An engagement ring is a ring indicating that the person wearing it is engaged to be married, especially in Western cultures. In Western countries, engagement rings are worn mostly by women, and rings can feature diamonds or other gemstones. In some other cultures men and women wear matching rings. In some cultures, engagement rings are also used as wedding rings.
The woman's ring is presented as an engagement gift by a man to his prospective spouse while he proposes marriage or directly after she accepts his marriage proposal. It represents a formal agreement to future marriage.
In Western countries, it is customarily worn on the left hand ring finger, though customs vary across the world.
Before agreeing to marry, a couple may choose to buy and wear pre-engagement rings, also called promise rings. After marrying, the couple may wear both engagement rings and wedding rings, or if they prefer, only the wedding rings. Some brides have their engagement and wedding rings permanently soldered together after marriage.
Although the ancient Egyptians are sometimes credited with having invented the engagement ring, and the ancient Greeks with having adopted the tradition, the history of the engagement ring can only be reliably traced as far back as ancient Rome.
In many countries, engagement rings are placed on the finger nearest the little finger on the left hand. At one time it was believed that this finger contained a vein (the vena amoris) that led to the heart. This idea was popularized by Henry Swinburne in A treatise of Spousals, or Matrimonial Contracts (1686). The story seems to have its origin in the ancient Roman book Attic Nights by Aulus Gellius quoting Apion's Aegyptiacorum, where the alleged vein was originally a nervus (a word that can be translated either as "nerve" or "sinew").
The popular belief that an engagement ring was originally part of the bride price which represented purchase and ownership of the bride, has been called into question by contemporary scholarship.:42 note 105
In the second century BC, the Roman bride-to-be was given two rings, a gold one which she wore in public, and one made of iron which she wore at home while attending to household duties. At one time Roman citizens wore rings made of iron. In later years senators who served as ambassadors were given gold seal rings for official use when abroad. Later the privilege of wearing gold rings was extended to other public officials, then to the knights, later to all freeborn, and finally under Justinian, to freedmen. For several centuries it was the custom for Romans to wear iron rings at home, gold rings in public. During this period a girl or woman might receive two engagement rings, one of iron and one of gold.
The mid-7th century Visigothic Code required "that when the ceremony of betrothal has been performed, ..., and the ring shall have been given or accepted as a pledge, although nothing may have been committed to writing, the promise shall, under no circumstances, be broken."
In 860 AD, Pope Nicholas I wrote a letter to Boris I of Bulgaria in reply to questions regarding differences between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox practices. Pope Nicholas describes how in the Western church the man gives his betrothed an engagement ring. At the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, convoked by Pope Innocent III, the banns of marriage was instituted, prohibiting clandestine marriages and requiring that marriages be made public in advance. Some[who?] legal scholars have seen in this a parallel with the engagement-ring tradition described by Pope Nicholas I.
The first well-documented use of a diamond ring to signify engagement was by the Archduke Maximilian of Austria in imperial court of Vienna in 1477, upon his betrothal to Mary of Burgundy. This then influenced those of higher social class and of significant wealth to give diamond rings to their loved ones.
There is a modern belief that in early colonial New England, where Puritans shunned ornaments and jewels, a thimble substituted for both engagement ring and wedding ring; and some women would remove the tops of the thimble in order to create a ring.[unreliable source?] Some researchers strongly believe this to be just a myth without basis in reality.
In South Africa, diamonds were first found in 1866.  Although they were not identified as such until 1867. By 1872, the output of the diamond mines exceeded one million carats per year. As production increased, those of lesser means were able to join in on this movement. However, diamond engagement rings were for a long time seen as the domain of the nobility and aristocracy, and tradition often favoured simpler engagement bands.
