It's not even particularly traditional. Up until the DeBeers campaign in the 30s/40s, a wide array of gems were used in wedding rings. Wedding rings are tradi

It's not even particularly traditional. Up until the DeBeers campaign in the 30s/40s, a wide array of gems were used in wedding rings. Wedding rings are traditional, but solely using diamonds is fairly novel. It would be more traditional to use any other gem. > This is what I think is really the reason people gift and wear engagement rings: upholding tradition and signalling commitment. Both of those are bad reasons. A diamond wedding ring is not traditional (nor is the obscene spending, at least once we stopped using wedding rings as part of the dowry), and spending a bunch of money is a bad way to show commitment. Anyone can spend a bunch of money without caring at all. This is the worst part of the DeBeers mythos; equating lavish spending with commitment. They are not the same.