answered question
0
Votes
Votes
42
Answers
Answers
M$1.00
Does the engagement ring REALLY need to be diamond?
Given the bloodshed over diamond harvesting, the false rarity of diamonds, and the plethora of diamond alternatives, do we really still need to keep buying diamonds?
Go ahead, make the case for tradition as well.
Go ahead, make the case for tradition as well.
answers (42)
My wife was (and remains) really happy with her blue sapphire engagement ring. Blue is her favorite color. BTW, we'll be celebrating our 20th anniversary in February.
You could talk to her about it to find out what she thinks. My wife and I shopped for the ring together so she'd have a style that she loved, rather than what some jeweler sold me.
You could talk to her about it to find out what she thinks. My wife and I shopped for the ring together so she'd have a style that she loved, rather than what some jeweler sold me.
to me its whether you can afford it or not. I mean if you are young and in love and want to get married. Can you really afford something that can be a car? Down payment on a house? I mean sure its pretty and its tradition but if a couple is really in love nothing else matters? Its all a big scam nowadays trying to get the most outta you. "A girls best friend"----"A mans worst nightmare"
Is an engagement even necessary? It's all about culture. Commitment has nothing to do with a rare, hard and expensive rock.
I would rather go with tungsten carbide rings because it just looks cool 
It needs not to be Diamond only. It can be anything like Gold or Platinum. However, it is common belief that Diamond is symbol of love and to a great extend, it is true but now Platinum is taking over the Diamond as a Symbol of love.
Akash...
Akash...
Diamond only became a symbol of love after De Beers spent lots of money on manipulating culture.
here are some examples of love symbols used by cultures far older than ours.
http://www.whats-your-sign.com/love-symbols.html
here are some examples of love symbols used by cultures far older than ours.
http://www.whats-your-sign.com/love-symbols.html
Yes.
As a husband that had to go through months of my now wife looking in every shop window for a ring, if I was to say, no babe, a ruby will good, she would kill me.
Diamonds are forever.
As a husband that had to go through months of my now wife looking in every shop window for a ring, if I was to say, no babe, a ruby will good, she would kill me.
Diamonds are forever.
I would like to refute this, but I don't think that a significant other who has emotionally bonded to the concept of diamonds = love would admit that their desires were dictated by marketing created before they were even born.
Emotion trumps reason ;)
Emotion trumps reason ;)
This tradition is thought to be from the Romans, who believed this finger to be the beginning of the vena amoris ("vein of love"), the vein that leads to the heart. Romantic rings from the time of the Roman Empire and from as far back as 4 AD. If it's been around for 2004 years maybe you should stick to the book on this one. As for the "blood diamond" check out www.brilliantearth.com for "conflict free" diamonds from Canada.
Only if you get married after the 1930's
"In the 1930s, De Beers set out to establish social status for large diamonds through giving a number of starlets hefty stones, arranging for glamorous photo shoots, and script-doctoring Hollywood movies to include scenes of jewelry shopping. The tradition began to be manipulated more closely in one particular aspect–the act of giving. Those starlets told tales of being surprised by their large stones. Movie scenes featured a hero giving his gal a big rock and watching her eyes grow wide with joy. The diamond began to be injected into relationships between men and women as a reproducible act–a script for life, not just film–and an inseparable part of courtship and marriange. In 1947, De Beers’ ad agency came up with the massively successful slogan "A diamond is forever," which implied that diamonds don’t crack, break, or lose value. (They do.) The slogan became so entrenched that the only proper way to "dispose" of diamonds was to hand them down to a female descendant."
"In the 1930s, De Beers set out to establish social status for large diamonds through giving a number of starlets hefty stones, arranging for glamorous photo shoots, and script-doctoring Hollywood movies to include scenes of jewelry shopping. The tradition began to be manipulated more closely in one particular aspect–the act of giving. Those starlets told tales of being surprised by their large stones. Movie scenes featured a hero giving his gal a big rock and watching her eyes grow wide with joy. The diamond began to be injected into relationships between men and women as a reproducible act–a script for life, not just film–and an inseparable part of courtship and marriange. In 1947, De Beers’ ad agency came up with the massively successful slogan "A diamond is forever," which implied that diamonds don’t crack, break, or lose value. (They do.) The slogan became so entrenched that the only proper way to "dispose" of diamonds was to hand them down to a female descendant."
I would prefer to go with platinum ring also which is also very cool to give for engagement
It doesn't need to be a diamond ring, it really depends on you and your engaged's choice. The "tradition" hasn't been around that long, having started in the 50s and 60s as a marketing ploy. In the 1900s pearl and other stones were used.
No, the tradition has been something precious of sentimental value. For example the first silver baby spoon has been used as the material for the ring.
