Poll of the Day > How much should you spend on an engagement ring?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Ive been with my girlfriend over six years now. Its probably about time.

blu posted...

Its probably about time.

Yea, that is a healthy outlook... </sarcasm>

2 months salary.

However much the ring she wants is within your financial means? I mean if she wants a $200 ring buy it for her. If she wants a 200k behemoth maybe say no. It's all about your own finances and the partners preference.

Jen0125 posted...

However much the ring she wants is within your financial means? I mean if she wants a $200 ring buy it for her. If she wants a 200k behemoth maybe say no. It's all about your own finances and the partners preference.

This. My wife ended up picking out her ring while we were wandering through a store on vacation. No diamond, not gold, and only a couple hundred bucks but it was the ring she wanted. The whole concept that there is some appropriate amount of money to spend for an engagement ring was conceived by the people trying to sell you engagement rings and my general take is any person shallow enough to *demand* a ring over a certain cost is probably someone you shouldn't be marrying.

rjsilverthorn posted...

This. My wife ended up picking out her ring while we were wandering through a store on vacation. No diamond, not gold, and only a couple hundred bucks but it was the ring she wanted. The whole concept that there is some appropriate amount of money to spend for an engagement ring was conceived by the people trying to sell you engagement rings and my general take is any person shallow enough to *demand* a ring over a certain cost is probably someone you shouldn't be marrying.

Right? If a guy gives me a 30k ring I'm not impressed if it isn't something I wanted. It shouldn't be about the value but the sentimentality for the person receiving the ring.

The traditional "three months' salary" thing has some merit in that your ability to spend that much money on something frivolous is a barometer for your financial stability, and you should aim to be financially stable before committing to spending your life with somebody (whether you'll be the primary breadwinner or not). At the same time, though, actually spending three months' salary on a piece of jewellery is pretty dumb and mostly comes across as trying to demonstrate your financial stability to convince somebody to be your mate. Buy something she'll like, and only consider cost insofar as you need to for your own financial comfort. If you've been living together and sharing finances for years, you've got nothing to prove, financially speaking, so there's no point spending more money than is needed to make her happy.

how much is irrelevant, look for the perfect ring

Dikitain posted...

2 months salary.

I've always wondered if those executives that only get paid a $1 salary and make all their money in stock options could get away with buying their wife a ring-pop as a wedding ring.

adjl posted...

The traditional "three months' salary" thing has some merit in that your ability to spend that much money on something frivolous is a barometer for your financial stability, and you should aim to be financially stable before committing to spending your life with somebody (whether you'll be the primary breadwinner or not). At the same time, though, actually spending three months' salary on a piece of jewellery is pretty dumb and mostly comes across as trying to demonstrate your financial stability to convince somebody to be your mate. Buy something she'll like, and only consider cost insofar as you need to for your own financial comfort. If you've been living together and sharing finances for years, you've got nothing to prove, financially speaking, so there's no point spending more money than is needed to make her happy.

I'm not really sure how well that holds up today. In the past it probably made sense since you would be taking on supporting your wife and would generally end up having kids shortly after, but now most couples are both working and already living together before they get married so it doesn't really make any major change in finances.

rjsilverthorn posted...

I'm not really sure how well that holds up today. In the past it probably made sense since you would be taking on supporting your wife and would generally end up having kids shortly after, but now most couples are both working and already living together before they get married so it doesn't really make any major change in finances.

Marriage itself may not comprise a major change in finances, but it still marks a commitment to supporting each other (whatever form that takes) on a long-term basis, and a certain degree of financial stability is good to have before making that commitment. At least, that's my philosophy. Your mileage may vary, depending on what you prioritize/are concerned about in your own relationships, and I'm not about to pretend that I'm any sort of authority on the matter.

rjsilverthorn posted...

I'm not really sure how well that holds up today. In the past it probably made sense since you would be taking on supporting your wife and would generally end up having kids shortly after, but now most couples are both working and already living together before they get married so it doesn't really make any major change in finances.

I don't think it really ever made sense to drop three months of salary on a ring unless you were still living with parents or something.

