The question

Pollycat

heartbreak_star wrote: »

Trying not to be a party pooper here, but if my OH spent that on a ring I'd never wear it in case I damaged it, and also feel that at least £1.7k of that could have been better spent.

Would she feel the same? Or is she happy wearing expensive stuff?

Good luck!

HBS x

I hear what you're saying, HBS, but as long as the OP is 100% sure that his fianc! will be OK with the amount he spends on a ring, I guess that's OK.

I've had my diamond solitaire ring for almost 30 years, it was expensive and I've since had other rings - some diamonds, some other gemstones - but I still love my ring so imho it was worth every penny.

LilElvis

heartbreak_star wrote: »

Trying not to be a party pooper here, but if my OH spent that on a ring I'd never wear it in case I damaged it, and also feel that at least £1.7k of that could have been better spent.

Would she feel the same? Or is she happy wearing expensive stuff?

Good luck!

HBS x

The OP has already said that he has worked out what he can afford and would like to spend. Why do you think it is OK to say that what he is spending is excessive? Very rude in my view.

Why would someone not wear jewellery simply because of the vague chance it could be damaged? Isn't that what insurance is for?

People's definition of "expensive" depends on their own circumstances and priorities. Perhaps the potential fiance will be upset because the OP is being a cheapskate for spending so little in her view.

Just as well this isn't on Skype or you would have heart failure if you could see my engagment ring - cost multiple times the OP's budget and is worn every day

heartbreak_star

LilElvis wrote: »

The OP has already said that he has worked out what he can afford and would like to spend. Why do you think it is OK to say that what he is spending is excessive? Very rude in my view.

Why would someone not wear jewellery simply because of the vague chance it could be damaged? Isn't that what insurance is for?

People's definition of "expensive" depends on their own circumstances and priorities. Perhaps the potential fiance will be upset because the OP is being a cheapskate for spending so little in her view.

Just as well this isn't on Skype or you would have heart failure if you could see my engagment ring - cost multiple times the OP's budget and is worn every day

Hey I was just putting my opinion forward like everyone else, that's what you did on a forum last time I looked!

HBS x

InsideInsurance

Pollycat wrote: »

Imho, that makes Blue Nile look pretty good value versus those 2 high street jewellers.

No disputing their value at all, just saying take their estimate high street valuation with a pinch of salt.

Evil_Olive

I didn't read HBSs post like that LilElvis - it came across to me as inviting the OP to consider what his prospective fianc!e's views on the matter might be as his budget is quite a large one to the average person, and even though he can obviously afford it, a lot of women might prefer to have a bit more to spend on the wedding, honeymoon or marital home.

Being very recently married, I know how hard it was to get the money together to pay for even a super-budget MSE wedding (my whole budget was £3000! ) and I would definitely have had a nagging regret about an extra grand or so that could have gone into the wedding fund without a huge difference in the look of my ring.

I think HBS was just thinking along those lines - didn't come across as rude to me (I am pretty insensitive however ) and pretty sure from the style of her many previous posts that HBS wouldn't have intended it that way....

:grouphug:

InsideInsurance

Evil_Olive wrote: »

I've heard that traditionally it's supposed to be 1 months salary but it seems to be creeping up because my grandma says that back in her day it was 1 weeks wages. More recently I've also seen jewellery websites and bride mags claiming that it's supposed to be 2, or even 3, months salary!

If you google it you will see most claim that this originates from some advertising done by De Beers or other jewelers in the 1930s which suggested that 1 months salary and diamonds were the way to go.

In the 80s we had:



Suggesting that two months is better.

Basically, all marketing spin.

I know LV did some research in 2011 and the average ring was about £1,300 which would make it on average about 3 weeks wages. Obviously this doesnt factor in the skew towards younger people typically buying engagement rings

heartbreak_star

Evil_Olive wrote: »

I didn't read HBSs post like that LilElvis - it came across to me as inviting the OP to consider what his prospective fianc!e's views on the matter might be as his budget is quite a large one to many people, and even though he can obviously afford it, a lot of women might prefer to have a bit more to spend on the wedding.

Being very recently married, I know how hard it was to get the money together to pay for a wedding and I would definitely have had a nagging regret about an extra grand or so that could have gone into the wedding fund without a huge difference in the look of my ring.

I think HBS was just thinking along those lines - didn't come across as rude to me (I'm pretty insensitive however ) and pretty sure from her previous style of posting that HBS woukldn't have intended it that way....

Thank you Olive, that was exactly how I meant it - it was a totally personal opinion that hadn't been mentioned yet...

We don't have a lot of money, so I would consider it in our better interests to spend the extra money on a car or the house. Of course everyone's circumstances are different, but I would feel very strange if we were having to stretch the budget for a new boiler and I was wearing the cost of that boiler on my mitt!

Thank you again.

HBS x

LilElvis

heartbreak_star wrote: »

Thank you Olive, that was exactly how I meant it - it was a totally personal opinion that hadn't been mentioned yet...

We don't have a lot of money, so I would consider it in our better interests to spend the extra money on a car or the house. Of course everyone's circumstances are different, but I would feel very strange if we were having to stretch the budget for a new boiler and I was wearing the cost of that boiler on my mitt!

Thank you again.

HBS x

You are missing the point. The OP said that he has decided what his budget is, but you think it is OK to project your own financial circumstances into his decision-making. I could have posted a link to the jeweller who made my ring, but it would not have served any useful purpose as his items, though excellent value, are in a higher price range. Just as your post serves no useful purpose.

I thought the point of these threads was not just to post your personal opinion, but to actually address the question posed. Your post didn't do this, and hence my response.

LilElvis

InsideInsurance wrote: »

If you google it you will see most claim that this originates from some advertising done by De Beers or other jewelers in the 1930s which suggested that 1 months salary and diamonds were the way to go.

In the 80s we had:



Suggesting that two months is better.

Basically, all marketing spin.

I know LV did some research in 2011 and the average ring was about £1,300 which would make it on average about 3 weeks wages. Obviously this doesnt factor in the skew towards younger people typically buying engagement rings

Is it net or gross pay though - makes one hell of a difference!

Gloomendoom

InsideInsurance wrote: »

She then points out the dozen of her friends who had unexpected proposals from their boyfriends with a ring in hand and who had managed to get the right size showing you are just making excuses/ lack of effort. :A

Ah! I was sneaky and managed to acquire one of Mrs G's other rings before I bought the engagement ring.