Wickedpinto made the assertion in the thread below, that the engagement ring tradition only goes back to the 1940′s, where it was invented by the De Beers Diamond Company. It’s true that it didn’t become the standard that it is today until that time, but engagement rings have been around for a very long time.
So as a public service I am going to provide some links for the benefit of all “engagement ring tradition deniers”.
You can read up on engagement rings here, here, and here
The second link makes the case that it was mostly the De Beers Co. that got the trend going to what it is today. The other links provide a more romanticized view.
Hey, it’s my blog, I can write about whatever I want. Traditions are important to conservatives, dammit!
June, 13, 2007 at 12:40 am
Something I find funny.
Price varies by the material used, the value of the diamond, and retailer. An old buyer’s guide suggests “two months salary” as the buying price for a ring.[citation needed]
citation needed? You think the editor is single or gay? Probably.
June, 13, 2007 at 12:44 am
The first link doesn’t mention de-beers, but it does have this to say.
and with society becoming more conscious of so-called blood diamonds, the prices of diamonds of good clarity and cut has continued to increase.
They can cough up blood diamonds as a validation of why diamond engagement rings are wrong, but ignore the almost exclusive conglomerate of diamond merchants (who are not jews, but rather relocated germans/dutch and I think a little extra scandi)
June, 13, 2007 at 12:53 am
Also I only glanced at the articles, for the most part, but, I think I saw on the history channel, that there was an opinion in one of the ancient, antique cultures that the fourth finger of the left hand held a vein or artery directly connected to the heart, and that (honestly I think it was the scandi vikings) that connection, would mark both the woman and man until death.
Of course there is no major artery in the finger, there is no major vein, but there was a belief that by connecting a finger to a ring (re-sizing wasn’t all that common back in post maruvingian france, or co-equal ewardian england (I think I got the rulers right)) So one of the rituals of the WEDDING, not engagement ring is that it must be placed, by the spouse in such a way that either blood surfaced, or blood was spilled, and I THINK! there was actually a mythology that depiced the spilling of blood as a good thing while placing the ring on the spouse (of either gender) as a good omen.
Kinda like the lame “breaking the bow” thing at the wedding shower we have now.
If the man and the women blead with the placement of the ring at the time they accepted their vows, then the ring was tight, the ring could not be removed, and could only be removed with the severing of the finger, so the marriage was eternal.
We since invented things like hardened steel, so de-beers went all ninja jedi-mind-trick and said “but a diamond is forever.
June, 13, 2007 at 1:04 am
The jewels of love and marriage aren’t a diamond purchased, but rather a loving child earned, and a caring spouse, also earned.
June, 13, 2007 at 1:20 am
Your husband loves you, gave you 6 children (was he a wreck everytime you gave birth?) he gave you the lemonade saleslady.
Which would you prefer? A chance to by lemonade from your own daughter for 25 cents, or a 1 plus karat ring (I spell so shitty!!!)
And since you have had 6 children, CLEARLY you and he were prepared for those 6, or as many more or less as you were allowed, exactly how important was the ring compared to that?
If you could have put that or those rings, or every bit of jewelry, into an account so that the money and it’s value could have sent your children to the schools of senators and presidents, or to the university’s of senators or presidents, if you knew NOW that the financial investment of your rings and other “authetic” jewelry could have made EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM! stand on the second floor, rather than the first floor with maybe a couple steps created by superior effort, and talent that I have no doubt they have?
I’m a genius, no shit, I am, even now, I will likely still test genius, but my opportunities didn’t match those who were much dumber and outright stupid than I, And I’m not even close to the brightest person I know. If I had just attended a parochial school, no shit, if just that, it might have been different.
But I was a normal urban kid, unfortunately I learned how to fight while NEVER! 100% true, NEVER getting a “B” in any of my public schools until I was reduced because of attendance.
How many years of private/parochial school can that ring pay for? How many years could that ring pay for now, if invested initially in an educational fund?
I’m not judging you, it’s natural, chicks have this reaction.
But I’m probably one of the most talented people you will ever meet who has never lived up to any of his potential. I was a Marine, thats All I had, it’s a lot; because basicaly it’s all I have, and it’s not enough.
I would rather see my child graduate from a top school, or A school (university level) thanks to my thoughtful investments than have my wife flash her ring once a year at her jealous sisters.
I know, I was overly aggressive in this comment, but marriages fail, that doesn’t mean that kids aren’t still alive. It’s nice that niiiiiiiicedeb, and nicehusband are together with 6 kids, but, THAT is where I come from. I’m not really judging anyone, I’m just describing my own relative disgust with other peoples opinions of marriage.
June, 13, 2007 at 7:46 am
WP, don’t worry, my ring is isn’t going to prevent any of my kids from attending a good school.
I mean I could easily say to you think of all the things you could have done with the money you spend on beer, or some such thing. Obviously, you’re smart enough to see the folly in that.
And the ring I have now isn’t all that, it’s just an upgrade from the piece of shit I had before.
Plus, I had lost my old ring.
When you’re not wearing a ring, you can be mistaken for being single.
Look, WP, you have such a visceral dislike of engagement rings, it’s probably a good thing you never want to be married. It’s not good to start off by pissing off your bride like that.
Because I think the truth is, most women still want an engagement ring. Period.
June, 13, 2007 at 8:31 am
You remind me of my husband on the subject of Hallmark Cards.
Don’t get him started on Hallmark!
June, 13, 2007 at 9:02 am
Women want the ring. Get em one. They also want to know you can afford it. It’s about security and marking your territory.
Not to put too fine a point on it.
June, 13, 2007 at 10:23 am
It’s about security and marking your territory.
Oh…so that’s how you’re supposed to mark your territory.
I’ll stop drinking so many fluids.
June, 13, 2007 at 10:45 am
Ewwwww!
June, 13, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Nah, Like you and dave said, if you can afford it, then thats fine, but there is a lot of pressure put on young dumb kids who get married and end up not doing themselves any favors with the purchase of the ring.
And also I’m a more simple kinda guy in most things anyways, I have one piece of jewelry (don’t count my watch) and so I wouldn’t need it, and thats really where I’m working from.
I didn’t intend to say that you were doing harm, I meant that if you were doing harm would you do it? Thats what I really meant, like with the dumb young kids who get a little out of hand with it.
June, 13, 2007 at 10:55 pm
THIS kind of hallmark?
I still think it’s funny
June, 13, 2007 at 11:44 pm
I’m sending him that card for Father’s Day.
June, 14, 2007 at 12:28 am
I think it’s hillarious!!!! Does your hubby resemble him?
June, 14, 2007 at 12:45 am
Well, he IS balding.
June, 14, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Was it the Comedian Ron White who had the bit about diamonds and their marketing?
When he spoke about their advertisements “Diamonds… take her breath away”, etc, Ron said “Why don’t they just say what we are all (men) thinking? Diamonds… That’ll shut her up!”.