NationStates Jolt Archive

This is one for the traditionalists out there.. how many months' salary should be spent on an engagement ring?

Why do I ask? No, not because I'm in the market.. (:p ) ..but because I overheard a conversation between women the other day, on this topic. One was concerned that her fiancee wasn't taking her seriously, wasn't planning things properly (etc.), but the icing on the cake was the ring.. I forget the size, but the whole deal with custom engraving came in at just under $6000, rather cheap. Her friend calmed her down by noting some other expenses that accounted for the guy's thrift, but agreed that the number was a bit low - beneath the 4-6 months' salary rule.

That's the part that really caught my ear. I had always heard that it was 2-4 months' salary or wages that should be spent on a ring, not 4-6.. now, I've moved around the country a bit, so I could have been misinformed.. so to get at the truth, I thought I'd post a discussion on what the proper standard is! :)

buy what you want and let her deal with it.
;) whatever you do pay cash, don't charge it, very bad idea going into debt over jewelry, it's just not a good investment.

I didn't have an engagement ring, and I don't wear my wedding ring.....so it turned out to be a pretty bad investment anyway (I did tell him that I didn't like jewelry)

you forgot the 0 option. fuck marriage, it's a horrible mistake.

buy what you want and let her deal with it.
;) whatever you do pay cash, don't charge it, very bad idea going into debt over jewelry, it's just not a good investment.

I didn't have an engagement ring, and I don't wear my wedding ring.....so it turned out to be a pretty bad investment anyway (I did tell him that I didn't like jewelry)

Well ideally, that's what the 'number of months' standard is for.. to provide proper guidelines so as not to spend too much/too little.. but cash probably is the best.. especially when one's parents foot the bill. :p

Anyway, the thread is more about what everyone has heard is proper than what really is.. I heard 2-4, then 4-6.. I know plenty of people who simply drove down to the courthouse, filed some paperwork, and celebrated with hotdogs and soda.. but that's less traditional. :)

*reads OP*

wtf? 6 grand is cheap???!! where is this land where sparkly rocks grow on trees?

Holy monkey fucking shit.

$6000 is fucking low???? LOW????

To quote a friend of mine, you can't fucking drive it. It's a RING!

If your love is that shallow...well, I guess you need a ring like that...fuck.

Well ideally, that's what the 'number of months' standard is for.. to provide proper guidelines so as not to spend too much/too little.. but cash probably is the best.. especially when one's parents foot the bill. :p

Anyway, the thread is more about what everyone has heard is proper than what really is.. I heard 2-4, then 4-6.. I know plenty of people who simply drove down to the courthouse, filed some paperwork, and celebrated with hotdogs and soda.. but that's less traditional. :)

I was told in high school by my misogynistic teacher that it was 6 months, that way when he realizes that you are a psychotic bitch and leaves you, you can sell it and live for a few months until you find another man to suck the life out of.

The woman should want the money spent on a piece of jewlery (thats price is overinflated) on something more practical anyway. Unless she needs some kind of reassurance that he "really does love her" and spending a shitload of money on a stone proves it somehow.

And you consider $6000 dollars to be a low price? :eek:

Engagement rings are a scam, a dirty scam involving the deaths of thousands of Africans and complicit in the deaths of millions more.

Holy monkey fucking shit.

$6000 is fucking low???? LOW????

To quote a friend of mine, you can't fucking drive it. It's a RING!

If your love is that shallow...well, I guess you need a ring like that...fuck.

yep, 6 grand is what you spend on a car. preferably one driven hell-for-leather out of there before some jeweller and/or partner nicks your cash.

Holy monkey fucking shit.

$6000 is fucking low???? LOW????

To quote a friend of mine, you can't fucking drive it. It's a RING!

If your love is that shallow...well, I guess you need a ring like that...fuck.

Traditionally, it's a sliding scale. 6k is excessive if you're a fry cook, but not if you're a CEO.. you get the idea. 6k using the 4-6 months standard just means it's appropriate if the guy is making around 24k per year.. if the guy was really bringing in 80k, it could be considered too thrifty. However, since I was a kid, I'd always heard 2-4 months, which would probably make a $6k ring completely appropriate.. hence the confusion. :)

If I remember correctly, it is supposed to be 3 months salary; however, I believe you should be reasonable. My wife's engagement ring cost me half a months salary and is a gorgeous ring that she loves. Of course now she wears it beside her wedding band, which puts it to shame, but my point is, invest in an engagement ring that you believe is reasonable value. Don't break the bank to impress her. If she really loves you the value of the ring isn't important.

