In Chicago I made a few trips to Barneys. I’m not an impulse buyer; I like to think and ponder and consider some more before spending my money and often take greater satisfaction in *not* making a purchase.
I’m also not a jewelry person; I wear my engagement ring and my wedding ring (never on the same hand!) and occasionally dip into my earring collection. (This austerity has been cultivated over the last 20 years; I loved statement earrings all through my twenties.)
All this preface is to demonstrate how surprised I was to keep returning to Barneys’ jewelry counter. All the usual suspects were there—Me & Ro, Ten Thousand Things, Antonio Palladino—casually perched on burlap as if to suggest that their prices were also casual. Sometimes I imagine that I’ll lift up a piece and be pleasantly surprised at the sales tag, as when I found a (mispriced) enormous chunk of fresh parmesan at Whole Foods.
No happy surprises during my latest visits, but I *was* drawn to a Cathy Waterman diamond “leaf” ring. I’ve been thinking about updating my wedding band of almost 18 years, and would possibly like something with diamonds, but I don’t like the bulk that usually accompanies a diamond band.
The Waterman, however, was delicate, yet sturdy, and very feminine. I thought it could be really pretty to wear most days.
So I thought about it all the way home and thought about it a little today and sometime this evening realized that I had missed the NYT’s Thursday Styles section while I was away and called it up online and scrolled through a few stories, and
THERE IT WAS!
My leaf (actually a sheaf of wheat) ring was at the top of a stack of rings on a heavily be-ringed hand in a photo for the NYT. It's to the far left in the image above.
And you know how I don’t like to follow the crowd . . . so the super-delicate, pretty Cathy Waterman ring is now banished from my thoughts. I’m perfectly happy with my original wedding ring. And my original husband, for that matter.