it originally. Even figuring in inflation, that’s not bad.
Rolex makes a utilitarian watch that’s reliable. And that’s the one you’ve got. It has nothing fancy about it. But the ones that they sell for the premium prices, the ones with precious metals and or things like small gems in the dial or bezel, are jewelry. And the movements inside are not the same kind. I have several friends who have been bitten by this particular peculiarity, and one of them even went to the relatively minor expense of having his Swiss Rolex guts replaced with cheap Chinese imitations, and those were pretty much bulletproof.
Situational. My everyday stuff is understated and small. But I own and wear various other types of jewellery for occasions or outfits that call for it.
I’d be upset to receive today’s bracelet, though, as that would force me to wear it and it is not my style at all.
Gold. Because I’m allergic to silver. And simple, like stud earrings, solitaire necklace, etc. My husband still buys ugly ass stuff because he clearly doesn’t pay attention to my likes or listen. I’ve had to say multiple times that I don’t like heart shaped jewelry and no any red stone is not my birthstone. It’s been a few years, so maybe he finally listened, idk.