#doesnt help that these tapers run large

[heckaroniandcheese]

stretching a piercing as we speak . i did not miss this .

[hippieeloquent]

Vertical Climber Machine

Many people breathing in little apartments and still desire a home exercise product- vertical climbers attain not say you will going on much space and as we have back observed they all are collapsible, which means that storage is a cinch. A vertical climber is easy but deeply operating for home gym equipment. After unqualified assembly, though using the stair for a workout there is a large footprint of the equipment which trial 23 inches X 36 inches X 79 inches. Shandong Jinggong Fitness Equipment Co., Ltd. No event what age you are or what height you have, you can attain your fitness following this wonderful climbing device. Using the elliptical can support you achieve your fitness goals as they trigger most major muscle groups and burn calories. The vertical climber mimics rock climbing motions and engages the primary muscle groups in users of every shapes and sizes thanks to its compliant climbing arms. This engages the major muscle groups in your legs such as your quads, calves, and glutes. When you talk roughly calorie burning, one of the workout machines that come to mind is the climbing machine. In our assistance (and were capably up to date this is unconditionally subjective) this vertical climbing robot actually looks, if not exactly stylish, next still fairly living-room-friendly. keep amused leave any notes below if you have any questions or would in the same way as to allocation your experiences with any vertical climber machines you may have tried out. Or would you be enthusiastic in one that has extras, later than a timer? We wish that weve been willing to help in guiding you towards the machines that youre most suited to, and now have a good idea not quite a vertical climber that you really as soon as the look of. If you imagine jogging, though simultaneously performing arts dumbbell curls at the similar time, that analogy perhaps gives you a better idea of why the Maxi Climber is considered highly developed for considering it comes to alight fat. When it comes to sports and exercising in general, injuries are the worse issue that can happen to anyone who wants to stay active. In adjunct to its handy assembly, this vertical climber operates maintain adjusted to five tremendous positions as are take control of for a enormously as regards superb physique types, or operate support over to 250 kilos into weight. In terms of Amazon reviews, it has customary well more than 800 reviews to date following 4 out of 5 consumers awarding it 4 stars or more. song saving as skillfully as quick folding compact design. The uncomplicated design of the climber is easy-to-enter, use and leave. FEIERDUN Vertical Climber is one of the best climber machines not just because of its slick design it next it cam provides its addict past oppressive workouts to loss its weight in a short epoch of time. The comfort of the addict is ensured by covering the handlebars taking into consideration non-stick rubber rollers. The mobile handlebars allow the addict to appear in the upper-body workout. The user indicates the tone of the Weslo Climber to be mannerism greater than before than the Maxi Climber. Use a vertical climber for a few weeks, youll see that you can gradually total your stamina, regardless of your age. The rubberized feet save the machine in area as you use it while protecting your floor from harm. Its compatible considering both Android and iOS, correspondingly you can use it no business what phone or tablet you have. Ladder Climber - if youve ever climbed a ladder, after that you can imagine do something that as a workout. If you desire to stay fit without spending a fortune, next a Stair stepper is a great oscillate for you. Thanks to the team for the great effort, however. To shout out the most natural movements feasible scientist recommend organization outdoors, but, if you must practice indoor organization opt for a treadmill. A vertical climber is perhaps the best showing off to acquire a cardio workout from the comfort of your own home, and it also takes in the works pretension less heavens than a typical treadmill or elliptical machine. Compared to running, using a vertical climber will have a low impact upon joints and tendons. Especially relevant is this is a foldable vertical climber past a small footprint making it good for those gone limited space. If you have ever used a versa climber you know that even at a decent level, the machine can be tough for just 5 minutes. The reachable structure of the climber is cooperative as it is easy-to-use and maintains. It protects you from slipping even if you are sweaty on workout time. every the unbelievable features are at the provide for a reasonable price. There are handrails located upon the top and sides to save your balance. If you want by yourself basic, common climbers are enough. These machines are meant for not far off from everyone, fittingly when buying one, create distinct that it can sustain your culmination and weight. It doesnt excitement with fancy gadgetry and gets straight to the tapering off next foot pedals and ergonomic grips to create distinct your hands dont then vibes the burn. every new precise element nearly this robot is that it functions isometric nonstick grips which create positive that your workout is as cozy as may be. To read more about the best vertical climber machine go to: https://bestverticalclimbermachine.page.tl/Best-Vertical-Climber-Machine.htm https://berufung.wixsite.com/topverticalclimbers/post/best-vertical-climber-machine http://bestverticalclimbermachine.mystrikingly.com/blog/best-vertical-climber-machine https://bestverticalclimbermachine.weebly.com/blog/best-vertical-climber-machine https://tverticalclimbermachine.video.blog/2019/12/23/best-vertical-climber-machine/

