Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
"Vein of Love" Confliction
The vein of love background on the engagement ring page conflicts with that of this engagement page. This page claims the Egyptians started it, while the other page claims a Roman origin.--Elysianfields 17:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
The point is moot. Wherever it started, it happened so long ago it's more of a legend than provable fact. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.22.36 (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Alternatives To Diamond Engagement Rings Video
When a ring is given
"By modern convention, the ring is usually presented as a betrothal gift by a man to his prospective bride while or directly after she accepts his marriage proposal."
I'm told it's only on television that they tend to hand over rings there and then.
If they did it in real life, then surely that would mean you're meant to measure her finger, buy the ring and then propose, at the risk of having wasted your money if she refuses (and it doesn't fit whomever you end up getting engaged to instead).
But the measuring must be a giveaway, so why not propose then? It would make more sense.... -- Smjg 09:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't sure about this myself and so I looked it up in a book on etiquette. What the book says is that traditionally the man proposes to the woman (baring 29th Feb on leap year where a woman proposes to a man...) and it is only after she has agreed do they both go together to purchase a ring. It may be common practise now to buy the ring in advance but it is not a requirement. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.237.30 (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Western tradition
This article says "Western" tradition has the ring worn on the ring finger of the left hand. Last time I checked, Germany and Spain are both major Western countries, but the ring is worn on the right hand in those countries, amongst others. I think this article should be changed to reflect that while the finger is the same - the last one before the pinkie - that it varies from country to country.Elysistrata 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the following sentence from the article. For example, Judith Sheindlin, TV's Judge Judy, holds that an engagement ring is 'a gift given in contemplation of marriage' and must therefore be returned if the contract is broken. This is a poor example in the legal context, as Judge Judy is not a real court, and decisions binding because of the contract people sign to appear on the show, not because of preset claims laws. --ORBIT 19:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have fixed a missing word 'day' and a few typos.
This article should be made gender-neutral, as it is 2009 and marriage isn't only between a man and a woman anymore. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.19.251 (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Contributions deleted
Why is my contributions to this webpage not being credited to me? I am the owner of Adylon Diamonds and Bridal Jewelry. I have given my interpretation of the origin of the engagement ring based on my research! I would like my contributions to be included, and credited to me like many others have done. This is how the Wikipedia is supposed to work! Please let me know why my contributions are being deleted! Thank you.
Wikinazis routinely delete anything they don't agree with for their own personal reasons. If this were truly "The People's Encyclopedia" nothing would be deleted, ever! and readers would be free to make up their own minds. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.22.36 (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha, I'm sure that's why you have a link to a mostly irrelevant page on Robbin's Bros site. Did they make a big donation to the cause? 71.133.233.62 (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Skeptical
Arguments about cultural value > actual value
What does everyone think about the idea of many women demanding thousands of dollars to be spent on a piece of jewelry, which is essentially a form of "buying a bride?" I wonder if we should have a heavily NPOV section of this article that discusses these issues. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
A woman that would be bought probably won't be bought exclusively by the engagement ring. If I on my paltry income save up and buy a 10 thousand dollar ring, she would still presumably know about my paltry income.
The article already addresses that the engagement ring can be seen as an icon for the status of a man's financial well being and stability; I'm not sure that it needs more than that. Including an additional section, I think, would therefore be POV no matter how you slice it.
I still don't see the connection of why men have to spend several thousands of dollars. And still more why women feel they can keep the ring if the marriage never goes through. (To me it sounds greedy). In the past I may have understood that the ring was a symbol of the man's financial stability. And this may have been important back when it was mostly a mono-income family. But in todays age its different both individuals work and contribute to the income of the home. There is no need for any woman to expect a man to drop this kind of money just to show devoution. That money could be better placed for purchasing a house, car, or furniture for their new lives. Maybe its just me but if its supposed to be a union it shouldn't be about the ring, it should be about the emotional connection between the individuals involved.
