I know I shouldn't be offended but...

benb76

I think that the cost of a ring DOES show a great deal about the extent of commitment, as a man will often forgo a luxury for himself in order to afford it. Obviously the cost varies from individual to individuall depending on their wealth and income, but I would bet that anyone saying that it doesn't matter at all would question the commitment of man who bought a ring for less than his annual subscription to Sky Sports!

As for the OP. I'd still struggle to believe her OH. If the jeweller really did lie to him about it being 18ct, then why would he then provide a receipt that said 9ct!?

Tiddlywinks

VfM4meplse wrote: »

I've got no issue with haggling if it means you get more for less. But I would expect a minimum 3 carat solitaire, and they don't come cheap.

So you think that size is the most important thing (oo er) over clarity, cut and colour? I doubt most serious jewellers would agree.

Lotus-eater wrote: »

I don't know if you're joking, but if your not, then that's pretty sad.

Seconded - very superficial view of the 'value' of a ring meant to symbolise eternal love.

I knew a couple that got engaged (against family wishes) when they were still at uni nearly 30 years ago - her ring was silver and amethyst. Did they love each other less as a result of such a modest start? No - they're still together and she still loves her first ring even though he is now a professor and can afford something more 'sparkly'!

Back to the OP - it isn't about how much he spent but about WHY he lied about it.

ellay864

I've only just found and read through the whole of this thread, and do feel like the OP and her OH have been hung out to dry a bit here! There seems to be a lot of feeling like he's an obvious liar, and if he's lied about this then he's lying about loads else and their relationship is doomed. I can also see that maybe he's said something - maybe out of embarassment or whatever - and it's really upset OP now she's found something to suggest he's been a bit economical with the truth. I don't think it means he's cheating on her and is likely to never be trusted. Many men don't like the idea that they can't afford to spend as much on their ladies as we might spend on them.
Also several people have questioned the apparent inequality of the relationship when OP has repeatedly replied that it isn't all bad, and he is loving etc. If I put it down in black & white how things are with me and DH, it could well be misconstrued as me paying for everything and waiting on him hand and foot. I earn about 3 times more than him and when we met he was saddled with huge debts from his first marriage. I've used my money and good credit rating to help dig him out, and I do pay for most things now but it's no big deal. I do also do most of the housework but as OP said, I like things done a certain way and often prefer it done my way than him doing it. But if I wrote it down in just a few lines it could easily read like he's lazy and sponges off me - not true.
As for the value of the ring, I can't believe the comments suggesting that a cheap ring shows little commitment to the relationship. When I got proposed to he did actually arrange a surprise holiday to Switzerland and then proposed at the top of the Jungfrau mountain. Because the trip was put on credit card, I probably ended up paying for a fair bit of it if you got down to nitty gritty but I don't care - he put so much thought into all the detail of the trip and spent so much time and effort planning and booking everything that he must take the credit. As for the ring, well it's 9ct gold and is primarily amethyst (the 'diamonds' around it aren't real, I know that - he told me rather sheepishly that it didn't cost that much, and yes I could tell it took some doing for him to admit that) but he chose it as he knows I love purple. He bought loads of other purple things for me for the trip - it all meant so much with the thought he put into it. It isn't what I would have initially gone for but I love it for what it represents. As far as I'm concerned, I DID get a huge rock on my engagement...it happened to be the Eiger!! The ring is a symbol of our relationship and I KNOW how much he loves me - I certainly don't need a 3ct solitaire to prove that

[Deleted User]

benb76 wrote: »

I think that the cost of a ring DOES show a great deal about the extent of commitment,

complete and utter rubbish. My dh spent £27 0n my engagement ring and I chose it with him. We went on to get married a year later, having saved hard for a house deposit. We got married 42 years ago and are still blissfully happy after an utterly honest happy and contented life together

The week after we were married we opened a joint bank account and pooled everything and that continues today. Honesty and trust is key, not the mercenary cost of a ring

There is a lot of sadness in the opening post, something deeper is wrong in the relationship

System

When i chose my engagement ring i knew roughly what i wanted and knew how he stood financially I didnt want to overstretch him. Although it was a fair sized diamond and i could have stretched him further but what was the point when we were both living together practically and money was tight as it was.

SavingPennies_2

To all the people posting that the cost doesnt count. The OP never said that! She clearly said that the price wasn't important to her. What she was upset about was that her BF lied about the price and carat, and to boot made her feel guilty that he was skint from saving for it, when actually he didnt save very much!

I personally think that cost isnt important but it should be relevant to wealth. Ie if someone genuinely has little money then they shouldnt spend much, but if he spends/wastes money on other things, boys toys, beer etc and still buys a cheapy ring that is not on IMHO.

OP I hope you work things out.

benb76

kittie wrote: »

complete and utter rubbish. My dh spent £27 0n my engagement ring and I chose it with him. We went on to get married a year later, having saved hard for a house deposit. We got married 42 years ago and are still blissfully happy after an utterly honest happy and contented life together

The week after we were married we opened a joint bank account and pooled everything and that continues today. Honesty and trust is key, not the mercenary cost of a ring

There is a lot of sadness in the opening post, something deeper is wrong in the relationship

That £27 equates to about £400 in today's money. I obviously have no idea what he was earning at the time, but I'd guess that he had to make a sacrifice or two to be able to afford it.!

I'd also like to say that you're entitled to disagree with my opinion, but to label it 'complete and utter rubbish' shows a very condescending attitude and arrogance in the belief that your opinions are always right.!

londonsurrey

So, to the OP:
Yes, you should be offended
No, you're not a money grabbing harpy
Yes, most of us aren't impressed by him, but we haven't seen his gorgeous eyes and you have

thatlemming

I don't think it's the cost of the ring that matters here, more the fact that the OPs OH seemed to think he had to lie about it?!

Fergie42

I didn't get an engagement ring as we had been living together for so long we just got married. I pretended it didn't matter but it did actually. However, we have been happily married for 14 years now so I wouldn't take much stock on people saying it's a bad start etc. My husband is a house-husband which really seems to wind some people up. We have had variations of lucky to downright lazy but I want someone there to drop the children off - pick them up from various clubs and keep my house clean and I earn more so it suits us.
Take care and I wish you all the best for the future x