[thisdaynews]

What Adam Schiff Doesn’t Get About Watergate

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/what-adam-schiff-doesnt-get-about-watergate/

What Adam Schiff Doesn’t Get About Watergate

Yet what many recall as an incisive, if not noble, question about the behavior of a president from Baker’s same political party was anything but. Rather, it was a shrewd and calculated attempt to stem the rising tide against Nixon. Nor was it even Baker’s first assault against getting at the truth of Watergate, and it would not prove to be his most cynical.

It is true that Baker’s behavior during the Senate hearings does not resemble in the slightest Republicans’ comportment so far. At every good opportunity, which is to say constantly, Baker, oozing border-state charm without being too obsequious, flattered Sam Ervin, the folksy, 76-year-old Dixiecrat from North Carolina who chaired the committee. “It has been a great privilege for me to learn from you and to go forward in this unpleasantness,” typified the remarks Baker directed at Ervin. But here’s the thing: Baker was a highly sophisticated, even Machiavellian, partisan. His genuine role was one of collusion with the White House ; followed by an attempt at a firebreak that failed ; and finally, in desperation, an embrace of conspiracy-mongering.

Much of what we know about Baker’s true role comes from three books: a memoir by Fred Thompson, the Watergate committee’s minority counsel (At That Point in Time, 1975); a memoir by Sam Dash, the panel’s majority counsel (Chief Counsel, 1976); and a comprehensive history based on primary documents by the late dean of Watergate historians, Professor Stanley I. Kutler (The Wars of Watergate, 1990). In addition to these books, a fine-grained picture of Baker’s behind-the-scenes behavior has emerged as more of the tapes surreptitiously recorded during Nixon’s presidency have been released and deciphered.

Schiff had just turned 12 years old when five burglars put the Watergate scandal in motion, so he can be forgiven for not recalling the nuances of what happened. But now that the California Democrat is one of the leaders of the impeachment inquiry—and will probably be one of the managers who presents the case to the Senate—it is incumbent on him, and Democrats in general, to purge their minds of Watergate fairy tales. And Baker as Watergate truth-seeker is as good as any place to begin. If the Watergate scandal is any kind of historical guide, the Democrats are going to succeed only if they stop hankering for a magical nonpartisan Republican and instead focus on building a strong, factual case against the president—one that convinces the American people on its own merit.

***

Baker’s perception of his roleon the committee was inextricable from his larger aims. Ervin had insisted that no senators with presidential aspirations be allowed on the committee. But that was interpreted to mean senators intending to run in the next cycle. Baker was looking further ahead, and in that sense Ervin’s edict was fortuitous. “Although senators are by definition politically ambitious,” Dash wrote in his memoir, “Baker was excessively so.” The Tennessean was a political boy wonder. Elected to the Senate in 1966 at the tender age of 41, after having not served in any previous office, Baker was the first Republican senator from Tennessee since Reconstruction, and an example of the great political realignment taking place in the South. He naturally harbored thoughts of running for president in the foreseeable future. Serving on the committee would burnish his credentials, particularly if he became renowned for stopping the Watergate scandal from metastasizing further and consuming a Republican president.

Baker had led the GOP in opposing a full-fledged Senate investigation of the 1972 presidential campaign, and then maneuvered to become the ranking Republican on the Watergate panel. Via Nixon’s trusted aide Charles Colson, Baker conveyed his reasoning. The senator had only accepted the committee assignment, Baker’s administrative assistant told Colson, to “go all the way … and defend you and the Republican Party.” He “wasn’t getting off the reservation.” The president was to disregard any seemingly critical comments Baker made in public, as well as any elaborate displays of deference to Ervin in the future. The only purpose behind these utterances was to maintain Baker’s credibility with Ervin in order to negotiate and “control him.” Baker, Colson was told, had to “act like one of the Senate club lest he destroy his effectiveness with Ervin.”

