Ladies, Your Engagement Ring Is A Bad Investment

cattgirl813
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 09:49 am: [report]

I agree with Mr. Hartford too. Buying a pricey and completely impractical ring on the basis that it’s “an investment piece” makes no sense. One can get a token of the committment between a couple without falling for the “two months salary” BS the diamond industry pushes. A large diamond or incredibly expensive ring is not a symbol of love if it’s bought under duress, nor is an overpriced and overhyped wedding ceremony a reflection of the love between a couple if it puts them in the poor house. It’s time to reassess and reign in the insanity that the wedding industry has become.

tabby
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 09:50 am: [report]

I learned, from reading Dear undercover economist, that the reason engagement rings came into popularity amongst all social classes, was when the U.S. government stopped allowing women to sue their cold-footed fiancées for breach of promise. (This, of course, was back in the day when if you got dumped at that altar you were “soiled goods” and probably going to end up an old maid). The practice came about with the belief that if a man was willing to put up a nice chunk of change on an impractical item, then he must have good intentions. I have heard this whole buy a house instead argument from economists and their logic doesn’t get to the root of the issue. The reason that there is a demand for a piece of jewelry is precisely because it is impractical and meant for just one half of the couple to enjoy. Such a monetary sacrifice in effect proves that the gift giver cares more about the receiver’s happiness than how much it cost.

All that said, I think the tradition of spending a few grand on a piece of jewelry is a bit silly. Which is why I have picked out a very beautiful engagement ring that is only a couple hundred

_jsw_
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 09:51 am: [report]

I wish CZs were more acceptable. If it truly is just about having the token - and I see nothing wrong with the desire for one - then the value of the stone should be irrelevant if it looks as beautiful as the real thing from a distance of more than a few inches.

For those who have the financial assets to get an expensive diamond, I don’t really see a problem with it (blood diamonds aside), even though I have ethical issues with the diamond trade.

However, to forego something important (housing, car, etc.) to get a good ring seems crazy. If the marriage works and lasts, anniversary upgrades are very nice. But for engagements, if you have to see the ring to judge the guy, you don’t deserve the guy. But if the guy has the extra cash and doesn’t think you’re worth a show of largesse, then I’d say he doesn’t deserve you.

So, to me, it all hinges on how much disposable income your man has.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 09:52 am: [report]

It’s a transparent rock, big freaking deal. So is quartz.

xifeng882
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 09:57 am: [report]

The problem with CZ is that its obviously fake. I come from an upper, upper middle class community where everything about status. If you walked in with a CZ it would be a big glaring imperfection and reason for town gossip, which is horrible and stupid, I know.

Luckily there are some really amazing fake diamonds nowadays that look quite real. I would never want a real diamond just because of the excess and corruption that it represents.

I think that its nice having a token from your S/O showing your connection to one another but its definitely not necessary. Its just a tradition that has gotten completely out of control where we constantly have to one-up each other.

Love and a place together sounds good enough to me.

camille905
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 09:58 am: [report]

I personally don’t really like diamonds. Maybe as an accent stone but that’s it. One of my friends who recently got married had an engagement ring that was alexandrite with diamond accents. Another friend had an emerald because that was her favorite stone.
I would prefer a ring that was beautiful with a nice stone regardless of how much it costs. I plan on just wearing a plain band when married(if I indeed ever do get married).
I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting something as a symbol of your love. Just don’t give in to the ideas of that OTHER people thing that should be.
Another thing- eBay is a great place to look for nice jewelry that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg. Just sayin’.

*sam*
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 09:59 am: [report]

I respectfully, disagree. I’m with Jessica on this. No, spending a couple grand on a ring may not be as practical as spending (more) money on a down payment for a new house, but it’s means more (at least to a lot of women, myself included). I can totally rally behind finding a ring that has a “non-conflict” guarantee b/c no piece of jewelry is worth people dieing over, but to say that a ring isn’t an investment isn’t very accurate. I’m currently in the market for a wedding band for my soon-to-be husband, and he’s freaking out b/c I’m looking to spend somewhere around $800-900 (WITHOUT any diamonds!). But, I keep telling him that it’s important to me to get him the best ring out there b/c it’s something that, ideally, he’s going to wear for the rest of his life. Same goes for the ladies. If you’re even the least bit traditional and want a ring, then it makes since to spend a good amount of money on a nice one, considering it’s supposed to symbolize a life-time commitment. It doesn’t even have to be a diamond. A lot of women are looking for something with more color, so getting sapphires instead of diamonds are a very modern alternative to the traditional diamon ring.

_jsw_
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:01 am: [report]

I think I’ll start a business where I rent out engagement rings. People could wear much nicer ones than they otherwise could afford, and then, after the honeymoon, they’d turn them in. They could then save as a couple to get the ring they wanted to keep, and, since it’d be post-marriage, no one else would really care.

amandabear
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:01 am: [report]

I’ve always felt like engagement rings are such a waste of money. I do like the idea of some sort of token of commitment, but I’d kill a guy if he spent thousands of dollars on a RING that’s only purpose is to say “we’re getting married someday.” But I think weddings are kind of stupid and out-dated, too, so I’m obviously biased. I’d rather have a simple non-diamond ring, get hitched by a justice of the peace, and then take an amazing trip somewhere instead of spending my life savings on a dress and a party.

shelbs85
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:02 am: [report]

Solves the diamond-trade issues, as well as the environmental issues involved in mining, as well as the cost problem - and look just as pretty. Personally, I’m hoping that when someone pops the question to me, they just use one of these: http://www.diamondnexuslabs.com/engagement.php

And I agree with the roof-over-the-head comment - I’d rather we shared the cost of something like that. Plus, many of my guy friends use the ring to know whether or not to hit on a girl. I kind of like the idea of having an automatic bad pick up line repellent on my finger, personally.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:12 am: [report]

I want the lady who wants one of these

victrola
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:12 am: [report]

I’m with shelbs…I’d really like a man made diamond. For all the reasons in the article and the comments. I’d rather spend the money on our honeymoon or a house, and I’m not down with the diamond trade, but I still want a ring. This seems like a perfect compromise.

SCRMOM
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:18 am: [report]

@CheeeeEEEEse: Good luck finding her…

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:26 am: [report]

@SCRMOM: Your addition of extra periods at the end of your contrived statement make me want to kick you in the cooch. Thanks for the luck!