Traditionally, it's a sliding scale. 6k is excessive if you're a fry cook, but not if you're a CEO.. you get the idea. 6k using the 4-6 months standard just means it's appropriate if the guy is making around 24k per year.. if the guy was really bringing in 80k, it could be considered too thrifty. However, since I was a kid, I'd always heard 2-4 months, which would probably make a $6k ring completely appropriate.. hence the confusion. :)

ah, if you are a child, do not get engaged. simple :)

Engagement rings are a scam, a dirty scam involving the deaths of thousands of Africans and complicit in the deaths of millions more.

*Shrug* Canadian diamond? Hard to say. They're not all from warring countries.

*Shrug* Canadian diamond? Hard to say. They're not all from warring countries.
Enough are.

Enough are.

Sure, but if some aren't, then it might be justifiable to buy one of those? :p

Sure, but if some aren't, then it might be justifiable to buy one of those? :p

Keeps the industry going.

None. Spend a few hundred if your fiancee really wants a ring, but really, why does it matter? Who needs a circle to tell them they're in love? Words are much better for that sort of thing.

Then again, that may be why I don't have a girlfriend.

None. Spend a few hundred if your fiancee really wants a ring, but really, why does it matter? Who needs a circle to tell them they're in love? Words are much better for that sort of thing.
Agreed. A chick who really cares all that much about the cost of a ring isn't worth anyone's time in the first place.
Then again, that may be why I don't have a girlfriend.
I'm sure it's one of many reasons.

None. Spend a few hundred if your fiancee really wants a ring, but really, why does it matter? Who needs a circle to tell them they're in love? Words are much better for that sort of thing.

Then again, that may be why I don't have a girlfriend.

I'm sure plenty of people don't care.. it's just tradition, so of course it's not absolutely necessary. Some people make big donations to the church where they hold the ceremony, spend $20-30k on the reception, etc. It's all relative.

I'm sure it's one of many reasons.

Ouch. :(

That was cold...

Keeps the industry going.

If people listen to protests about coffee bean-pickers, I'm sure they can learn to buy conscientiously. After all, if people agonize over where that $3 cup of coffee came from, they'll probably take even more time in considering where a $6000 item came from, hopefully. :p

Then again, that may be why I don't have a girlfriend.

Maybe you are just cursed knowing nothing but shallow women.

I've always believed that the tradition was 2 months. I would steer very clear of the girls that are pushing for 6 months.

I've always believed that the tradition was 2 months. I would steer very clear of the girls that are pushing for 6 months.

That's what I thought too. It seems the consensus finds me sane after all. That's a relief. :)

Marriage can suck it.

Ah to be 22, washed up and fuckin' through. You're a pair of K-mart shoes: plastic and phony and with the belief that happiness in life is matrimony. Padlocked to wedlock cuz time's a wastin' to hurry up and waste your life in marriage. Entrapment = death, caught in a web, sentenced to a harsh life of eating meals together and sharing the same bed, ick! How about you just invite me to the divorce instead. Skip the serenade and the bullshit promises your mom and dad would've made. Honeymoon narcosis brains in a love-bong like anyone really waits that long cuz the way I see it you were already fucked way before you ever got fitted for the stupid tux. You are fucking losers, and I hope your kids are ugly.

Marriage can suck it.

Ah to be 22, washed up and fuckin' through. You're a pair of K-mart shoes: plastic and phony and with the belief that happiness in life is matrimony. Padlocked to wedlock cuz time's a wastin' to hurry up and waste your life in marriage. Entrapment = death, caught in a web, sentenced to a harsh life of eating meals together and sharing the same bed, ick! How about you just invite me to the divorce instead. Skip the serenade and the bullshit promises your mom and dad would've made. Honeymoon narcosis brains in a love-bong like anyone really waits that long cuz the way I see it you were already fucked way before you ever got fitted for the stupid tux. You are fucking losers, and I hope your kids are ugly.

Are those song lyrics or something? :p Don't be so cynical.. no one's going to force you to get married. Most people choose to some time in their lives.

