I’m sure everyone here wishes the greatest possible joy to tennis star Maria Sharapova and her fiance, basketball player Sasha Vujicic. I know I do. I wish that to all couples in love.

And I certainly hope that she loves the purportedly eight-carat diamond ring she’s been sporting in honor of the engagement.

Now, with that out of the way, I clearly need to send a copy of Miss Manners to writer Chris Chase for penning this ‘whimsical’ piece on how Mr. Vujacic has cheaped out on the ring by not spending Chase’s estimate of Vujacic’s two-month salary. Chase estimates that two months worth of Vujacic’s salary comes out to $912,000.00, making the mere $250,000.00 he’s reported to have spent a pittance.*

Sigh.

We’ve been over and over and over this point here at Manolo for the Brides. Two months’ salary for an engagement ring is not etiquette. It was an advertising slogan for DeBeers. You know, the people who sell diamonds. Etiquette considers it painfully rude to even enquire as to the price of someone’s jewelry, let alone a piece so imbued with symbolism. Etiquette would also be appalled at estimating someone’s salary, even when it’s a matter of public record, for the purpose of shaming them into spending more of it. Seriously, these are things over which etiquette has a painful attack of the vapors.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: when choosing an engagement ring, the gentleman should consider the taste of his lady and the state of his bank account (and credit rating). The lady, given the choice, should be thoughtful of his wallet. Everyone else in the universe should just butt out. Er… with the possible exception of the jeweler who is sort of required if the ring is being bought new or adapted from a not-so-new source.

Besides, if Mr. Twistie had followed the two months salary ‘rule’ I would never have gotten the engagement ring I wanted. It didn’t cost nearly that much.

*(I know the article is meant to be humorous, but it’s still based on a crass assumption that needs to be deflated at every possible opportunity. Way too many people think that ‘rule’ is a real one, so I continue to tilt at this particular windmill.)

Once upon a time, when marriage was more likely to be a financial arrangement than the joining of two hearts desperately in love, rings were pretty much only for the bride. She might or might not get a betrothal ring, and she wore the wedding ring. After all, he was the one with earthly goods to endow people with. Hers were… not hers. They were her father’s and the groom had probably already gotten that milk cow, interest in the family shipping business, or strategically important tract of land.

Of course, times change and symbols with them. Marriage became a more equitable and less businesslike proposition. Around World War Two, wedding rings for men became popular. Since then, the majority of men do wear wedding rings.

In fact, there are some parts of the world where men wear engagement rings, too. For instance, last month singer Michael Buble announced that he was wearing a ‘man-gagement’ ring, as is the custom in his bride-to-be’s native Argentina.

But neither an engagement nor a wedding ring is actually required on anyone. There are some professions where wearing a ring could be dangerous on the job. There are some men – and even some women, but it appears to be more common among men – who just plain don’t wear jewelry of any sort.

For instance, Mr. Twistie doesn’t have a wedding ring. When I asked him if he wanted one, he look about as though I’d just suggested he expose himself to my grandmother. For the record, I never suggested any such thing. Still, one look at that face and I told him not to worry about it. If he didn’t want a ring, that was fine by me. One less thing to buy suited me fine. And considering he doesn’t even wear a watch, it wasn’t a huge surprise to me.

But different people obviously feel differently on the subject. What are your thoughts on rings (engagement and wedding) for guys? Does your man wear a ring? Will he? Voluntarily? Whose choice was it? Does it matter if they match?
via

How sweet is this custom wedding ring that artist Luke Jerram designed for his wife? Along with local jeweler Tamrakar, he created the Portrait Projector ring, which contains a tiny photographic slide paired with a lens. Hod it up to a wee light source – like a mini flashlight or a candle flame – and the images contained within the ring are projected onto whatever is nearby.

Jerram made an equally fascinating engagement ring for his wife, which you can read about here. I’m like Jerram’s other works, too – particularly all of the neat gifts he’s made for people!

Here’s a little something from Slate’s DoubleX that talks about engagement rings – specifically what is to be done with them in the event that the wedding is called off.

Christopher Reinhold of Staten Island says the diamond ring he gave to Collette DiPierro, who broke off their engagement in September 2009 after four months and growing doubts, is rightfully his. He has sued her to get it back. In his New York state-court suit, Reinhold says that he gave DiPierro the ring upon her promise to marry him. Since she broke off the engagement and the marriage did not take place, the deal, he says, is off. But DiPierro says that because Reinhold proposed on her birthday, the $17,500 ring was a gift, not a token symbolizing a promise to marry. So she can keep it. Or, actually, spend it: Neither Reinhold nor DiPierro claims sentimental attachment; both would be happy with the ring’s cash value.