*sam*
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:27 am: [report]

@CheeeeEEEEse:$165 for a piece of metal that you can attach lego bricks to? You’re obviously looking for a VERY impractical girl.

SCRMOM
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:27 am: [report]

@shelbs: That website has some really pretty jewelry. Have you seen their products in person? Thanks for the link.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:29 am: [report]

@*sam*: I said ‘wants’ not ‘needed’. Nitpicker.

slip
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:29 am: [report]

Good investments, despite their initial cost, grow in value over time. When you try to sell a diamond ring, you’ll get about 1/3 of the purchase price. The value of loose stones fluctuates with the currency market, and those stones are traded at wholesale prices among a very small network of people who don’t do business with outsiders.

Their psychological and emotional value is undeniable, but engagement rings are horrible financial investments.

Slip

powplz
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:34 am: [report]

@_jsw_ - brilliant!

Also, I’m confused. In one article, the author writes about how her career choice won’t afford her the lifestyle she wants for herself (and her future family), so she will make up with it by limiting her choices in men who can do that for her ... yet using sizable sums of money on, say, a downpayment on a house instead is paternalistic because she can keep a roof over her own head? Wow.

And a women *can* get down on one knee and propose they share a life of joy and happiness if she isn’t stuck on wanting him to do it instead. Not judging, just pointing that out.

shelbs85
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:35 am: [report]

@SCRMOM - haven’t seen their stuff in person, but have heard really good things about man-made diamonds. actually, i’ve heard they tend to look nicer than regular ones, because they’re not going to have the natural flaws that real diamonds can acquire.

I Go To 11
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:39 am: [report]

I’m with Jessica, sam and bethlynn. I’m a traditionalist when it comes to this stuff (and admittedly, pretty girly), and I do like diamonds. I did my research and made sure my ring was conflict-free before we bought it, though. I absolutely love my ring and wouldn’t trade it for anything.

However, why do we continue the tradition of surprising someone with a proposal? My fiance and I had been talking about marriage for awhile; once we settled on a date, we made it official at that point. It wasn’t until after that that we went ring shopping…which we did together, because I knew exactly what I wanted. I don’t know, I’ve just heard too many horror stories of surprise proposals going awry to support them.

Here’s an explanation why the surprise proposal tradition started in the first place: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs//archives/21211

pragmatryst
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:50 am: [report]

@slip: “Their psychological and emotional value is undeniable, but engagement rings are horrible financial investments.”

Amen, monetary value isn’t the only thing to consider when the ultimate fulfillment of a lifelong Disney Princess fantasy is at stake. If you’re not willing to give the love of your life the one simple shiny bauble she needs to compete in the cutthroat game of one-upmanship she plays with the other upwardly-mobile status-conscious women in her social circle then what kind of a man are you, really?

Queen Frostine
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:57 am: [report]

I told my husband I didn’t want or need an engagement ring. He insisted (on tradition) and got me one anyway. Know where it is? In a box in the closet. It’s kinda ugly and not something I would wear again. Tradition just for traditions sake seems senseless. The proposal in and of itself is symbolic enough for me. I don’t need anything further.

Plus, looking back, he could have wowed me more by taking the money and paying off my student loans. Much more useful than a lump of compressed coal.

skywalk
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:58 am: [report]

When my husband and I went ring shopping, I just wanted a simple few hundred dollar ring (he wanted to pick it out together). I’m not materialistic but I did want a diamond engagement ring. We looked around and we found one we both loved (it was the cutest set I’ve ever seen, I get compliments on it all the time), it was so me or at least that is what we thought but it was like 2k. I was like no-way are you spending that much on a ring and my husband was upset (to put it mildly) so we are arguing over this ring and he finally stops the car and looks me in the eye and says “I want everyone to know how much I love you and see that 2K ring and not a $200 and if I don’t buy you that ring I’m not buying you any ring”. I’m like okay I’ll take ring, how cute!!

*sam*
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:59 am: [report]

@I Go To 11 & bethlynnoo: I too agree that the proposal shouldn’t be a “surprise”—or maybe it’s just that it’s really hard to surprise me(?) But, as for picking the ring out together, I don’t like that. My SO & I are adamant about picking each others rings out in private b/c to us, the ring we pick out, shows to the other how well we can decipher their taste. It’s kind of like a game to see who knows who better. I think it could only go horribly awry if one person was TERRIBLE at that sort of thing (i.e., you have *no* idea what the other person likes) or if the two people have very distinct, but, completely different tastes. Luckily for us, we have remarkably similar tastes and have both dropped “hints” at what we like, so I’m confident that we’ll find something we both love.

Jenn27549
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 11:09 am: [report]

@tabby: diamond engagement rings came into fashion for all classes because of a major marketing push by the diamond monopoly DeBeers in the early 1900’s. Prior to that pretty much any ring and any gemstone was acceptable, and only the upper classes really bothered. This campaign was also the first time it was suggested the appropriate amount to spend was 2 months salary.

The origin of an engagement ring of any kind was during the Plague because gemstones were believed to have disease fighting/preventing powers. Diamonds were the “strongest” with other gemstones following behind in various strengths. So…if you didn’t want your betrothed to die before you got married you bought her a ring to protect her from the plague. Depending on how much you loved her and wanted to protect her—or how much money you had—you picked the most appropriate stone.

Some people are into the materialistic part of it, some people are into the emotional, some the tradition…whatever floats your boat I say. Investment literally speaking probably not, but investment in your partner and her happiness (if that’s what she wants) likely.

Queen Frostine
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 11:15 am: [report]

@ Skywalk

You said your fiance said “I want everyone to know how much I love you and see that 2K ring and not a $200 and if I don’t buy you that ring I’m not buying you any ring”.

Maybe it’s just me, but love is not measured in dollar signs.

Chebs
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 11:57 am: [report]

My current SO and I are getting married at the courthouse, and maybe we’ll get each other wedding bands (probably going to give him my dad’s original wedding band, since my parents ‘upgraded’ their wedding rings), maybe not. It’s just not a big deal to either of us, and I’m not much of a jewelry person.

But it always comes down to understanding your partner. If she *wants* a ring, then start saving and looking around.

