Priscilla Chan's $4,700 wedding dress by Claire Pettibone

**twitchy2.0** · May 23rd, 2012, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by fgg

and she has a ruby ring

some people just don't care for diamonds. I like the idea of a colored stone. It wouldn't look like the billions of other wedding rings out there.

**levitt** · May 23rd, 2012, 05:12 PM

^^ I really wanted a sapphire as my gem as it's my birth stone. Then Kate 'Duchess of fucking Cambridge' Middleton beat me to it!

**twitchy2.0** · May 23rd, 2012, 05:13 PM

Do it anyway. Just go for a completely different style.

**levitt** · May 23rd, 2012, 05:16 PM

I say this as if I'm not in fact single and absolutely no where near getting hitched

**Brookie** · May 23rd, 2012, 05:16 PM

I saw a picture of her ring today - it's extremely modest. If my hubs was a gazillionaire, I'd have a ring with a stone the size of Florida on there. I'd need a wheelbarrow to tote it from place to place.

**fgg** · May 23rd, 2012, 05:37 PM

^where was the picture? can you post it?

**TheFarSide** · May 23rd, 2012, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by fgg

^where was the picture? can you post it?

Veeery understated.

**Brookie** · May 23rd, 2012, 05:41 PM

Here's a link to TMZ: Her ring

(I use Google Chrome, which doesn't allow for cutting and pasting.)

eta: Thanks FarSide!

**fgg** · May 23rd, 2012, 05:43 PM

thank you both! i'm with you brookie. i want a fat rock and i'll never be married to a millionaire.

**LynnieD** · May 23rd, 2012, 05:57 PM

Not a ring I was expecting either, but hey--some people just aren't into jewelry!

**levitt** · May 23rd, 2012, 05:57 PM

I like it

I prefer the understated look, even more so because we know he could have bought a jewel the size of Jupiter. Maybe Mrs Zuckerberg likes delicate stones and Mark knew that. No point buying a massive ring just because you have the money.

Maybe she's an earrings/necklace kind of woman and she in fact has a lovely set... Or she just doesn't like flashy jewellery.

**czb** · May 23rd, 2012, 06:12 PM

^^^ maybe. and to the poster that said zuckerberg had a 'modest' home, an article in forbes said it was ~7 million. certainly not maxing him out and it's not the top of the heap for palo alto, but would not call it 'modest'.

**fgg** · May 23rd, 2012, 06:13 PM

i said "modest" because that's what the article said that i read. they didn't describe it, tell me where it was located, give an approx. value, etc. the article said "modest". back off this poster for god's sake. GAWD DAMN.