*Ahem.*
To whom it may concern:
I think a box of Krispy Kremes would be so much more romantic than a box of chocolates.
Don't know why I think that; might have something to due with the evanescence of romance vs. the shelf life of chocolate. For me, a doughnut poetically captures the fleeting joy of life so much better than a hard nougat.
Mind you, if you want to convey a sentiment on an everlasting nature, the diamond industry is happy to help. Since so few of us are making to to our 75th wedding anniversary, they've been hyping Valentine's as the time to give {what else?} diamonds. But again, I'm afraid I must disagree; diamonds are so generic, and a gem ought to be personal.
My sister~in~law insisted on an emerald engagment ring because a good emerald can be more expensive than a diamond, and it's a good investment. My grandmother had a garnet engagement ring, because garnets were inexpensive and they couldn't afford any better. If I were ever to desire a ring of any kind, I'd prefer to have a replica of my grandmother's ring {though frankly garnet paper would be more in my financial range}.
Not that I'm asking. I'm just saying I'm a sentimental kind of Mousehat. :)
Posted by edgar at February 13, 2004 11:05 AMnoted! ;oP
You're getting me the ring, right? Remember, it's a 20K gold band with a thin shank, and a bezel~mounted cabochon-cut opaque dark red garnet* about half a centimeter in diameter. ;oP
Just fibbing; I seem to recall it was sort of a brilliant-cut...
~ ~ ~
*This kind of cut/stone is also known as a "carbuncle" which may explain why it is not terribly popular.
Posted by: edgar "the gold~digger" mousehat at February 16, 2004 05:25 PM