Linz
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 12:09 pm: [report]

If you are going to invest a lot of money in anything that has to do with your wedding/marriage it should be the ring. The ring will be there forever; not the dress or the cake or the venue. Everyday of your marriage you will be able to see/feel/touch the ring. It is a constant reminder of your vows, your love, your memories. It may not be practical to an economist, but if you’re going to toss some money around, toss it at the ring!

workerbee
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 12:14 pm: [report]

I love jewelry but only wear a few pieces that hardly ever change. My pieces that I wear everyday are meaningful to me. That’s how I want my engagement ring to be. It matters to me because it’s a symbol. Define the symbol how you wish, but it’s one nonetheless. I want that symbol on my finger, stupid as it may be.

stormfaery7
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 12:20 pm: [report]

My fiance and I are quite poor, and I’m not a huge fan of diamonds. We decided on matching saphire engagement rings, for both of us! (His idea, cute huh?) Also saphire stands for loyalty, which is more important to us than a diamond, which I believe represents purity. Plus, it was so much cheaper than diamond, I think it’s prettier, and it’s not so flashy. My friend picked out her engagement ring, and it’s a huge diamond that her fiance couldn’t afford, and it looks gaudy cuz it’s so huge to boot. I don’t think love is measured in how much you spend on an engagement ring.

Queen Frostine
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 12:48 pm: [report]

@ Linz,

“If you are going to invest a lot of money in anything that has to do with your wedding/marriage it should be the ring. The ring will be there forever; not the dress or the cake or the venue.”

A wiser investment would be paying off all your debt, improving your credit rating, starting a savings fund and buying a house. A ring is just a piece of metal. It can’t feed you, pay medical bills, put a roof over your head or provide security.

It’s often noted that the number one thing married couples fight about is money. Investing in your financial stability and independence seems like a great way to work towards a happy lasting marriage, rather than jewelry. At the end of the day, when your husband gets laid off, worker’s comp runs out and the economy bottoms out, that pretty ring won’t fix things.

And besides, everyday of your marriage you will be able to see/feel/touch YOUR HUSBAND. HE should be the constant reminder of your vows, your love, your memories. Just my two cents.

Trouble
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 01:00 pm: [report]

Ahhh. It warms my heart to see so many women rejecting the diamond is forever #&@$%. The wedding and especially diamond industry is filled with greedy crooks (DeBeers) and overpriced products. Stop feeding the monster and let it die.

writergirl
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 01:04 pm: [report]

@Queen Frostine-We get it—you don’t want/need/see the reason for an engagement ring. And that’s fine; that’s your personal preference.

It doesn’t mean the rest of us are idiots because we do want one or were given one.

How someone spends their money shouldn’t matter to you and dictating a list of what they *should* have done with it is just rude.

My husband had the house before he met me. My student loans I felt were MY responsibility and I worked and paid them off in full. I didn’t WANT him paying for those. He didn’t chose my education—I did.

He did however, choose me. And he had the income to get me a ring I absolutely love. I will never trade it in or upgrade it, as is the current “thing to do” because then what he gave me—and what is symbolized on that night he got down on one knee—is forever lost.

“Maybe it’s just me, but love is not measured in dollar signs” is what you said to skywalk. And no, it’s not. But to her fiance, that $2k he was able to spend on that ring made HIM feel good to do it. It was important to HIM. I don’t know why. Maybe he was glad he could AFFORD that much for a ring…that there was yet a tangible piece of evidence that showed just how far he’s “made it” in the world. Regardless, he thought she deserved it and therefor, she did.

Linz
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 01:39 pm: [report]

@Queen Frostine

I’m not talking about debt, house, bank account etc. I’m talking about the wedding. IF you’re going to toss money at something regarding your wedding like the cake, venue, food, drink, dress, honeymoon, decorations, whatever, I personally believe it should be the ring.

You need to read comments before you decide to offer your “two cents.”

I would never argue that anybody, single or married, shouldn’t pay off their debt, improve their credit rating, apply money towards savings, and invest in a home.

Zajo
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 01:49 pm: [report]

@ writergirl well said!!

My own opinion is that accepting a $5 ring to save money doesn’t make your love more valid than having the ring that costs two months salary. No one is saying to skip paying your rent and your car payments for a ring and not one person here said that they would reject a proposal because the ring wasn’t expensive enough. If someone wants to splurge, let them splurge.

I Go To 11
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 01:56 pm: [report]

@ Linz: “If you are going to invest a lot of money in anything that has to do with your wedding/marriage it should be the ring. The ring will be there forever; not the dress or the cake or the venue. Everyday of your marriage you will be able to see/feel/touch the ring. It is a constant reminder of your vows, your love, your memories. It may not be practical to an economist, but if you’re going to toss some money around, toss it at the ring!”

I agree with you. That’s basically what I told my fiance when we started seriously discussing marriage.

@ writergirl: Well said!

pragmatryst
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 02:15 pm: [report]

@writergirl: “Queen Frostine-We get it—you don’t want/need/see the reason for an engagement ring. And that’s fine; that’s your personal preference. It doesn’t mean the rest of us are idiots because we do want one or were given one.”

Before you come down on her too hard, don’t underestimate the hidden dangers of the engagement ring. A supposedly innocent declaration of heartfelt commitment can actually be the first step down a slippery slope. First he buys you an expensive diamond, then he starts to think he is entitled to special favors and before you know it he’s demanding that you let him take liberties with where he finishes his business, and we all know what that means. Maybe that’s why she keeps her ring safely in a box in the closet where it can’t corrupt her husband, or tempt mutant Hobbits, or attract the attention of disembodied dark lords in the shape of giant eyes, etc. Better to be safe than sorry.

*sam*
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 02:25 pm: [report]

@pragmatryst: literally, LOL

writergirl
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 02:26 pm: [report]

@pragmatryst:

Right. Because my diamond engagement ring and wedding band are carte blanche approvals for my husband to demand sex, and give me a facial whenever he so decrees.

bumbler
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 02:27 pm: [report]

Why is this such a hot-button topic? Every couple should do what makes them happy.

If you want a gesture other than a ring, Great!
If you want a traditional diamond ring, Great!
If you want to exchange engagement gifts, Great!