Shortly after his appointment to the Watergate committee, Baker also sought a secret meeting with Nixon to discuss the probe. From Baker’s perspective, the meeting would serve a twofold purpose. First and foremost, he wanted to reassure the president personally about his efforts and goodwill. But he also wanted to gather intelligence about what to expect from the upcoming testimony of all the president’s men, and needed guidance on where the White House intended to draw the line. The key question was whether the onus for the break-in would be placed solely on Nixon’s reelection campaign, or whether some responsibility could be traced back to the White House, if not the Oval Office itself. This same issue was a matter of keen interest for Baker too, for to a degree he had now tied his own future to the president’s protestations of innocence.

Baker insisted the meeting with Nixon be clandestine. It was arranged for a day when he was already scheduled to attend a large reception in the White House for supporters of the president’s Vietnam policy. Baker arrived an hour early, and was escorted to Nixon’s hideaway in the Executive Office Building.

Unfortunately, the recording of their meeting happens to be one of the Nixon tapes that is irreparably flawed. Baker just happened to sit as far away from the microphones implanted in the president’s desk as possible, resulting in a mostly inaudible recording. Moreover, while the meeting lasted 40 minutes, the tape recording is only eight minutes long. Still, the gist of some remarks can be discerned, and the president later described the discussion in subsequent conversations with John Ehrlichman, his top domestic policy adviser, Attorney General Richard Kleindienst and H.R. “Bob” Haldeman, the White House chief of staff.

Baker stressed that he was intent on preventing a “fishing expedition.” While he expected the hearings to start with a bang, he thought public interest would taper off dramatically—and his goal was to help make that happen. Baker disclosed that the Democrats were hoping, as Nixon later put it, to first call “a lot of pipsqueak witnesses, little shit-asses over periods of weeks to build it up, the pressure.” Inside the committee, Baker was arguing for a different approach, one that would have all the president’s big men up there from the start to “prick the boil.” Then Baker could confront Ervin with the emptiness of their testimonies and cut off the inquiry, leaving it at the seven men already convicted of the burglary. As Nixon explained, Baker aimed to “choke the goddamn thing for the week, and after that people will be bored to death.” While this approach had its attractions, the president remained wary. He expressed the hope to Baker that through some combination of executive privilege, closed executive sessions or written interrogatories, the administration might avoid the spectacle of having its top men “dragged up” to Capitol Hill, testifying in public under oath.

When the senator gingerly hinted at the possibility ofWhite Houseinvolvement, the president denied the insinuation vigorously. But Nixon allowed that he was concerned about former campaign chairman John Mitchell’s role, thereby indicating to Baker where the line should be drawn if necessary: around the now-defunct Committee for the Re-election of the President (CRP). Indeed, as Nixon later recounted, he told Baker that if and when the time came for him to cross-examine Mitchell, the senator needed to bring out the facts about Mitchell’s “horrible domestic situation,” meaning his alcoholic wife, Martha.

I said [to Baker], Martha, you know, is very sick. And John wasn’t paying attention, and these kids ran away with it. … John Mitchell is a pure, bright guy who would have never done such a thing, but the kids ran away with it. And if John did lie [about CRP involvement], it was simply because he’d forgotten. Now whether that will wash or not, I don’t know. But I just want you [Baker] to know that [is what] I consider the Mitchell problem.

The next day, Nixon recounted the meeting to Kleindienst; the president now believed Baker would be working for him inside the committee. “Howard came down for the purpose of telling me what are his plans for the hearings … what he’s planning to do. What he’s going to do is … try to make it appear the Republicans are cooperating … [that] the hearings are honest and the administration’s cooperating.” There was a concrete reason for discussing the meeting with the attorney general as well. Baker had indicated he didn’t want to be seen talking to anyone in the White House from now on, so they had agreed that Baker’s liaison would be Kleindienst. He was to convey whatever inside information Baker had to John Dean exclusively, who would then take it to the president, and vice versa. Baker hoped the line of communication would run both ways, as he wanted a heads-up before the White House publicly stated its position on any of the contentious procedural issues that still had to be worked out.

In the 11 weeks that remained before hearings commenced, Baker, now assisted by Fred Thompson, his choice for minority counsel, labored to circumscribe the probe along the lines of Baker’s February 22 secret meeting. Truncating the witness list so that the hearings would be finished in one month was Baker’s top priority. One of his arguments was that Americans fixated on daytime soap operas would be upset by having their favorite shows preempted by long, drawn-out hearings. Ervin dismissed Baker’s proposal as preposterous, even if it risked provoking TV viewers’ ire. If accepted, Ervin argued, Baker’s scheme would make the committee an accessory to the White House’s obfuscations and falsehoods. Then, on April 30, the situation became immensely more complicated and the stakes exponentially higher. The White House announced Haldeman and Ehrlichman had resigned, that Dean was fired and Kleindienst had quit.