I'm reasonably well off but three months of salary would definitely take me over a year to put away. It would be a devastating expense to spend that on something like a ring when it inevitably should be used to pay for the expensive infrequent things in life, like a new furnace, a new roof, or a new vehicle.

To be honest, I spent 3 months salary, it was a little more than my yearly RSU vest so I just took the hit from that.

The whole thing felt really arbitrary and I was not too happy with it but yeah it is what it is.

In the long run it didn't really set me back, BUT I still kinda feel it when my wife talks about getting new furniture or a car or something big like that. On some level yes I can afford all of it, but I wanna just say if you could choose, would you have all new bed, sofa, kitchen, and a luxury vacation? Or go look at your little shiny rock again?

I guess its easier to just bring her so she could select what she wants. So is the way it works for most people is to bring your girlfriend shopping, pick something out, then propose and she isnt necessarily surprised?

Dikitain posted...

2 months salary.

I recently got engaged and spent nowhere near that much on the ring. Thats crazy money.

I only spent about a third of a months take home.

faramir77 posted...

I don't think it really ever made sense to drop three months of salary on a ring unless you were still living with parents or something.

I'm reasonably well off but three months of salary would definitely take me over a year to put away. It would be a devastating expense to spend that on something like a ring when it inevitably should be used to pay for the expensive infrequent things in life, like a new furnace, a new roof, or a new vehicle.

Bear in mind that that tradition dates from a time when an entire house only cost 1-2 years' household income, so it was considerably more attainable. Still, though, I think the principle applies: If you have to choose between buying a new furnace that you need or buying an engagement ring, you might not be financially stable enough to commit to spending the rest of your life with someone and you should consider holding off accordingly. I still wouldn't actually spend that much, because I just don't like spending money like that on luxuries (nor would my girlfriend want me to), but the important metric is that you're able to do so without undermining your financial stability.

blu posted...

I guess its easier to just bring her so she could select what she wants. So is the way it works for most people is to bring your girlfriend shopping, pick something out, then propose and she isnt necessarily surprised?

Depends what she'd like best. You can propose with a placeholder and then take her shopping for the real one later, you can pay enough attention to her tastes to be able to buy something she'll like without getting her direct input, or you can just involve her in the whole process and have the proposal itself be more of a formality. You'll have to figure out for yourself what the best option is, since it varies from person to person and relationship to relationship.

Honestly, if you aren't sure what she'll like best, you probably actually shouldn't be marrying her. You'll want to pay more attention than that if you're serious about making a lifelong commitment.

I got married at 21 and was pretty poor. I believe her engagement ring was like 150 but it was pretty and the thought was what counted. I picked it out myself though. Its a flower white gold Canada sourced diamond ring. I bought her a more expensive ring a few years later and she literally wore it twice. Our birds like to pick at things so it just stays in the safe which is boring but whatever.

Schmen and I dated 7 years before we tied the knot
He gave me his mothers engagement ring, handed down from his grandmother and great grandmother before that. It's been in his family for 4 generations at this point, and one day if Rein is ever lucky enough to meet a worthy suitor, it will be 5.

It is nothing flashy, but sentimentally it was a pretty big deal that it went to us rather than his brother or sisters. Granted, we were married a decade or more before any of his older siblings.

I spent about 3 weeks (pre-tax) salary on an engagement ring, but it was more about buying what I wanted that I could also afford.

5 and treat her to a chippy tea when you propose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V64BDBfsIK4

I actually don't remember what it cost but it wasn't super cheap. We need to leave behind this archaic bs though. Marriage is already archaic bullshit in the first place but being expected to buy, not one, but two or three expensive ass rings to prove something is fucking stupid. Isn't the origin story of marriage basically ownership of a woman anyway? Lol, we as a society need to leave this behind and just treat each other to a lavish vacation or a kitchen island or something. Something with actual long term value or making memories

Rings are a fucking scam. You can make a synthetic diamond that looks even better than a real one for next to nothing, but nooooo, you gotta pay thousands upon thousands and support slave labor in the process.

Zareth posted...

Rings are a fucking scam. You can make a synthetic diamond that looks even better than a real one for next to nothing, but nooooo, you gotta pay thousands upon thousands and support slave labor in the process.