Shouldn't there be something about how tradition is that an engagement should cost the equivalent of two months' salary of the buyer? I'm not saying it's right, but that's the standard.Elysistrata 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Statistics
"In the US, men purchase around 200 engagement and wedding rings each day. Nationally, over 5,000 marriage proposals occur per year. However the international per capita marriage rate is much lower than in the US." Is there a source for these statistics? Considering that the US has over 2 million marriages per year (source) common sense suggests that at least a few thousand rings are sold each day and at least a million proposals were made each year. So I'll remove the above paragraph until it's backed up with a source Mako 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Ring Styles
Not all engagement rings are diamonds. This should be modified to include such information: "Most engagement rings can be classified. Solitaire rings have one single diamond." --Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.214.229.55 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a better link than the one to the page littered with ads? (Rustydangerfield (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC))
Titanium Rings
Titanium rings have largely been discredited as a hazard in an emergency. A hospital does have the tools to remove these types of rings. The tools used are the same as removing any other ring. The difference is a titanium ring cannot be soldered back together. Sorry, I'm hesitant to try and change the entry directly- I'm not *really* sure what I'm doing. Perhaps someone else would be so kind as to make the correction?
Divorce
Does anyone know if it's this, or the wedding ring, or neither, that's given back in divorce. I've just seen it in a Judge Judy episode, so wasn't sure. Thanks. Tristanb 10:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
"When the love that looked like it would last forever doesn't what do you return? Answer: Only the engagement ring" from Today's Family Values Handbook articles by Frances Goulart published by His Publishing Inc. 1994
"The Lifeong Lover" by MARVIN BROOKS M. D. F.A.C.S., WITH SALLY WEST BROOKS, R.N. B.S.N., M.A. states only the engagement ring should be returned in the event of Divorce. Doubleday & Co., New York, New York, U.S.A., 1985 -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.83.195 (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
When my parents got divorced my mom kept both rings. While the divorce wasn't ugly, my dad is a lawyer and presumably would have asked for them back if he was entitled to them. So no, I don't think they're ever given back after marriage. Except on TV shows. 195.80.210.47 16:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Peter
Although the above comments are older, I thought I'd post here in talk a link that lays out the law. It's not appropriate for the article, but it lays out the facts pretty well for the questions asked here. http://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/division/94apr78.shtml At least for as long as the link survives.. This fickle web.. Basically - he gives her a ring in engagement. She leaves him before the wedding, he gets it back. He leaves her before, she keeps it. After marriage, it's her property. In no-fault the first two are different. Read the linked page for a fuller explanation. If any find this inappropriate, fine, delete. Just thought it clarifies pretty well...Jjdon (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Globalize
This article is not accurate for all Parts of the world. wedding ring is much better in this aspect, and from what I see it is still marked for globalizing. ntg_sf 22 July 2007
Alternatives
I would like to see a section of this article discussing alternatives to traditional diamond engagement rings. In the recent public awareness of the nature of blood diamonds, more and more couples are choosing other types of stones, diamond simulants, or smaller diamonds that come from non-conflict areas. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamison192 (talk o contribs) 00:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Nobody cares. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.30.120 (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Left or Right
My German lecturers wear their wedding rings on the third finger of the right hand despite being right handed, I'm left handed, so if I get married, I'd most probably wear it on my right hand anyways, but is the hand where the rings are worn less important than which finger it was worn? --Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHowardII (talk o contribs) 08:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
International
Methinks its time to remove the tag - engagement rings, particularly diamond ones, are very much a western marketing invention by de Beers & Ayers. So to put an asian/african/middle eastern spin on it would be either meaningless or legitimize the whole marketing concept....Thoughts?Bridesmill 05:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Trading up
I just removed a section on "trading up" rings that seemed quite normative and very much like it was pushing a new marketing technique rather than documenting a widely accepted practice. Before restoring it would be good to get a source from a sociology study or the like that could cover how established a practice this actually is. -- SiobhanHansa 15:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Price
I believe the following sentence has been mistyped: "A conventional buying price ranging from two weeks to three months wages for a ring guideline originated from De Beers marketing materials...." In context with the rest of the paragraph which talks about the "'two months salary' guideline," and other sites' research which also talk about a two month guideline, the "two weeks" guideline doesn't appear to belong. I won't change it because I'm unsure, but I believe the sentence should read, "...two to three months wages...." 05 December 2007
We have an article on our consumer advocate site about buying diamond engagement rings and scams to avoid. An uneducated consumer is often a sitting duck to unscrupulous salespeople, and may also buy the wrong diamond if they lack the education to protect themselves. Our article tells you everything you need to know to be educated and make a smart acquisition. Our article is located at http://www.bridaltips.com/diamond.htm
I know Wiki does not like people linking to their own sites, so they ask us to bring it up here in the talk channel to encourage editors to add it if they choose to.