Also Canada offers certified Diamonds that have not been bought with blood or slave labor
Also Canada offers certified Diamonds that have not been bought with blood or slave labor
The history of the engagement ring is more about myth and fantasy than actual fact until you enter the 20th Century when a marked turn of events shapes public opinion beyond all doubt.
Today almost everyone's interpretation of the engagement ring is something along these lines: "A symbol of ever lasting purity, love, devotion and commitment between two people". But where did it all start?
The earliest surviving records have shown that Archduke Maximillian of Hamburg may have started the trend among the European wealthy and royalty of giving diamond engagement rings in 1477 by giving Mary of Burgundy a diamond betrothal ring.
What happened before 1477? Was there such a thing as an engagement ring and if so were they set with diamonds?
Today almost everyone's interpretation of the engagement ring is something along these lines: "A symbol of ever lasting purity, love, devotion and commitment between two people". But where did it all start?
The earliest surviving records have shown that Archduke Maximillian of Hamburg may have started the trend among the European wealthy and royalty of giving diamond engagement rings in 1477 by giving Mary of Burgundy a diamond betrothal ring.
What happened before 1477? Was there such a thing as an engagement ring and if so were they set with diamonds?
No, not neccesarily. As long as you love each other, material things is not that important. Its just a waste of money specially now that we are facing economic crisis worldwide.
No. Diamond rings were only for the very wealthy until after the first World War, and rubies or garnets were much more popular for engagement rings. (Red is the traditional color of love and passion, and if you couldn't afford a ruby, you could usually afford a garnet
If she says its important, you damn well better believe its important. This is all about the symbolism and emotion attached to the ring. If your significant other doesn't think its important and you agree, then it doesn't matter what anyone else believes. If she is expecting one, and you try to convince her that its all a marketing scheme and it shouldn't matter because your love is what matters she might hear "you're not good enough to spend all this money on something I think is trivial" so definitely consider her values before you make any judgment.
No, my mother's was a simply gold band. Moreover, it probably doesn't even have to be gold. Platinum or Sterling will also suffice. A cigar band will only do in a pinch and only temporily, i.e "drunk in Vegas"
source(s):
Common Sense, and experience
Common Sense, and experience
Platinum lasts a lot longer than gold, and is more expensive! "suffice" is a bit misleading...
This really depends on the person. Tradition says the engagement ring should cost the amount you earn in a month, and be diamond. It's best to get an idea of what she wants by asking her somehow, without indicating that you're going to buy her one.
I think most girls would like a diamond, but you can always add smaller stones either side, that perhaps have sentimental value (her birthstone for example), or that she likes.
I think most girls would like a diamond, but you can always add smaller stones either side, that perhaps have sentimental value (her birthstone for example), or that she likes.
I agree with posters who've said that a lot depends on the bride's expectations and preferences.
That being said, no, the ring does not have to be a diamond. A good friend's ring is a beautiful blue sapphire, and it's lovely.
That being said, no, the ring does not have to be a diamond. A good friend's ring is a beautiful blue sapphire, and it's lovely.
The only thing you should consider is the way your wife-to-be feels about the idea of a non-traditional engagement ring. The last thing you want is for her to look at the ring for the rest of her life feeling that it was a sub-par substitution. It is, after all, the lasting symbol of your decision to spend the rest of your lives together.
I personally think that the obsession we have with diamonds in our culture is despicable, especially given the nature of their manufacture. Someone already suggested that you look into a conflict-free diamond source, which would be a great idea in the case that your fiancee won't have it any other way.
I personally think that the obsession we have with diamonds in our culture is despicable, especially given the nature of their manufacture. Someone already suggested that you look into a conflict-free diamond source, which would be a great idea in the case that your fiancee won't have it any other way.
Do you really need an engagement ring? Or a wedding ring for that matter? Does anybody? How about putting the money to good use instead, like a down-payment for a house or, if you already have one of those, a donation to a charity. Think of the trend you'll be setting.
Just my (non-traditional) 2 cents
Just my (non-traditional) 2 cents
I personally am a big fan of buying a giant CZ, so big that no one would ever question if it was "real", and then putting the money you would have spent into something you can both enjoy, like a down payment on a house, a vacation, a college fund for your future children (if you plan to have any.) But I know most of my friends think I'm nuts when I tell them this, except for my newly-engaged friend who is wearing a v. simple sterling band. It *is* all about your future wife's expectations... Good luck!
You should communicate with her and ask what is important to her. A surprise seems like a great idea but remember, she will be wearing it for years to come, possibly her whole life! Imagine if she picked out a hat that you had to wear everyday, from now on. You would want some input right? You could also consider asking her mother or sister if she has one of those still around.