In 1938, the diamond cartel De Beers began a marketing campaign that would have a major impact on engagement rings. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the price of diamonds collapsed. At the same time, market research indicated that engagement rings were going out of style with the younger generation. While the first phase of the marketing campaign consisted of market research, the advertising phase began in 1939. One of the first elements of this campaign was to educate the public about the 4 Cs (cut, carats, color, and clarity). In 1947 the slogan "a diamond is forever" was introduced. Ultimately, the De Beers campaign sought to persuade the consumer that an engagement ring is indispensable, and that a diamond is the only acceptable stone for an engagement ring.
In the 21st century, especially within Western civilization, it has become a common expectation for the bride-to-be to permanently wear her ring as a means of showing her commitment.
In the 20th century, if he could afford it, the typical Western groom privately selected and purchased an engagement ring, which he then presented to his desired bride when he proposed marriage. In countries where both partners wear engagement rings, matching rings may be selected and purchased together. In the United States and Canada, where only women traditionally wear engagement rings, women also occasionally present their partners with an engagement gift.
Like all jewelry, the price for an engagement ring varies considerably depending on the materials used: the design of the ring, whether it includes a gemstone, the value of any gemstone, and the seller. The price of the gemstones, if any, in the ring depends on the type and quality of the gem. Diamonds have a standardized description that values them according to their carat weight, color, clarity and cut. Other gemstones, such as sapphires, rubies, emeralds, have different systems. These may be chosen to honor a family tradition, to use family heirlooms, to be unique, to be socially responsible (they are not associated with blood diamonds[dubious ] or the pollution caused by gold mining and cyanide process)[dubious ], to fit the individual's stylistic preferences, or to manage cost. Synthetic stones and diamond substitutes such as cubic zirconias and moissanites are also popular choices that are socially responsible and reduce cost while maintaining the desired appearance.
According to the Gemological Institute of America, 99% of the worlds diamonds are conflict free.
The idea that a man should spend a significant fraction of his annual income for an engagement ring originated de novo from De Beers marketing materials in the mid-20th century, in an effort to increase the sale of diamonds. In the 1930s, they suggested that a man should spend the equivalent of one month's income in the engagement ring; later they suggested that he should spend two months' income on it. In 2012, the average cost of an engagement ring in USA as reported by the industry was US$4,000.
One reason for the increased popularity of expensive engagement rings is its relationship to human sexuality and the woman's marriage prospects. In the United States, until the Great Depression, a man who broke off a marriage engagement could be sued for breach of promise. Monetary damages included actual expenses incurred in preparing for the wedding, plus damages for emotional distress and loss of other marriage prospects. Damages were greatly increased if the woman had engaged in sexual intercourse with her fiancé. Beginning in 1935, these laws were repealed or limited. However, the social and financial cost of a broken engagement was no less: marriage was the only financially sound option for most women, and if she was no longer a virgin, her prospects for a suitable future marriage were greatly decreased. The diamond engagement ring thus became a source of financial security for the woman.
Tradition generally holds that if the betrothal fails because the man himself breaks off the engagement, the woman is not obliged to return the ring. This reflects the ring's role as a form of compensation for the woman's damaged reputation. Legally, this condition can be subject to either a modified or a strict fault rule. Under the former, the fiancé can demand the return of the ring unless he breaks the engagement. Under the latter, the fiancé is entitled to the return unless his actions caused the breakup of the relationship, the same as the traditional approach. However, a no-fault rule is being advanced in some jurisdictions, under which the fiancé is always entitled to the return of the ring. The ring only becomes the property of the woman when marriage occurs. An unconditional gift approach is another possibility, wherein the ring is always treated as a gift, to be kept by the fiancée whether or not the relationship progresses to marriage. Recent court rulings have determined that the date in which the ring was offered can determine the condition of the gift. E.g. Valentine's Day and Christmas are widely recognized as gift giving holidays in the United States and some other countries. A ring offered in the form of a Christmas present is likely to remain the personal property of the recipient in the event of a breakup.