Who said you had to? The jewlers I spoke to said in their stores more people get synthetic than real.

rare case of ohhhja spitting, marriage kitchen islands would go so hard

josh posted...

Who said you had to? The jewlers I spoke to said in their stores more people get synthetic than real.

to be fair, society as a whole. we're still pretty weird about worshipping ""natural"" gems as being better

I can see immediate family being weird about it if they ever found out

agesboy posted...

to be fair, society as a whole. we're still pretty weird about worshipping ""natural"" gems as being better

OK, I'll chalk it down to cultural differences. You don't get that here in Australia, at least in my circles.

josh posted...

OK, I'll chalk it down to cultural differences. You don't get that here in Australia, at least in my circles.

Yeah, I think its massively regional. Where I am, theres really not the option between synthetic and natural.

Also, the whole 3 months wages thing wouldnt hold up here. If Id spent over 20 grand on a ring, my fianc would have been pissed. I dont think shes the exception to the rule here.

josh posted...

OK, I'll chalk it down to cultural differences. You don't get that here in Australia, at least in my circles.

That's a relatively recent development, probably actually mostly catalyzed by social media. For many, many years, the diamond industry has worked to disparage synthetic diamonds to artificially inflate demand for natural ones, despite the fact that synthetics have been on par with natural ones for much, much longer than many people realize. That's one of the things that's been openly challenged by millennials on social media, though, a movement that's been able to spread faster than corporate propaganda can keep up with and basically result in a generation with significantly less interest in natural diamonds than any previous one (jadedness that has been passed on to subsequent generations). Granted, a huge part of that is also just millennials being largely screwed by the state of the economy they've inherited and having to be a lot choosier about their luxuries as a result, such that "shiny rock that's expensive for no reason" was obviously going to be one of the first on the chopping block.

Can't diagree it's a recent development. I'm still surprised though it hasn't caught on everywhere. I'm pretty sure more than one person would look down on you for choosing a natural diamond over a synthetic one here, knowing where they can come from.

Getting the lab report/certificate is so much nicer.

god i wish the authentic gem market died a few generations back. then elon would have less money

OhhhJa posted...

Isn't the origin story of marriage basically ownership of a woman anyway?

Kind of, it was more about the combining/transferring of wealth from one generation to the next. Problem was the best bargaining chip that a lot of people had was "Here, impregnate my daughter and force her into indentured servitude!" Combine that with the fact that being gay 5000 years ago was a foreign concept and you have marriage as we know it today.

So yea, it still surprises me that an outdated, sexist, homophobic practice not only still exists today, but that the LGBT community has actively fought to participate in it rather than abolish it altogether.

The origin of marriage is not Adam and Eve, who were clone self-siblings; the first marriage was of Cain who married someone from the city of Nod. His wife's parents were as old as Garden itself, given they were the same age as his parents... so the fact that she still has grandparents means they had to be older than the universe.

Anyone expecting to spend over $1000 is not marriage material

I spent four hundred on a two karat moissanite ring and it looks just as nice as a diamond ring that would have cost at least five times as much. Went through shy gems

Dikitain posted...

Kind of, it was more about the combining/transferring of wealth from one generation to the next. Problem was the best bargaining chip that a lot of people had was "Here, impregnate my daughter and force her into indentured servitude!" Combine that with the fact that being gay 5000 years ago was a foreign concept and you have marriage as we know it today.

So yea, it still surprises me that an outdated, sexist, homophobic practice not only still exists today, but that the LGBT community has actively fought to participate in it rather than abolish it altogether.

Really, it's only been since about the 50's-60's that treating wives as servants/baby machines stopped being the norm, and that's after centuries of marriage transitioning from being a political arrangement to carry on aristocratic bloodlines to being something that common folk did out of love. The institution evolved with that transition to be more about romance and to have more relevant financial considerations for non-nobility, so by the time it stopped being primarily about dudes having a housekeeper they could sleep with, there was enough value beyond that for it still to be desirable for people. There is still practical value in having a defined set of rules for how resources are shared within a couple (which a prenup supersedes, but having a default is still helpful both for people that aren't savvy enough to figure out a reasonable prenup and to establish social norms for what spouses should do for each other if a marriage falls apart) and offering tax breaks to disincentivize bachelor life (which strains infrastructure significantly more than living in pairs does), plus there's the emotional value of making a formal commitment to each other and celebrating that with loved ones. It's also necessary to do at least something to legally identify your partner as family in the event of an accident or critical illness, and while there are options other than marriage to do that, lumping it in with marriage is one less thing to think about when you decide to commit to a partner long-term.

