Spinoff of the Engagement Ring Thread

[Colleen27]

It used to be that engagement rings were whatever your birthstone was. But I guess women started getting jealous that some birthstones cost more than others.

I'd probably have been more interested in a pretty stone if that was still the custom. I love my birthstone - emerald - but have never been a fan of diamonds. DH had to have a diamond, though. He worried enough about what people thought about the fact that we were marrying fairly young and did everything "backwards" (had kids and a house before marriage), and that a "different" engagement band would make it look like he couldn't afford a proper ring.

Another 10 years go by and I replaced DH's band as an anniversary gift. It was a much heavier band (all our bands were gold though) and he loved it. The following year he gave me a matching band that he had small diamonds placed in. I loved it!

I replaced DH's last year from Overstock.com, of all places. He lost his original after taking it off at work. I didn't mind him not wearing one but he wanted a replacement so when I stumbled across a titanium band with a rosewood inlay I ordered it for him. He's a builder by trade and a woodworker on the side so it really is the perfect ring for him, and he's learned his lesson about leaving it at home when he knows he won't be able to leave it on all day. It cost me a whopping $50 but it is so much more "him" than his original plain gold band was.

 

[EMode]

My engagement ring is a simple pear shaped solitaire on a thin gold band, it cost dh $500. He was a grad student at the time and it was what he could afford. He picked it out himself because he knew I would love it, that is all that mattered to me, not the cost.

 

[DeaverTex]

Mrs. Tex's engagement ring cost $320 in 1976. As a second lieutenant with one year's service, that was a little less than two weeks' pay. The wedding bands added maybe $100. Everything was white gold, and the engagement ring had a small but beautifully cut heart shaped diamond.

I guess I've always been a cheapskate, but she was with me at the time and that was the ring she liked best. And no, I did NOT give her a budget! (Although she probably noticed that I may have looked just a teensy bit anxious when she looked at one ring that was about $800! ) With the wedding band that's permanently attached, they're the only rings she's ever worn.

 

[FINFAN]

I never got an engagement ring, nor did I want one. Maybe it's because it was my second marriage that I just didn't care. And our wedding rings were from Prime Value Mart (sort of like Service Merchandise if you remember that store). Thirty two years later and DH still wears that wedding ring (I had to trade mine in years later for a larger size). I guess you could say my "engagement" ring came for our twenty-fifth wedding anniversary-a beautiful pick-a-pearl ring set with diamonds around it. And since my birthstone is pearl, it was very fitting.

A fellow pick-a-pearl girl!

 

[MIGrandma]

I can't imagine spending thousands of dollars on an engagement ring.

My wedding set cost a whopping $200 back in 1975. I can't remember how much DH's wedding band cost, but I'm sure it was under $100.

 

[spacemountainmom]

I couldn't remember what he paid, so I went and pulled the paperwork. My engagement ring was $424.93 including tax. Our two wedding bands were $338.67 including tax. We were given an appraisal stating my engagement ring was valued at $695. My rings cost nowhere near two months salary for my still in college part-time dh and I didn't want them to.

I remember when we were discussing rings and we decided that we could afford to spend what we did. I wanted my wedding band to have some diamonds in it so we went with a smaller stone in the engagement ring. My mil was rather cranky about the whole thing and kept insisting that we should spend even less and I could always upgrade later. I told her that I wasn't planning on upgrading my husband and didn't want to upgrade my ring either. Twenty-three years later, I still have both!

DH did buy me an anniversary band for our 5th that matches my wedding band, but it does have more and larger stones. I wear it on the other side of my engagement ring. If I am doing something where I don't want to have my wedding set on, I take it off and just wear the anniversary band.

DH has had two rings. When we were first married, his job didn't allow him to wear any jewelry so we bought the cheapest one in case he lost it. Several years and a few jobs later, I bought him a nicer one that he now wears. I think I maybe paid $200 for that one.

