Talk:Engagement ring

"Vein of Love" Confliction

The vein of love background on the engagement ring page conflicts with that of this engagement page. This page claims the Egyptians started it, while the other page claims a Roman origin.--Elysianfields 17:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The point is moot. Wherever it started, it happened so long ago it's more of a legend than provable fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.22.36 (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

When a ring is given

"By modern convention, the ring is usually presented as a betrothal gift by a man to his prospective bride while or directly after she accepts his marriage proposal."

I'm told it's only on television that they tend to hand over rings there and then.

If they did it in real life, then surely that would mean you're meant to measure her finger, buy the ring and then propose, at the risk of having wasted your money if she refuses (and it doesn't fit whomever you end up getting engaged to instead).

But the measuring must be a giveaway, so why not propose then? It would make more sense.... -- Smjg 09:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is done in real life a lot, although I agree that in some cases it makes more sense to propose first and then get the ring. However, many people--men and women--actually know their ring sizes because they wear rings at other times. And many people know their partners' tastes in jewelery--might in fact have gone shopping together for "if someday I were to become engaged, that's the sort of ring that appeals to me--" (one might argue that if a couple really knows each oether well enough to get married that they ought to know something about each other's tastes and preferences). Also, most, if not all, jewelery stores will exchange a ring that's brought back after it's presented if the size and/or style and/or stone aren't the right ones. Elf | Talk 16:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see. But if she declines, would they give a refund? Or will it remain exchangeable indefinitely for when you finally get engaged to someone several years later? -- Smjg 14:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Blue Nile has a 30 day return policy if your not satisfied. I don't know if this is typical. My girlfriend had her finger measured and told me her ring size months ago. I think it depends on the couple. I know one couple that picked out the ring together, but the man still kept the proposal date a surprise. (this doesn't make sense to me.) I've also read about tricks to get the girl's ring size without her knowing. For example, use one of her rings to make an impression on a bar of soap. --BrianG5 16:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Part of the romantic fantasy of proposing is in having the ring with you to seal the deal, although it's not done all the time. Some people make the ring the center of the proposal--e.g. hide or place the ring where the recipient will come across it unexpectedly, although this sometimes backfires. Just read or heard about someone who put it into a specially made dark chocolate treat, but the recipient exchanged the treat at the store for milk chocolate and the ring was never seen again. One of our friends had the waiter at the restaurant deposit it in his girlfriend's after-dinner coffee, and he had a very long wait while she dawdled over the coffee and almost decided not to drink it--but at least the guy knew where the ring was the whole time. (My first fiance presented me with the ring at his proposal--but we had talked about "what if--" for a very long time, so he knew what I liked. My second engagement, the rings for both of us came later.) Elf | Talk 16:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about this myself and so I looked it up in a book on etiquette. What the book says is that traditionally the man proposes to the woman (baring 29th Feb on leap year where a woman proposes to a man...) and it is only after she has agreed do they both go together to purchase a ring. It may be common practise now to buy the ring in advance but it is not a requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.237.30 (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Western tradition

This article says "Western" tradition has the ring worn on the ring finger of the left hand. Last time I checked, Germany and Spain are both major Western countries, but the ring is worn on the right hand in those countries, amongst others. I think this article should be changed to reflect that while the finger is the same - the last one before the pinkie - that it varies from country to country.Elysistrata 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following sentence from the article. For example, Judith Sheindlin, TV's Judge Judy, holds that an engagement ring is 'a gift given in contemplation of marriage' and must therefore be returned if the contract is broken. This is a poor example in the legal context, as Judge Judy is not a real court, and decisions binding because of the contract people sign to appear on the show, not because of preset claims laws. --ORBIT 19:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have fixed a missing word 'day' and a few typos.

This article should be made gender-neutral, as it is 2009 and marriage isn't only between a man and a woman anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.19.251 (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Contributions deleted

Why is my contributions to this webpage not being credited to me? I am the owner of Adylon Diamonds and Bridal Jewelry. I have given my interpretation of the origin of the engagement ring based on my research! I would like my contributions to be included, and credited to me like many others have done. This is how the Wikipedia is supposed to work! Please let me know why my contributions are being deleted! Thank you.