The history isn't particularly pretty and the concept of common-law partnerships makes a lot of the practical benefits kind of redundant, but marriage has evolved over time to still have value to people, and people enjoy that value (and don't want to be excluded from it, in the case of LGBTQ marriage). That appeal does generally seem to be waning, especially with the growing number of couples that have no interest in having kids, but even just as a formality it's still something plenty of people like and will continue to like.

Mostly, people can decide for themselves what marriage means to them. Those who like the idea will like getting married and will therefore do so, those who don't, won't (unless somehow forced into it, but that's another problem).

blu posted...

Ive been with my girlfriend over six years now. Its probably about time.

I mean, I've been with my girlfriend about 25 years now. Time isn't the only factor you should be considering.

And if you're only considering it because of how long it's been, maybe you should be reconsidering.



adjl posted...

At the same time, though, actually spending three months' salary on a piece of jewellery is pretty dumb and mostly comes across as trying to demonstrate your financial stability to convince somebody to be your mate.

The main demographic that that keeps pushing that particular advice is the jewelry/diamond industry. For obvious reasons.

Arguably the concept of the engagement ring itself mostly ties back into ideas of symbolizing ownership (when women were mostly property) and indicating an intent to wed in advance (to give time to allow witnesses to come forward to prevent bigamy), neither of which really matter all that much today (or should be seen as outright bad). The diamond industry only latched onto that about a hundred years ago to help expand their market (and they wildly succeeded).

It's basically the same way bacon became seen as a breakfast food in the 20th century - a canny marketing campaign radically altered the way people see the world, to the point where most people don't remember a time when it wasn't that way. In spite of the fact that it wasn't that way for thousands of years, and only started being that way within our grandparents' lifetimes.

If you want to demonstrate your financial stability to support a spouse, you'd be better off not spending thousands of dollars on a more or less pointless ring, because if anything that displays better spending habits and thriftiness which will help prevent you from making stupid economic decisions in the future.

adjl posted...

Bear in mind that that tradition dates from a time when an entire house only cost 1-2 years' household income, so it was considerably more attainable.

This is sort of the significant consideration. People assume inflation is the only thing that changes over time, and inflation of salary (mostly) parallels inflation of costs, so the net effect is purchasing stays in relative parity. But there's more to it than that.

The "recommended" value went from one month's salary originally, to 2 months, and has really only started to push up on 3 months recently. But over the same timeframe buying power has probably weakened by an even greater amount, so a one-month salary ring in 1940 would theoretically be "worth" more than a three-month salary ring today.

To use the house comparison, it's like comparing 1/8th of a house to 1/100th of a house. Or buying a car for the price of 1 ring then versus the price of 4-5 rings today.

One month's salary went much father than three months salary does today for most people.



agesboy posted...

to be fair, society as a whole. we're still pretty weird about worshipping ""natural"" gems as being better

I can see immediate family being weird about it if they ever found out

It's because the same diamond industry (along with other gemstone markets) has spent decades constantly trying to hammer that idea into people's heads, because the alternative is the total collapse of most of their profit.

We could make pretty much perfect synthetic diamonds relatively cheaply 30+ years ago. But the diamond industry pushed really had to have laws passed that said they couldn't be used for jewelry (which is why most diamond-creation for years was used for things like making diamond sandpaper or diamond-tipped tools). At the same time, they've spent tons and tons of money to try and influence the public to see natural diamonds as being the only ones worth owing.

But there's been a slow erosion of the legal restrictions over the years, and public opinion is sort of starting to turn on it (and on the entire concept of engagement rings as a whole). So it's entirely possible that people 100 years in the future will have a much different view of what is and isn't appropriate for marriage (just like people 100 years ago had a much different view than we do now).

