>"Here's the deal. Yes, diamond ring existed before De Beers' ad campaign" //
Indeed. I agree with almost everything you're saying, including the general sentiment.
One of your Google Books citations didn't work but the other bears this:
"Diamonds had been a popular stone for engagement rings before Ayer came on the scene, but the agency helped give new meaning to the tradition and make it more widespread." (Brides, Inc: American Weddings and the Business of Tradition, by Vicki Howard, p.50, transcribed E&OE)
Also worth noting is that:
"from the end of the Depresssion to the late 1940s, the percentage of double-ring as opposed to single-ring marriages increased from 15 percent to approximately 80 percent." (ibid, p.61)
I think that 80% matches the claim Ayers made for diamond engagement-ring popularity ('four-fifths of a carat per wedding' or somesuch turn of phrase). Of course the "double-ring" wasn't being promoted with the same massive campaign, though it certainly was being promoted by individual jewellers.
It seems hard to overplay what De Beers et al. accomplished and yet again, as in the GP post, it appears you've managed - like the part about movie stars, people already gave diamonds as symbols of love/marriage. Though in honesty I'd rather the exaggeration than the alternative of ignoring the virulent place of marketeers in Western Capitalism.
Indeed. I agree with almost everything you're saying, including the general sentiment.
One of your Google Books citations didn't work but the other bears this:
"Diamonds had been a popular stone for engagement rings before Ayer came on the scene, but the agency helped give new meaning to the tradition and make it more widespread." (Brides, Inc: American Weddings and the Business of Tradition, by Vicki Howard, p.50, transcribed E&OE)
Also worth noting is that:
"from the end of the Depresssion to the late 1940s, the percentage of double-ring as opposed to single-ring marriages increased from 15 percent to approximately 80 percent." (ibid, p.61)
I think that 80% matches the claim Ayers made for diamond engagement-ring popularity ('four-fifths of a carat per wedding' or somesuch turn of phrase). Of course the "double-ring" wasn't being promoted with the same massive campaign, though it certainly was being promoted by individual jewellers.
It seems hard to overplay what De Beers et al. accomplished and yet again, as in the GP post, it appears you've managed - like the part about movie stars, people already gave diamonds as symbols of love/marriage. Though in honesty I'd rather the exaggeration than the alternative of ignoring the virulent place of marketeers in Western Capitalism.