Jen’s ring: 8 - 18 carats

October 9, 2012 14:44:10 Posted at October 9, 2012 14:44:10
Lainey Posted by Lainey
Photos:
Jason Thomas /FilmMagic, Bauer

I’m re-attaching the photos here. But click here for the initial post from yesterday about Jennifer Aniston’s engagement ring from Justin Theroux. Aniston’s publicist has confirmed to E! that that is indeed what we’re seeing. No other details have been provided which means all the entertainment news outlets have been reaching out to jewellers with no connection to Aniston to speculate about the size and value.

One expert estimates it to be between 8 and 9 carats and $500K. Another expert says it’s more like 12 - 18 carats. I’m not an expert but that seems like a really big discrepancy. Big seems to be the key word. Too big?

Since the pictures were released yesterday afternoon, that’s been the discussion -- is it too big to be tasteful?

That might be unfair. It’s really none of our goddamn business…only, well, they did stage these shots, didn’t they? Paps don’t hang out in big numbers in Sante Fe, New Mexico. And Getty Images (which is the agency representing these pictures) is labelling them “exclusive coverage”, a term that normally applies to an event to which they’ve been invited. Which means Jennifer and Justin have invited us to look. And in doing so, many of you feel that it’s obnoxiously over-the-top.

Drew Magary at Gawker certainly thinks it’s obnoxiously over-the-top. In an article called Your Giant Engagement Ring Looks F-cking Stupid, Drew Magary rages:

“When it comes to engagement rings, there is a fine threshold between beautiful and gaudy, and Aniston just hopped inside an IROC and made skid marks on that threshold. Take a look at Kim Kardashian's old rock and see if you disagree. It's just as tacky. When you wear a diamond that big, you're essentially announcing to everyone that A) You have no sense of subtlety when it comes to flaunting your wealth and B) You enjoy blinding small children. A ring that big tells people that you're willing to throw your spine out of alignment just so that people can see you toting a fucking crystalline boulder around on your hand.”

But I don’t think it’s just about the ring or the size of it. I don’t think Drew Magary would be quite as ragey if the ring belonged to, I dunno, Jessica Simpson. This is 100% a ring for Jessica Simpson. There’s no disconnect between this ring and what we know of Jessica Simpson. But is this ring you imagined for Jennifer Aniston? Jennifer Aniston who uniforms herself in little black dresses, prefers understated over tricked out, has worn her hair more or less the same way for over a decade, and is regularly admired for her “simple, relaxed elegance” -- is that the woman who’d choose this ring? This, I think, is what people are bumping up against: the mismatch between the ring and the wearer, or who you thought was the wearer.

The wearer of this ring is a LOOK AT ME girl. Or… maybe more accurately…the giver and the wearer of this ring are LOOK AT ME people. Like the Brange. Those two are definitely LOOK AT ME people. And Jen’s fans have always maintained that’s not her style. This ring pretty much pisses and sh-ts on that notion, non?

It’s a celebration, indeed. And I’ve been writing this for months -- Jennifer Aniston has really finally found a man who will play this famewhore game as enthusiastically as she does.

Attached - Aniston in Boston yesterday for a meeting.
 

Previous Article Next Article