I don't know that anyone ever asked me how much my engagement ring cost, but plenty asked me what the carat weight was.

 

[Starshine]

My engagement ring was $300 and both our wedding bands together were $750 (we had them custom made at a Renaissance Faire). I am so not at all a jewelry person and I would be terrified to wear an expensive ring. We rarely even wear our custom bands, we tend to wear $40 indestructible tungsten carbide bands that I got on Overstock. Of course, DH and I both had the Celtic design from our bands tattooed as arm bands, which probably cost more than the bands themselves!!

 

[nene0182]

My engagement ring was around $1000. It's a mixture of white and black diamonds and very unique. My wedding band cost around the same. I love my rings. However, for our 4 year anniversary, my husband bought me a more traditional ring (though it still has the vintage look to it) I was fine with my old rings and never thought of getting anything else but my husband was more excited giving this ring to me on our anniversary because he saved money for years and I had no idea. I don't know how much the new ring cost exactly but I would estimate around 2 months salary.

 

[DisneyDreamer2504]

I just can't imagine spending 2-3 months salary on something that I can't drive, live in, or vacation a week or more on. Thankfully I'll never have to go through the awkward moment of refusing such a gift bc DH is just as sensible as I am when it comes to money.

 

[TheIncredibles!]

DH saved for 9 months for my ring. I did not ask or specify what I wanted or how big, he just had in his mind that the main stone could not be less than 1 carat and also knew that since I am VERY sentimental there would be no upgrading later on so it was important to him that he got me something he felt was really good quality and nice.

Married 18 years and if he ever decided to "upgrade" me it would immediately be a right hand ring, it would never replace the engagement ring and certainly not the ring he put on my finger the day we got married Nothing can replicate the significance of that for this sentimental girl

 

[ZephyrHawk]

It's been 3 months salary as a basis for as long as I can remember. That being said, DH's "monthly salary" at the time he proposed was basically nil as we were both still in college and living primarily off student loans. He borrowed from friends and scraped together everything he could. It's a perfectly nice ring, though much smaller than the ones my girlfriends who married later (when their boys made more) got. I've always seen the "3 months salary" thing as a rough guide. Whatever is paid, the number is supposed to hurt. It's supposed to be a sacrifice. It's supposed to be, "Look, I could have bought myself that entertainment system/car/vacation I've always wanted, but instead I spent it on this tiny piece of jewelry, just to make you happy."

 

[nugov2]

I have no idea what my dh paid for the ring...never thought to ask, but it is appraised high enough so we have it on our homeowners insurance just in case. Based on the appraisal it was probably 4 months salary at the time, but I doubt he actually paid that much. He made good money pretty much right out of college(we got engaged 4 years post college) and had minimal expenses and was a big saver. I have never been a jewelry person...he used to buy me a lot of it and never wore it. Just not me. So he figured this would be the one thing I would wear the rest of my life and he wanted me to have something nice and timeless. While I am not a jewelry person, I would have been unhappy with nothing that's for sure...but it certainly didn't need anything this extravagant.

 

[Colleen27]

It's been 3 months salary as a basis for as long as I can remember. That being said, DH's "monthly salary" at the time he proposed was basically nil as we were both still in college and living primarily off student loans. He borrowed from friends and scraped together everything he could. It's a perfectly nice ring, though much smaller than the ones my girlfriends who married later (when their boys made more) got. I've always seen the "3 months salary" thing as a rough guide. Whatever is paid, the number is supposed to hurt. It's supposed to be a sacrifice. It's supposed to be, "Look, I could have bought myself that entertainment system/car/vacation I've always wanted, but instead I spent it on this tiny piece of jewelry, just to make you happy."

I think what bothers me about the guideline is that it assumes that women by their very nature want that sort of sacrifice, that a tiny piece of jewelry will make us happier than any of the other things that could be purchased with such a significant sum. Three months' salary is about what we put down on our first home; I would have been anything but pleased if DH decided that a big, shiny rock on my hand was a better use of that money than a home for us to start our life together in.

