I recently caught a link to this series by Lee Gainer, in which she collected images of engagement rings at various price points, representing two months' salary (or wages) for a variety of occupations. Two months' salary, as you probably know, is the amount a man is "supposed" to spend on an engagement ring, for fear of being thought stingy and unloving. According to Gainer's research, this rule was invented and proclaimed by DeBeers in 1947.
It occurs to me that aside from being extravagant, this "rule", if followed, renders engagement rings rather vulgar; it's a well-established rule of etiquette that it's impolite to talk about money in public, and allowing a ring to do the talking for you -- "I'm marrying a man who makes this much!" -- isn't much better. Gainer's statement on the series refers to derogatory comments made about men who buy insufficiently expensive rings -- "he tried his best but it wasn't good enough", "very nice for a friendship ring", that sort of thing.
A shame, because I think several of the "cheap" (still not actually cheap) rings here are rather pretty. Of course the entire engagement ring phenomenon is a bit lost on me. My mother didn't have one, I'm pretty sure my grandmothers didn't either, I rarely wear rings, and while I admire individual pieces of diamond jewellery, diamonds in general don't suit my personality (absent-minded), my colouring, my politics or my budget.
Gainer is obviously very critical of the engagement ring "tradition". Her reasoning makes sense to me, but I remain a little more agnostic. I have a number of friends who cherish their engagement rings and I would never criticize them for this; even so, I can't say the practice holds much appeal for me.
What do you think?
*eye roll*
ReplyDeleteMy husband was a college student and he spent all of $200 to get me my engagement ring. Its just an itty bitty little diamond on a plain gold band. Our wedding rings cost $100 total for each of them Plain gold bands we bought @ a Service Merchandise store. You don't eve want to know how little we spent on the wedding.
20+ years later, we're still together and still head over heels in love with each other. :)
Hee, I once knew a married couple whose wedding rings cost $10 each. It's a very interesting phenomenon, this whole "that ring is not expensive enough to be acceptable" thing, because I'm not sure I personally know anyone who thinks that way, and yet clearly there are lots of people who do.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting about my Two Months Salary series.
ReplyDeleteI's like to clear up some misunderstandings. The series is about the perception of value.
My work revolves around the hidden messages and unwritten rules we find in modern advertising imagery. With this series, why do some people follow this two month "tradition"? Why do others think it's not applicable?
The derogatory comments you refer to were made on the streets of NYC when a Sunday Morning reporter questioned passersby about her engagement rings, as stated in the series statement. I was surprised by their answers and it made me consider why they said such things.
Honestly, I was expecting the rings to appear more visually different. However, for the most part, they look very similar thanks to specific tricks the jewelry industry has to make inexpensive rings seem to be more expensive. I did not include any CZ rings just to keep things simple.
Thanks again,
Lee
I never even had heard of this "rule" until some jewelry store started using it in their ads back in the 90's? Maybe? I know we'd been married for awhile and we just looked at each other and laughed when we saw it. :)
ReplyDeleteHi Lee --
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for your reply! I'm sorry if any of what I wrote here was incorrect or ambiguous -- I can certainly alter or clarify it if you're concerned.
I first read about the series on Pandagon, where it became the jumping-off point to a discussion about marriage and feminism. Here I'm sort of trying to organize my thoughts about these images for what they say about taste and about why we buy things and wear them -- is adornment primarily an expression of one's aesthetic preferences or just a way to broadcast economic status? I didn't mean to suggest that that was your original point in the series.
I'm honoured that you came here to post.
Oh, also, Carol, was that "How else could two months' salary last forever"? I remember TV ads with that tagline.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem like an outmoded rule. The value of the ring is not an indicator of the value of the relationship nor is the salary of the husband a sign of your financial well being since most women have a nest egg and securities of their own before entering into marriage.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting article all the same; the meaning we place on material objects, especially those without practical purpose, never fails to amuse me.
Hmm. The Rasputina song "Diamond Mind" said four months. I should check that again, actually. Maybe I heard wro--nope. It's (and I quote exactly "What other way can you make four months of your measly salary last a lifetime?". Heh.