If you check the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam you will see that we discourage people adding any links to their own web site (if it is really useful another editor will probably add the link at some time). We also particularly discourage linking to commercial or advertising supporting sites. That's the way Wikipedia works. -- Solipsist 19:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikinazis routinely delete anything they don't agree with for their own personal reasons. If this were truly "The People's Encyclopedia" nothing would be deleted, ever! and readers would be free to make up their own minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.22.36 (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If nothing was ever deleted the articles would go on forever, have tons of spelling and other errors, and be chalked full of advertisement. Linking to a website that happens to sell what the article is about is spam. It's The People's Encyclodia so it is edited by the people to make it relevant to the people, not to give one company an advantage over another. CoW mAnX (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, I'm sure that's why you have a link to a mostly irrelevant page on Robbin's Bros site. Did they make a big donation to the cause? 71.133.233.62 (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Skeptical

Thanks, promotion removed. Vsmith (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguments about cultural value > actual value

What does everyone think about the idea of many women demanding thousands of dollars to be spent on a piece of jewelry, which is essentially a form of "buying a bride?" I wonder if we should have a heavily NPOV section of this article that discusses these issues. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

A woman that would be bought probably won't be bought exclusively by the engagement ring. If I on my paltry income save up and buy a 10 thousand dollar ring, she would still presumably know about my paltry income.

The article already addresses that the engagement ring can be seen as an icon for the status of a man's financial well being and stability; I'm not sure that it needs more than that. Including an additional section, I think, would therefore be POV no matter how you slice it.

I still don't see the connection of why men have to spend several thousands of dollars. And still more why women feel they can keep the ring if the marriage never goes through. (To me it sounds greedy). In the past I may have understood that the ring was a symbol of the man's financial stability. And this may have been important back when it was mostly a mono-income family. But in todays age its different both individuals work and contribute to the income of the home. There is no need for any woman to expect a man to drop this kind of money just to show devoution. That money could be better placed for purchasing a house, car, or furniture for their new lives. Maybe its just me but if its supposed to be a union it shouldn't be about the ring, it should be about the emotional connection between the individuals involved.

Shouldn't there be something about how tradition is that an engagement should cost the equivalent of two months' salary of the buyer? I'm not saying it's right, but that's the standard.Elysistrata 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been told by people in the gem business, but can't cite sources, that the reason engagement rings are supposed to be expensive is due to a De Beers campaign. Apparently, traditionally both the man and woman would go to purchase an engagement ring, and the woman woldn't let the man spend an extraordinary amount of money (women being more fiscally sensible). So De Beers introduced the concept of 'popping the question' with a ring, as a suprise. The concept was further backed up by an ad campaign where two men are examining an engagement ring that one of them has just bought. "How much did it cost?" "Oh, only two month's salary," or some such. In Japan it's three months or so. This was a twin-pronged approach through populoar culture (films) and classic advertising and has been accepted as a part of mainstream culture. --Chuckygobyebye 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been led to understand that the expected financial outlay for a ring also has to do with the fact that a hundred years ago or so (and more), when a woman's virginity at marriage was considered more of a big deal, couples would commonly have sex before marriage but after the engagement. Having the man shell out for an expensive ring was a way to demonstrate that he was truly serious about the proposal, and also left the woman with something of value if he later broke off the engagement and left her as unmarriageable "damaged goods." Perhaps someone could do a little more research into this and update the article if they can find a good source for it? 63.251.53.131 05:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Alex

Statistics

"In the US, men purchase around 200 engagement and wedding rings each day. Nationally, over 5,000 marriage proposals occur per year. However the international per capita marriage rate is much lower than in the US." Is there a source for these statistics? Considering that the US has over 2 million marriages per year (source) common sense suggests that at least a few thousand rings are sold each day and at least a million proposals were made each year. So I'll remove the above paragraph until it's backed up with a source Mako 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ring Styles

Not all engagement rings are diamonds. This should be modified to include such information: "Most engagement rings can be classified. Solitaire rings have one single diamond." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.214.229.55 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a better link than the one to the page littered with ads? (Rustydangerfield (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

No clue. Why don't you ask Mr Google and let us know if you find something better? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Titanium Rings

Titanium rings have largely been discredited as a hazard in an emergency. A hospital does have the tools to remove these types of rings. The tools used are the same as removing any other ring. The difference is a titanium ring cannot be soldered back together. Sorry, I'm hesitant to try and change the entry directly- I'm not *really* sure what I'm doing. Perhaps someone else would be so kind as to make the correction?

