Post # 1
Aside from Prince William and Kate, I have never heard of or seen a couple get engaged or married with a gem (sapphire, emerald, ruby, etc.) instead of a diamond. I personally think diamonds are the embodiment of that promise of permanence marriage provides. They’re virtually indestructible and it will prevent other guys from thinking the girl is just wearing a pretty little cocktail ring on that finger (aka she’s single). Size aside, it’s traditional to buy the girl a diamond, isn’t it? What would you think if your fiance got you a gem engagement ring instead of a diamond?
Post # 3
Alot of women on the bee have gem stone rings & would probably take offense to this.
Post # 4
@aliasmae: Actually the “tradition” of diamond rings is fairly new. It all came out of a DeBeer’s marketing scheme in the 1920s (I think).
Prior to the DeBeer’s marketing, engagement rings were usually gemstone rings or pearl (not diamond).
I have a diamond ring but that doesn’t make my engagement and marriage any more real or any more permanent than someone who has a gemstone ring.
There are many amazing gemstone rings on these boards (as well as rings with no stones at all).
I do think your post may offend a fair number of people.
Also, I’ve seen marriages that started with a HUGE diamond engagement ring end very quickly in divorce and marriage that started with a small gemstone ring stand the test of time.
Post # 5
It’s “traditional” to get whatever you want. I have a sapphire, which is only slightly less indestructible as a diamond and very pretty too. There a lot of unique gemstone rings on this site, in addition to diamonds. To each her own, but I don’t think the ring should be a status symbol or an indication of the strength of your relationship.
Post # 6
I have a diamond, but gemstone rings can be just as, if not more, beautiful. Check out KatyElle’s for reference! It’s all about personal preference!
Post # 7
I personally don’t like diamonds unless they are colored or as an accent stone. I think it is all personal and agree that many bees here would probably take offense to this because there are tons with gemstone engagement rings and probably wouldn’t like them being referred to as “pretty little cocktale rings.”
Aside from that, diamonds, like white wedding dresses are a fairly recent phenominon in history. Before Queen Victoria that majority of wedding dresses were simply formal dresses that could be worn again and that were in a variety of colors. Diamonds weren’t really hugely popular stones until probably the early to mid 20th century. So really there is more history of gemstones than diamonds.
Also to many diamonds are generic and overly popular while a gemstone may be their birthstone, favorite color or just favorite stone. Many people see a gemstone as more meaningful than a diamond. Again this is not true for everyone but it true for many.
This is not to knock diamonds. I have seen many beautiful rings, they just aren’t my style personally, but there is nothing wrong with them just like their isn’t anything wrong with a gemstone. It is all very personal.
Post # 7
I have a sapphire, which was very common as an engagement ring before diamonds became so popular. It is hard enough for daily wear, and I find it very symbolic–sapphire is my birthstone, and we also got engaged in September. Don’t get me wrong, diamonds are lovely, too, but my Darling Husband likes that I have something unique but not too trendy.
Post # 8
*I* have a gemstone ring. My mother and grandmother had rubies and it is a tradition in my family dating back many generations.
I hate to waste to much time or energy on this post, because of the obvious ignorance, but a few facts:
-Diamond engagement rings didn’t become popular until the 1930’s and it was a marketing thing that made them popular
-They aren’t technically any more valuable then gemstones because of their composition or any qualities, the market is just manipulated and controlled differently
-The main gemstone (rubies, sapphires and emeralds) are only the teeniest tiniest bit softer then diamonds, not enough that you would ever know the difference in every day life
I think my FI’s love and word are the embodiment of that promise of permanence marriage provides, not some silly ring or stone or whatever.
Engagement rings are a personal thing and I do find it fairly offensive that you would judge someones relationship or marriage based on a material object.
Post # 9
@aliasmae: I think it really depends on one’s personality, taste, etc. My fiance gave me a beautiful 3 stone engagement ring with 2 white diamonds on each side of a blue diamond. Yes it is a diamond ring, but I always thought if he did propose he would give me a sapphire ring as my favorite color is blue and the ring has a lot of symbolism (faithfulness, loyalty). I don’t think its necessary for all engagement rings to be diamonds…but as I said I think it depends on the couple.
Post # 10
I gave back smaller diamond ring before (ex bf), so I think I might give back the gemstone ring (then again can’t be 100% sure because it didn’t happen).
Post # 11
I have a diamond, but I sometimes wish I would’ve gotten a gemstone. You can signify you’re married in any way you want, it doesn’t have to be a specific stone (or a stone at all). Besides that, I think how you act should signify you’re married (or engaged). Lack of flirting and talking about your FI/husband gets the point across just fine :).
Post # 12
Offensive probably isn’t even the right word. Immature, maybe?
Post # 13
I have a sapphire: BAM!
If you want to get technical, gemstones are more traditional than diamonds, particularly sapphires which symbolize fidelity. Just because my ring isn’t backed by elaborate marketing doesn’t make it a “cocktail ring.”
Post # 14
- Wedding: November 2011 - Florida Aquarium
I have and love my diamond, but I would have been content with a gem. It was Fiance who said he would only get me a diamond. He had the same thought pattern– diamond=engagement, he wanted to be damn sure that others knew it was an engagement ring. I, myself, didn’t care so much about “others.” If the ring is on *that* finger, people figure it out (yes, I acknowledge other cultures wear the rings on different hands and fingers) But hey, I’m glad my fiance had a strong opinion about something wedding related.
Post # 15
@KatNYC2011: Yup, you’re right. And one of the blogging bees posted a few days ago (CANNOT remember who – Miss Pony, maybe??) about how the custom of rings came about anyway – it had to do with the demise of the legal cause of action for breach of promise to marry around the turn of the 20th century and the need to provide some other “security” to engaged women to prevent their “ruin” should the marriage not actually occur. DeBeers later jumped on the idea of a diamond being the best way to symbolize your commitment because of its strength and ran a textbook successful marketing campaign which convinced, clearly, the entire country that you HAD to have a diamond.
That being said – my ring is both diamonds and sapphires – while the central largest stone is a diamond, I actually wasn’t committed to the idea of a diamond in the first place, I think pearls are more “me” – but, when it came down to it, Mr. PP thought were too fragile to wear forever safely. The central diamond is there because a family member, upon hearing Mr. PP wanted to propose, had it to give and wanted me to have it – but I would have loved whatever he chose, because he took the time to think about what I wanted – and did so in creating a custom setting for the diamond with sapphires included, which is a family tradition and also private joke.
The ring’s stones don’t bear any relationship to the strength of my fiance’s commitment to me, regardless of whatever some ad exec might want me to believe. It’s just a symbol, it’s not the relationship.