To most people, the engagement ring stands for your committment and love for each other. Whether diamond, gemstone, or a simple band, it's your promise of eternal devotion that should be seen by your fiance every time she looks at the ring on her finger. My personal opinion is that people should move away from the "materialistic" tradion of ring giving and move toward the true meaning behind engagement and marriage.
I guess this question/answer depends a lot on the couple getting engaged/married. For some couples the traditional diamond engagement ring might be important; other couples probably don't care. It is an interesting story that one man (and the company he created) basically created and controlled the supply and demand for diamonds.
My personal opinion here... I think the whole thing is bogus. It seems unreasonable to expect men to pay 2 to 3 times your monthly salary on a ring! If you want to buy into that BS, go right ahead. With the divorce rate as high as it is, you can always find wedding rings and engagement rings at pawn shops much cheaper than at retail jewelers. Then take the rings to the jeweler for sizing and cleaning. She will never know unless you tell her. ;-)
My personal opinion here... I think the whole thing is bogus. It seems unreasonable to expect men to pay 2 to 3 times your monthly salary on a ring! If you want to buy into that BS, go right ahead. With the divorce rate as high as it is, you can always find wedding rings and engagement rings at pawn shops much cheaper than at retail jewelers. Then take the rings to the jeweler for sizing and cleaning. She will never know unless you tell her. ;-)
In no way does an engagement ring need to be a diamond. An engagement dose not even need a ring--a symbol of fidelity and eternal love--because the ring is a symbol; it is not the commitment itself. However, if one is considering an engagement ring, the personality, style and preference of the recipient all play a role as well as any meaning or significance for the couple.
For example, my sister who is an artist wears a lot of large, artisan jewelery pieces, so her husband proposed by taking her to the jeweler where she picked out a thick ring set with four amethysts.
Still, if the couple desires a diamond engagement ring, they can search for a conflict-free diamond whose "profit is not used to fund war, and it is mined and produced under ethical conditions." http://www.conflictfreediamonds.org/
For example, my sister who is an artist wears a lot of large, artisan jewelery pieces, so her husband proposed by taking her to the jeweler where she picked out a thick ring set with four amethysts.
Still, if the couple desires a diamond engagement ring, they can search for a conflict-free diamond whose "profit is not used to fund war, and it is mined and produced under ethical conditions." http://www.conflictfreediamonds.org/
source(s):
http://www.conflictfreediamonds.org/
http://engagementrings.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Engagement_Ring_Symbolism
http://www.conflictfreediamonds.org/
http://engagementrings.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Engagement_Ring_Symbolism
I think Americans are stricter on that point than Europeans. I chose a black saphire and it was a hit.
But anyway: More important is a romantic occasion and the right words.
But anyway: More important is a romantic occasion and the right words.
I think a modern woman would much rather like a Macbook Pro -- nicer than a diamond, worth more in the long run, more usable, of higher quality, and easier to show off (are there even still girls that care about silly things like diamonds?).
source(s):
Life.
Life.
My wife and I used a black baroque pearl ring which was stunning and relatively inexpensive. The setting highlighted the color and irregular shapes of the pearl to give a beautiful and unique look. She received many complements on it.
source(s):
Wikipedia and personal experience
Wikipedia and personal experience
The engagement ring doesn't have to be a diamond unless you want it to be. My husband used cubic zirconia* (spelling) and used platinum for the metal of the ring. It's beatiful, however, the cz will get dirty more fast than a diamond will. If your fiance' to be doesn't care, then you shouldn't and I would say that you have a great woman to spend your life with. It is the very materialistic world we live in that we all seem to follow. Do what you want. :) I hope this helps!
I would say tthis is COMPLETELY dependant on your bride-to-be. Granted, most women will be stary eyed over a diamond engagement ring(it doesn't have to be a boulder!), but I would say a healthy chunk of them would be just as happy if not happier with a more personal ring...especially if the stone had some meaning in the relationship(birthstone, made from something you collected together, etc). One of my buddies actually proposed with a twistie-tie shaped like a ring...before you ask, it actually went over much better than I expected...lol
It depends on the you fiance, and how big a chance you're willing to take. If she's very traditional, I wouldn't risk it. If she's typically open minded, and you think she'll be concerned about the issues you raise in your question, then you have a much better chance.
If you decide to go with something else, just make sure that she does not get the impression you are doing it to save money.
If you decide to go with something else, just make sure that she does not get the impression you are doing it to save money.
I would say that the reason for giving the diamond is because of tradition and it probably depends on whether the person you are proposing to feels as strongly as you do about blood diamonds. If they are also upset by the conditions in which diamonds are gathered then they would probably be perfectly happy with getting a different stone with their ring. However it would probably be a good idea to explain your reasoning so they don't think you are just being cheap.