I asked my husband back when we were dating to buy me specific ring if he ever thought about proposing, its silver filigree with a small non-conflict diamond chip. I prefer the art deco design to the traditional solitaire diamond. As long as both parties are happy and one isn’t breaking the bank for the other why the need to judge people for different preferences? It’s just a gesture.

_jsw_
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 02:30 pm: [report]

So, since I don’t think any of us want this to turn into a circumcision sort of discussion, is it fair to say that no one should feel pressured to either spend more (or less) than they’re comfortable with or accept less (or more) than they’re comfortable with? Marriages are between two people, and how they choose to spend their finances is a decision that is also between the two of them. If he can’t afford more than $250 and she won’t accept less than a $5,000 ring, they’re not going to work out anyway. If he wants to spend $10,000 on a ring and she wants nothing or she wants a small, inconspicuous ring, then they likely will have issues down the road as well.

I think that couples tend to discuss too little of their joint decisions prior to (and after) marriage, so, personally, I think it would be ideal for them to mutually decide upon a budget range. Surprises are great, but… this is a big part of the total financial assets of many couples, and I think it’d help their future selves to learn how to budget big purchases together. He can still surprise her with his choice, if he’d like.

I did it all wrong. Wrong person, wrong proposal, wrong way to get the ring, wrong ring. But I did learn a few things.

HappyDude
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 02:34 pm: [report]

Expensive engagement rings are second to big weddings as the stupidest financial decision a young couple can make.

I fully support having “a” ring. Family legacy rings seem the most romantic and practical to me. A modest silver or gold band is a nice trinket of affection, along with a nice big CD to be used towards a house down payment.

I personally can’t see myself ever proposing too (or seriously dating) a woman who would prefer a blinged out ring to money towards our future home. But everyone has different priorities.

spatula
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 02:37 pm: [report]

Well, I want a damn ring! LOL. But seriously…I’d never expect any (hypothetical) guy to stress his finances, or make things difficult for himeslf, just for a piece of jewelry (or for anything), but I definitely buy into all the traditional-symbol-of-our-love-with-this-ring-i-thee-wed crap.

So if you like it, you better put a ring on it. Even if it’s fake.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 02:44 pm: [report]

Diamonds…she’ll pretty much have to.

writergirl
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 02:51 pm: [report]

@CheeeeEEEEse—Just remember before you pop the lego ring on some girl’s finger…the bigger the diamond, the better the blow job

kr070707
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 02:51 pm: [report]

I completely agree with all of those above that said that this is something that depends on the couple and needs to be decided by the couple. While I think diamonds are beautiful, my fiance and I don’t have much money right now to even buy a nice, simple, diamond-free ring. But my guy decided that he wanted me to have something on my finger, so he melted down an old silver necklace he had and made me a ring.

This ring means much more to me than any diamond ever could.

_jsw_
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 02:53 pm: [report]

@CheeeeEEEEse: Just remember, they’re $2 a pop over the border.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 02:58 pm: [report]

@jsw: BJs, rings, or brides? 3 for 2 dollars?

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 03:06 pm: [report]

And while we’re talking about BJs…<a >why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?</a>

*sam*
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 03:06 pm: [report]

@kr070707: that’s really cute and sweet.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 03:07 pm: [report]

Crap on a stick…messed up my linkie. Here it is anyway….it was supposed to be funny “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free” http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20090924_Animal-cruelty_charges_dropped_against_Burlington_County_cop.html

Laurel
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 03:15 pm: [report]

Interesting discussion guys!

Goldfinch86
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 03:19 pm: [report]

I want the ring, should my husband die, I would think knowing he loved me by seeing that ring on my hand in old age would make me happier and would make me feel secure that when I die I have someone to go to, that what I believe.

majicksand
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 04:14 pm: [report]

@sam: My husband’s ring is a beautiful faceted tungsten carbide. It a super strong material so no worries that it will snap after a few years. We looked at lots of rings in various price ranges, but we liked that one far and away better than any of the others. We got it at Reed’s Jewelers for $130. It was one of the cheapest ones we saw as well, so bonus! Don’t sweat expensive, go for beautiful and well made. I’ve never seen a ring prettier than my husband’s at any price.

As far as my ring… I have had one both times. My first was a small marquis cut emerald (my birth stone) flanked by diamond chips. We couldn’t afford much, but I picked something I liked within our budget. That ring was $350, and I still love it even though the marriage failed.

My current ring is three square diamonds flanked by diamond chips. It was $1300, so considerably more expensive than the first. Yes, it’s bigger, but still modest by engagement ring standards. My finances are a little better this time around. I specifically chose something completely different from the last one, but I love this one too.

My ring means something to me. I love looking down at it and feeling giddy all over again. (which reminds me I need to clean it) My husband will happily tell you that his investment was not in diamonds. It was in me.

One other thing, sam. Jared’s is a fantastic store. Great selection, great people, competitive prices with flexible payment options, a full coverage warranty, and a full payment price trade-in guarantee.

Gingee
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 04:17 pm: [report]

A diamond is nothing but a shiny rock, an overpriced sparkly rock.

One would do just as well to purchase a $25.00 “fake diamond”. And of course the female MUST purchase an engagement ring for the would be groom.

De Boers has it going on: They took over the 1920s and the mating dance, told men ‘this is how society does it, you purchase this piece of hardened carbon, and ask the gal to be your wife.’ What they do not tell ya is that the Diamond that costs $12,0000.00 in the store is worth a lot less in the real world.

Go for the cubic zirconium.

Southern Girl
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 04:33 pm: [report]

I’m all for created diamonds or Moissanite. I have no interest in a “natural” diamond. One of these days, Debeers will lose their monopoly and all the diamonds will be worthless.

That said, my engagement ring is my favorite piece of jewelry. Not because it’s sparkly, but because of what it represents. We dated for a looong time before we became engaged, it was when I knew for sure he was finally serious. It’s a beautiful gesture and every couple should decide together what to spend.

develange
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 04:40 pm: [report]

how about enjoy the ring for the engagement, then sell it once you’re married (or if things don’t work out)?

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 04:46 pm: [report]

@develange: JSW’s idea was to rent them for the engagement and return it after the honeymoon.

_jsw_
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 05:06 pm: [report]

@majicksand “My husband’s ring is a beautiful faceted tungsten carbide. It a super strong material so no worries that it will snap after a few years.”

