signet Rings in Traditional Highland Attire.

[Bugbear]

MacLowlife wanted another thread to crop up in this forum, I also just happen to have been having a PM discussion about the engraving of a ring.

Please explain signet rings in relation to traditional Highland attire: the rules, laws, etiquette, etc.
What counts as a signet ring?
Do the assorted group rings count as signet rings?
Is this some sort of heraldry, and if so does Lord Lyon regulate them in Scotland?

I know nothing.

[Cygnus]

I don't know a whole lot about the subject, but I can give simple answers to a few of your questions and I'll leave it to those who know better to elaborate (and correct).

I have never read any rules about rings that are particular to Highland attire, so you shouldn't have any problem wearing whatever rings you'd like so long as it's not too over the top.
Signet rings themselves are generally worn on the little finger, I've seen them worn on both the right and left hands and don't think there's a hard and fast rule as to which is appropriate.

A signet ring, by the strictest definition, is a ring that one would use to imprint one's seal in wax. Not all heraldic rings are engraved in reverse or intaglio, however, and I'm not sure those that aren't are still considered signet rings.

I don't believe a group ring would fall into this category.

As a signet ring bears an element of an heraldic achievement (usually the crest or shield), it does fall under the purview of the Lord Lyon and, when in Scotland, is subject to its laws.

Hopefully someone will come along to correct me if I have provided any misinformation.

[MacLowlife]

I have read of individuals who learned to roll their hands in such a way so that one motion would complete a signature and neatly land the signet ring in the wax. This is for people who have to sign and seal a lot of documents, which leaves me out.

I believe signet rings have followed fashions. I have one with an entire achievement of arms- shield and crest- which is too big to wear on the little finger. It is intaglio carnelian and yes, the image is reversed. The stone is oval, but is roughly the size of an American penny. The original owner received it in 1919 or thereabouts ( Wally, fifth Earl of Lough Leif) and it passed to me about 50 years later. I have another which would be a generation older, which is bloodstone, with only a shield, no crest or torse. It is roughly half as large and fits nicely on the little finger. Maybe Wally had no taste, but I believe his ring reflected one of several troughs in popularity of the pinky ring.

Another periodic shift is from the shield to the crest as subject. Like a set of initials, one crest can belong to several people, but there is also the general notion of understatement- why use your whole name if a monogram will do?

Some of my friends still find pinky rings highfalutin , so when I am passing the pint of Inver House, I tuck that finger under.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

The words "signet ring" have become synonymous with the small gold ring worn on a gentleman's little finger. Generally speaking a signet ring is engraved with either the arms, crest, or initials (usually a monogram) of the owner. Most rings are made of gold although silver and platinum signets are also, albeit rarely, encountered. Likewise, larger rings bearing the arms, crest, or initials of the owner are also seen. These are usually worn on the middle or ring finger and while undoubtedly signet rings, they are largely out of fashion today.

Generally the signet ring in worn on the little finger of the left hand by right handed gentlemen, and on the little finger of the right hand by left handed gentlemen. The reason for this is to prevent the ring interfering with the writing hand when signing one's name.

Under no circumstances should a clansman's badge be used on a signet ring, as this would imply that the ring is the property of the chief! Clansmen who lack arms should have their initials seal engraved as a monogram on a signet ring if they choose to wear one.

Broadly speaking there are no "rules" regarding the wearing or use of a signet ring, although in practice a gentleman only wears two rings: a signet ring and (if married) a wedding band. The wearing of more than two rings is thought to be either ostentatious or down right vulgar.

[Bugbear]

Thanks for the replies so far.

I was thinking of a step relative who normally wore a Masonic ring when I ask about the groups and other rings.
I rarely wear rings of any sort; I'm a potter.

Like I said, I know nothing.

[macwilkin]

Thanks for the replies so far.

I was thinking of a step relative who normally wore a Masonic ring when I ask about the groups and other rings.
I rarely wear rings of any sort; I'm a potter.

Like I said, I know nothing.

Just a point of information, but North American masons tend to be a bit more "public" in terms of their membership, with a plethora of items (rings, embroidered jackets, ball caps, etc.) that denote their membership. Traditionally, masons in the Commonwealth tend to be more circumspect and only wear regalia at masonic meetings. In particular, masonic rings in the UK tend to be of this type:

http://www.masonic-jewellery.co.uk/DAJ117.shtml

This in general tends to support the whole "less is more" rule of dress. When a member attends a lodge meeting, he flips the ring to display the square and compasses.

T.

[Tobus]

Broadly speaking there are no "rules" regarding the wearing or use of a signet ring, although in practice a gentleman only wears two rings: a signet ring and (if married) a wedding band. The wearing of more than two rings is thought to be either ostentatious or down right vulgar.

What about university class rings or military academy rings? Do these even exist in the UK, or are they just not worn by gentlemen?

[Jock Scot]

What about university class rings or military academy rings? Do these even exist in the UK, or are they just not worn by gentlemen?

I stand to be corrected here, but as far as I am aware(unless there is some new trend that I am unaware of) these rings do not exist in the UK. We wear a University, College, Old School, Club or, Regimental tie instead.

In passing, many married men in the UK do not wear a wedding ring as a matter of course.Those that do, er, well, um, hurrumph, may not wear a wedding ring on occasion, for some other reason though!

[vmac3205]

I stand to be corrected here, but as far as I am aware(unless there is some new trend that I am unaware of) these rings do not exist in the UK. We wear a University, College, Old School, Club or, Regimental tie instead.

In passing, many married men in the UK do not wear a wedding ring as a matter of course.Those that do, er, well, um, hurrumph, may not wear a wedding ring on occasion, for some other reason though!

Jock,
I remember seeing a signet ring but not a wedding ring. Hurrumph indeed.

[Jock Scot]

Jock,
I remember seeing a signet ring but not a wedding ring. Hurrumph indeed.

Quite right!

I don't know many British married men who do wear a wedding ring---its just not done. Interestingly, I have noticed at the last few weddings that we have attended the "happy couple" each had a wedding ring. Perhaps its becoming a modern trend?