Now the question was not whether all the president’s big men would appear, but in what order. During a pivotal committee meeting on May 8, Baker lobbied for the burglars to testify first, followed by Mitchell, Colson, Haldeman and Ehrlichman, with Dean coming in last. This topsy-turvy approach meant that none of them could be asked about Dean’s accusations; the accused would be heard before the accuser, and everything could be wrapped up in 20 days. Baker also wanted senators to question witnesses first, before committee counsel did. That all but guaranteed the hearings could easily veer into incoherence and grandstanding, rather than fact-finding and narrative-building. Most tenaciously, and with uncharacteristic vehemence, Baker fought against giving Dean immunity for his testimony, echoing the then-prevailing White House line that Dean was “the most culpable and dangerous person in the Watergate affair.”

Baker did not prevail on any of these narrative-building issues, and his initial effort to collude with the White House was largely for naught. When the hearings finally commenced on May 17, the senator, exuding charm, assured his colleagues, along with a national television audience, that “this is not in any way a partisan undertaking, but rather, it is a bipartisan search for the unvarnished truth.” In reality, though, Baker was soon to embark on the next phase of his partisan effort to save Nixon’s presidency regardless of that truth.

***

The context of Baker’s famous questionmeans everything. Baker posed it to Dean after 3½ days of earth-shattering testimony from the former White House counsel—testimony that Baker readily agreed was “fairly mind-boggling.” Single-handedly, and in the space of a day, Dean had decisively shifted the committee’s focus from the initial crime, of which Nixon had no foreknowledge, to the cover-up. If the president committed just a few of the acts attributed to him, he had violated his oath of office. Nor were the president’s alleged misdeeds due to passivity, inattention or distraction. He had, according to Dean, abused his powers and actively conspired to obstruct justice.

Seen in its proper context, Baker’s question—“What did the president know and when did he know it?”—represented a shrewd defense from a highly skilled lawyer who recognized the inherent limits in Dean’s testimony. Baker intended to erect nothing less than an insurmountable firebreak in the conflagration that now threatened the Oval Office.

Dean had had almost no personal contact with Nixon for more than seven months after the June break-in. He could not offer direct testimony about what the president said and did in the earliest and most crucial phase of the cover-up. Dean’s first urgent, Watergate-related meeting had not occurred until February 27, 1973; only after that were there almost daily meetings with the president.

Repeating his rhythmic question over and over, Baker took Dean step by step through the key events beginning in June 1972 until Dean’s departure. At each important juncture, Baker depicted Dean’s account as based on hearsay or circumstantial evidence at best—meaning Dean was drawing unwarranted inferences about the president’s conduct. The strategy was supposed to result in an alternate narrative, wherein the president allegedly was unaware of the steps taken to hush the burglars, or supposedly ignorant about the pressure the White House exerted on the CIA to thwart the FBI from pursuing certain avenues of investigation. Ultimately, it would come down to Dean’s word and narrative against the president’s. And in fact, Baker’s firebreak did work as well as could be expected. By the time Dean finished his last day of testimony on June 29, the lack of independent corroboration of his allegations appeared to be an insuperable obstacle.

What Baker did not know at the time, of course, was that Nixon had done his immediate predecessors one better, and surreptitiously installed a voice-activated taping system that had been operational since February 1971. Two weeks after Dean’s last day of testimony, White House assistant Alexander Butterfield revealed the tapes’ existence. Suddenly, the recordings promised to resolve who was telling the truth. And just as abruptly, Baker’s calculated question transmogrified into a dagger pointed at the heart of the presidency.

As Stanley Kutler wrote, the “discovery of the tapes undid Baker’s careful handiwork. The tapes made irrelevant his question to John Dean . . . [Because now] Richard Nixon himself could answer Baker, and in indelible words.”

***

In late 1973, as the Watergate committee moved closer to its expiration date; while the legal battle over the tapes was winding its way toward the Supreme Court; and months before the House Judiciary Committee mounted its impeachment hearings, Baker turned desperately to a last resort—what would today be recognized as deep state conspiracy-mongering. Given his own direct knowledge from Nixon that only the CRP was responsible for the break-in, this last phase represented Baker’s most cynical tactic.

First, a little of the back-story is required.