In most states of the United States, engagement rings are considered "conditional gifts" under the legal rules of property. This is an exception to the general rule that gifts cannot be revoked once properly given. See, for example, the case of Meyer v. Mitnick, 625 N.W.2d 136 (Michigan, 2001), whose ruling found the following reasoning persuasive: "the so-called 'modern trend' holds that because an engagement ring is an inherently conditional gift, once the engagement has been broken, the ring should be returned to the donor. Thus, the question of who broke the engagement and why, or who was 'at fault,' is irrelevant. This is the no-fault line of cases." Though in certain states, whether a judicial action can be maintained at all to require return of an engagement ring is blocked by statute, as many states have statutes which state that no civil action shall be maintained for breach of promise to marry.
One case in New South Wales, Australia ended in the man suing his former fiancée because she threw the ring away, after he told her she could keep it even though the marriage plans had fallen through. The Supreme Court of New South Wales held that, despite what the man said, the ring remained a conditional gift (partly because his saying that she could keep it reflected his desire to salvage the relationship) and she was ordered to pay him its A$15,250 cost.
In England and Wales, the gift of an engagement ring is presumed to be an absolute gift to the fiancée. This presumption may be rebutted however by proving that the ring was given on condition (express or implied) that it must be returned if the marriage did not take place, for whatever reason. This was decided in the case Jacobs v Davis (1917).
Engagement rings, like any other kind of jewelry, come in many different styles.
Gold and platinum are preferred for engagement rings, but common metal types such as titanium, silver, and stainless steel are also used for engagement rings. This allows for the bride-to-be to exert her own individual style into the ring in a simple manner.
In the United States, where engagement rings are worn by women, diamonds have been widely featured in engagement rings since the middle of the 20th century. Solitaire rings have one single diamond. Archetype of this modern form is the solitaire Tiffany Setting which was introduced by Tiffany & Co. in 1886 and featured the first mount which holds the gemstone with six claws (so called Tiffany mount). The modern favorite cut for an engagement ring is the brilliant cut, which provides the maximum amount of sparkle to the gemstone. The traditional engagement rings may have different prong settings and bands. Another major category is engagement rings with side stones. Rings with a larger diamond set in the middle and smaller diamonds on the side fit under this category. Three-stone diamond engagement rings, sometimes called trinity rings or trilogy rings, are rings with three matching diamonds set horizontally in a row with the bigger stone placed in the center. The three diamonds on the ring are typically said to represent the couple's past, present, and future, but other people give religious significance to the arrangement.
A wedding set, or bridal set, includes an engagement ring and a wedding band that matches and can be bought as a set. In some cases, the wedding ring looks "incomplete"; it is only when the two halves, engagement and wedding, are assembled that the ring looks whole. In other cases, a wedding set consists of two rings that match stylistically and are worn stacked, although either piece would look appropriate as a separate ring. Although the wedding band is not to be worn until the wedding day, the two rings are usually sold together as a wedding set. After the wedding, the bride may choose to have the two pieces welded together, to increase convenience and reduce the likelihood of losing one of the rings. A trio ring set includes a ladies engagement ring, ladies wedding band and a men's wedding band. These sets often have matching rings and are lower in price.
In Nordic countries, engagement rings are worn by both men and women. Traditionally they are plain gold bands, although more ornate designs and other materials are gaining popularity. The engagement rings resemble the wedding bands sold in the United States, whereas women's wedding rings may resemble US engagement rings.
In North America and the United Kingdom, it is customarily worn on the left hand ring finger. Similar traditions purportedly date to classical times, dating back from an early usage reportedly referring to the fourth finger of the left hand as containing the vena amoris or "vein of love". This custom may have its origins in an ancient Egyptian myth that the finger contained a vein leading directly to the heart, or it may simply be because the heart lies slightly to the left side of the body. In Germany the ring is worn on the left hand while engaged, but moved to the right hand when married. In Poland and Turkey, the engagement ring and wedding band are traditionally worn on the right hand but modern practice varies considerably.
