RE: Jewelry
I will correct Max on several points.
First, rings. A man can pull off two rings (assuming the first is a wedding band) if
1. the second one is a class ring from a Military Acadamy that the wearer attended. From someone who works in an industry where I come in contact with many military folks, I think it's perfectly acceptable for a Naval Acadamy graduate to wear that ring longer than Max's three year limit. Same for the other Acadamies, of course.
2. the second one is a championship ring from a major league pro sports team, and the wearer played on that team. (i.e. SuperBowl ring. For example, Brett Farve could wear his SuperBowl ring, along with his wedding ring until he's 99 if he wants. I'm aware that some franchises buy rings for all employees. If you work in the ticket office, take the damn thing off. You look stupid.)
Also, pinky rings ALWAYS look stupid on a man.
As do gold chains.
As do earrings, unless the wearer is in a rock band... a good rock band.
Lastly, what about tie tacks/pins/etc. Are these not considered Jewelry because they are functional and not ornamental?
UPDATE FROM YOUR MAXIMUM LEADER: Your Maximum Leader stands corrected. He completely agrees that graduates from a military academy are permitted (and in many cases expected) to wear their class rings for many years after they graduate. And while he agrees on this point, there is probably a case to be made that this habit ought to be eschewed as it sometimes promotes a sometimes undeserved feeling of superiority by military academy graduates over other non-academy graduate officers.
And the Super Bowl (or other sports world championship) rings are also acceptable. However there should be a caveat here. It is only acceptable to wear ONE such ring; even if the wearer has won more than one championship. In this case only athletes, coaches, and owners should wear the rings.
And generally tie tacks, tie pins, collar bars, or tie chains fall into the "practical" category and aren't jewelry. But it is certainly possible that they too can fall into the "Rolex" category...
First, rings. A man can pull off two rings (assuming the first is a wedding band) if
1. the second one is a class ring from a Military Acadamy that the wearer attended. From someone who works in an industry where I come in contact with many military folks, I think it's perfectly acceptable for a Naval Acadamy graduate to wear that ring longer than Max's three year limit. Same for the other Acadamies, of course.
2. the second one is a championship ring from a major league pro sports team, and the wearer played on that team. (i.e. SuperBowl ring. For example, Brett Farve could wear his SuperBowl ring, along with his wedding ring until he's 99 if he wants. I'm aware that some franchises buy rings for all employees. If you work in the ticket office, take the damn thing off. You look stupid.)
Also, pinky rings ALWAYS look stupid on a man.
As do gold chains.
As do earrings, unless the wearer is in a rock band... a good rock band.
Lastly, what about tie tacks/pins/etc. Are these not considered Jewelry because they are functional and not ornamental?
UPDATE FROM YOUR MAXIMUM LEADER: Your Maximum Leader stands corrected. He completely agrees that graduates from a military academy are permitted (and in many cases expected) to wear their class rings for many years after they graduate. And while he agrees on this point, there is probably a case to be made that this habit ought to be eschewed as it sometimes promotes a sometimes undeserved feeling of superiority by military academy graduates over other non-academy graduate officers.
And the Super Bowl (or other sports world championship) rings are also acceptable. However there should be a caveat here. It is only acceptable to wear ONE such ring; even if the wearer has won more than one championship. In this case only athletes, coaches, and owners should wear the rings.
And generally tie tacks, tie pins, collar bars, or tie chains fall into the "practical" category and aren't jewelry. But it is certainly possible that they too can fall into the "Rolex" category...
posted by Anonymous at 5/17/2005 07:27:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home