The possibility of CIA involvement in the burglary had been an issue from the very start. Two of the five burglars arrested, and one of the masterminds who organized the illegal entry, had undeniable links to the agency. But then it swiftly turned out that one of the burglars, and both masterminds, had undeniable links to the White House or president’s reelection campaign. The FBI was initially flummoxed and investigated both possibilities. By mid-July 1972, however, the FBI investigation had “settled down.” Agents working the case knew the CRP, not the CIA, organized the break-in. The only remaining question was how high up in the CRP the conspiracy went.

This perception of culpability lasted until May 1973, when two new revelations caused allegations of CIA involvement to resume with even greater ferocity. It turned out that beginning in July 1971 the agency, at Ehrlichman’s behest, had given technical assistance (a wig, camera, voice-altering device and false identity cards) to E. Howard Hunt, one of the two Watergate masterminds, without knowing what it was going to be used for. And before the Democratic National Committee break-in, some of the items had been used in the burglary at the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s Los Angeles psychiatrist. Ellsberg was the Defense Department consultant behind the embarrassing leak of the so-called Pentagon Papers in 1971. Various House and Senate committees (there were no Intelligence Committees as such at the time) leaped into the fray and announced investigations. Perhaps envious of the attention the Senate Watergate committee was already generating, although it had yet to hold its first hearing, the House Armed Services announced a full-blown probe. A special subcommittee was hastily formed, and Representative Lucien Nedzi, a Democrat and University of Michigan Law School graduate, was appointed chairman.

Nedzi’s investigation proceeded rapidly. The first hearing occurred May 11, 1973, and by the end of July the special subcommittee had gathered statements or testimony from 26 witnesses. Nothing like this probe into the CIA had ever been conducted before, much less in full public view. Nedzi’s subcommittee (along with a much smaller Senate investigation that occurred in parallel) developed stunning new information directly related to the CIA and Watergate all right, but nothing proving foreknowledge of the break-in, much less that it was a CIA operation. Rather, the House subcommittee spent the majority of its time investigating the White House’s attempt, albeit unsuccessfully, to use the CIA to impede sensitive aspects of the FBI’s Watergate investigation over a period of two weeks right after the break-in.

The Nedzi subcommittee laid out its findings in a final report published on October 27, 1973. While the report criticized the CIA for bowing to White House pressure to help out Hunt in the first place, it correctly noted that the CIA had terminated the assistance in August 1971 because Hunt kept making new demands, and absolved the CIA of responsibility for the break-in. Nonetheless, 10 days later, Baker initiated his own investigation of CIA involvement with a letter addressed to the new director, William Colby. The agency responded by supplying Baker with many of the same documents it had already produced for Nedzi. Baker decided to plow ahead, and in January 1974 even set up a task force comprised of three Republican staff members from the Watergate committee, headed by Fred Thompson. For the next three months they reinvestigated what Thompson called the CIA’s “mystifying role,” often working 18-hour days.

Baker had no idea what was on the White House tapes and whether they would exonerate or implicate the president in the cover-up, or simply be inconclusive. But he did know that his famous question now threatened the president. Indicating the CIA had foreknowledge of the break-in would suggest that perhaps it was a CIA operation all along—and that seemed the most promising, if not only, way out for the president. In one stroke it would return the focus to who was responsible for the break-in, and render the cover-up almost moot. After all, Nixon could hardly be blamed for any measures he took in response to a charge he knew to be untrue. In this new narrative Nixon would be the victim of dark forces, rather than the culprit.

About halfway through Baker’s frantic, three-month investigation, the Washington press corps, thanks to Charles Colson—the only person in the White House to take a keen interest in the last-ditch effort—got wind of the task force. Reporters pressed the senator for some concrete results, but all Baker could offer in return was innuendo and unsupported implications. There were “animals crashing around in the forest” that he could hear but not yet see, Baker claimed.

Increasingly alarmed by what Baker was up to, the CIA became recalcitrant about responding to Thompson’s incessant demands. Journalists known for their ties to the agency, such as Tom Braden, a former CIA officer but now a syndicated columnist for theWashington Post, published articles that pointedly criticized Baker. Braden suggested Baker was pursuing a fruitless angle for transparent political reasons and harming the CIA in the process. Feeling the heat, and with nothing to show after three months of ceaseless effort, Baker ordered the task force to pull together whatever information it had developed and write a report.

