340 quid for gold plated!!!

ShoppingTelly

Help Support ShoppingTelly:

loveallthingsitalian

Registered Shopper
Joined
Mar 7, 2012
Messages
15,055
with apologies to anyone who
liked it but it also hideous looking- but they are taking the p*** for plating over silver at that price.

as Genette would say " bonding not plating - plating is not good".
 
Wasn't it just! Certainly put the "H" in HIDEOUS for me! Was it deffo sterling silver with gold plating as the graphics didn't mention that. I got a call telling me to look at Q NOW for the most ridic price ever so may have missed some of the presentation. I assumed it was brass or similar base metal?
 
Do you mean the knuckle duster cocktail ring which resembled a lump of coal ?
 
I actually like the ring although, with my small digits, it wouldn't suit my hand. If it did, it would have to be solid gold, as I don't wear plate. I concur with the OP; £340 for a ring which is plated? Genuine gemstones need to be complemented with genuine precious metal, be that solid gold or sterling silver, not gold plate on top of sterling, and of course that will be reflected in the price.
 
if you can you would with this. if it were the veronese range with the gold cladding which imo is very good then i suppose it is worth it. the central stone is very very big therefore rarer than a much smaller stone. the ring is set with a lot of tiny precious stones which take a lot of time to set.i dont think its a bad ring its just an unusual ring. can you imagine the price in real gold. i dont feel the ring suited the model. you have to wear this ring not the other way round lol. i have a lola rose ring in a similar shape in a red agate. set in rose gold plate and its always talked about.
 
i usually love big rings but that isnt doing the stone any favours , maybe it would have been better made into a pendent
 
Just had a quick look at this ring and its now showing No longer available. I wonder if this means it's sold out or has it just been taken off sale for some reason. I think the price was totally ridiculous for something gold plated.
 
Have to agree its hideous. However, there is a lot or workmanship in this ring, so I would expect it to be more, but I do think at that price: its outrageous!
Thank you for providing the ring, was wondering what we were talking about and could not even imagine a ring looking like a lump of coal, but: have to say I totally agree with the discription :giggle:
 
I actually don't mind it. :blush:
I like what Debbie calls stonkers & have a few big rings you could class as knuckle dusters!

Would never pay that stupid price though. If they knocked the zero off the end I might be tempted.
Do you think they made a mistake with the price & that's why it's no longer available?
 
Talk about knuckle dusters: I worked in a secondary school and did the american thing of touching knuckles (making a fist and the other child makes a fist and you get them together to emphasize a point well made or a really good contribution to the lesson), but was not prepared for the child( teenage boy really) to be quiet so forcefull. I had a big ring on and actually damged his skin with blood dripping out. :blush::whew::confused:
After that I stuck to the high fives, luckily the parent was very understanding
 
There's a lot of work in that ring and semi-precious stones, but gold plated! - the price is ludicrous IMO.

I love big rings to wear on middle fingers and this is one of my favourites - I bought it on TJC's rising auction for £5 - to hell with the expense!

Ring.jpg

OK it's stainless steel and agate - 35 carats, but who cares? :sun:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top