In some countries it is common for both men and women to wear engagement rings. In many Lutheran sects often the man wears an engagement ring. The rings are often in the form of a plain band of a precious metal. Sometimes, the engagement ring eventually serves as the wedding ring for the man. In Brazil, for example, the groom and bride-to-be usually wear a plain wedding band on the right hand during the course of their engagement. After the wedding, the band is moved to the left hand. In Argentina, it is also known for the groom and bride-to-be to wear a plain silver band on the left hand while engaged. Then, after the wedding a silver band is either replaced with the wedding ring or moved to the right hand.
Traditionally, women in the British Isles may propose marriage to men during a leap year. Women proposing has become more common in recent years, to the point that some jewelry companies have started manufacturing men's engagement rings. They resemble typical men's rings, often with a diamond centrepiece. In the countries where both sexes have traditionally worn engagement rings, the rings tend to be plainer bands, and there is no real difference between men's and women's engagement ring designs.
- Claddagh ring, a traditional Irish ring, often given or worn as a wedding ring
- Dearest ring, a ring with stones creating the acronym D E A R E S T
- Regards ring, a ring with stones creating the acronym R E G A R D S
- Gimmal ring, a multi-part engagement ring fashionable in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries
- Pre-engagement ring
- Puzzle ring, sometimes called a "Turkish wedding ring"
- Tension ring, a modern mount
- Tiffany mount, a way of setting gems
- Wedding ring
- Toliver, Wendy (1 March 2003). The Little Giant Encyclopedia of Wedding Etiquette. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. pp. 19–20. ISBN 978-0-8069-9389-8. Retrieved 6 November 2013.
- Patrick, Bethanne Kelly; Thompson, John Milliken (2009). An Uncommon History of Common Things. National Geographic Books. p. 81. ISBN 978-1-4262-0420-3. Retrieved 6 November 2013.
- Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. (1 May 2008). Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. p. 1623. ISBN 978-1-59339-492-9. Retrieved 6 November 2013.
- Hersch, Karen K. (24 May 2010). The Roman Wedding: Ritual and Meaning in Antiquity. Cambridge University Press. pp. 41–42. ISBN 978-0-521-12427-0. Retrieved 6 November 2013.
- O'Rourke, Meghan (11 June 2007). "Diamonds Are a Girl's Worst Friend". Slate. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
- Kacirk, Jeffrey (17 February 1999). Forgotten English. HarperCollins. p. 190. ISBN 978-0-688-16636-6. Retrieved 6 November 2013.
- Holford-Strevens, Leofranc (6 November 2003). Aulus Gellius : An Antonine Scholar and Leofranc Holford-Strevenshis Achievement: An Antonine Scholar and his Achievement. Oxford University Press. p. 321. ISBN 978-0-19-151468-5. Retrieved 6 November 2013.
- Baker, Maureen (1 January 2001). Families, Labour and Love. UBC Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-7748-0849-1. Retrieved 7 November 2013.
- William Smith, ed. (1890). A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. William Wayte, George Eden Marindin. J. Murray. p. 130. Retrieved 8 November 2013.
- Lord, John (1869). The old Roman world: the grandeur and failure of its civilization. C. Scribner and company. pp. 235–6. Retrieved 8 November 2013.
- Scott, Samuel Parsons (1910). Forum Judicum. Wm. S. Hein Publishing. p. 77. ISBN 978-0-8377-1233-8. Retrieved 3 November 2013.
- The Visigothic Code: (Forum judicum) - Book III: Concerning Marriage - Title I: Concerning Nuptial Contracts
- Stephen N. Scott (1980). The Replies of Pope Nicholas I to the Inquiries of the Bulgarians.
- The Responses of Pope Nicholas I to the Questions of the Bulgars A.D. 866 (Letter 99) Chapter 3
- Joseph Bingham (1846). Origines Ecclesiasticæ: The Antiquities of the Christian Church : with Two Sermons and Two Letters on the Nature and Necessity of Absolution. H. G. Bohn. p. 1215.
Apud nostrates post sponsalia qua futurarum nuptiarum sunt promissio foedera quaeque consensu eorum qui haec contrahunt et eorum in quorum potestate sunt celebrantur. Postquam arris sponsam sibi sponsua per digitum fidei annulo insignitum desponderit...