Baker submitted what came to be known as the “Baker-CIA report” to Ervin for inclusion in the committee’s final report, to be published in mid-July 1974. But the chairman did not want to lend any dignity to the rump report and refused to include it in the main text. Rather than admit that there was “no there there,” after all, Baker insisted the report was merely “incomplete” and raised more justifiable questions than it answered. About two weeks before the committee’s full report became available, Baker and Thompson leaked their findings to the press, with modest results. The most newsworthy item was that the agency had learned via its grapevine, prior to the break-in, that E. Howard Hunt had been looking to hire a retired lock picker from a group of former CIA employees. The Baker-CIA report quickly fell flat, and Thompson recalled in his memoir that it was a “lonely time” for his boss. “Because of his persistent inquiries, [Baker] seemed to have placed himself at odds, not only with the CIA, but with the White House [sic], the press, and the rest of the committee.”

Three weeks after newspapers disclosed the Baker-CIA report, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous ruling that Nixon had to provide all the tape recordings demanded by the Watergate special prosecutor, not just transcripts the president unilaterally deemed responsive. And on August 5, the White House released what instantly and infamously became known as “the smoking gun” tape: an Oval Office conversation between Haldeman and Nixon on June 23, six days after the break-in, which provided the definitive answer to what the president knew and when he knew it.

***

Howard Baker’s reputation, perhaps surprisingly, perhaps not, suffered no lasting damage from his role on the Watergate committee. It was as if image, rather than substance, prevailed. As Kutler put it, Baker “projected extremely well on television, combing a boyish smile with the appearance of a diffident, nonpartisan pursuit of the truth.” When the senator’s devastating question was remembered, and it often was, it was misremembered because it was invariably taken out of context. Baker certainly exhibited no abiding impulse to correct the misunderstanding.

So for the Democrats to pine now for another Howard Baker is, at best, folly. Howard Baker was no Howard Baker, and any hope that a Republican champion will suddenly emerge and relieve Democrats from doing the necessary hard work that remains is a historical fantasy. The only sound course open to them is what the Watergate committee actually did: to continue to develop and compile the facts until they have exhausted them. Because it was the facts, gathered together to build the truth, that ground down Nixon finally, until he had no recourse except resignation unless he wanted the ignominy of removal. “Facts are stubborn things,” as one former president, John Adams, noted. Enough of them will either move public opinion and the political calculus, or appeal to Republicans of principle who still abide by their oath of office.

At least that was true in the past.

Read More

[mypearlssales]

Seven Examples of an Elegant Eternity Ring

An eternity ring is quite possibly the most thoughtful and best anniversary gift you could ever give to your wife. The style of ring has existed for well over 4000 years, and for most of that time they have been a symbol of unity and undying love. If your anniversary is rapidly approaching and you’ve been stuck for ideas, then worry no more, because an eternity ring could be exactly what you’re looking for. Traditionally, men from different parts of the world and within different cultures would chose to give their wife an eternity ring on either their first or third wedding anniversary, but don’t let that stop you considering giving one for a birthday, Christmas or holiday present. Eternity rings embody the eternal and everlasting love you have your partner. It also signifies a significant and powerful bond you share and the commitment you’ve made to each other. Traditionally speaking, an eternity ring is used to mark critical milestones in a serious relationship.

The design of an eternity ring is unique, and will most often feature gemstones or diamonds all around the outside of the entire band. The appeal of this sort of ring is that no matter the angle the rings is viewed from, it’ll looking uniformly beautiful, with gems and diamonds glimmering round the edge. With its enduring appeal and stunning significance, it has always been a very popular option as a gift for the special women in our lives. Even though the popularity of the eternity ring is undisputed, it’s completely understandable if this is the first you’ve heard of them, which is why we’re here to guide you through the choices available and pick the perfect ring. So, if you don’t know the significance of the ring, when to give one, or which type would best fit for you lady, or if you're just looking for a gift, or you’re responding to subtle hints, we’re here to help.

