I don't get it.

The site sounds inspired by the George Jones song "Golden Rings"; two rings in a pawn shop, a young couple buys them, the marriage doesn't work, the rings are back in the pawn shop, a young couple buys them ...

I have a ring. It was $800, originally. I know that. But I didn't get the receipt, or the paperwork. I know that it's about half a carat because I said no bigger than that, but I don't know about clarity or color.

I have been trying to unload the thing for years now. Posted it on auction sites, Craigslist, everywhere. The best I've ever managed is that once I was offered *$50* for it by an 18-year-old who probably shouldn't have been proposing in the first place. The jewelry stores I've called want more than I expect to get for it to properly appraise it.

I wish I'd gotten my TV back instead.

Sell it to a pawn shop.

Why not give it back? If a man proposed and the woman says "no", does she take the ring? This seems like a similar situation. I guess the argument is if the guy is a slimy jerk you get to take two months of his salary? What if the woman breaks off the engagement/is cheating? Does she get to keep the ring as well?

This kind of logic plays into BS65's mindset.

I don't understand why some women still feel that they need to have a ring that cost a few months' salary. Let's not go into the fact that gold-mining rapes the environment and diamonds are neither rare nor an engagement tradition anywhere. How can a woman justify going into a marriage, into a financial team with someone and right from the start just flush a couple months of their salary down the toilet? There are plenty of nice pieces of jewelry or gifts out there than can symbolize love without costing much at all. Ladies, if the cost means more to you than the symbolism, you should let your partner know that from the start, so you can both be clear about what kind of relationship you're getting into.

with an engagement ring is to return it. Once the marriage has occurred, it is OK to keep the wedding ring/engagement ring as it is part of the marital assets (assuming the woman would want to keep the rings as part of her 50%).

The one caveat would be if the person you were engaged to told you to keep it. In that case, I say keep it (or sell it).

My new theory is that BS65 is on the broadsheet payroll.

I think this is more than just engagement rings. It's about all the various pieces of jewelry that accumulates in a relationship. Honestly if an ex of mine tried to give back stuff I had given her I would be a bit baffled. And conversely I have some pretty nice stuff (pens etc.) given to me by exes that ended up in a box somewhere because I did not want any reminders of them.

As for engagement rings. The Emily Post rule is as follows, if the man breaks up the engagement, the woman may keep the ring. If she breaks it off she is supposed to return it. Yes, this has it's origins in bride prices. It also just sort of makes sense. Calling off an engagement, breaking your fiances heart, then expecting the ring back seems pretty rude. As does keeping a ring if the woman breaks it off.

The engagement ring goes back to him, no matter who broke the engagement, unless you happen to be a gold digging bitch with no class. As for other jewelry, either it's trivial in cost to both of you or, well, see above.

Depending on where you live, you may have to return an engagement ring if the wedding does not take place. In Ohio, for example, an engagement ring is a "conditional gift" and keeping it depends on satisfying the condition of marriage. No marriage=no keeping of the ring.

But I like the idea of the site where this law doesn't apply. It's a summary of a relationship in an advertisement.

What jewelry stores are going to?? I paid $75 for an appraisal of a diamond ring.

It's tacky to keep an engagement ring.

Even in the case of a divorce, if the ring is an heirloom of your ex's family, it should go back. If it's not, eeeuwwww anyhow.

I'm very traditional when it comes to this, but an engagement ring is symbol of your commitment to starting a marriage, and if that's not happening, give the damn thing back... even if the guy was a creep. My only exception would be if the engagement was broken off because he stole or scammed money from you. Other than an engagement ring, each person in this relationship has a right to keep or sell gifts obtained by the other person.

I had a tacky-ass jerk, who (when his pleads to get back me back failed) demanded reimbursement for every time he took me out to dinner. I thanked him for confirming my wisdom in dumping him. My room mate's ex (who obtained the keys to our apartment under the pretense of giving her back her stuff at his place) looted her bedroom of every single thing he ever bought her during their two-year relationships.

It's truly amazing how many "modern" men treat their women like a fiscal investment. And they say women are gold-diggers.

If a person gives a gift, they should be doing so without ever expecting it back. They have transferred property - saying by their act "here, take this". The purpose of the transfer of property is irrelevant, a gift it the full property of the recipient.

Engagement and wedding rings are not gifts, they are material symbols of a contract between two persons. In essence, they are jointly owned property, even when each ring (there are usually two) resides on the finger of one of the people 99.9% of the time. Just like any other jointly held property (house, car, etc), its disposition after the contract is broken is a matter to be decided between the two parties, by either mutual agreement, or by arbitration if mutual agreement isn't possible.

Symbolically, it might be most appropriate for the rings to be physically destroyed. If it is an item of great material value, then destruction isn't likely the best choice, so selling and splitting the proceeds seems the next best option. For one party to personally retain a wedding or engagement ring against the wishes of the other party is morally wrong. It reflects very poorly on the character of the person who retains it, and they should be ashamed of themselves for abusing the intent of their prior contract. This is true regardless of how much, or in what other ways the other person might have abused it.

That's my opinion anyhow.