Defamer
Sorry boys, It appears as if Scarlett Johansson really is taken. As we noted yesterday, 2006's Sexiest Woman Alive got engaged to equally easy-on-the-eyes boyfriend Ryan Reynolds, and judging from ScarJo's behavior last night at the Costume Institute Gala, the soon-to-be-bride appears incapable of hiding her joy. All smiles as she walked the carpet, Johansson even did the paparazzi a favor by flashing her new rock, and her choice to wear an off-white demure dress helped us paint some mental images of her upcoming walk down the aisle. But how does her ring compare to infamous engagement rings of the past (J. Lo's sad pink diamond monster mid-Bennifer trainwreck) and rings recently sported by newly engaged stars like Mariah Carey and Ashlee Simpson? We compare and contrast after the jump.
Though it's too early to tell how many carats Scarlett's rock has, we have read that Reynolds bought his former fiance, Alanis Morissette, a 3.75 carat rock.
Naturally, Katherine Heigl had her 3 carat ring designed herself rather than trusting her frequently emasculated husband Joshua Kelley pipe in with any kind of opinion. Mariah Carey's highly confusing recent engagement to Nick Cannon has resulted in the singer sporting a possibly recycled 15 (yikes!) pink and purple tacky thing, but if anyone can pull of giant gems it would be Mimi. And, of course, Jennifer Lopez, whose infamous $1.2 million pink diamond ring was ostentatiously flashed 'round the world, only to be sold off post-breakup.
While poor Carmen Electra's new rock from rocker Rob Patterson cost a mere $100k (for celebs, that's the equivalent of shopping at Jared), we think Patterson's eccentric choice of a black diamond suits Electra perfectly. As for knocked up Ashlee Simpson, her faux-punk rocker fiance Pete Wentz reportedly made sure to give Simpson a ring without those pesky "blood diamonds" Leonardo DiCaprio taught us all about in that boring movie of the same name.
[Photo credits: Wireimage, The Mirror]
Comments
They may all have different rings, but soon enough, they'll all be divorced.
Small time, all of them.
Why do so many celebs have such mannish, awful hands? Is it the jarring contrast caused by demurely draping their hands in front of their overly made up faces that makes just average hands sort of pitiful? I'm afraid.
I still don't understand the engagement ring thing in the first place. In this day and age. Basically, it's branding the future bride as property of the future groom. When the men start wearing engagement rings too I'll go along with it.
@TryThisAtHome: It bugs the crap out of me. It's either branding yer filly, or else leaving the lady with a solid asset she can hock in case you dump her or something.
Scandinavians and Germans, too, I believe, both wear a simple engagement band, swapping it from the right hand to the left to make it a wedding ring. That's a style I can agree with...maybe because I don't need my self worth measured in carats or slogans created by copywriters in the '30s.
@La Cieca:
That was my first thought, too -- now that's a rock. Celebs were so much more...wonderfully grotesque then. I miss that.
That being said, there's no way they're getting married. He's far prettier than her, and she's way too famous next to him.
@Sweet Panda Love: Eh, some of us just like shiny things.
@snappyface: I can appreciate that. But that should mean more women breaking free of the diamond solitaire shackles that hold them.
Sure, they'll get married and before you know it, she'll get busy inside Chateau Marmot's elevator w/some bell hop-actor-model.
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?