Divorce

Does anyone know if it's this, or the wedding ring, or neither, that's given back in divorce. I've just seen it in a Judge Judy episode, so wasn't sure. Thanks. Tristanb 10:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"When the love that looked like it would last forever doesn't what do you return? Answer: Only the engagement ring" from Today's Family Values Handbook articles by Frances Goulart published by His Publishing Inc. 1994

"The Lifeong Lover" by MARVIN BROOKS M. D. F.A.C.S., WITH SALLY WEST BROOKS, R.N. B.S.N., M.A. states only the engagement ring should be returned in the event of Divorce. Doubleday & Co., New York, New York, U.S.A., 1985 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.83.195 (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

When my parents got divorced my mom kept both rings. While the divorce wasn't ugly, my dad is a lawyer and presumably would have asked for them back if he was entitled to them. So no, I don't think they're ever given back after marriage. Except on TV shows. 195.80.210.47 16:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Peter

Although the above comments are older, I thought I'd post here in talk a link that lays out the law. It's not appropriate for the article, but it lays out the facts pretty well for the questions asked here. http://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/division/94apr78.shtml At least for as long as the link survives.. This fickle web.. Basically - he gives her a ring in engagement. She leaves him before the wedding, he gets it back. He leaves her before, she keeps it. After marriage, it's her property. In no-fault the first two are different. Read the linked page for a fuller explanation. If any find this inappropriate, fine, delete. Just thought it clarifies pretty well...Jjdon (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Globalize

This article is not accurate for all Parts of the world. wedding ring is much better in this aspect, and from what I see it is still marked for globalizing. ntg_sf 22 July 2007

The article says: "In these countries the man's engagement ring often also eventually serves as the wedding ring." At least in Iceland, both the man and the woman usually use the engagement ring as their wedding rings. There is no mention of anything like that yet. --68.0.213.208 (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives

I would like to see a section of this article discussing alternatives to traditional diamond engagement rings. In the recent public awareness of the nature of blood diamonds, more and more couples are choosing other types of stones, diamond simulants, or smaller diamonds that come from non-conflict areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamison192 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody cares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.30.120 (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Left or Right

My German lecturers wear their wedding rings on the third finger of the right hand despite being right handed, I'm left handed, so if I get married, I'd most probably wear it on my right hand anyways, but is the hand where the rings are worn less important than which finger it was worn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHowardII (talk • contribs) 08:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

International

Methinks its time to remove the tag - engagement rings, particularly diamond ones, are very much a western marketing invention by de Beers & Ayers. So to put an asian/african/middle eastern spin on it would be either meaningless or legitimize the whole marketing concept....Thoughts?Bridesmill 05:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Trading up

I just removed a section on "trading up" rings that seemed quite normative and very much like it was pushing a new marketing technique rather than documenting a widely accepted practice. Before restoring it would be good to get a source from a sociology study or the like that could cover how established a practice this actually is. -- SiobhanHansa 15:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Price

I believe the following sentence has been mistyped: "A conventional buying price ranging from two weeks to three months wages for a ring guideline originated from De Beers marketing materials...." In context with the rest of the paragraph which talks about the "'two months salary' guideline," and other sites' research which also talk about a two month guideline, the "two weeks" guideline doesn't appear to belong. I won't change it because I'm unsure, but I believe the sentence should read, "...two to three months wages...." 05 December 2007

Just a pedantic note, it should be weeks' or months', with an apostrophe, because it's possessive. 91.107.169.128 (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional info related to buying diamond engagement rings

We have an article on our consumer advocate site about buying diamond engagement rings and scams to avoid. An uneducated consumer is often a sitting duck to unscrupulous salespeople, and may also buy the wrong diamond if they lack the education to protect themselves. Our article tells you everything you need to know to be educated and make a smart acquisition. Our article is located at http://www.bridaltips.com/diamond.htm

I know Wiki does not like people linking to their own sites, so they ask us to bring it up here in the talk channel to encourage editors to add it if they choose to.

I invite the editors to take a look at our invaluable resource and if it meets your guidelines, you may link to this article as part of the reference section along with the links you have their to other online resources.

Thanks,

Jeff Ostroff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.113.171 (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, that is actually a very solid article chock full of objective information, which is refreshing. The main problem I have with it is that it is a complete mess layout-wise. Get a table of contents and break down your text into sensible sections or chapters because right now it's a complete mess. 電波の世界 (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The site may have very useful information on it but it doesn't fit in with our guideline on external links. As an encyclopedia we don't generally point people to How-to type information. Links on this article should be about engagement rings from a general readers perspective - not that of someone wanting to buy a diamond one. External sites would be more appropriate that covered the economic, historical or social aspects of engagements rings rather than subjective advice on the best way to buy diamond ones. -- SiobhanHansa 15:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Men's engagement rings

Would like to hear more about men's engagement rings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.174.74 (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Notes on image captions

The second image on this page is of another engagement ring/wedding band set, and includes this note in the caption: "Note: Color clarity is slightly diminished due to room lighting."