It is absolutely brilliant marketing, though, for a guideline established by the very people who profit off it to become so accepted that it is conventional wisdom and a standard by which we judge even if we don't personally want a $10K+ ring.

 

[PigletsPal2]

I have no idea what DH spent on my engagement ring, but I'm absolutely certain it wasn't three months' salary! My wedding set, along with several thousand dollars of other pieces of jewelry DH gifted to me, was stolen while we were on an overseas assignment. We decided we wouldn't purchase any more jewelry (except for replacement wedding rings) until we returned stateside. That's not to say that we wouldn't possibly be robbed in the US, but we do have a safety deposit box where the good stuff could be stored.

For our 20th wedding anniversary, DH designed new wedding rings and had them made by a highly regarded and reputable jeweler in Istanbul. Because gold is less expensive there (well, it was in 1986), we were able to get 18K gold with five channel-set diamonds. DH's band is a little wider and his diamonds are a little bigger, but the two rings together cost about $700. (He said each diamond represented four years of marriage; he now owes me an additional seven diamonds!)

I love jewelry, especially rings. Little by little DH has been replacing my stolen items, but some had such sentimental value, they can never be replaced. My mother's opal ring, the biggest, gaudiest, most ostentatious emerald ring ever made (be careful what you ask for!), a necklace with my name in Arabic, a cartouche with my name in hieroglyphics, a pendant called
"The Sultan's Signature," - all purchased in countries I'll never visit again. It makes me sad to think of it.

Queen Colleen

 

[Lynne M]

I've always seen the "3 months salary" thing as a rough guide. Whatever is paid, the number is supposed to hurt. It's supposed to be a sacrifice. It's supposed to be, "Look, I could have bought myself that entertainment system/car/vacation I've always wanted, but instead I spent it on this tiny piece of jewelry, just to make you happy."

There's no such thing as 'supposed to' when it comes to engagement rings, other than that it should be meaningful to the couple. How much it 'hurts' has nothing to do with how meaningful it is. A friend got a ruby ring from her fiancé, because that was the wedding ring in her favorite book. I don't think it was a very expensive ring at all, and it meant far more to her than if he'd bought her a 5 carat diamond. It was a thoughtful and deeply personal choice, not just 'here, look at how much money I spent on you'.

Three months of salary spent on a tiny piece of jewelry wouldn't make me happy. Just the opposite. It would be an automatic 'no' to the proposal, since it would be a really clear indicator that he didn't know me at all.

You gotta give it to DeBeers, their little ploy worked like gangbusters. On generations of men. I know a guy who is kind of traditional, in a chivalrous, gentlemanly sort of way. He still feels that manliness = being a good provider, even though the women he's dated made six figure salaries and really didn't need any providing. Utterly brilliant guy, very well-read, extremely well-informed. But he totally bought the two-month guideline because it plugs right into all that old cultural stuff about men having to prove that they can provide for their wives. He didn't know until recently that it was an advertising scheme.

 

[sonnyjane]

I think what bothers me about the guideline is that it assumes that women by their very nature want that sort of sacrifice, that a tiny piece of jewelry will make us happier than any of the other things that could be purchased with such a significant sum. Three months' salary is about what we put down on our first home; I would have been anything but pleased if DH decided that a big, shiny rock on my hand was a better use of that money than a home for us to start our life together in. It is absolutely brilliant marketing, though, for a guideline established by the very people who profit off it to become so accepted that it is conventional wisdom and a standard by which we judge even if we don't personally want a $10K+ ring.

