@SpaceElf @Becassine @AnimeTradCath @Consoomer88 @LouisConde @Robert_Edwardly @SerfnUSA @SuperLutheran @sneedjitsu @sparky Diamonds in general are a scam. Even jew-elers can't tell the difference between lab-created diamonds and natural ones, they only know because they have ledgers that track what diamonds are "real". They're boring and ugly as heck, their only real utility is in using them to modify other things. Almost any gemstone is a million times more beautiful, the Diamond industry gaslit people into thinking they're beautiful and romantic. Traditionally they were associated with power and protection rather than love, and less valuable than rubies, though not worthless by any means. I don't have direct access to any Christian lapidaries, though there were many, as far as I can tell Pearls were not to be worn because they are particularly representative of immodesty and wealth. Outside of scripture, they were associated with fertility and worn by women because of their similarity to the moon and nautical origin. Emeralds are holy, and additionally represent chaste love. The Spanish in particular associated then with Mary. Some medival texts seem to warn that this is ascetic chastity and not normal, modest chastity, so they should not be worn by married women. Basically, I don't know what gemstones Christian lapidaries suggest for engagement rings, frankly it seems like engagement rings were more of a product of the extravagance of nobility, as was the use of gems in wedding bands. Normally they only had engravings (fedes were popular) if they had any ornamentation at all.

For aesthetic purposes, I like the organic gemstones, especially amber, but they're more suited to necklaces or earrings.