I still just dont get the three month thing.

Surely if youre a low earner than its not feasible because it would take you years to save it and if youre a high earner its crazy because who wants to spend such an insane amount on a ring?

ParanoidObsessive posted...

So it's entirely possible that people 100 years in the future will have a much different view of what is and isn't appropriate for marriage (just like people 100 years ago had a much different view than we do now).

i think it's entirely possible in 100 years marriage won't be the majority choice for relationships

Jen0125 posted...

i think it's entirely possible in 100 years marriage won't be the majority choice for relationships

But they'll still want to put a ring on it.

Glob posted...

I still just dont get the three month thing.

Surely if youre a low earner than its not feasible because it would take you years to save it and if youre a high earner its crazy because who wants to spend such an insane amount on a ring?

I expect it's mostly targeted at a middle class of people who can realistically save up and splurge that much, but for whom money is still tight enough that such a splurge might not feel like a good idea. Poorer people aren't going to be spending enough money either way for the jewellery industry to care about influencing their spending habits, and rich people who don't have to care about the price won't care about that advice.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But the diamond industry pushed really had to have laws passed that said they couldn't be used for jewelry

Which is just a really weird thing to have laws about. Include transparency about the materials' origins to prevent fraud and whatnot, sure (though even then, I expect the jewellery industry would very much prefer not to have transparency about their materials' origins be legally required), but laws saying "you're not allowed to make this completely optional luxury item with no health or safety considerations using anything other than natural gems" very obviously has no benefit for anyone other than those selling natural gems. It's not exactly without precedent for laws to favour corporations and wealthy individuals over the general citizenry, but it's usually not so brazen.

Glob posted...

I still just dont get the three month thing.

Surely if youre a low earner than its not feasible because it would take you years to save it and if youre a high earner its crazy because who wants to spend such an insane amount on a ring?

it's not like the exact amount is set in stone, but typically if you ask women what ring they want, they will select an amount that makes you uncomfortable but is not so high that it's financially infeasible. basically it's a test of commitment.

and are you sure nobody wants to spend that much on a ring? even a mall ring you could easily spend 10-20k, then you start looking at brand name stuff like Tiffany which is not all that rare.

acesxhigh posted...

it's not like the exact amount is set in stone, but typically if you ask women what ring they want, they will select an amount that makes you uncomfortable but is not so high that it's financially infeasible. basically it's a test of commitment.

and are you sure nobody wants to spend that much on a ring? even a mall ring you could easily spend 10-20k, then you start looking at brand name stuff like Tiffany which is not all that rare.

I proposed recently with a ring that cost significantly less than a months take home. Any comments about the value of the ring have been about how Ive been extravagant. The fact is, most people dont know the value of a ring when they look at it.

Whatever looks good and within possibility, and can be paid off within a year. I could have gone a little wild with my wife's ring but I didn't want to risk being stupid.
Remember to try to make payments after normal scheduled payments, especially if you got interest, so it'll come off the principal

Blorfenburger posted...

Whatever looks good and within possibility, and can be paid off within a year. I could have gone a little wild with my wife's ring but I didn't want to risk being stupid.
Remember to try to make payments after normal scheduled payments, especially if you got interest, so it'll come off the principal

Wait, youd borrow money to do it?

Glob posted...

Wait, youd borrow money to do it?

You don't have to. If you're talking about credit then yes I borrowed money. But I paid it off after 5 or 6 months and I didn't pay interest

Blorfenburger posted...

You don't have to. If you're talking about credit then yes I borrowed money. But I paid it off after 5 or 6 months and I didn't pay interest

Not trying to pass judgement. Obviously do whatever works for you. But I cant imagine doing that.

Glob posted...

Not trying to pass judgement. Obviously do whatever works for you. But I cant imagine doing that.

Good

Okay fuck this.
So I made that post about how synthetic diamonds are better. I only use GameFAQs on my computer, never my phone.
Now on Reddit, I'm getting ads about how real diamonds are better than synthetic ones. I only use Reddit on my phone. I don't even have an account.
How the fuck is this happening.

Zareth posted...

How the fuck is this happening.

me trying to buy an engagement ring without ruining the "surprise"