The thing that's so stupid about this is that essentially, women "buy" their own ring. Sure, they don't spend their own money necessarily, but if your husband-to-be plunks down $10,000 on your ring, that's 10k less that you have for your lives together.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

About two weeks ago I saw a story online directed at men about purchasing engagement rings. For lack of a better term, I'd call it a "metrosexual man's"
website. It said the guideline for price is now three months salary. The tone of the article seemed to be if you don't spend that much, you don't love your fiancée enough; you're a loser in the man department, etc.
What a crock!! Since when did the guideline jump to three months salary from two. Even two months is way too high. No guy in his right mind is going to spend that much.
Average salary for men is something like $48000. Three months of that is $12000. Getouddahere!!! Even two months is $8000. No way.
The article said the average engagement ring costs something like $5800, so I suppose most men are smart enough not to follow the nonsense of the diamond cartel.
I personally wouldn't spend anywhere near $5800, and I'd seriously consider calling off the engagement if the woman was disappointed about it. And if she dumps me for being too cheap, I'd say I dodged a bullet.
Jim

I remember it as two also. They probably went to three months when the rings they were trying to sell went up in price. Two months, Three months, both are nothing more than an effort to get people that can't really afford it to spend more on a ring.

 

[Lynne M]

The thing that's so stupid about this is that essentially, women "buy" their own ring. Sure, they don't spend their own money necessarily, but if your husband-to-be plunks down $10,000 on your ring, that's 10k less that you have for your lives together.

Spot on. Both parties are making the sacrifice when the ring is that pricey.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Originally Posted by Colleen27
I think what bothers me about the guideline is that it assumes that women by their very nature want that sort of sacrifice, that a tiny piece of jewelry will make us happier than any of the other things that could be purchased with such a significant sum.

I think the campaign was as geared toward changing the views of women on the subject as much as it was geared toward convincing men.

 

[nugov2]

There's no such thing as 'supposed to' when it comes to engagement rings, other than that it should be meaningful to the couple. How much it 'hurts' has nothing to do with how meaningful it is. A friend got a ruby ring from her fiancé, because that was the wedding ring in her favorite book. I don't think it was a very expensive ring at all, and it meant far more to her than if he'd bought her a 5 carat diamond. It was a thoughtful and deeply personal choice, not just 'here, look at how much money I spent on you'.

Three months of salary spent on a tiny piece of jewelry wouldn't make me happy. Just the opposite. It would be an automatic 'no' to the proposal, since it would be a really clear indicator that he didn't know me at all.

You gotta give it to DeBeers, their little ploy worked like gangbusters. On generations of men. I know a guy who is kind of traditional, in a chivalrous, gentlemanly sort of way. He still feels that manliness = being a good provider, even though the women he's dated made six figure salaries and really didn't need any providing. Utterly brilliant guy, very well-read, extremely well-informed. But he totally bought the two-month guideline because it plugs right into all that old cultural stuff about men having to prove that they can provide for their wives. He didn't know until recently that it was an advertising scheme.

I actually think that is just as bad/tacky as saying no b/c the ring is too small. If he had the money saved and it was no big deal to spend it to him b/c he had a lot saved, why fault him for it? Also not everyone who spends 3 or 4 months salary still doesn't have the money to put 20% down on a house(which I think usually comes from both people...I know I was working when we got married b/c we didn't have kids yet so assuming he should use the money for a house payment is a little presumptuous) guess if you discussed it over and over stating never spend over x amount of dollars on my ring, but I don't think that is standard. My dh knew I wasn't a fan of flashy jewelry, but he purchased a high quality diamond. You can have a 4 carat diamond that cost less than a 1 carat if you buy a low grade diamond so unless you were a diamond expert or asked flat out what he spent size doesn't define cost.

I agree that the marketing is doing what all marketing/advertising is meant to. Guilting guys into thinking they need to spend a certain dollar amount is not right, but again that is their job..to sell their product. I would never want to have my future spouse in debt over a ring, but at the same time you should be smart enough to decide what amount is comfortable for you. Like all advertising you need to choose not to believe it as gospel...I mean I'm pretty sure not everyone thinks frosted flakes are great even though the commercial clearly tells us they are