I invite the editors to take a look at our invaluable resource and if it meets your guidelines, you may link to this article as part of the reference section along with the links you have their to other online resources.
Thanks,
Jeff Ostroff --Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.113.171 (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Men's engagement rings
Would like to hear more about men's engagement rings. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.174.74 (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Notes on image captions
The second image on this page is of another engagement ring/wedding band set, and includes this note in the caption: "Note: Color clarity is slightly diminished due to room lighting."
This doesn't sound like it has any value to anyone besides the owner or purchaser of the ring - without that note, it's still quite clear that the ring is a diamond engagement ring. We're not trying to show off this particluar ring, are we? I'm new to this, so I'm nervous about deleting things, but this one seems egregious and also easy to revert. Please let me know if I've acted in error! --Melanie Wilke (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Sources
To the anon who is deleting references: Please stop. If you don't like the sources listed, then please feel free to REPLACE them with high-quality sources, but don't leave the sentences unsourced.
You're probably not aware of this, but when we've left those sentences unsourced in the past, we either get demands for sources, or (in the one instance) we get jewelry sellers (or perhaps greedy brides) increasing the amount of money that's 'supposed' to be spent on engagement rings.
Deleting sources hurts the encyclopedia. Please stop it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
how to say
In my marketing area the chief teenybop radio stations carry ads for engagement rings 4-5 times an hour. I've never met a competent married couple who cared a (minimal worthless thing) about an engagement ring. How to express that the idea of "engagement ring" might be useful to some persons (especially the sellers of them) but is usually a total waste to serious persons? This is from North America. Is the "engagement ring" idea mostly a marketing thing for sellers of diamonds? Don't know how to put this in pedia terms. Help? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.55.217.216 (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Victorian humor
This may be too far off topic, and too trivial, but engagement rings seem to have been a favorite topic of humor in the Victorian era. From the January 22, 1876 issue of Once a Week magazine:
The Old, Old Story
They were seated on a rustic bench.
"Oh do be mine," he cried attempting to draw her a little nearer his end of the seat.
She made herself rigid and heaved a sigh.
"I'll be a good man and give up all my bad habits," he urged.
No reply.
"I'll never drink another drop," he continued.
Still unrelenting sat the object of his adoration.
"And give up smoking."
Cold as ever.
"And join the church."
She only shook her head.
"And give you a diamond engagement ring," he added in desperation.
Then the maiden lifted her drooping eyes to his and leaning her frizzes on his shoulder tremblingly murmured into his ravished ears, "Oh Edward you are so--so good."
And there they sat until the soft arms of night--that quiet dusky nurse of the world--had folded them from sight pondering, planning, thinking--she of the diamond ring and he--poor miserable fellow--of how on earth he was to get it. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thimbles
I was looking for early sources on thimbles as betrothal rings, but wasn't able to find anything. Searching Google Books, nothing turned up before 1980. Then I found this: wedding thimble. It looks like the whole thimble thing may be a modern urban legend. Zyxwv99 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Is this really true?
The article claims that 80% percent of Americans who get married buy engagement rings. Is this really true? The Bain report doesn't give a source for the number, so I suspect this comes from some inaccurate survey by the jewelry industry (probably surveying a percentage of the population who is more likely to buy them than average). I strongly suspect that not that many Americans can actually afford to spend several thousand dollars on a ring because the 20th percentile income is not very high, though credit card debt may be the reason for this. Andrewpmk | Talk 00:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Diamond color
From looking at adverts & TV commercials, only white diamonds are considered acceptable; is that because they symbolize purity, as does a white wedding gown? Colored diamonds seem to be preferred as gemstones in general.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon