Let's Put a Ring on it
"A diamond is Forever", but the story isn't quite what you think.
Let's dive into the fascinating, but not that old, story of the diamond solitaire.
Love without a rock
Mary of Burgundy got the first diamond ring. Everyone else waited 400 years
Engagements existed long before diamonds rings. In ancient Egypt , reeds, leather or copper bands were given as token of commitment. In medieval Europe, the promise might be sealed with a verse-engraved ring or simply the spoken word. In most cultures, the engagement was about the contract, the alliance, or the family arrangement. Romance was optional, and sparkle was rare, at best.
The first recorded diamond engagement ring seems to appear onto history’s stage in 1477, when Archduke Maximilian of Austria proposed to Mary of Burgundy with a gold band set with thin, flat diamonds.
Romantic? Yes. Common? Absolutely not.
For centuries, diamonds were the privilege of royalty and the very rich.
By the 19th century, engagement rings had filtered into the middle and upper-middle classes in Europe and America. Sapphires, rubies, garnets, seed pearls, and plain gold bands were just as popular as diamonds. The stone was a choice, not a rule.
Even in the early 20th century, diamonds were still far from universal. In the U.S, fewer than one in ten brides received one before World War II, and those that did often wore modest, low-quality stones. Colored gems and simple bands were everywhere.
Beyond the Western world, engagement traditions rarely revolved around a ring at all; though gold and gemstones, in many forms, were and still are part of the promise. From plain gold bands in Egypt to gold sets in parts of Asia, jewelry was a symbol, but not "THE" engagement symbol.
By the 1930s, the diamond engagement ring existed, but it wasn’t a cultural obligation either in U.S or anywhere else Stones were shrinking, sales were slipping, and many proposals came without a ring at all.
That’s the world De Beers walked into... yes and soon turned upside down.
Diamonds are forever
By the 1930s, De Beers had a problem: diamond prices were falling, and fast. At the time, they controlled nearly 90% of the world’s diamond production, carefully releasing stones into the market to keep prices high. Diamonds weren’t rare, De Beers just made them look rare, but the Great Depression had left people with smaller wallets, buying smaller stones, and many skipped the ring altogether.
In 1938, Harry Oppenheimer hired the ad agency N.W. Ayer. Together, they pulled off one of the most brilliant and manipulative marketing coups in history: turn a diamond from a luxury for the few into a moral obligation for the many.
The pitch was shamelessly effective:
Forever isn’t forever without a diamond. The bigger the stone, the bigger the man (in every sense). And every love story? It only counts if it ends with a ring box snap.
This wasn’t just advertising; it was a cultural invasion. Movie stars were photographed with glittering rocks, magazines and gossip columns breathlessly detailed the carats gifted by leading men, Schools even got “guest lectures” about the engagement ring tradition.
By the 1940s, they added a small “rule” you may have heard: spend one month’s salary on the ring.
In the 1980s, they improved the rule, love was now worth two months’ salary.
Who set these rules? De Beers. Who benefited? De Beers, again.
By the time Marilyn Monroe sang “Diamonds Are a Girl’s Best Friend” in 1953, the message was crystal clear: this wasn’t a purchase, it was the ultimate proof of love.
Not everyone , Not everywhere
De Beers’ campaign didn’t conquer everywhere. In some cultures, local traditions proved harder to dislodge.
In Japan it took a while. In 1967, fewer than 5% of brides received a diamond ring. By aggressively marketing diamonds as a symbol of “modern Western love,” De Beers flipped that number to 60% by 1981, turning Japan into the world’s second-largest diamond engagement market.
In Southeast Asia, it just didn't really settle. In Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore, gold jewelry often plays a bigger role than diamonds, tied to wealth preservation and cultural heritage. In parts of the Middle East, elaborate gold sets mark the engagement instead of a single gemstone.
Even in the UK, upper-class traditions colored stones (think Princess Diana’s sapphire), a quiet way to sidestep what they might percieve as an overly “commercial” American trend.
The New battle
Today, De Beers’ greatest threat isn’t another cartel, it’s science. Lab-grown diamonds are chemically identical to natural ones, often cost up to 70% less, and come without the complicated (at best) ethics of mining.
So De Beers is on the offensive again, trying to convince consumers that only a “natural” diamond has true emotional and financial value.
They even launched their own lab-grown brand, Lightbox, and priced it deliberately low to keep lab-grown in the “fun fashion” category, not the “forever love” one.
The stakes are high: while De Beers no longer controls 90% of production, they still hold an estimated 30–40% of the global supply, and keeping natural diamonds on their pedestal is keeping prices high and margins even higher.
Final Cut
The engagement ring does have history, but its near-universal status as the symbol of love owes far more to a century of brilliant marketing than to ancient tradition.
Whether you see it as romance, a ritual, or the world’s most glittering case of cultural imperialism depends entirely on which side of the little velvet box you’re standing. At The Right Jewel, we simply marvel at nature’s ( and yes, man’s ) most dazzling creations, and believe that tradition or not, love is always a fine excuse to turn up the sparkle.
