I would just like to know what the general consensus is on the matter. Once you buy a diamond it's value drops significantly. Is America just buying into this monopoly to retain their social normalcy? Or is it the sacrific of buying something so expensive supposed to be significant in that it shows how much you love a person?
2007-03-07 05:14:56 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Family & Relationships ➔ Weddings
Also- is it true that women started receiving wedding rings originally in case something happened to the husband she would have some sort of income?
2007-03-07 05:16:08 · update #1
Two things, the history of the wedding ring. It started as a religious symbol from the church somewhat recently too. It also was only owned either by the family or by the church in which the ceremony was to be conducted too, then RETURNED after, lol. If you look at early / mid renaissance pictures people mostly didn't wear rings unless they were noble, and it didn't signify they were married, but instead signified that they were rich.
Secondly the economic exploitation of the diamond itself. A diamond is not a "rare" mineral, there are plenty of diamonds, but their perceived value is very high and the price and market are controlled. If the holdings in Africa released more than the amount they wish to per year then the price would drop. The less they produce the more it's worth.
So yes, go and buy your wife a diamond ring to do the "normal" thing, just realize there are much better ways of showing your love... like through your actions instead of your wallet.
Oh and the answer to the second is no, most of the time the family paid the MAN money such as a dowry, besides there was almost NO divorce back then, if a husband died she would receive most of his possessions.
2007-03-07 05:19:21 · answer #1 · answered by Waddy 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No a diamond doesn't lose value. It isn't like a new car. That is why a diamond is a good investment.
The size of the stone in no way signifies the amount of love that exisits between a couple. In fact, there are great marriages where no ring at all was ever exchanged.
Both rings are a "symbol". The engagement rings signifies betrothal. The wedding ring lets onlookers know that that person has a faithful & very intimate relationship with one special person.
In some countries a wedding band is used for the engagement ring as well.
As so what if we do buy into a bit of fantasy now & again? Bottom line? The most important thing is the commitment that is made between these two persons.
2007-03-07 13:53:06 · answer #2 · answered by weddrev 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The top commenter has not done all his research. Africa does not control the diamonds, however diamonds are controled.
Blood diamonds come from Africa.
Diamonds are mined all over the worlds. My ring has Canadian diamons which are engraved with a serial number that can only be seen under extreme magnification (I bought a microscope and seen them myself)
If you dont want the value of the diamond to drop so bad, buy a diamond that was mined in america and has a serial number, a auth card and has been appraised.
I think you should have some sort of ring on your finger and if you choose not to have a diamond you will be amoung many people that are choosing this road. Just do what you are comfortable and happy with, you do have to wear it for life.
Some people just want a huge diamond as a status symbol and to them size is all that matters.
Remeber when buying a diamond if you go this route that there are many factors to take into accound when purchasing such a thing. There is clarity, cut and color. You want to make sure you diamond has very little inclusions and that the color is good, plus you want an ideal cut. If you dont know what you are looking for you could really get ripped off by someone who wants to take advantage of you.
No amount of money on a materialistic thing can show love :)
Take care
2007-03-07 13:49:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
NO, it's not outdated and it's not a gimmick. The wedding ring is an outward expression of the love and commitment made to one another. Many look at it (the wedding ring) like love... it has no beginning and no end...just like love. It has nothing to do with retaining "social normalcy" and it is not a sacrifice! If the ring is needed to show how much a person is loved, they are not in love. Second... it has nothing to do with having a source of income if anything happened to the husband.
2007-03-08 04:30:24 · answer #4 · answered by mrslang1976 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't think wedding rings are outdated. They have a symbolical meaning which is still widely socially accepted (and expected). Why does it necessarily need to be a diamond? My wedding ring is a plain gold band. Just because some people choose to spend a ton of money on the extravagant diamond rings doesn't make the symbolic meaning of "the wedding band" any less significant.
2007-03-07 14:10:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Original a women was given a plain gold band for in engagement ring and later when the women was married she would put on of the gem from her dowry on the band.
As for my wedding rings, I love mine. I do not have a diamond I have an emerald. I think that wedding ring are just tradition but that they need to be personal too.
2007-03-07 14:18:16 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the engagement ring is a huge tradition. It's moving away from the diamond, though. I know of people who have used different stones, and some people get ring tatoos (Pamela Anderson?).
I think that something like a diamond, it's so strong, solid, beautiful, pure, signifys the relationship being a strong, everlasting bond. Sadly it isn't that for many people, seeing how the divorce rate is so high!
I have never heard of the diamond being a source of income if the husband died. Interesting though.
2007-03-07 13:21:16 · answer #7 · answered by agentm006 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most people (including myself) never realized this, but engagement rings weren't used until after World War II. It was mass advertising by the diamond industry that created this as a "tradition". Surprisingly there are quite a few things that advertising has so well-blended into our culture that we've forgotten they were a marketing ploy, like engagement rings, Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, and Frosty the Snowman come to mind (advertising characters from Macy's).
2007-03-07 15:43:26 · answer #8 · answered by sapphirafire 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the wedding ring itself is outdated but the diamond is WAY over-rated. I have a beautiful silver band with 3 crosses on it - my husband's matches....there aren't diamonds and in fact they each cost $65 each. But it is only a symbol of our committment.
He was dissapointed that he could only afford a small diamond for my engagement ring which to me sounded crazy - I'm not much of a stone person anyways and all it is a stone that is common and overpriced.
The ring and its status and symolic meaning is timeless....the diamond???? Needs to go......
2007-03-07 13:25:16 · answer #9 · answered by boz4425 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I love and cherish my wedding ring and it is without a diamond. The ring, which my husband has one, too, is supposed to be a symbol of the vow and the love. An engagement ring, which is the diamond part, that could be seen as unnecessary and I believe that whole thing was started by the diamond industry.
2007-03-07 13:19:37 · answer #10 · answered by Sharon M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