Money Moral Dilemma: Should I buy a cheaper engagement ring?

Pollycat

MSE_Nick wrote: »

This week's MoneySaver who wants advice asks...

My girlfriend's expecting me to spend a certain amount on her engagement ring, but I've found a nice one for a chunk less. Should I just buy it and not tell her how much it cost, or stump up the cash for a more expensive one?

My advice to this week's MoneySaver is to ditch the girlfriend.

mosnel

If you have doubts about the ring then it doesnt stop there, is she worth it? why doubt?
I didnt want an engagement ring, I didnt need one to show my boyfriend what I thought or felt also other 'material' things were more important to us.
He insisted on me having an engagement ring after, 32 years of marriage, 3 grown up kids (all thro' university) ending of our 3rd & final mortgage, and retirement from the Police.
Now I wear with pride a 3 stone (past present & future) engagement ring. (42 years married)
Maybe its because I am not a jewelry person or just that we had more important things in our lives to pay for.

gazebo

Aside from the fact some of you being very heteronormative with your replies, I agree with the majority.

If you've been given an instruction to spend X amount, it sounds like the other half will be very controlling in the future as well.

nczm

Rings used to be estimated as requiring 3 months salary to purchase, but now the wage reflection to the cost of a ring is about a months (£1500). I'd have had no problem if my OH spent less, this is just to give a guide on what the ring might cost... Although I enjoyed teasing my OH on his other spending when I knew he was saving for the ring.
If it's nice she should never challenge the price and if you sort insurance when you purchase she never need know!

nannaanna

An engagement ring is given with and for love. If she has specified a price, it does seem a bit unfair on yourself. in fact, it sounds a little materialistic. Why do you not go together and choose a ring that you both like, and that you could sensibly afford. When l originally got engaged, we saw a beautiful ring, tried it on - fitted and looked perfect, then nearly fell through the floor when told the price!!! (everything went through my head - what if l lost/damaged it? l would have been heartbroken) We chose another cheaper ring and am very, very happy with it, especially as we got married a year later (using most of the money that would have gone to the initial ring). There is no price that you can put on love - it's the knowing you both love each other and want to be together that is MOST important.

Towser

It's not the price of the ring to get engaged. It's the whole ritual of what's goes on. You seem to be have trouble with your ritual so seriously consider the future. Same with weddings they are a ritual.

Your girlfriend is testing you with hers and yours ritual and seems to have high expectations. Can you aspire to her high expectations in the future?

Getting engaged is a test. If either party is unhappy they can always call it off.

Steveb88

I recently had this same conundrum. I found a ring that was half of what I might be expected to spend based on the one-month salary tradition. However, I had extensively - and I do mean extensively! - quizzed my now fiance on the type of ring she wanted. So, when I saw one that was perfect, I got it. She was over the moon that I managed to pick one that she liked so much, but do be aware of the insurance issue if you don't want to give the price away, make sure you sort it all yourself! Also, you could always say you found the exact same one in a central London shop for a lot more, but because you bought it somewhere else you managed to get a much better price (and so you can put the difference toward the wedding...!)

moneyistooshorttomention

I've come from the generation that regarded x months salary as the price the ring cost (think it was 3 months?)

So maybe the girlfriend came out with a jokey remark about that "norm" - rather than saying "It MUST cost that"?????

If I'd accepted one of the proposals I had "back when" then I was more fixed on what I would like the style of the ring to be than the price of it (though I think I might have lost a ring from Arg*s or Ratners at some point).

I was tossing up between "would I want a pretty, unique antique type ring?" (I imagine one of them would cost around £300 for the sort I like??) or the traditional diamond (and I was automatically picturing a reasonable size diamond - not a "pick up a magnifying glass to spot it" type diamond).

I wasn't concerned with the amount of money per se that would be spent on the ring - as long as it wasn't obviously an Argos or similar provenance one. My concern was with the style of it and the fact that would matter - ie because I would be expecting to wear it every day for the rest of my life.

I'd have probably gone for the "decent size diamond" normally. But, if the guy was broke, then opted for the pretty unique antique type one instead.

If he was that broke he couldn't manage £300 or so for the cheaper style one - then wait to get engaged until his finances were more back to normal again (eg he'd got a job again after period of unemployment or whatever-had-caused that level of brokeness) and regard ourselves as unofficially engaged until then.

Goldiegirl

Why on Earth would these money savers with moral dilemmas contact MSE directly with their problems.

Why don't they do what any other person does, and post on the forum in the first place?

GlamGirlie

Tradition, I thought, was for the fianc! to spend one month's salary on an engagement ring. Therefore it's not "grabby" as people are suggesting, simply traditional.
Also, what the man in this case thinks is a nice ring, might not be at all what the woman has in mind!