CarmEmily » Bling

Back…sort of

Emilily — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:57:30 +0000

One tag goes around your neck, the other on your boot - that's how they know who to return the feet to.

So here I am in A-School! I could complain about the middle-of-nowhereness of Meridian, Mississippi, but I am really just thrilled to be anywhere besides bootcamp. The highlight of my week was watching a DVD and eating M&Ms until I was (almost) sick of chocolate – it sounds boring, but it was wonderful. Seriously.

I start classes next week, and shortly after that should receive my next orders, so I’ll know where I’ll be spending the next ~3 years very soon!

Okay, enough about all that. Not that I have any other news…oh, and sorry for the short iPhone post – I did go to the computer center this afternoon, but had to spend the whole hour catching up on The Sartorialist.

Will write more soon!

pretties

Emilily — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:25:19 +0000

I usually like simple, clean, modern lines in jewelry, but for some reason I am really attracted to these pieces by M.C.L. Matthew Campbell Laurenza (on Gilt today.) They’re beyond gaudy, and even worse, designed by an incredibly snooty looking man whose biography actually includes such lines as “…influenced by his family’s collections of art and antiques, Matthew started flexing his creative muscles at a very early age. As a child, he had the impressive ability to produce artistic sculptures…” Sculptures, really? wow.

Despite this, I cannot help but thinking a pile of these on my arm would look fabulous.

Update: I think these would be fun to draw, too!

a jewelry quest follow-up

Emilily — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:19:23 +0000

I was reading K Dukes today (like I do every day…) and I followed one of the links in her Nomade Exquis post, to this blog: Fashion Me Tender. It’s written by a lady who has some pretty respectable fashion credentials, plus, her blog is the same age as ours and she was recently discussing how to expand her jewelry repetiore. Did I mention she appears to be Polish? Coincidence? Our google analytics would say perhaps not…

In response to your bling quandary…

Carmen — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 06:24:15 +0000

I’ve been thinking about your your bangle score at target and about my lack of jewelry and what that really means. Here are my conclusions: As much as I look at pictures of necklaces and earrings all the time – the fact that I don’t own any (anything wearable anyways) must mean that it is not really a priority of mine. It must mean that I cherish the dinner that I spent $120 on much more than I would cherish a pretty, shiny, delicate little bird of a necklace laying lightly on my neck. I think that my desire to increase my bling collection is an attempt to understand and feel more connected to my femininity. And because it is a foreign enterprise for me I don’t really know where to start. It just doesn’t come naturally to me. This doesn’t mean I’m giving up, on the contrary! I will continue to search out pieces that speak to me and I will try harder to forego the beautiful, fleeting meal and opt for the longevity of precious metals. In the mean time I’m wondering what makes jewelry valuable? Is it the price? Is it that you are able to buy it yourself or that someone else buys it for you? Or is it that there is a history behind it? I have no idea, but I’m liking the jewelry I scored from my Grandma this last weekend. She has SO much jewelry. My papa used to buy her rings that looked like cartoon style engagement rings – you know with the huge stone and nothing else, he didn’t really care that they weren’t real and neither did she. They were valuable because he gave them to her. So I increased my bling collection with un-fancy, old pieces that look like they might have been made in the 70′s. When I wear them I’ll think of my Grandma, I think that makes them better than anything I’ve seen twinkling at Bloomingdales.

Some investments might be overrated…

Emilily — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:48:48 +0000

No, I am not referring to Madoff, or Wall Street in general – although, on a side note, don’t you find it interesting that here we are, an accountant and a paralegal, and we talk non-stop about science, fashion and art rather than the stock market, politics, or the economy? Anyways, I was thinking more about jewelry and how we have been on the look-out for “investment” pieces, or, at the very least, accessories that cost as much as last weekend’s dinner out. It doesn’t make sense – I’ll spend $100 (easy!) on a week’s worth of groceries, but can’t spend half of that on a pair of earrings I could wear for years. I have bought and returned a number of things, and considered buying many more, but somehow, nothing sticks. I can’t figure out why…I am a total sucker for marketing when it comes to beauty products; shampoos, conditioners, face creams…just tell me it is the fountain of youth and beauty, and I’m sold. But jewelry, you’d practically have to convince me it could make me fly before I throw down the cash for a little bling.

Lucky for me and my selective thriftiness, I found these great bracelets at Target last weekend! I got two in an antique silver finish for $6.49 each, and three in a clearly-not-gold gold vermiel for $7.99 each. Now that I am posting this, I don’t know if the pictures do them justice, they mostly just make my wrists look scrawny, and you can’t see the best part about them, which is how heavy they are. They must be solid brass (in my opinion, a truly underrated metal) underneath the coating because they clink together in the most lovely way, like wind chimes, or cymbals, or a big bag of silverware.

I am happy to say that, for now, my jewelry hunt is over, and I got away with spending only $39.81! Now I can use all the money I saved to go invest in some gourmet cheese…