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

mdcollins1984

The 'month salary tradition' probably arose when the majority of people were working and living at home. This may not be affordable when couples are living together or on their own. Nor is it necessary.
Buy the nicest you can afford, that you like and think suits your partner - to be getting engaged you should be in a position to judge what she likes, and remember it's your choice not hers.

tgroom57

MSE_Nick wrote: »

I've found a nice one for a chunk less.

Also, depends where you found it ! And how easily her mates will track it down: she'll want to show it off.

Why not get the prettier ring and put the balance towards a great holiday, or some memorable getaway where you can propose.

Pollycat

Goldiegirl wrote: »

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?

That's a very good question, Goldiegirl.

Do these 'moneysavers' even exist?

SandraDJ

I think I can empathise with the girlfriend.

My ex-husband was tight as the proverbial. The only way we had anything decent is if I went out and bought it. He would buy the cheapest of everything just to save a bit. The cheap lawnmower without the grass catcher was a nightmare - most of the loose grass ended up in the kitchen brought in on shoes.

At the time I didn't want an engagement ring, and he didn't believe in rings as he said they were dangerous. If you caught it then you would lose a finger!

Teacher2

What many of the (mainly male) commenters on this thread do not realise is that there is great pressure on women among their peers to have the perfect engagement/wedding and this idea is reinforced by wedding magazines and a whole industry spawned by the wedding media. Therefore women are being told that an engagement ring should cost a month's salary (sometimes two) and that a 'cheap' wedding costs £14,000. A woman might feel judged by her peers if there is no 'bling' on the finger. Possibly, if the lady in this case is a reasonable woman, a frank and open discussion about expectations and costs could take things forward. If an open and equal discussion is not to be had about a ring is a marriage with no candour between the parties even to be desired?

A good compromise, if the lady's feelings can be assuaged, is to buy the ring which looks good but doesn't break the bank. She can show it off and both parties will have some extra cash for the wedding. Then take exactly the same approach to the wedding of getting much bang for few bucks so that married life is not begun with an onerous debt.

Jane Austen had a few essential values to aid matrimony including respect, esteem and gratitude. But by far the most important one was mutual candour.

Augustus_the_Strong

Oh dear! None of this bodes well for a happy marriage. The bride demands a certain sum is paid, and the groom's choice is either to lie or look like a cheapskate not living up to expectations. You need to sort out some issues here, not just about the ring.

But the 'tradition' that an engagement ring should cost a month's salary was invented by the De Beers company in the 1940s. It's an advertising con, so don't be a mug.

Talk through the situation with your would-be fiancee- spending less on a nicer ring and using the saving to buy something good for your future together would be a sensible solution.

Pollycat

Teacher2 wrote: »

What many of the (mainly male) commenters on this thread do not realise is that there is great pressure on women among their peers to have the perfect engagement/wedding and this idea is reinforced by wedding magazines and a whole industry spawned by the wedding media. Therefore women are being told that an engagement ring should cost a month's salary (sometimes two) and that a 'cheap' wedding costs £14,000. A woman might feel judged by her peers if there is no 'bling' on the finger. Possibly, if the lady in this case is a reasonable woman, a frank and open discussion about expectations and costs could take things forward. If an open and equal discussion is not to be had about a ring is a marriage with no candour between the parties even to be desired?

After reading your post, I'd add to the advice I gave earlier:

Pollycat wrote: »

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

My advice to the girlfriend is to ditch her shallow friends.

MacMickster

Forget the ring. Bin your girlfriend now. Find someone to spend your life with who is not materialistic and will love you for who you are rather than how much money you will spend to make her feel special. Carry on with this relationship and you may find that the demands on your income will continue so that she can live her life in the manner that she wants, rather than the manner that you can both afford.

fatpiggy

lorriedriver1988 wrote: »

I don't think you should put a price on the ring. At the end of the day, its the thought that counts. My DH proposed to me with a pink sapphire and diamond ring. I now know due to him telling me that the ring was second hand and cost him under £50. He has since bought me a new engagement ring because my fingers shrunk after having my DS. We did inquire about having my original ring resized but it was not worth the money. I still wear my original engagement ring on my right hand, as I cherish it.

What I'm trying to say is that the engagement ring is a symbol of your love and commitment to each other. The price of the ring seems trivial to me, the gesture of proposing should be enough and the fact you're declaring your love to her by proposing. To put it in perspective, some engagement rings retail for £1500+. I know there are people that could organise an entire wedding for the cost of one engagement ring.

I would suggest talk to her about the engagement and encourage her to compromise on the price of the ring. Any money saved from buying a cheaper ring could be put it towards the wedding

I have some second-hand rings - you get better quality with older ones, and always better value regardless. One of my favourites is a princess-cut diamond in 18ct gold - it cost me just £35 on Ebay. It is pretty heavy so isn't a hollow band.

fatpiggy

Teacher2 wrote: »

What many of the (mainly male) commenters on this thread do not realise is that there is great pressure on women among their peers to have the perfect engagement/wedding and this idea is reinforced by wedding magazines and a whole industry spawned by the wedding media. Therefore women are being told that an engagement ring should cost a month's salary (sometimes two) and that a 'cheap' wedding costs £14,000. A woman might feel judged by her peers if there is no 'bling' on the finger. Possibly, if the lady in this case is a reasonable woman, a frank and open discussion about expectations and costs could take things forward. If an open and equal discussion is not to be had about a ring is a marriage with no candour between the parties even to be desired?

A good compromise, if the lady's feelings can be assuaged, is to buy the ring which looks good but doesn't break the bank. She can show it off and both parties will have some extra cash for the wedding. Then take exactly the same approach to the wedding of getting much bang for few bucks so that married life is not begun with an onerous debt.

Jane Austen had a few essential values to aid matrimony including respect, esteem and gratitude. But by far the most important one was mutual candour.

My Mum is nearly 82 and even when she and Dad got married, it was the norm to spend a months wages on the engagement ring. However, it wasn't the norm to spend recklessly on the wedding!