Please know that Emergency Rooms are usually unaware of how to remove tungsten carbide rings if one’s hands have become swollen. My niece’s fiancé is an ER doctor and has had people nearly lose fingers because the other doctors try cutting the rings off. This does not work. All you need to remove the ring is a good set of pliers. Due to the ceramic makeup of the ring, it can be broken with a solid squeeze of pliers.

Please make sure that both you and your husband are aware of this in case something happens to cause his finger to swell. Eventually, the hospitals will become more aware as the number of tungsten carbide rings increases. But it’s not general knowledge now.

retro chic
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 05:19 pm: [report]

@jsw: Wow! Really? How embarrassing for the unwitting ones. That’s a lot of ‘esplainin’ and testing of a marriage’s *ahem* mettle.

_jsw_
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 05:22 pm: [report]

@retro chic: Yup, really. The sad thing is that people have apparently lost fingers over this lack of understanding, and a lot of ERs don’t even have good pliers available. Clamps? Yes. Pliers? No.

Nice pun, btw.

retro chic
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 05:38 pm: [report]

@jsw: for god’s sake, can’t they call in the janitor or maintenance guy? And more to the point… how are these faux allowed on the market? I can’t even wear 14K gold without blowing up. I’m very… delicate.

majicksand
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 05:43 pm: [report]

@jsw: Thanks for the tip. I’ll remember that. Actually, my husband and I had discussed that very thing and had not come up with a solution. Definitely need to know info!

_jsw_
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 05:44 pm: [report]

@retro chic: Yes, they usually have to do just that in my niece’s fiancé‘s ER. The sad thing is that they don’t keep a pair around, probably because they don’t have sterilization procedures. But the main problem is that many places just don’t know the proper way to deal with the composite, and that wastes time, and wasted time is bad in an ER.

*sam*
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 09:29 pm: [report]

@majick: I *wish* there was a Jared’s around here! I **loathe** their commercials, but I’ve heard the store is fantastic. However, there is a comparable store here in town, I *think* it’s family owned, but it has a FAR better selection than any of those mall stores. Bonus, they even buy back jewelry, and since C was engaged to his @*$%&# of an ex, he now has a (hideous) ring that Kay won’t take back (unless of course, he spends “at least twice as much” on a new one, and, I’m sorry, but I find their selection minimal, and VERY ugly).

re tungsten: While I was at said jewelry store shopping around for his, I was told that while tungsten is strong, it has a propensity to chip easily.. Granted, this was a jewelry salesmen, so perhaps he was just trying to get me to spend more, but he really talked me into getting white gold w/ tungsten accents. The way he put it, since gold is a softer metal, if something *were* to happen, it could easily be reshaped, whereas something like tungsten is more apt to break or chip. (at least I’m pretty sure it was tungsten). *shrugs* IDK I obviously still have some research to do on my own before I go about actually purchasing anything. But chances are, since the date is so soon, we’re both going to end up buying something relatively cheap for now, and then splurging within the next year for the actual ceremony.

badi95
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 08:01 am: [report]

I think the woman should also get the guy something if the guy is expected to spend a nice chunk of change on an engagement ring. Personally I really like Patton Oswalt’s idea of having the woman get the guy an engagement sword that the guy gets to wear around and complimented on like women do with a ring.

That, or no ring. Besides this whole diamond ring is just a result of a hugely successful ad campaign by debeers from the 50’s.

sadie
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 08:04 am: [report]

I absolutely did not want a diamond engagement ring. I find them sexist and a waste of money. When we got engaged we got plain matching bands which is just what I wanted. I don’t like that only women should wear rings, like we’re publicly on layaway, while our partners have no ring of their own. We also didn’t do the traditional proposal thing. We had a conversation about getting married and then decided, mutually, to get engaged.

Later, my husband’s grandmother gave me her engagement ring. I do wear it because it doesn’t symbolize my husband buying something for me (buying me, taking care of me, possessing me), it symbolizes becoming accepted as part of his family. The ring is an antique and I think passing down a piece of jewelry through the family is more meaningful and doesn’t involve wasting money or buying blood diamonds. I wish this was a more commonplace tradition.

_jsw_
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 08:06 am: [report]

@badi95: I love the idea of an engagement sword. Seriously. I could evoke my rights as partially Scottish and wear it with a kilt. And if anyone questioned my betrothed love for me, I could pull out my giant love sword and show them.

Well, OK, the last bit was innuendo, because I couldn’t help myself. But I think we should start a Love Sword campaign. We just need to make sure that only our Love Swords are genuine. Then we can sell them for thousands of dollars, and every man will feel as though he needs one.

skywalk
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 08:34 am: [report]

Well my husband doesn’t have family, he’s an orphan and since his mother died so young (he was eight) the siblings are not close and spread out, so our rings represent our commitment, marriage and the start of our own family. We didn’t have the typical engagement either, we discussed getter married, got engage, was engage for 1.5 years, he bought my ring set, so I bought his ring (which we also got a nice one, that he also liked), it wasn’t about the money spent it was the fact we wanted to get rings that we liked and would enjoy wearing for the rest of our lives. We looked at rings together because my husband growing up with no mother or sisters (at the time no really close girl friends) doesn’t even know where to begin with these types of details. So for him to go shopping alone for my ring would have made him a little uncomfortable picking out a ring for me, he wouldn’t know where to begin. So we shopped for ours today, I think as long as the rings or decision not to buy rings and how much to spend is made by the couple together then it doesn’t matter.
Queen Frostine said in response my earlier post when I said my fiancé said “I want everyone to know how much I love you and see that 2K ring and not a $200 and if I don’t buy you that ring I’m not buying you any ring”
She said “Maybe it’s just me, but love is not measured in dollar signs.”
You taking it way out of context and reading more into it than it is, I think it was more me who had a problem with the money and he just wanted that particular ring (which I loved as well) and so actually money was immaterial at that point he just wanted to give that ring to me, because it was beautiful and that is the ring he wanted to express his commitment or whatever, it wasn’t about money. Trust me we are not about money, yeah we own businesses and real-estate, but I drive a 94 Saturn Ion and my husband drives a 90-92 I don’t know Chevy caviler. We do not try to one up the Jones or a friends or anyone else, we work hard and trying to break the cycle of poverty in our family. We both grew up on welfare in subsidized housing so if we want to buy a beautiful piece of jewelry for each other as a symbol that we are in fact married then that is our right. If you don’t want to wear a ring, I have no issue with that it doesn’t affect my life in the least and its not something that anyone should judge anyone on so have at it.

BlueVibe
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 09:48 am: [report]

My grandmother didn’t have an engagement ring (it was the Depression, and engagement rings weren’t such a big deal then, anyway). My mother didn’t have one (they had no money). My SIL’s is silver and cost about $35. All of them stayed happily married.

I’ve already warned my boyfriend that if things go that far with us, he is not allowed to spend that much on a ring. Personally, I don’t care if I get a ring at all, but he’s a bit of a traditionalist. I’ll compromise, but if he starts talking big bucks for a diamond, I’m putting my foot down. I’d rather have a bank CD or a washing machine. And, yes, I would find that romantic, because it would mean that he’s listening to me and that he’s interested in our long-term financial well-being. I’m not all about money, but neither of us makes much so being careful counts.

Ironically, most young people buy rings exactly when they should be saving madly for homes, babies, and retirement, not buying jewelry. I used to work in an office that was mostly young women and they were always one-upping each other with what ring they were going to demand their boyfriends buy. One girl picked out a $10,000 three-stone. $10,000 in this area is a sizable chunk of a first house.

(One friend of mine, though, found out her fiancée was cheating so she sold her ring and bought the upright bass that he didn’t want her to get. Then she learned to play it, joined a band, and is having way more fun without him. Talk about the last laugh.)

majicksand
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 09:58 am: [report]

I actually asked my husband if wanted an ‘engagement ring’. He doesn’t wear much jewelry, and he thought that would be weird, so he said no. I just let him buy yet another guitar instead. Call me crazy, but 6 guitars for a guy with only two hands seems excessive. Now he’s looking at processers, bass guitars, drums, keyboards, and mics for the home studio he’s trying to talk me into. I still only have the one ring which cost less than some of his guitars.

I don’t feel even a little bit bad about my ring. I don’t think it was a waste of money any more than he thinks all his guitars are a waste even though he plays only one of them regularly. We both like our toys. My most expensive, not useful, possession is on my finger. His are hanging on the wall.

LunaLena
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 10:17 am: [report]

In Korea, it’s not uncommon for a guy to buy his fiancee an engagement ring, and for the girl to buy her fiance a nice watch. But I like the idea of an engagement sword better. Especially if jsw’s idea of wearing them with kilts is implemented. I have yet to see a man who looks bad in a kilt. Oh my, I need to lie down now… :D

_jsw_
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 10:19 am: [report]

@LunaLena: If you lie down around men in kilts, the swords you see won’t be in scabbards.

majicksand
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 10:25 am: [report]

Gotta disagree, LunaLena. Men need great legs to pull off a kilt, just like women need them in a skirt. Let’s face it, we’ve all seen women who should stick to slacks.

_jsw_
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 10:29 am: [report]

@majicksand: I have to disagree. All men need to pull of a kilt is a pair of hands, theirs or someone else’s. But, of course, the great thing about kilts is that you don’t need to pull them off.

SCRMOM
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 10:38 am: [report]

@majicksand: I agree - need nice, muscular calves (not skinny ones) for guys in kilts.

LunaLena
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 10:47 am: [report]

@majicksand - to be honest, I’ve never seen a woman who shouldn’t wear a skirt either. Sure, some women wear skirts that are unflattering to their body types, but except for massively obese women who don’t look good in anything, I have yet to see a woman on whom any kind of skirt was utterly impossible. And I seriously have yet to see a guy who didn’t look good in a kilt. Of course, that may change the day someone creates a leopard print kilt…

I suspect, though, my judgment is impaired because I really have very little sense of what a “good” body type is. I know this sounds odd, but any body type, male or female, that is healthy and the owner seems comfortable with looks good to me.

@jsw - XD *dies*

LunaLena
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 10:51 am: [report]

I should perhaps mention that my definition of “healthy” covers a pretty broad spectrum. I’ll stop derailing the topic now.

*sam*
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 04:25 pm: [report]

@luna: when I read your comment about the “leopard printed kilt” my face literally bunched up in the most grotesque fashion just imagining that.

Am I the only one that doesn’t like the idea of an engagement sword? Maybe it’s just because I don’t really understand the whole sword (or gun) collection thing in general. Unless your hobby is sword fighting, what’s the point? I suppose the argument could be made that they’re a form of art, but, when they’re cheap renditions of the swords from Lord of the Rings, I can’t buy that, sorry.

I do however like the idea of an engagement watch, or really anything that the guy likes. My guy wouldn’t go for a sword (at least, I don’t think so) but he would go for a watch. Though, if I wanted to make him REALLY happy, I’d splurge and buy him a super sweet PC for him to play his games on. (yes jsw, I said PC. We’re both PCs and we’re going to spawn more PCs!! [evil laugh])

majicksand
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 05:12 pm: [report]

@sam: The sword represents the virile male warrior. It’s manly… in other words, it’s a big ole phallic symbol.

_jsw_
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 05:15 pm: [report]

@*sam*: I don’t see a problem with buying him a PC. They depreciate about as quickly after leaving the store as do diamonds, so it seems fair enough. Except for the fact that diamonds, at least, are attractive.

draymond
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 03:57 am: [report]

There is the ring and then there is the RING, the big honking rock that let’s face it, is mostly a matter of wanting to make your girlfriends jealous and quiet the doubting relatives.

The problem is that it is that the two-month’s salary engagement ring is just the first step in the marital-industrial complex’s grand scheme to extract a huge quantity of money to impress friends and relatives with how lavish the cinderella fantasy of your ‘perfect day’ is! Because you can’t just have the ring, you need an elaborate way of making the proposal. You need a designer dress that lives up to the standard set by that big ring. Of course you have to have a big guess list in an A-list location! You don’t want to give away the lie to that ring’s statement that money is no problem! Live music! Endless Champagne! and drive away not, heaven forbid, in a car, or even just an ordinary limo, but a limo the size of a yacht, or forget that, this is Cinderella time, where do we hire a horse drawn carriage!

So I would suggest that you not give up on the ring, but instead of making it your first step in saying yes to the marital-industrial complex, make it the first step in saying no to it. Get a zircon. (Trust me, without a loupe not even an expert, much less your friends and family, will be able to see for certain.) Then concentrrate on making your wedding an unpretentious simple affair where you get to spend quality time with the handfull of people you really care about. You can still have the wedding of your dreams, just change your dreams.

Of course I can’t really claim to be that much of an expert on weddings. I’ve only done it once, and that was over thirty years ago…and counting.

Knitter79
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 09:03 am: [report]

Years ago a friend of mine got engaged and the guy gave her his grandma’s engagement ring. They had it appraised for insurance purposes and when she found out it was worth ~$10k she freaked out. She was so afraid that something might happen to it and didn’t like the idea of having that much money sitting on her hand all the time. But it was a family heirloom so she couldn’t turn it down. After the wedding it went in a box in a safe and she only wears it for fancy occasions.
Another chick I know would go on and on about how she hated diamonds…until she was getting engaged. Then she told the guy exactly what she wanted, printed out pictures, found a band design that could only be found at a jeweler in her hometown (no where near where they lived), told him the exact diamond shape and size that she had to have. And of course, it was a huge diamond. I’m for picking out a ring together, but not dictating to the guy what it has to be. I wonder if she would have said no if he got her a different ring.

As far as a financial investment, no, it’s not because you would only sell it if the relationship ends, or you’re broke. It’s definitely an emotional investment. For the rest of the marriage the woman can look down at the ring and remember back to when they chose to spend the rest of their lives together.

I don’t want a huge ring, it would look stupid on my hand and get in the way. And I like the idea of mixing gemstones to add color and originality. But if my guy were very well off and proposed with a $500 ring it would make me wonder if he really cared about me or if he was a cheapskate. If he were not well off and proposed with a $250 ring it would mean more. It’s all about scale.

DevotedSpursFan
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 12:22 pm: [report]

It’s not just women who get caught up in the belief that a large ring is necessary. When my then-boyfriend (now fiancee) were talking about getting engaged, I tried to insist on a small, reasonably priced ring. I didn’t even need a diamond! He insisted on the huge carat size, the platinum band—the works. Fortunately, we reached a happy medium, and while my ring is still larger than what I wanted, he didn’t break the bank.

sportzriter13
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 12:29 pm: [report]

First time I got engaged, I already had a ring (neighbor didn’t like it and I did, so she gave it to me).
After the engagement ended I kept and wore that very ring (not on the ring finger-because it looked very much like an engagement ring) for a while afterward until a friend convinced me to throw it in my backyard. It was very cathartic, so I have no regrets.
My boyfriend’s mom doesn’t have an “engagement” ring, but usually wears a ring on her left hand. His dad doesn’t wear one at all. They’re a wonderful, happily married couple, so I’m happy it works for them. John and I are a long way off from even seriously thinking about marriage, (not pulling a Kardashian, thanks) but when/if the time comes, I will be happy to compromise. That being said, I would like to have SOMETHING to symbolize a new stage in life.

DancingGeek
wrote on September 28 2009 @ 06:05 pm: [report]

I don’t know that I ever want to marry again, but should a man want to buy me a token of his affection, I would want it to be something he designed himself. Doesn’t have to be diamonds, maybe a stone in my favorite color (which he would know). Doesn’t have to be huge, I have small fingers. Doesn’t have to be expensive, just the fact that he took the time to pick something special would mean the world to me.

Steph9668
wrote on September 29 2009 @ 11:12 pm: [report]

I don’t need a ring… well, I don’t want marriage either so it all kinda works out.

For 5 years I worked at a jewelry store and I heard some pretty outrages requests from irritating women that thought they deserved gigantic engagement rings… for doing what, I’m still not sure. It kinda turned me off the whole process. I love jewelry and I think diamonds are pretty but I’ll buy them for myself… especially because I still have my little ‘in’ at the store where I worked and you wouldn’t believe how much all that crap is marked up.

@CheeeeEEEEse: Um…. those Lego rings are awesome.

Kat
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 03:49 pm: [report]

A moonstone or pink sapphire ring set in silver is my dream engagement ring. Unfortunately, society tells us that a diamond ring set in either gold/platinum is what’s acceptable, and what “proves” he loves you.

I know many girls who were told “You’re worth more than what he gave you”, in regards to their slightly less than traditional/expensive ring. I also know girls who HATE their rings, but felt obligated to like it “since he spent SO MUCH”.

Rotten.

My guy has fallen into this “2 months salary thing” and despite my assurances I just want a ring I LIKE, he seems insistent on buying something expensive. We’re engaged, but he’s promised me a ring. I just know if he pays what he WANTS to, it will lend up either HIDEOUSLY garish and large with diamonds, or something smaller and tasteful without diamonds or with SMALLER diamonds, except it will be HORRENDOUSLY marked up. ;___;

*sigh*

lovergirl
wrote on October 12 2009 @ 04:14 pm: [report]

How crazy… I can’t imagine people looking at something that is supposed to be a symbol of love as a ‘bad investment.’ To me, an engagement ring shouldn’t be looked at as an investment in and of itself, but an investment in your future bride/your lives together. The ‘return,’ if you will, is in love and time… not money.

Anyway, that being said, I did read recently that one way to protect your investment when buying a diamond is to get one that comes with a diamond grading report from GIA… it details the qualities of a diamond and helps it retain its resale value, in the event that you ever resell it.

Maybe that will help persuade the economically-minded grooms-to-be to reconsider investing in diamond engagement rings .

Alexxin2501
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 01:57 pm: [report]

Although I understand most women’s romantic hangups over “the” engagement ring, it never was that big of a deal to me. I’m one of the rare females that don’t really like jewelry at all, especially stuff that sticks off my finger and gets snagged on everything (including scratching my fiance with it by accident). The concept of a diamond ring is fine, but I look at it this way: whatever he spends on your ring, you should be willing to spend on his. If it’s a token of love, then money shouldn’t be a factor going either way, right?

@CheeeeEEEEse: Those rings are awesome!

AppleCore
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 02:04 pm: [report]

I like the idea of getting an engagement “something” for your guy, but it would have to be a ring in my case. Bands for both of us. To me it’s not just about the money, wearing an engagement ring is a signal to everyone around that you’re spoken for. It’s a big neon sign that says “I’m off the market, we just need a little time to plan the formalities, so back of, Romeo.” That’s why I wouldn’t be OK just spending money on a nice computer, he can’t wear his Alienware out to Monday Night Football at the local bar. The computer can be his birthday present. But for an engagement, my ideal is for both of us to have a band. I have absolutely no problem with him “claiming” me because when and if I agree to get engaged I won’t take it lightly. I will consider myself completely and fully committed, all that’s left is a legal formality. My only problem with the current custom is that men don’t seem to be held to that same standard. If he’s going to put a ring on my hand that says to the world I am his, then he should wear a band that says to all the world that he is mine. This idea, further magnified by the whole bachelor party/last night of “freedom” thing, that men are still free range until the ink is on the paper is bull. We all know that the bride hasn’t considered herself “free” since the engagement, even if she has a bachelorette party, which has more to do about rubbing her success in her friends’ faces than with a “last night of freedom” no matter what those shrieking harpies in plastic dick-hats profess.

kikrause
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 04:41 pm: [report]

My husband gave me an engagement ring about 7 years into our relationship, we are high school sweethearts. It is a beautiful ring and I am not exaggerating when I say that I have been stopped multiple times by people to get pictures of it to send to their boyfriends. I had not expected the ring and that made it all the more special. I had not badgered him into purchasing it nor had I dragged him into jewelry stores demanding a massive diamond in a designer setting.
One argument that I completely agree with is the idea what men shouldn’t shell out massive amounts of money to purchase an over the top ring. Most people do not have 10k to throw around on a piece of jewelry. I believe that you should spend what you can afford. If that is a smaller diamond or a simpler setting so what? I feel that the problem comes when people want to compete with each other, rather than take into account what the ring symbolizes. An engagement ring represents a promise. I have had friends who have purchased simple rings with the idea that they will upgrade the diamond or setting after they are more financially secure (say for the 10 year anniversary).
The reason why people purchase diamonds even though there is an artificial monopoly on them, is that diamonds are able to be worn every day for a lifetime without getting damaged. Colored stones are not as hard as diamonds so they are not always right for an engagement/everyday ring.
What I love is the idea of the ring. You have a physical reminder that someone wants to spend the rest of their life with you. The first question women get asked after they get engaged is what does the ring look like? I know that my mother-in-law never got an engagement ring because she and her husband did not have a lot of money. She still hints to her husband that she would like one even though it has been 30+ years.
If men are feeling left behind - I know some celebrities have purchased engagement rings for the men as well as the women. Honestly, I don’t believe that this will become very popular since my husband, an average American man in his mid-20s, still is getting used to wearing a wedding ring even after a year of marriage.

shawbrooke
wrote on November 11 2009 @ 04:44 pm: [report]

Forget the history of the world. At present a ring is a public affirmation of you and your guy’s intentions for his and your future together. But does it have to be a diamond? I know many women who would rather have a plain ring now than wait years so that the ring is a diamond. He can always buy a diamond when you can afford it - on any anniversary, for example. The only exception would be the guy who can afford the diamond, does not have pressing uses for the money, like loans or a business, but is too cheap to spend the money, ask yourself what that is about.

The track record for marriage success is WAY higher if the couple doesn’t move in together until there is a ring - no matter the size - and a wedding date within a year. Why, no one knows. My current theory is that it’s easier to realize that a relationships is are not going to work when there is not that cozy togetherness and moving on is less of a hassle.

daisygurl4
wrote on November 12 2009 @ 06:44 am: [report]

I love the tradition of an engagement ring - it really seals the deal and for me, it was exciting to be able to look at that ring near constantly the first few months and know that we were about to commit our lives to each other through marriage. But…I also think that the business has gone too extreme. Honestly, does anyone really need a 2ct or higher ring? I think big stones just look stupid, especially on girls with thin or small fingers. My engagement ring has a .33ct diamond in it which is perfect - and also happens to be the diamond that was in my great-grandmother’s engagement ring. When we first started talking about getting engaged, I told my now husband that I didn’t want anything over half a carat - not too small but simple and understated and something that wouldn’t make him go bankrupt. A friend of his just got engaged and I remember a phone conversation between my husband and his friend that he couldn’t believe people spend thousands of dollars on a ring when chances are likely the couple will divorce. Does having a bigger diamond make your future marriage more divorce-proof? Not at all!

To sum it up, I think it is a great investment - as long as the guy doesn’t go overboard. My ring has an appraised value of about $900 (white gold band with a solitaire diamond in a tulip setting) and my wedding band is about $600 (its white gold with 15 tiny diamonds channel set in it).

Yodar Critch
wrote on November 12 2009 @ 08:56 am: [report]

As the old joke goes…

Buy her a diamond

Because she would get upset if you gave her cash and called her a whore.

But jokes aside, matters such as these should be left up to the two individuals involved. Who cares what other people think about this?

If you want a ring, then get a ring.
If you don’t want a ring, then don’t get a ring.

If the ring is that important that it would tarnish the relationship, great, but then you have to accept the consequences of your choice.

BTW ladies, just because your diamond is not a “conflict diamond” does not mean that it is moral. Read up on the horrible working conditions and the abuse of workers even in the “Legit” diamond business before you feel all warm and fuzzy about your non-conflict diamond.

indianagirl
wrote on November 12 2009 @ 08:57 am: [report]

Honestly I know this is a touchy subject for men and women alike…
I picked out my “engagement” ring 3 days before I got married, which was when my now husband looked at me and said, “I think we should get married”.
I said “really???”
He said “Yep, I dont want anyone but you and I hope you feel the same?”
So, we went and got rings together, Engagement ring $250 wedding band $180 Ea and got married at the court house. Nothing fancy, just two people in love wanting to make it official that they want to spend their lives together. We went on a honeymoon financed by his father, because we didnt ask him for money for a wedding which he was ever so greatful for. I upgraded my own rings on our 5th anniversary and got a $1500 set… its pretty and its still simple! But that’s not the part that matters, what matters to me is that he wanted me forever and I felt the same…. Nothing replaces that feeling… no amount of money or a lavish wedding…. giant dress… nothing.

majicksand
wrote on November 14 2009 @ 09:40 am: [report]

@indianagirl: Boy did you miss a golden opportunity. I was expecting, “Engagement ring $250 wedding band $180… marrying the man I love? priceless”