In 1944, a Catholic priest turned to the American Ecclesiastical Review for advice on whether the "double ring" marriage ceremony was permitted. If it was allowed, he asked, "is the prayer for the blessing of the ring, as found in the Ritual, said in the plural number, and do groom and bride successively place a blessed ring each on the finger of the other, saying the accustomed words, 'With this ring, etc.?'" Among Catholics and others prior to World War Two, most marriage vows took place with one wedding band. The Roman Ritual called only for the blessing of the bride's ring. The Catholic journal concluded that as the groom's ring was a matter of custom and not legislation, "it is custom which will govern the manner in which it is to be carried out." In 1951, the issue was taken up again, only now the journal concluded that "no objection can be set forth against the blessing of the second ring along with the ring of the bride," even though the Roman Ritual made no provision for the practice. By 1956, the jo urnal's Catholic authorities once again addressed the question, stating finally that the Congregation of Sacred Rites permitted the double ring ceremony and that the blessing was to be said only once but in the plural. As this extended discussion in the American Ecclesiastical Review suggests, everyday consumer practices transformed religious ritual. (1)

Unlike many wedding practices that have obscure origins, the American double ring ceremony can be traced to the 1940s and 1950s when the jewelry industry invented the tradition of the groom's wedding band and the marrying public adopted it with a vengeance. (2) The popularization of this tradition, however, is not merely a story of hapless brides and grooms influenced by advertising, buying new types of consumer goods as soon as they appeared in jeweler's windows displayed in new contraptions such as the Rings-O-Bliss tray that allowed retailers to show the two wedding bands together as a set. (3) The wedding industry was only able to transform mid-twentieth century practices when the goods and their accompanying rituals fit consumer demand, something shaped not merely by need, but by contemporary ideologies. The groom's ring only became "tradition" in the United States when weddings, marriage, and "masculine domesticity" became synonymous with prosperity, capitalism, and national stability. (4) The success o f this invented tradition in the World War Two and early postwar context provides a window into gender ideology in the mid-twentieth century, a time when a new cult of marriage worked its way into the national discourse. Invented traditions, however, did not always catch on, and the reasons for their failure shed light on the complex relation between business and society. By comparing the rise of the double ring ceremony with the story of the earlier 1920s male engagement ring--an invented tradition that failed--it becomes clear that jewelers were only able to change custom when such practices resonated with their potential audience.

Jewelers' promotion of invented traditions should be seen in the larger context of the industry's competition with mass marketers. (5) With the rise of consumer capitalism and new forms of manufacturing, merchandising, and distribution in the late nineteenth century, jewelers who had operated small family-run businesses faced increased competition and economic uncertainty. Specialty retailers had to find new ways to compete with the growing numbers of mass marketers that also sold luxury goods and their imitations. During the 1890s, mail order catalogs started selling cheap wedding rings and diamond engagement rings as well. Jewelers also competed for the bridal market with department stores like Marshall Field's in Chicago, which began handling diamonds and fine jewelry around 1890. Other department stores, such as Wanamaker's and Gimbel Brothers in Philadelphia, followed in 1904 and 1905 respectively. The jewelry industry responded, urging its members not to allow themselves to "be driven from the field alt ogether. …