Diamonds in the Golden Era

[Matt Crunk]

I was just watching a documentary on the DeBeers Diamond company and caught mention of something I found very interesting: The host of the show said that before the late 1940s that diamonds weren't really all that popular. That the ruby was the more popular stone, considered both rarer and more visually appealing, and it wasn't until the DeBeers "A Diamond is Forever" ad campaign in 1947, which marketed diamonds as THE symbol of love and commitment, that the diamond gained the status that it has today.

Anyone care to shed some light on this?

 

[Stearmen]

I have heard that also. Apparently, they were not the engagement ring that all women wanted either. DeBeers paid for product placement in Hollywood films in the 30s and 40s, and now, diamonds are synonymous with a marriage proposal! Curse you Hollywood!

 

[LizzieMaine]

Diamond engagement rings had a prominent place in the Sears catalog as far back as the twenties -- but the diamonds were tiny, sometimes just a chip. The rural and small-town working-class people who formed the core of Sears' customer base couldn't have afforded ostentation even if they wanted it.

The "your engagement ring should cost two months' salary" guideline is entirely a creation of the Boys From Marketing. You could buy a full one-carat ring from Sears in 1935 for $549, but you had to look hard to find it listed -- it's buried in the diamond section of the catalog. All the rings prominently offered in the jewelry section were priced between $18 and $59, which, given Sears' liberal credit terms, were within reach of most people who had a job. You could buy a 10K white gold engagement ring set with a diamond chip for just $3.95. My grandmother's engagement ring, from 1933, is one of these.

 

[Fading Fast]

You have to give "The Boys in Marketing" credit for accomplishing their goal. In my twenties and early thirties, when my friends were getting married, that 2-months nonsense was religion to them (or really their girlfriends and they did what their girlfriends wanted them to do).

Having been raised on depression era values - and taught to "think for yourself" and "don't be a fool and let a advertisement tell you what to do" - I never paid that silly 2-month idea any credence. And my girlfriend, if we ever get married, would shoot me if I ever spent the equivalent of two months salary on a ring. It is because she thinks that way, that we are so compatible. I am always amazed at how many people let advertisements impact their decisions and that they actually get mad at the advertiser. I don't have a problem with DeBeers - they are free to promote their product - but I am always amazed that advertisements like that work. Then again, my father always repeated the aphorism about a fool and his money.

Separately, the jewelry store in the town where my dad grew up (in the 1930s) called itself "The House of the Blue-White Diamand" as, my dad said, it was perceived at the time that the blue-white diamond was the best diamond. I don't know if that is true, but recently - and for the first time in many decades - I saw a reference to a blue-white diamond. I also remember my father saying that diamond engagement rings and wrist watches kept that store in business in the 1930s (he was friendly with the owner - a fellow member of The Elks) - so, to Lizzie's point - diamond engagement rings were in the culture back then (just not the two-month nonsense).

 

[ChiTownScion]

Wise man, and a wise woman. I don't think that we spent two months' salary on the rings, the flowers, church fees, the soloist, the wedding reception, and the honeymoon in Europe combined. We were both in our 30's, so parents were not footing any outlandish wedding bills, either. But by our first wedding anniversary, we were living in our own home. The important thing is planning prudently for the future together, and shooting a wad of money just so the girls where my wife works could giggle and squeal over a ring seemed pretty silly. (Think how many bespoke fur felt fedoras you could buy for the same ring!)

 

[LizzieMaine]

In the Era, big diamonds prominently worn were the mark of a prostitute, and were regarded as such by the average woman. Usually, of course, they were "Brazil diamonds" and not the real thing, but the trashy association carried over to the genuine article -- people of good morals wouldn't be seen in ostentatious jewelry.

Most of the young women I know think big diamonds are gaudy and ridiculous. So there's hope for the future.

 

[Fading Fast]

In the Era, big diamonds prominently worn were the mark of a prostitute, and were regarded as such by the average woman. Usually, of course, they were "Brazil diamonds" and not the real thing, but the trashy association carried over to the genuine article -- people of good morals wouldn't be seen in ostentatious jewelry.

Most of the young women I know think big diamonds are gaudy and ridiculous. So there's hope for the future.

Just in the last year or so, I've heard a few young women say the same thing (after a decade of ever-larger-ring stupidity) - it is refreshing and, as you said, hopeful.

 

[dh66]

Well, I know at least one lady dropped a wad on a fat rock and custom setting back in the early forties, because I recently had to fish it out of the pipes after her great granddaughter flushed the darn thing. Get it sized lady. Sometimes being the plumber is quite the adventure.
At my house the rings and the rock all came from Sears. And like ChiTownScion we probably spent less than two weeks salary on the whole shooting match. European honeymoon excluded of course, cuz we were waaay to broke for that. We drove up to Memphis and visited Graceland, stayed in a $18 a night crack hotel. Good times!

 

[Matt Crunk]

Well, when I proposed to my wife on Valentines Day of 2000, I did it with a ring that I'd got from a pawnbroker friend of mine for the "buddy price" of a grand. A few years later, after we had a house, a couple of nice vehicles and our business was really doing well, I "upgraded" her wedding/engagement ring set to one much closer to that 2 months salary mark. I'm not ashamed at all to have spent that much on it and am proud to see it on her finger.

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

In the Era, big diamonds prominently worn were the mark of a prostitute, and were regarded as such by the average woman. Usually, of course, they were "Brazil diamonds" and not the real thing, but the trashy association carried over to the genuine article -- people of good morals wouldn't be seen in ostentatious jewelry.

Most of the young women I know think big diamonds are gaudy and ridiculous. So there's hope for the future.

Mae West, "Goodness had nothin' to do with it, dearie."

