Darren Daulton’s Ring For Sale

Not everyone is as lucky as the bankers and automakers; not all of us can just go to Congress and ask it to print up some free money. And, so, yet another consequence of the poor economy: Pro athletes are selling their beloved championship rings.

THe website Championship-Rings.net lists a ton of athletes’ title rings for sale, including this 1993 National League championship ring and Darren Daulton’s 1983 NL pennant ring! Daulton played only 2 games in the 1983 season as a September callup, so perhaps he’s not too attached to that one. The ‘93 ring says it is also from a player; no word if Jeff Manto needs some cash.

You can also get this 1913 Philadelphia A’s ring if you have, like, a million billion dollars.

The site also has this ring from the 1976 All-Star game in Philadelphia that belonged to Bob Lemon. The Hall of Famer retired in 1958, so one can assume it was just a really weak league that year.

Last but not least, there’s this “sample ring” from the 2008 World Series; it has Pete Rose’s name on the side so you can totally fool your friends and say you got Charlie Hustle’s World Series ring. A steal at $3,000!

There are a ton of rings in other sports, too: There’s this 1980 NFC Champions Eagles ring that belonged to an unnamed player and this sample ring from the same year. Naturally, these were made by Jostens, so they’ll match your high school graduation ring. There’s also a staff member’s 2004 NFC ring.

The Flyers are a little more flush, as there appear to only be sample rings available for the Stanley Cup wins. Nothing from the 76ers; those two teams either don’t sell their rings or sell them on the black market. And if you’re really interested, an XFL championship ring is available for just $16,000.

Update: Look! 1985 Villanova National Championship ring! Penn State 1982 national title! PSU’s 1994 undefeated season!

Man, who buys all this crap?

One ring to rule them all

Despite our occasional slip-up, I tend to think of we Americans as forward-thinking people. We’re America, the land of the immigrant! The land of the downtrodden being given a second chance, the melting pot, the mixing bowl! Equal rights for all!

Ha ha! Just kidding. We Americans are about as tolerant as everyone else in the world, which is to say: Not much at all. And speaking of equality, here’s a law you might not have known: In Pennsylvania, an engagement ring is the husband’s property until the marriage.

Sounds good, huh? The Inky reports that in a 4-3 ruling in 1999, the state supreme court set precedent while settling the dispute of a Western Pennsylvania couple. The decision said that the ring remains the possession of the person who gave it “even if the donor broke the engagement.”

And now a Philadelphia construction manager is being sued by her former fiance over a $35,000 ring he gave her — which she sold when he broke off the engagement.

Weird as to how to approach this one, since, well, it’s kind of unfair to the guy, since it is his ring, and it’s unfair that this woman is in hot water after a guy broke it off. (There’s more to the story, as well; the woman alleges her ex forced her to sell her other rings when he gave her the engagement rock. We’re going to need Solomon to figure this one out.)

I suppose this rule was made to stop women from taking rings and running off legally, but what’s to stop a man from holding threat of a breakup over his fiancee’s head? I tend to have a pretty low opinion of people, but is either scenario really all that typical?

Either way, this is true: Everyone takes engagement rings way too seriously. And, uhm, in Pennsylvania, whoever gives the engagement ring (i.e. the guy) has a serious advantage.

Jilted, then sued over ring [Inky]
Jan. 30: But what about dog on dog marriage?