Do 2 rings = married regardless of what they look like?

posted 3 years ago in Rings
Post # 2
Member
1197 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: August 2014

This may just be me, but I usually don’t assume anything about a woman’s relationship status based on her rings.  I had a friend in college who wore what looked like a very typical wedding set on her left ring finger without being married, and some women I know either only wear an engagement ring, a wedding band, or no ring at all.  So I say wear whatever rings you like! 

Post # 3
Member
6273 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: October 2013

0 rings can = married. acutally one of my biking buddies just got married at the courthouse.  they exchanged ring pops because they wanted to exchange something but neither of them are or plan to wear rings inthe future.

when i was in high school, a friend of mine’s father gave her a solitaire diamond ring as a birthday present.  it looked like an engagement ring but wasn’t.

but if i saw someone with what looked like a wedding set on their left ring finger, yes i would assume.  but you know what assume does…..makes an ass out of you and me.

Post # 4
Member
4797 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: May 2014

linnylou_88:  Yeah, you can’t assume anything BUT I would. Lol! AND I also believe you should wear whatever you want to wear to symbolize a marriage. Though if it’s “not the norm” I suppose you will get people asking about it.

Post # 5
Member
3637 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: September 2015

If a woman has two rings (any ring type) on her left hand ring finger, I assume that she is engaged. (If you don’t want me to assume that, don’t wear them on that finger). 

If a woman has one plain or eternity ring on her left ring finger, I assume that she is married and just not wearing her engagement ring. 

If a woman has one ring that is neither plain nor an eternity ring on her left hand ring finger then I assume she is engaged and not yet married. 

Post # 5
Member
3637 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: September 2015

If a woman has two rings (any ring type) on her left hand ring finger, I assume that she is engaged. (If you don’t want me to assume that, don’t wear them on that finger). 

If a woman has one plain or eternity ring on her left ring finger, I assume that she is married and just not wearing her engagement ring. 

If a woman has one ring that is neither plain nor an eternity ring on her left hand ring finger then I assume she is engaged and not yet married. 

Post # 7
Member
2368 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: June 2014

 Yup! Mine won’t look like the ‘typical’ wedding set. I can’t stand wide rings, it just feels awkward on my hand.  I’ve got a 2.5mm wide engagement ring (solitaire) and my band will be a very slim half eternity style wrap. I’m getting them fused together, so it’ll be one ring at the end. 

Also, remember that many women choose to only go with a wedding band, or an anniversary band after being married for a while. So no  I don’t think it would be unusual.

Post # 8
Member
9529 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: August 2013

Does it matter? I’m married and I only wear the ring that I wore while engaged. I don’t like the way two rings look so I just didn’t get a second one after the wedding. I know married people that wear 0, 1, 2, or more rings. So I try not to assume anything based on rings or lack thereof.

Post # 9
Member
1904 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: June 2014 - TTC #2

Yes, I would assume that. Everyone knows that’s where erings/wrings are put (except the few countries that are the exception eg Russia).

Post # 10
Member
1517 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: February 2012

I would assume the woman was married if they looked like a typical ering/wband. I don’t think I would assume she was married just because she wore two rings on her left hand ring finger. 

Post # 11
Member
7279 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: November 1999

baileyjosephine:  This may just be me, but I usually don’t assume anything about a woman’s relationship status based on her rings.

Same here. Having a ring on the designated finger – doesn’t mean your are married, any more than not having one indicates that you are single. So I don’t assume. 

Post # 12
Member
878 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: April 2016

If someone was wearing any type of band or claddagh or something I would assume married. But some rings clearly look like costume jewelry pieces! A friend of mine is Bosnian and they wear their weddig rings on the right so that is where she wears her fun costume rings! For me it depends on how the ring looks

Post # 13
Member
518 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: August 2014

I guess I don’t look at people’s fingers much. I don’t really care enough I guess. Neither one of my parents wore a ring for most of their marriage, my dad never did. 

Post # 14
Member
1443 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: June 2010 - parent's backyard

the only time I assume a ring on that finger does not = engaged/married is if it’s something like a big cocktail ring or if it’s kind of casual, like turquoise or amber.  anything else, and I do assume married.

but does it matter? do what you want. I really love the look of one or two bands that don’t have a center stone. the elegant simplicity appeals to me.  I might switch to that one day myself.

Post # 15
Member
294 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: October 2015

I assume rings on left ring fingers = engaged at the very least. I’m not going to go up and ask, but if I see it, I assume it. If they aren’t wearing anything, then I assume they aren’t. That’s not to say they are/aren’t, it’s just how it is in my head.

Leave a comment


Sent weekly. You may unsubscribe at any time.

Find Amazing Vendors