[video=youtube;u7ekAQ_Plxk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=u7ekAQ_Plxk[/video][

 

[dh66]

Well, when I proposed to my wife on Valentines Day of 2000, I did it with a ring that I'd got from a pawnbroker friend of mine for the "buddy price" of a grand. A few years later, after we had a house, a couple of nice vehicles and our business was really doing well, I "upgraded" her wedding/engagement ring set to one much closer to that 2 months salary mark. I'm not ashamed at all to have spent that much on it and am proud to see it on her finger.

Nothing to be ashamed of. I wish finances would have allowed for more in our case, but it is what it is. Maybe I can surprise her with an upgrade one day when all our kids are buying their own groceries.

 

[Fading Fast]

Well, when I proposed to my wife on Valentines Day of 2000, I did it with a ring that I'd got from a pawnbroker friend of mine for the "buddy price" of a grand. A few years later, after we had a house, a couple of nice vehicles and our business was really doing well, I "upgraded" her wedding/engagement ring set to one much closer to that 2 months salary mark. I'm not ashamed at all to have spent that much on it and am proud to see it on her finger.

And that is a great story and you should be proud. You and your wife made a conscious decision based on what you wanted that was done when you were financially able to. What seems silly to me is (1) that the industry has create a phony standard and (2) that young couples put themselves into financial difficulty to meet that standard.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I spent two weeks' salary on my wife's and it's gorgeous. She gets compliments to this day from jewelers. Whoever suggests the two month rule is high on crack. I've never heard of anyone spending that much.

She's also said she'd be highly offended if I ever suggested "upgrading" her ring. She wants the one I gave her when I proposed.

 

[Fading Fast]

She's also said she'd be highly offended if I ever suggested "upgrading" her ring. She wants the one I gave her when I proposed.

That's nice - says a lot about her, all very good.

 

[MikeKardec]

I think it was the mid 19th Century when the big diamond strike hit in South Africa ... the one that eventually caused the founding of De Beers. Ironically, De Beers is named after the De Beer brothers who owned the land that was the location one of the earliest and most lucrative mines ... ironic because the brothers didn't get any of the proceeds. The business was fantastically successful even before the turn of the century.

De Beers had a near monopoly for almost 100 years until controversy over "Blood Diamonds" made them choose to focus solely on the output of their own mines. They rarely mention that the growing number of other sources that didn't sell to them were also undercutting their trade. It is suspected that many of the current Russian Diamonds are actually Blood Diamonds smuggled out and then laundered through Russian mines ... I've heard that rumor a few times and it seems to make sense.

The REAL Golden Era jewel was probably the pearl. I say that because it's value was undercut after WWII by the emergence of cultured pearls. Before the War pearls were so rare that it was useless to even try looking for one. The only reason they were on the market in necklaces and ear-rings and the like is because of the Mother Of Pearl business. Pearl oysters were harvested by divers for the Mother of Pearl nacre which was used in many ways that we now use plastic. If a pearl diving venture discovered a rare pearl, that was just so much more profit for the season. Enough MOP was harvested that pearls could regularly be sold as jewelry, although at astronomic prices compared to today.

The modern cultured pearl is not too much more than a thin layer of nacre over the "culture bead." The bead is surgically implanted (this can be done twice in the lifetime of an oyster) and the oysters are placed in racks and submerged in protected areas of seawater. Today, the rarest of all pearls is a Keshi pearl ... one that forms without the culture bead. The value, however, is no longer much higher than a good cultured pearl.

I once saw a natural pearl nearly the size of a golf ball and almost perfectly round (a factor that adds value). The guy who had it kept it in an ancient rusting safe in Broome, Australia. Worth about a million USD. Was he worried about theft? Not really. It was hundreds of miles to the next town of any size by only two or three fairly bad roads. In those days there was only one plane a week. And, he claimed, there were only six or eight others like it ... if anyone stole it they'd have a nearly impossible time selling it on because it was so well known.

 

[CONELRAD]

This is a bit late to the thread, but I thought it might be of interest to someone out there.

Diamond advertisement from the back of the 1930 World Almanac:

 

[Stearmen]

Interesting, that they advertise it as a sign of prosperity, and not love and commitment, like today!

 

[emigran]

One of my treasured possessions is a ruby and diamond engagement ring given to my grandfather by my grandmother... the ruby is quite large and the diamonds are quite small on either side... they were married in 1918. this would accord with what is being said here about size and popularity

 

[Wire9Vintage]

Don't forget the garnet. My grandmother, as well as several friends' grand and great grandmothers, all had garnet wedding rings. My grandmother did not have an engagement ring, which was also common among working class folks, just the garnet ring. Engagements did not tend to last long, so there was no real need to "waste money" on a symbol. Money went toward a place to live.

When my grandfather supposedly later gave the ring to a girlfriend (yeah, he was a "great" guy...), my uncle replaced the ring for his mama with a very thin band with five teeny diamonds in it--so she'd be respectable in public. Grandma did too much hard housework to wear rings everyday.

 

[emigran]

Don't forget the garnet. My grandmother, as well as several friends' grand and great grandmothers, all had garnet wedding rings. My grandmother did not have an engagement ring, which was also common among working class folks, just the garnet ring. Engagements did not tend to last long, so there was no real need to "waste money" on a symbol. Money went toward a place to live.

When my grandfather supposedly later gave the ring to a girlfriend (yeah, he was a "great" guy...), my uncle replaced the ring for his mama with a very thin band with five teeny diamonds in it--so she'd be respectable in public. Grandma did too much hard housework to wear rings everyday.

Thank you about the Garnet... actually my grandfather's ring I refer to in my above post is a Garnet not a ruby... I suppose if it wer really a ruby it would have been hugely expensive given it's size...