This doesn't sound like it has any value to anyone besides the owner or purchaser of the ring - without that note, it's still quite clear that the ring is a diamond engagement ring. We're not trying to show off this particluar ring, are we? I'm new to this, so I'm nervous about deleting things, but this one seems egregious and also easy to revert. Please let me know if I've acted in error! --Melanie Wilke (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your judgment is sound. In general there's no need to post to the talk page if there isn't an ongoing difference of opinion over the edit (especially for small changes and when you've provided such a cogent edit summary). If another editor disagrees they can revert your change and then you can use the talk page (often known as the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle). But there's also no problem with checking in if you want some validation. Welcome to Wikipedia! Have fun editing. -- SiobhanHansa 20:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources

To the anon who is deleting references: Please stop. If you don't like the sources listed, then please feel free to REPLACE them with high-quality sources, but don't leave the sentences unsourced.

You're probably not aware of this, but when we've left those sentences unsourced in the past, we either get demands for sources, or (in the one instance) we get jewelry sellers (or perhaps greedy brides) increasing the amount of money that's 'supposed' to be spent on engagement rings.

Deleting sources hurts the encyclopedia. Please stop it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

how to say

In my marketing area the chief teenybop radio stations carry ads for engagement rings 4-5 times an hour. I've never met a competent married couple who cared a (minimal worthless thing) about an engagement ring. How to express that the idea of "engagement ring" might be useful to some persons (especially the sellers of them) but is usually a total waste to serious persons? This is from North America. Is the "engagement ring" idea mostly a marketing thing for sellers of diamonds? Don't know how to put this in pedia terms. Help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.55.217.216 (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, not sure how to editorialize in this article in a Wiki way? Please help. 24.151.65.120 (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Victorian humor

This may be too far off topic, and too trivial, but engagement rings seem to have been a favorite topic of humor in the Victorian era. From the January 22, 1876 issue of Once a Week magazine:

The Old, Old Story
They were seated on a rustic bench.
"Oh do be mine," he cried attempting to draw her a little nearer his end of the seat.
She made herself rigid and heaved a sigh.
"I'll be a good man and give up all my bad habits," he urged.
No reply.
"I'll never drink another drop," he continued.
Still unrelenting sat the object of his adoration.
"And give up smoking."
Cold as ever.
"And join the church."
She only shook her head.
"And give you a diamond engagement ring," he added in desperation.
Then the maiden lifted her drooping eyes to his and leaning her frizzes on his shoulder tremblingly murmured into his ravished ears, "Oh Edward you are so--so good."
And there they sat until the soft arms of night--that quiet dusky nurse of the world--had folded them from sight pondering, planning, thinking--she of the diamond ring and he--poor miserable fellow--of how on earth he was to get it. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

thimbles

I was looking for early sources on thimbles as betrothal rings, but wasn't able to find anything. Searching Google Books, nothing turned up before 1980. Then I found this: wedding thimble. It looks like the whole thimble thing may be a modern urban legend. Zyxwv99 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this really true?

The article claims that 80% percent of Americans who get married buy engagement rings. Is this really true? The Bain report doesn't give a source for the number, so I suspect this comes from some inaccurate survey by the jewelry industry (probably surveying a percentage of the population who is more likely to buy them than average). I strongly suspect that not that many Americans can actually afford to spend several thousand dollars on a ring because the 20th percentile income is not very high, though credit card debt may be the reason for this. Andrewpmk | Talk 00:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we need a better source on this. There have been discussions on a related topic: the price of the average engagement ring. (This comes up on various diamond discussion boards such as Pricescope and Wedding Bee.) The XO Group, which publishes The Knot, has an annual survey where they claim the average center stone is 1.0 carat, ctw is 1.6, average price something like $5700. Other surveys have come up with something like 0.75 carat, $3000. The lower figures come from surveys that include Sears, Costco, Walmart, and discount online sellers. That being said, it's definitely possible to get a decent engagement ring for under $1000 (although few people know how to do that). Just get a GIA-certified 1/3-carat round brilliant solitaire, color J, clarity SI2, with excellent cut, polish, and symmetry, and no fluorescence. There should be absolutely no side-stones or accent stones. The metal should be the lowest-carat yellow gold or 500-585 platinum, no white gold under any circumstances or you'll be sorry. Then just get it from someplace like Blue Nile, which only charges 18% above wholesale. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It is things like this that make me suspicious about this number. See this New York Times article [1]. 38% of consumer spending is by the richest 5% of Americans, 61% is by the richest 20% of Americans. An engagement ring is a luxury item that I suspect is mostly bought by well off individuals. Another New York Times article contradicts this [2], describing young people with student loan debt buying them, but I hope this is atypical. Americans may have a reputation for living beyond their means, but I suspect this is exaggerated as most consumption (like most income) is by the wealthy.