DAISI ZOPIUS DIAMOND & SILVER ETERNITY RING - Buy it from MyPearls

DAMIA ZOPIUS DIAMOND & SILVER ETERNITY RING - Buy it from MyPearls

DAMIANA ZOPIUS DIAMOND & SILVER ETERNITY RING - Buy it from MyPearls

DAMIANE ZOPIUS DIAMOND & SILVER ETERNITY RING - Buy it from MyPearls

DARCEL ZOPIUS DIAMOND & SILVER ETERNITY RING - Buy it from MyPearls

DARCELL ZOPIUS DIAMOND & SILVER ETERNITY RING - Buy it from MyPearls

DARCEY ZOPIUS DIAMOND & SILVER ETERNITY RING - Buy it from MyPearls

A Brief History of Eternity Rings

Eternity rings, as we’ve already discussed, have throughout the ages been the symbol of a man’s everlasting love to the special women in his life. Traditionally, the ring is acquired by the man to give it to his wife on a special event, such as an anniversary or other wedding milestone. The husband may wish to gift the ring to his lady to mark a very special day, such as the birth of their first child together, or in remembrance of an anniversary.

Historically, an eternity ring would only be given as an expression of love. The ring is most commonly worn on third finger of the left hand. According the roman beliefs, this the finger which contains the Vena Amoris or ‘Vein of Love’. This vein is connected directly to the heart. Even though by today's standards, this belief is only recognised as a romantic sentimental myth, the influence the Romans had on today’s beliefs continue to be felt today, centuries after the fall of the Roman empire. If we had the ability to look back in time, we would need to look back as far as 2000BC in order to glimpse the first known eternity ring being forged in ancient Egypt. During this time, the eternity ring was already synonymous with love, but were not necessarily used to mark special anniversaries or occasions. The earliest examples of eternity rings featured quite simple designs, often featuring semi-precious stones. A common theme for eternity rings is a snake eating its own tail, which has long symbolised eternity and love.

During the 18th and 19th century, the design of eternity rings began to evolve. There are examples from the early 18th century, which demonstrate that eternity rings with selections of stunning gemstones were already being manufactured. Not only were the designs changing, but the rings were increasingly becoming available to the general public. In terms of timescales, gemstone eternity rings were the first to make an appearance, but diamond eternity rings soon followed and became increasing popular throughout the 19th century. Since then, diamonds have come to dominate the eternity rings market, become the mainstream option for most shoppers. Today, it’s not uncommon for an eternity ring to be worn together with the wedding and engagement on the ring finger of the left hand. The rings is most often sandwiched between the other two rings. However, this configurations is not absolutely set in stone, it could be worn on any finger on the left or right hand. Regardless, it still embodies the same significance, everlasting love.

When Should I Give an Eternity Ring?

Traditionally speaking, an eternity ring is most often given as a gift to a women when there’s a significant event taking place in the relationship. Any worthy milestone taking place for the couple can be celebrated with the gift of an eternity ring. An important event such as a the birth of the couple’s first child, a wedding anniversary, or even the birth of another child, can be commemorated with an eternity ring. These rings are beautiful and make for an impressively thoughtful gift, they are perfect for a multitude of occasions. Why not disregard tradition and opt to give an eternity ring as a first anniversary present? If you’re a traditionalist at heart, then you can always follow anniversary calendar and buy the ring to mark the special years of your marriage. For example, you might want to match the ring purchase with the corresponding gemstone for the year of marriage. A ruby eternity ring could be used to signify the 40th wedding anniversary, a sapphire eternity ring could be used to signify the 45th wedding anniversary, an emerald eternity ring would make for a perfect gift for the 55th wedding anniversary and finally the classic diamond eternity ring would make for a significant 60th wedding anniversary present.

Of course eternity rings do not have to be only given on your wedding anniversary. They are the embodiment of symbolising the cycle of life, and as such would make an ideal gift for a new mum. If you do decide to gift one of these rings to the new mum, then I would personally recommend choosing a diamond eternity ring. Perhaps go above and beyond, and write down some of your thoughts and emotions during this special time to accompany the ring. You can tell her how much she means to you and how grateful you are for the sacrifices she has made to bring this extra person into your family. It will not only make her feel special, but it will also emphasise the everlasting love and commitment you have for her. Of course, a simple ‘I love you’ can also work wonders, perhaps written on a tag attached to the ring.

Types of Ring

Full Eternity Ring

A full eternity ring can comes with a range of gemstones or diamonds on all sides of the ring, leaving no part bare. The whole band, ring, or shank is covered with spectacular gemstones. This type of ring is embodied by sparkling stones viewable from all angles. Most often the base will be made from a slim ring. This type of eternity ring works particularly well when worn with other rings, and as such is perfect if you want to wear it on the same finger as your engagement or wedding ring. As this ring features stones an all sides, they are extremely difficult to resize, and we would advise against even trying. For this reason, it’s extremely important to carefully select the correct size of eternity ring for your wife. You want to avoid picking the incorrect size and going through the hassle of returning the ring. If you can temporarily borrow an existing ring, or even the wedding or engagement ring, then you should be able to find the correct size. If you do happen to pick the wrong size, you can always ask the retailer if they can do an exchange, but be aware of restocking charges that may apply. If you want the best of the best, then a full diamond ring is the ideal choice.

