Diamonds, Engagement Rings & Diamond Jewelry in popular culture

Alas, poor pundits, you must now stop beating President-Elect Barack Obama in the press, because he is really, truly not spending $30,000 on a diamond-encrusted one-of-a-kind rhodium ring for his wife.  It was a lovely rumor while it lasted, as it made him look as irresponsible with money as a teenaged boy at a hand-cream sale.  But it took only a matter of two days before Obama’s Press Office caught wind of it and issued a statement that used words in a way not seen in the political arena for years: intelligent and concise.  They said: “The story is not true.  There is no $30,000 ring”.

Barack and Michelle: We Should All Be So Lucky

It was a very beautiful fictitious ring, however, and I’m sure Michelle Obama would have proudly worn it and returned it to its fictitious designer.  But that’s not how the Obama’s roll. 

The story, originally from a notorious British tabloid that has been sued more times than Rick James, caught on to every newswire, everywhere in the world.  More reputable publications and websites like the New York Post, the Huffington Post, Free Republic, AOL, and Yahoo all took the bait and used the same quote from the ring’s alleged designer, Giovanni Bosco: “For obvious privacy reasons I cannot reveal the cost of the ring but bearing in mind it is made from rhodium or black gold and encrusted with diamonds you can be sure it will cost thousands of pounds”.  Setting aside the obvious ESL issues with the quote, conservatives ate up the story because it made Barack Obama look like an elitist fat cat, and not a regular guy (a regular, educated, charismatic guy). 

After Obama’s camp settled the matter, the alleged designer issued another statement that was even more vague—and made even less sense—than the first: “I regret to inform you that because of reports so wrong and clearly different from the reality of our statements, we decided not to issue a statement “.  This was meant to tell us that the previous statements they made were so greatly misinterpreted that they would not be issuing a statement.  Perhaps not issuing a statement taking back the first wrong statement would have been a better plan.  Or perhaps traveling back in time and not playing coy for publicity would have been the best course of action.  I’m just sayin’. 

Previously, the New York Post ended up with egg on its face after the published a story about Michelle Obama ordering lobsters, caviar and champagne while staying in the Waldorf-Astoria hotel.  Since she was never a guest there, the newspaper quickly printed a retraction.   This is why it is sometimes wise not to jump too quickly on a story when your source is only identified as “a source reveals that…” Sorry, Charlie.  The Obama’s ain’t spending money like it’s going out of style. 

When Barack Obama buys his wife diamond jewelry for any reason, we probably won’t hear about it.  But if he allegedly buys a fictitious and ridiculously expensive piece of jewelry from a famous designer no one’s ever heard of, you can bet “a source” will tell us.