ReplyDeleteHmm. So guys give engagement rings that are worth two (or four, depending on the source) months' worth of salary...... and what do girls do to prove the guy's worth to them? Pay for the wedding? Bring a dowry of camels, oxen?
Whatever. If tradition's really your thing, then I guess there's no harm done, as long as everyone involved is in agreement. I guess it's most important to do what pleases you. (There have been weddings performed on bicycles - as the bicycles were speeding down the highway!)
It's funny, but for some reason I thought it was three months - inflation on my part? Unconscious averaging? I'd never heard of four months.
ReplyDeleteI think the rule is kind of silly - as it has no basis in anything other than advertising campaigns. We are obviously free to spend as little or as much as we want on an engagement ring, and moreover free to decide whether we want engagement rings or not. Whatever makes you happy :) My friend got wedding bands made from some special kind of wood; they were very cool.
I personally would like a ring, because I like jewelry, but at the moment I think small pearl or garnet accents would be nice.
Ooooh. I'm thinking of Laura's engagement ring from Happy Golden Years, the one Almanzo gives her: garnet, with a pearl on either side? That sounds so pretty. And wood is a surprisingly appropriate material, in my opinion: trees symbolize continuing growth, what better motif for a marriage? (Odysseus and Penelope's tree, for example)
ReplyDeleteAnd on the subject of wedding bands that would be nice, I think medieval wedding bands are really interesting. A popular design was three stacked rings, with a hand embedded on the two outer bands and a heart embedded on the middle one (so that when you put the three rings together, it would look like the two hands were clasped over the heart). And Jews, I think, used rings with a little tiny miniature house instead of a stone.
I´m glad we don´t have a diamond engagement tradtiton in my country! By the way, I think large stones in traditional design often signalize quite bad taste..
ReplyDelete(but I love wearing rings, and my favorites all have great affectional value, in additional to a nice design :)
For the first part of the 20th century engagement rings carried the birth stone of the fiance-to-be. I'm not sure when the diamond thing started...though it was probably a campaign advert.
ReplyDeleteHey Dorothy,
ReplyDeleteNo clarifications required. I really enjoy reading the responses to this work on the various forums and blogs. People are talking about love, worth, value, money, expectations, perceptions, etc. I think it's wonderful!
Have a safe and productive trip to Korea!
Lee
I'm afraid I don't have anything to add to this discussion, but I'd like to clarify that it is I who am going to Korea, not Dorothy.
ReplyDeleteMyself, I must concur with Anne in Anne of Green Gables, even without considering the expense and ethics involved, and admit that I find their colorless sparkle disappointing.
Missed this. Lee's project is interesting, and so are your ruminations.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "value" of an engagement ring being so tied to the gentleman's income...well...the ring does symbolize ownership, no? What price paid? If it were a shared exchange, and expression of commitment, then both parties would offer one. One could make an argument that by tying up liquid assets in a metal ring, the man is demonstrating his commitment to the impending marriage in a kind of posting of bond--bond which remains in the care of the party to which the promise is made. I suppose that is the sentiment behind women who feel it is their "right" to keep the ring in the event of a pre-nuptial break up.
You can see where I'm going with this...I'm more inclined to sympathize with the jewelry as a symbol of troth, specifically when expressed by both parties. Any decoration,style, or monies spent should be at the discretion, comfort level, taste, values, etc. of the couple in question.
Diamonds did indeed become the gem of engagement thanks to an industry campaign. Look at vintage engagement rings...other gems, not diamonds, predominate.
That did occur to me! In a way the expense of the ring is evidence of commitment -- although the commitment approaches a "deposit" or part of a purchase price, which offends my feminist sensibilities. It does, however, speak of a time when a man who proposed to a woman was pledging to be responsible for her material support (even if this was not enforced).
ReplyDeleteIIRC if the engagement is broken, the tradition -- and even the law -- has been that the person who broke the engagement forfeits the ring.