Half Eternity Ring

As the name of the ring suggests, half eternity rings only feature diamonds or gemstones on one half of the ring. Of course the number of gemstones present largely depends on the size of the stones used and the size of the ring. On average, the stone content will likely be between five and nine stones. Most half eternity rings will feature uniformly sized gems or diamonds, however, some will feature a tapered gem design in order to create a more intriguing design. As you’d expect, a ring which contains fewer valuable gemstones will generally retail for less than full eternity rings, which makes them an affordable option which is well worth considering. Additionally, a half eternity ring can also be resized, unlike full rings, due to the fact it doesn’t have gemstones around the whole circumference.

Ring Settings

Eternity rings can come with a variety of stone settings. Every setting brings a unique look and style to the ring, so it’s worth considering when choosing your ring.  There are three primary types of ring settings which you might find, these include: bezel settings, channel setting and claw setting.

Claw Setting

The universally most popular type of setting you’ll encounter is the claw setting, this may also be called a prong setting in any literature. This type of setting is tried and tested having been used for setting stones for centuries, it’s one of the oldest types of settings known. It could be considered the traditional way of attaching a stone to a ring. The defining feature of the claw setting is the is the metal prongs that run up the side of the gem to hold it in place, effectively holding it like a claw, hence the name. This type of setting is definitely snug, the gems don’t have much ability to move around. We would warn you that it’s important to take care of rings with claw settings, you’ll want to ensure the claws do not become bent or misshaped. The claw setting is particularly well suited for round gem stones, because the claw does not cover the whole of the gem, it allows for the greatest surface area to reflect light and shimmer. If you’re interesting in choosing shiny gemstones, such as diamonds, then picking a ring with a claw setting is an obvious choice, by maximising light penetration and therefor showing off the stones best optical characteristics. An eternity ring which utilises gems set in claw settings will almost certainly stand out, even when viewed at multiple angles. There a few different types of claw fittings, perhaps one of the most interesting choices for an eternity ring is the shared prong. In this configuration the gems share prongs, allowing the gems to be placed side to side, maximising the amount of beautiful gems that your ring is capable of holding.

Channel Setting

The channel setting is a relatively new type of ring setting, it’s non-traditional and offers several advantages over the other setting types, which could mean it’s the perfect choice for you. This type of setting holds gems in place by setting the gems within a groove or channel which has lip that sits above the gems, meaning the gems can’t fall out. The groove often gives a floating appearance to the gemstones, which is an interesting feature all by itself. The setting is well suited for princess cut stones, round stones and baguette cut stones. If you’re buying the ring for someone that’s active, then this fitting might be an ideal choice. The stones are perfectly secured, and flush against the ring, which means there are less protrusions which could cause the ring to snag. The stones will continue to have good luster and shine as light is still able to easily penetrate the stones.

Bezel Setting

The bezel setting is another example of a very secure type of gem setting. Bezel settings can also be known as bar setting. The characteristics of the setting means not only are the gem and diamonds held firmly in place, but they are also framed by the metal of the ring. Unlike claw settings or paved setting, which generally puts each stone close to each other on the eternity ring, the bezel setting is good for presenting each stone as an individual. The bezel frames every stone separately, which allows the eye to distinguish each individual gem, each diamond or stone is treated as an individual piece. If you’re in the market for a unique eternity ring, then look no further than a bezel setting. This type of ring is both fashionable and contemporary. One the defining features of this type of setting, is that the diamonds and gemstones used can be a variety of different sizes and cuts. The metal used on the ring and how it’s formed around them gems can play an important part, allowing for both the gemstone and the metal design to be significant. The setting still allows for decent light penetration, so your gems will still shimmer at their best.

We now hope that you’re armed with he prerequisite knowledge to go out and find the perfect eternity ring, and you’ll have a good idea of what design or shape would work best for the love of your life. Whether you decide to choose a full eternity ring or a half eternity ring, our top picks will hopefully make your decision that much easier.

from My Pearls - Blog https://www.mypearls.co.uk/blogs/news/seven-examples-of-an-elegant-eternity-ring