I know that an engagement ring ought to be a gift, not a contract or a payment in advance of future “services,” but in court contract law usually wins out and apparently agreeing to marry someone means entering into a verbal contract of which the ring is a part. Tres unromantic! Etiquette, of course, agrees that giving it back is the thing to do, but bad blood sometimes wins out over good manners.

What I’ve always wondered about the never-bride who keeps the ring is what she is going to do with it. Wear it? That could be awkward. Keep it at the bottom of her jewelry box? Again, awkward – I don’t like having old jewelry given to me by exes around. Sell it? Maybe I’m alone in thinking this, but that seems rather mean spirited – though if the giver of the ring was very abusive I might just say hock the thing for plane tix to somewhere awesome.

Calling off a wedding is such an emotionally charged thing to do, so do you really want a piece of bling (or the cash equivalent) reminding you that you or your once spouse-to-be said “I don’t” before anyone had a chance to say “I do”?

I HATE the idea that it’s even an issue. What does it matter if the ring was a gift or a way to seal the deal or something else? My idea of good manners does not include trying to profit off of a failed relationship (unless, as I mentioned above, there are some serious issues involved). Now you tell me: Is there any situation you can think of in which keeping the ring would be a love, not a hate?

What feels like a million years ago, but is really only five, I posted about acrylic wedding rings and the tone of my post was kind of sarcastic. I talked about space and the future and the word “um”.

After reading this post on Conversation Pieces, however, I feel rather differently about Alissia Melka-Teichroew’s acrylic engagement rings. I love that the author received one of the by:AMT diamond rings as an engagement ring, didn’t really want to upgrade because of the attachment she had to her original ring, and then found out that by:AMT sells a solid gold version of their acrylic diamond ring.

The main difference between the two rings, other than the materials used to create them, is $888 more for the standard width gold version. There’s also a thinner gold version for $600 and silver version for $180. I actually think I’d rather have the $12 acrylic engagement ring – as in right now, I want one, in pink. Target has a series of similar rings that don’t mention by:AMT or Alissia Melka-Teichroew, so I’m wondering whether Target ripped Melka-Teichroew off.

Lately I’ve been coming across brides shedding weight, but instead of dropping poundage of hips and thighs, these ladies and losing bulk in their ringular regions. That’s right, I’ve been seeing slimmer, smaller, more delicate wedding bands and engagement rings gushed about on more and more blogs written by actual brides-to-be.

The warm champagne diamond ring above was crafted by jewelry artist Sara Westermark and can be found in her shop, while the simple hammered wedding band below was created by Raina Lee Scott and can likewise be found in her shop. Both are stackable, but look just as lovely worn alone.

Now this is a trend I can unequivocally say I LOVE. Big honkin’ diamonds and thick gem-encrusted eternity bands have their place, but they can sometimes seem somewhat lacking in soul when compared to a simple and pretty hammered band of gold.

What say you?

Before I launch into this week’s LOVE/HATE, I have to admit that I’m not typical when it comes to rings. I had two engagement rings, both with semi-precious stones, and I wear them when they happen to go with the day’s outfit. I sometimes wear a beautiful ruby ring I received for my birthday last year in lieu of my wedding band. And that wedding band? It’s not even the one The Beard put on my finger on the day we said our vows. So suffice it to say, my opinions regarding finger baubles for the bride probably cannot be considered normal.

That said, I really cannot stand engagement ring wraps. Big HATE from NtB’s corner! I will never, ever, ever tell someone they shouldn’t wear one, nor will I look down upon those who think they are just spiffy. I’ll even smile and say I adore your ring, because I’m a sweetie like that. It’s all a matter of preference, right? You can love them, and I can loathe them, and we can all be friends and go for cocktails.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, the engagement ring wrap is basically a wedding band — with or without gemstones — sporting a hole in the middle that accommodates a solitary stone set in the usual way. They come in various metals and with various stones. They can be simple like the one shown above or rather complicated. There are single shank wraps, circumference wraps, and dual shank wraps. But whatever sort they are, their job is to make two rings look more like one for those who dislike two ring bling. Oh, and they can also safeguard more delicate rings by acting as a sort of bumper.

What say you? An easy way to customize an engagement ring? Or a great way to ruin one?