The most for your money - engagement rings

roses

My DH got mine from Ebay. Paid £1,200, got it valued & it was £6,200. It is absolutely gorgeous . Not for everyone and you really need to be sure that you are buying a genuine ring. I adore it but no way wanted him to spend anywhere near the valuation price.

fluffymuffy

Tanzanite has a hardness of 6.5 on the Mohs scale - making it far too soft to be used in a ring which is to be worn everyday.

http://www.gemologyonline.com/mohs.html

I bought a tanzanite ring on ebay and could see straight away that the stone was worn out. Luckiy the seller had described it as 18ct gold when it was clearly hallmarked as 9ct - so I was able to send it back even though the seller said "no returns" (as it's illegal to mis-describe something on ebay).

neverdespairgirl

fluffymuffy wrote: »

Tanzanite has a hardness of 6.5 on the Mohs scale - making it far too soft to be used an a ring which is to be worn everyday.

http://www.gemologyonline.com/mohs.html

I wouldn't wear it myself, as I wanted something very tough, but it's not that soft compared to other stones and things used in engagement rings.

For example, opals are about hte same on the MOHS scale as tanzanite (opals vary from about 6 to 6.5, tanzanite from about 6.5 to 7). As are peridot, amethyst, moonstone.

Some people have pearl engagement rings, and pearls are only 2.5 to 4.5 on the MOHS scale.

fluffymuffy

Sapphire is corundum - 9 on the scale, - almost as hard-wearing as diamond.

neverdespairgirl

fluffymuffy wrote: »

Sapphire is corundum - 9 on the scale, - almost as hard-wearing as diamond.

It is. But diamonds are 4 times harder than sapphires (I think) because the scale is neither arithmetic nor logorythmic, it's comparative.

Gloomendoom

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

It is. But diamonds are 4 times harder than sapphires (I think) because the scale is neither arithmetic nor logorythmic, it's comparative.

Flippin' 'eck!

Arithmetic? Logarithmic?

I knew I wanted platinum and a diamond. Unfortunately, I was seriously boracic at the time so took a big chance and bought second hand off a private seller. We later went to Brum jewellery quarter to get a wedding ring made and when the jeweller asked if he could examine the engagement ring so that he could match the diamond, I was nearly sick with anxiety. I half expected him to announce that the stone was fake. It isn't, or at least, if it is, he was a gentleman and kept the truth to himself.

In retrospect, I rather wish I'd used a Christmas cracker ring to do the down on one knee pantomime and then got an engagement ring made later with input on the design from my wife.

neverdespairgirl

Well, MOHS is neither 1,2,3,4 nor 1,2,4,8,16 etc There is no fixed ratio about the difference between the numbers.

bouncydog1

I have an 18ct diamond solitaire we chose together many years ago. My wedding ring was remodelled after 15 years to a slimmer design using the original gold and set with diamonds. The reason - to make room for the diamond eternity ring! Best thing to me is that we chose all of them together.

SingleSue

I would be absolutely aghast if a beau of mine spent more than say £100 on an engagement ring for me....such a waste of money when you can get perfectly good rings for less than that.

My original engagement ring cost £52 (in 1987) and was perfect. It wasn't cubic zirconia, it had real diamonds (well tiny bits anyway) and a sapphire...I adored it. Unfortunately, years of wear, small children, motorcycle crashes and an attacking toilet seat (long story, very embarrassing), the setting of the stones became bent so we replaced it....with a £36 one!

We chose the ring together, seemed more romantic that way...when he asked me to marry him, he did the traditional thing and used a curtain ring!

I just couldn't, with a clear conscience, justify someone paying thousands (or even hundreds) out on a ring for me....it just seems so wrong.

Re wedding rings - ours were Argos specials, both for £40 and were still going strong 16 years later when we divorced.

neverdespairgirl

SingleSue wrote: »

I would be absolutely aghast if a beau of mine spent more than say £100 on an engagement ring for me....such a waste of money when you can get perfectly good rings for less than that.

My original engagement ring cost £52 (in 1987) and was perfect.

Bit harsh - doesn't allow for inflation since 1987.

Current data is only available till 2011. In 2011, the relative worth of £52.00 from 1987 is:
£120.00 using the retail price index £110.00 using the GDP deflator £154.00 using the average earnings £165.00 using the per capita GDP £183.00 using the share of GDP