I figure that a $1000 diamond engagement ring is some really low grade diamond bought at a place like Walmart. Are you sure that this number doesn't include cubic zirconia rings which are a lot cheaper?Andrewpmk | Talk 03:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"Engagement ring" does not necessarily mean "expensive ring" or even "purchased ring". A ring becomes an engagement ring if you give it as a gift upon engagement. It could be a family heirloom, which is "free". It could be a regular ring. In current dollars, mine cost less than $150, and I know people who have given and received even cheaper ones. I don't think that I know anyone who's done the three-months-salary type of engagement ring (but perhaps people just don't tell me about extravagant expenditures).

I agree that if you want to get real numbers, you'd have to do a population survey rather than a jewelry-store survey or a fancy-wedding-website survey. You'd also have to figure out how to allocate the cost of the combination engagement-wedding ring ones. But if you want to get a practical idea, then look at Amazon's most popular bridal sets. These are dedicated multi-piece combination rings (sometimes with a matching groom's ring), so they're not likely to be used as regular diamond rings. Two-thirds of the bridal sets in the top 20 cost less than $100 (one hundred dollars). That's probably a better indication of the real market than surveys of customers that have been self-selected for spending a lot of money. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

At best, the writer of the Bain report must be using outdated data and didn't bother to cite sources. It is really difficult for me to find any useful sources on this topic (the library has hardly anything). Annual reports of jewelry chains like Zales and Signet are about the only reliable source I can find. Sales of jewelry went down in the recession, and many jewelry stores lost money (e.g. Zales). Though I am rather astonished that at Signet Jewelers (owns Kay), 56.9% (!) of customers in the US used store financing to buy jewelry, according to their annual report. In any case, Zales and Signet are planning to merge, probably caused by declining jewelry sales, which undoubtedly will mean store closures, higher prices and fewer people buying engagement rings. I am tempted to remove the 80% of Americans buy engagement rings claim because at the very least, this number was undoubtedly lower in 2009 during the recession and this report doesn't recognize that. 24.114.53.247 (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Also these Amazon rings are cubic zirconia, not diamond, hence the very low price. The Bain report claims that 80% of Americans buy *diamond* engagement rings. 24.114.53.247 (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The latest figures I'm seeing are 75%, 74%, or 60-75%. I think there has been a downward trend. Here is a link to a diamond wedding set for under $200, and scrolling down, a beautiful diamond solitaire for under $200. walmart For a truly first-class ring from Blue Nile, try this for $765. Blue Nile Zyxwv99 (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I finally found what I think is the source of this data. [3]. It was an online survey, the results of this sort of survey are notoriously inaccurate and there a high probability of non-response bias. It might be something like Angus Reid Forum where people sign up to regularly get sent online surveys, but the sample is not scientific, and of course keep in mind that many low income people do not have internet access. It is hard to tell, but I would suspect that people who buy diamonds are more likely to answer this survey than people who don't buy diamonds. Andrewpmk | Talk 00:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Diamond color

From looking at adverts & TV commercials, only white diamonds are considered acceptable; is that because they symbolize purity, as does a white wedding gown? Colored diamonds seem to be preferred as gemstones in general.

Gender Disparity

Why is it implied that men have to be the provider of the ring?, either engagement or the wedding ring, why does this come out of the man's pocket. In these days of equality that we are all told of constantly by feminists, why can't women buy an engagement ring. Sure, there might be a pay-gap, but that only applies to women who work part-time, women, if they want to be equal need to start buying rings and proposing to their men. This is not a joke, by the way.Trumpy (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is descriptive, not prescriptive. This is a forum for improving the article, not a forum to discuss what you think is "fair". PepperBeast (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ring as financial security

After carefully crafting the section about the ring as financial security for women in the history- 20th century chapter- I noticed that the Industry segment has a very similar segment - ven quoting the same artice(citation 30 and 37). While I don't have the heart to delete my work i do think it fits better in the history chapter- or a new chapter eg. called social and cultural aspects- but not industry. Maybe someone could rearrage that. Lea-MWM (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Art Deco Diamond Engagement Ring.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)