Engagement - a question for the girls and the guys

Mrs_Imp

I'm an old-fashioned romantic. We didn't move in until we were married. Mr Imp chose the ring all by himself, and I love it. It's not what I would've chosen, but I loved it as soon as he gave it to me. He knew me better than I knew myself! I don't care how much it cost, because for me the true value of it is that he loved me enough to pick it. I'd hate to have proposed to, then told 'by the way you have to pick your own ring'

claire16c

InsideInsurance wrote: »

As to taste? TBH, if you know her well enough to say you want to spend the rest of your life with her you should know her well enough to select a ring that she will like (many not be the PERFECT one, but then in my experience with women the "perfect" one will change over time anyway)

The problem is though until you try rings on you often don't know yourself you often don't know what the perfect ring was. For years I thought I liked square stones, and my DH asked me what I liked incase he were to propose so I said that. Then a girl at work had a heart shaped stone which looked lovely so I told him about that.

But then we went in a shop on holiday, I tried some rings on as we were killing some time before a show we were going to see, and I found that the stones that were square weren't as sparkly looking & looked a lot smaller than a similarly priced round one. So I completely changed my mind. Plus the square shaped stones tended to be on slightly wider bands & I have small fingers so they looked awful on me.

When we left the shop my DH said thank god he hadn't chosen it himself lol! He said he would have got a heart - by which time I'd gone off completely & really didnt want, but just never told him that.

I wanted to buy him something & suggested a nice watch, but he said he didn't want one as he'd just scratch it. So I bought him a massive ice cream instead!

InsideInsurance

claire16c wrote: »

my DH asked me what I liked incase he were to propose so I said that. Then a girl at work had a heart shaped stone which looked lovely so I told him about that.
<snip>
He said he would have got a heart - by which time I'd gone off completely

As we say, women change their mind all the time

A princess cut (square brilliant) will, in theory, be just as sparkly as a round cut. A asscher (square step - basically a square emerald cut) will not be as sparkly but when it does catch the light the effect is bigger.

I say in theory because (a) all diamonds are unique and shape/ cut is only one of the drivers as to how it will sparkle and (b) round are currently most in fashion so for volume producers it is the first choice to cut the stone into so they tend to be a little better.

There is no reason why the band width for a similar carat square or round cut would be any different. If they were at the store you looked at that is just their/ their suppliers choice and in most cases the same mount can be used for either shape.


Unless your partner is a long term Goth or vintage nut etc then I would always "recommend" (not that many have asked me) going for a very classic/ simple design for both ring and stone(s). I have known more than one woman who has chosen her own ring and gone for something thats "high fashion" at the time and then 30 years later doesnt like wearing it as much as the styles no longer in vogue.

The one thing I personally really dont like is what appears to be an American trend to "upgrade" your engagement ring every 5-10 years as you accrue more wealth/ get better jobs etc. Those that havent done it (yet) also complain that the $500 ring their hubby bought whilst they were still students isnt worn as it looks wrong next to their $30,000 Tiffany/ Cartier/ De Beers etc

An engagement ring is a token of love given by a man to a woman. It should be loved for being that, it should be chosen by the man and should be kept as such. Buy better rings later/ things more to taste etc but they are other rings for other fingers not engagement rings

Tish_P

Depends what your engagement ring is for, really. If it's something you both feel you need to be properly engaged, or want to "tell the word" with, I don't see a problem with both contributing. But if it's a gift from him to express love to her then it should be from him, and if that means it has to be smaller or less expensive, so be it.

I'm not sure I'd want one - historically they're a bit too analogous to a "sold subject to contract" sign - but I wouldn't like to contribute to my own ring. I'd rather buy him an equivalent present in exchange instead. I'd be terrified of losing or damaging an expensive ring anyway.

lovecake

Just another wee addition to my earlier comment:

Yes it is a token of love from your OH and how much it costs should not be an issue BUT you have to love it! You are going to wear it forever and saying that you should love it just because your OH chose it is not realistic. You may love your OH and love the thought behind it, but hate the ring.

As I said earlier, I had my ring specially made as I chose an unusual centre stone (opal) - in fact most of my friends have chosen unusual rings so going for something classic might not be the best option. More and more women are realising that they can have something that looks timeless, elegant and beautiful and it doesn't have to be a diamond with a white gold/platinum band.

Going to choose the ring together is a wonderful and exciting experience and doesn't make it any less a 'token of love' just because both of you were there when it was purchased.

an9i77

Dunroamin wrote: »

I'm probably alone in this but it seems to me that, if you're living with someone and have a child together, getting engaged is pretty much redundant.

Maybe so, but I live with my partner and we have a child and I'd love to get engaged. Problem with him is because we don't need to, there's no incentive for him to do it, so I guess I'm stuck with cohabitation. Doesn't massively matter. I'm sure we'll get round to it one day, have other priorities at the moment.

Person_one

TeamLowe wrote: »

I even know of a couple who got engaged after they'd booked their wedding!
He was at a nice place for a conference, told her about it, they visited for a look round and booked a good deal, then a few weeks later it was down on one knee with the ring x

Well that's just silly, they were already engaged!

Engaged just means you've both agreed to marry each other, no performance, ring or party required.

Gloomendoom

Dunroamin wrote: »

I'm probably alone in this but it seems to me that, if you're living with someone and have a child together, getting engaged is pretty much redundant.

Surely an engagement starts as soon as a couple agree to get married to each other? If so, it would be difficult to not have an engagement period of some kind.

Or is it the institution of marriage itself that you are calling into question? That's a thread in itself... as has been proved, many times.

Gloomendoom

claire16c wrote: »

I wanted to buy him something & suggested a nice watch, but he said he didn't want one as he'd just scratch it. So I bought him a massive ice cream instead!

Ha ha! I think I would rather have had a massive ice cream than the wedding ring I never wear. I'm glad it didn't cost much.

MrsDrink

Technically as I earn twice as much as MrD I paid two thirds towards my rings. (We have a main joint account that our wages are paid into and two individual accounts for 'pocket money/surprises'.)
Doesn't bother me.

*edit* to say - we became engaged when MrD decided he would marry me. I actually don't have an engagement ring - I wear my 30th birthday ring on that finger as it's made with precious stones from my Grandma's engagement ring. But that ring was commissioned and paid for using our joint account.