No, it doesn't....it is a personal choice if you want to follow that tradition....you don't need a ring at all if you don't want one...personally, I feel it is outrageous how much of the world is suffering--and people are spending an insane amount of jewelry....not just the people being abused in the diamond trade--but all the poor of the world. I have much better things to spend my money on. I am seriously ill and struggling financially-I can't afford medical care and home and car repairs...yet others are going around flashing expensive jewelry with no concern for the rest of society....or they are defaulting on their credit cards and expecting banks to forgive their debt.
Mine is going to be titanium carbide, no 'precious' gems or anything like that. There is no point, its just an ancient gesture with no real meaning, designed to keep the poor people poor.
source(s):
Personal Experience
Personal Experience
you must ask your prospective mate that question.
IN INDIA A RED ROSE IS ALL IT TAKES
Of course not. To be perfectly honest, the reason that SOME women like a diamond ring [or something equally as pricey] is that it's another way of showing your willingness to commit. It doesn't take much effort to get down on one knee and whisper sweet-nothings. But if you're willing to throw away 5 grand on a ring, she knows your serious about this whole 'getting married' thing.
Yes, it's somewhat shallow. I'd say, find a ring that symbolizes some strong personal meaning to the both of you.
Yes, it's somewhat shallow. I'd say, find a ring that symbolizes some strong personal meaning to the both of you.
I don't feel it's right, it's just an empty gesture really. I'd rather put the cost of that ring toward a family home, or to save for the future. I also don't feel comfortable with the whole conflict diamond thing, I mean what's wrong with something like http://www.woodenrings.co.uk/
Unfortunately, yes. This one doesn't need citation, but engagement rings are traditionally diamond. If you have a girl who REALLY doesn't mind non-traditional rings, try an elegant but simple white gold or platinum. If you're short on cash, give her something small (it's the thought that counts) and promise you'll do better when times aren't as tough.
HECK NO!! The only reason diamonds are the traditional engagement ring gemstone is because DeBeers advertised them as such starting in the early 20th century.
I never wanted a diamond after I learned that they aren't even rare but are expensive simply because DeBeers has cornered the market. When I found out about what was going on in Africa over diamond harvesting, it only made me more determined that I would not have a diamond solitaire engagement ring.
I actually just got engaged in September, and my fiancé and I picked out a lovely aquamarine engagement ring. It has some small diamonds on the side (conflict-free) which I think are nice. The important thing to remember when picking a different gemstone is to get one that is hard enough (aquamarines, sapphires, rubies are all good choices, while opals and pearls are usually not because they are not very hard).
However, this is the kind of thing that I think you should discuss with the recipient of the ring: I mean...she (or he) is the one who's going to be wearing it for a long time! Some people have an attachment to diamonds: i may just be the exception.
I'm going to try to include a pic of my engagement ring (not sure it will work, though since it's from a facebook photo album): don't mind my weird hands (closeups reveal everyone's imperfections ;-)).
I never wanted a diamond after I learned that they aren't even rare but are expensive simply because DeBeers has cornered the market. When I found out about what was going on in Africa over diamond harvesting, it only made me more determined that I would not have a diamond solitaire engagement ring.
I actually just got engaged in September, and my fiancé and I picked out a lovely aquamarine engagement ring. It has some small diamonds on the side (conflict-free) which I think are nice. The important thing to remember when picking a different gemstone is to get one that is hard enough (aquamarines, sapphires, rubies are all good choices, while opals and pearls are usually not because they are not very hard).
However, this is the kind of thing that I think you should discuss with the recipient of the ring: I mean...she (or he) is the one who's going to be wearing it for a long time! Some people have an attachment to diamonds: i may just be the exception.
I'm going to try to include a pic of my engagement ring (not sure it will work, though since it's from a facebook photo album): don't mind my weird hands (closeups reveal everyone's imperfections ;-)).
source(s):
personal
personal
well, guess it didn't work (the pic). Oh well.
I certainly don't think that it has to be a diamond. I know it's tradition, but I think that the biggest thing about an engagement ring is that the person who will be wearing it has to like it (and not just because it's an engagement ring). If that means it is something less traditional, that's great. I think that having some originality on your style never hurts. And maybe there will be fewer blood diamonds in the mix. Maybe we can get those great Canadian Polar Bear diamonds in the mix.....
Having diamond in the engagement ring is a tradition. One more reason for having a diamond engagement ring is that diamonds are hardest natural gemstone and engagement rings are meant to be worn for life long commitment. So diamonds are usually preferred on engagement rings.
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