- Fourth Lateran Council (1215) Constitution 51. Clandestine marriages forbidden
- Hesse, Rayner W. (1 January 2007). Jewelrymaking Through History: An Encyclopedia. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 76. ISBN 978-0-313-33507-5. Retrieved 6 November 2013.
- Kunz, George F. (1917). Rings for the Finger, from the Earlieast Known Times to the Present... and Lond. p. 205. Retrieved 11 November 2013.
- Todd A. Salzman; Michael G. Lawler (2008). The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology. Georgetown University Press. p. 199. ISBN 978-1-58901-726-9.
- Barry, Emily-Rose (2013-02-24). "5 Reasons We Have To Stop Putting A Ring On It". Retrieved 2014-12-14.
- Isbister, Magdalena; Isbister, William. "The 'wedding' thimble". Retrieved 2014-12-14.
- White, Carolyn L. (8 September 2005). American Artifacts of Personal Adornment, 1680–1820: A Guide to Identification and Interpretation. Rowman Altamira. p. 94. ISBN 978-0-7591-1465-4. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
- Robert M. Hazen (22 July 1999). The Diamond Makers. Cambridge University Press. pp. 11–. ISBN 978-0-521-65474-6.
- Chisholm, Hugh (1911). "Diamond". The Encyclopaedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General Information 8 (11th ed.). Encyclopaedia britannica Company. p. 160. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
- Reunert, Theodore (1893). Diamonds and gold in South Africa. J. C. Juta & Co. p. 126. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
- Russell, Rebecca Ross (5 June 2010). Gender and Jewelry: A Feminist Analysis. Rebecca Ross Russell. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-4528-8253-6. Retrieved 10 November 2013.
- "Meaning of the Engagement Ring". Educational Articles. 20 May 2006. Retrieved 2 June 2013.
- Dolan, Jenny (12 February 2007). "Shopping for your own engagement ring: Many local women say 'I do'". La Crosse Tribune (Wisconsin).
- "Put a ring on it". RedEye. Columbia News Service. 4 April 2009. Archived from the original on 5 April 2009. Retrieved 2 June 2013.
- "How can I be sure a diamond is conflict-free?".
- Lee, Laura (October 2010). Broke Is Beautiful: Living and Loving the Cash-Strapped Life. ReadHowYouWant.com. p. 280. ISBN 978-1-4587-5882-8. Retrieved 6 November 2013.
- "With Engagement Rings, Love Meets Budget". New York Times. 31 January 2014.
- Brinig, Margaret F. (Spring 1990). "Rings and Promises" (PDF). The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6 (1): 203–215.
- Grossman, Joanna (23 October 2001). "Who gets the engagement ring when the wedding is off". FindLaw. Retrieved 2 June 2013.
- McConnell, J. Patrick. "Do You Have To Return Engagement Rings? - Virginia". The National Law Review (Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C.). ISSN 2161-3362. Retrieved 15 September 2014. See Also Cal. Civ.Code § 43.4, CONN. GEN. STAT. (2011) § 52-572b, The Heart Balm Act, §8.01-220 of the Code of Virginia,Colorado Rev.Stat. §13-20-202
- Kirby, Simon (18 May 2007). "Men own the engagement ring". news.com.au. Retrieved 2 June 2013.
- The Canada Law Journal: New Series, Volume 53. 1917. p. 389. Retrieved 2014-12-14.
- "Engagement ring advice". Gillett's Jewellers. Retrieved 2 June 2013.
- Epstein, Edward Jay (1 February 1982). "Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2 June 2013.
- "Engagement Rings…Their Long and Bright History". The Hour (Norwalk, Conn.). 3 February 1979. p. 27. Retrieved 2 June 2013.
- Myers, Rupert (7 May 2013). "Male engagement rings: for love or money?". The Guardian (London). Comment is free. Retrieved 2 June 2013.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Promise Rings.|