Wedding ring dilemma

Any

Morglin wrote: »

You should have the ring you want, but do bear in mind that if you ever intend to get an eternity ring (used to be given after a year of marriage) that your wedding ring will need to cater for that!


Lin

Well, that is one of those things isn't it.
I don't know anyone who got an eternity ring a year after marriage.
Some (from rich circles) got something after giving birth to first born though.
Normal circles a year after wedding had better expenses to pay for then eternity ring.
So why not get one now.

Soleil_lune

Vicky123 wrote: »

Definitely, get what you pay for, my engagement ring was a cheap old piece of tat with a few slithers of stones, they all fell out and the wedding band was bent out of shape by the time I dumped it in the bin, friends and aquaintances with good rings wear them all the time, bigger and better stones have stayed put through the years, as have the marriages;)

So are you saying that if you have a cheaper ring, rather than a fancy, diamond-encrusted expensive ring, that the marriage is less likely to last?

PMSL, I've heard it all now. :rotfl:

Vicky123

Soleil_lune wrote: »

So are you saying that if you have a cheaper ring, rather than a fancy, diamond-encrusted expensive ring, that the marriage is less likely to last?

PMSL, I've heard it all now. :rotfl:

No, what I'm saying is if someone can afford to give a half decent ring and chooses to go cheap then that is a statement in itself.
Obviously if people are all loved up but broke then that's a different matter, some people are just cheap though.
Are you not aware of that?
PMSL, I've heard it all now.
Course that's not what you meant was it, guessing you knew what I meant as well, then again......................

mariahelen

Shopping for an engagement ring doesn't have to be a dreaded experience... With the right amount of knowledge about what to look for in a ring, coupled with your excitement about asking the girl of your dreams to marry you, this can be an enjoyable exercise matching your newly discovered ring expertise with the money you've got available to spend.... Wishes dude

PenguinJim

Vicky123 wrote: »

No, what I'm saying is if someone can afford to give a half decent ring and chooses to go cheap then that is a statement in itself.

Absolutely, 100% agree. Wasting money on an expensive ring because of a decades-old marketing campaign when it could be put towards improving your quality of life together - put towards a house or car, or an unforgettable holiday together, or even investing towards your retirement together - really does show exactly where your priorities lie. Not to mention the assumption that their acceptance of marriage needs to be "bought" with a ring! If their answer depends in any way, shape or form on the numbers on the ring's receipt, they are clearly not the one for you.

If they really want something shiny after they've said yes, then feel free to treat them.

(I do think there are some exceptions to the above, but they would be extremely special cases)

jaylee3

Vicky123 wrote: »

No, what I'm saying is if someone can afford to give a half decent ring and chooses to go cheap then that is a statement in itself.
Obviously if people are all loved up but broke then that's a different matter, some people are just cheap though.
Are you not aware of that?
PMSL, I've heard it all now.
Course that's not what you meant was it, guessing you knew what I meant as well, then again......................

What a load of tosh. :rotfl:

So you're saying that if someone 'has' a bit of money but they prefer not to squander multiple 1000s on an stupidly expensive ring because society dictates it, they don't care about their partner as much as a person who does spend multiple 1000s?! What an absolute load of unfounded drivel.

Not everyone is hung up on the material value of things. If I was a man, I would run a mile from a woman with such an attitude!