"Awesome. "
Male jewelry, big turquoise
I have, long, had a deep affection for Native American silver/turquoise jewelry. And, through the years I've amassed a decent collection of, mostly, rings. My favorites are freeform turquoise and coral cabochons, in simple coin or sterling silver settings. And, my favorites tend to be rather big.
But, I rarely wear any of them. And, that needs to change...they're beautiful, and are crying out to be worn. Since most are quite large and a bit showy, though, I am not sure how much is enough, and where to draw the line before it crosses over to being too much. Historically, when I wear them, I wear no more than one piece at a time.
Currently I'm wearing a turquoise/coral/feather ring on my left pinky. Yep, a pinky ring...it's got special meaning and looks very nice. And yesterday, while in Arkansas, I picked up a souvenir in the form of a 60ct freeform "squared oval" turquoise cab mounted in a horseshoe bezel, probably originating from the Sleeping Beauty mine based on the stone's matrix. It's the good UN-treated stuff, too, of exceptional quality. Would love to wear them both, as they're each beautiful, and complement each other in design.
Basically, I'm asking whether one "showy" piece per hand is reasonable?
- Attachments:
-
-
feather.jpg, 816 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Lukus Albin on -
You can wear one easily enough, it's completely if you have a enough confidence.
Gypsy.
-
Permalink Reply by Chuck Knight on -
Oh, I have the confidence. That's not an issue. My concern is whether or not one on each hand would remain in the realm of good taste.
The other ring (at my jeweler's being cleaned) is beautiful and large, but very simple in design. Far simpler than the pinky ring in the photo...that's why I think it may work.
-
Permalink Reply by Lukus Albin on
-
I would personally only wear one though I'm looking at it from a functional point of view with I don't like my hands feeling cluttered.
Gypsy.
-
Permalink Reply by JonEdanger on -
I think you should limit it to one ring per hand. Unless you are a piano player. In a whorehouse.
-
Permalink Reply by Nick H on -
When I thought of a man wearing more than one showy ring, a piano player came to mind as well.
This guy.
Not knocking Lee. The man was an amazing talent and a legend. And although I would love to have his talent I don't think I would like to mimic his style.
Hmm. Just thinking some younger readers on AOM might see this and just think Liberace was just some style-weirdo and not in fact probably one of the greatest music talents of the 20th century. So here's the master in action.
-
Permalink Reply by Chuck Knight on
-
I know. I almost mentioned him. In fact, he WAS mentioned in the first draft of my post.
Liberace had so many wonderful qualities, including an unparalleled, um...sense of style. No one could ever actually accuse him of bad taste. But he was WAY more (what's a nice word?)...flamboyant...than anyone should be in real life.
Needless to say, I'm wanting to avoid the Liberace look. Just one piece per hand sounds believable...and the squash blossom bracelet stays at home.
-
Permalink Reply by Nick H on
-
I think there are many rappers today who only wish they had the ability to look as pimped-out as Liberace. The guy was the original mac daddy. But that said, yeah in real life, I've avoid it if I were you. I also would draw the limit at one ring personally. One says to me, ok that's a pretty flamboyant ring but he must really like it, two says, ok, he's pretty flamboyant and probably likes to play the piano.
On another note, I wonder if anyone has ever wrote about the cultural influence of flamboyant gay men? Without Liberace, would we have a Denis Rodman? Or pretty much everything we now consider "gangsta"? And without Rob Halford of Judas Priest, bike leather and chains might have never jumped from the fetish gay biker look (like the guy in the village people) to the look of every heavy metal band ever.
-
Permalink Reply by John Martinez on -
If you're hesitant, then you probably shouldn't. Not saying you are, I'd just wear what's comfortable. Why's other's idea of "showy" important?
Honestly, I don't see the point of any jewelery, but that's just me. I have my own idiosyncrasies people probably wonder about.
-
Permalink Reply by Chuck Knight on
-
Why's other's idea of "showy" important?
Because sometimes an impartial third party opinion can be clearer than your own opinion. And because the guys on this site can be brutally honest.
My collection is small, but beautiful. Each piece is beautiful. But, when combining disparate pieces from an eclectic collection, the concept of "how much is too much" has never been intuitive to me.
One ring, on one hand, ALWAYS looks fine. On everyone. It's a very logical and safe choice, and requires no fashion sense. Anyone can read a book of style guidelines, and make that choice.
But personal style is rarely about making the safe choice, unless you're just going for a very bland and generic look.
-
Permalink Reply by Nick H on
-
Its a tough choice. You sound like you really enjoy your collection. I once bought a turquoise necklace for a friend off a street vendor in El Salvador, I can see why you like it. But that said, as I think you already know, wearing more than one at a time is going to look pretty flashy. Fine if you are a flashy sort of guy but probably a bit too much attention if you are not.
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Splash on -
big rings , and two on one hand , don,t tell me this is showy !
Latest Activity
Liam S. replied to Alexander Connell's discussion Wolf Blitzer pushes tornado survivor to admit she thanked the lord. She tells him she's an atheist in the group Gentlemen AtheistsLiam S. replied to Nathan DeParis's discussion Women: The Infallible Baromoter"I disagree that ethics necessarily reflect morals. Virtues, maybe. But manners and ethics are social constructs, not moral ones. Morals *may* come into play, but are not necessarily part of the equation. "
Michael replied to Nathan DeParis's discussion Women: The Infallible Baromoter"I would disagree about manners.
Manners are a subset of ethics, therefore ultimately morals and virtues will come into play."
Michael replied to Nathan DeParis's discussion Women: The Infallible Baromoter"Adam's assertion doesn't require analyzing how a nation treats it's women. Granted treating women appropriately ought be expected of any civilized nation just as treating any person appropriately is.
Adam's assertion…"
D.J. replied to chad's discussion Need girl advice"Read this:
I would say no. But of course I'm not you and I'm not in much of a position to answer that question. YOU should answer it though, if only to yourself. "
Nicolas Smith joined Shane Belin's group
Men of Science
Men of Science is a group for students, teachers, and admirers of science and exploration.See More
Nicolas Smith joined Tookie's group
Christian Men
Regardless of the specifics, we can all agree on one thing. Jesus Christ was the perfect Man who died and rose again for us such that we could have fellowship with Him
© 2013 Created by Brett McKay.
Powered by