Ideally, if I find somebody who I truly want to spend the rest of my life with, then tradition be damned. Love doesn't require jewelry to be legitimate, nor, for that matter, does it require state recognition.

it doesnt make any sense to spend more than $1000 on a ring that she will wear every day. what if the stone falls out? what if she gets mugged for it? what if she takes it off to wash her hands and forgets it?

you dont want it to be worth so much that it makes her a target for theft.

it doesnt make any sense to spend more than $1000 on a ring that she will wear every day. what if the stone falls out? what if she gets mugged for it? what if she takes it off to wash her hands and forgets it?

you dont want it to be worth so much that it makes her a target for theft.

Just going by how much most people are willing to spend on a car, clothes, electronics and other jewelry, I kinda doubt theft is a consideration. :p Even so, an expensive ring can be insured, I believe.

None.

Don't ever spend a penny on a diamond.

Tell her you'll save up the same amount of money for something worthwhile instead.

Hell, just give her the cheque. Just don't buy a diamond.

A girl should be happy that I'll deign to penetrate her with my sausage link of love. Multi-thousand dollar ring? GET BACK IN THE KITCEHN.

Traditionally, it's a sliding scale. 6k is excessive if you're a fry cook, but not if you're a CEO.. you get the idea. 6k using the 4-6 months standard just means it's appropriate if the guy is making around 24k per year.. if the guy was really bringing in 80k, it could be considered too thrifty. However, since I was a kid, I'd always heard 2-4 months, which would probably make a $6k ring completely appropriate.. hence the confusion. :)

As someone who makes something around that (well, maybe I'll might make that this year) if I had to spend $6000 on an engagement ring, that chick would be waiting a long fucking time before we ever got engaged, because it would take an assload of time to save that much.

buy a moissanite ring, save your money for a nicer car or a place to live

As someone who makes something around that (well, maybe I'll might make that this year) if I had to spend $6000 on an engagement ring, that chick would be waiting a long fucking time before we ever got engaged, because it would take an assload of time to save that much.

I guess the lesson is to start saving early, or perhaps take out a loan. I'd have some difficulty putting that kind of money together on short notice too.

I guess the lesson is to start saving early, or perhaps take out a loan. I'd have some difficulty putting that kind of money together on short notice too.

:headbang: Or maybe not.


Do not ever, whatever you do, take out a loan to buy a diamond engagement ring.

I am really serious about this. Sure, the bloodied hands of the little African children probably add to the moment at the dinner table when you coo in her ear: "are you the one for me :interrobang:".

Later on, it's just not worth it.

I have an aversion to jewelry (gold, diamond etc)....have seen too much misery caused by them to women in the community I grew up in (dowry problems etc...). I don't think I will like somebody who wants to put down good money into metal and stones.

Are those song lyrics or something? :p Don't be so cynical.. no one's going to force you to get married. Most people choose to some time in their lives.

It's Charles Bronson. It's called Marriage Can Suck It. It might be the best 38 seconds of your life.

This is one for the traditionalists out there.. how many months' salary should be spent on an engagement ring?

Why do I ask? No, not because I'm in the market.. (:p ) ..but because I overheard a conversation between women the other day, on this topic. One was concerned that her fiancee wasn't taking her seriously, wasn't planning things properly (etc.), but the icing on the cake was the ring.. I forget the size, but the whole deal with custom engraving came in at just under $6000, rather cheap. Her friend calmed her down by noting some other expenses that accounted for the guy's thrift, but agreed that the number was a bit low - beneath the 4-6 months' salary rule.

That's the part that really caught my ear. I had always heard that it was 2-4 months' salary or wages that should be spent on a ring, not 4-6.. now, I've moved around the country a bit, so I could have been misinformed.. so to get at the truth, I thought I'd post a discussion on what the proper standard is! :)

I've always heard 3 months, and I thought it was absolutely ridiculous. Why on Earth should someone feel compelled to spend that much money on a ring to represent a bond that presumably is already there?

And seriously, $6000 and she's complaining?!! Sounds like a real keeper there, let me tell you. /sarcasm

My husband spent around $1000 on mine, and I actually thought that was a bit much.

I have an aversion to jewelry (gold, diamond etc)....have seen too much misery caused by them to women in the community I grew up in (dowry problems etc...). I don't think I will like somebody who wants to put down good money into metal and stones.

I've never done this before. But QFT.

My husband spent around $1000 on mine, and I actually thought that was a bit much.

So he's poor is what you are telling people. Good job that you brought it up.

This is one for the traditionalists out there.. how many months' salary should be spent on an engagement ring?

Why do I ask? No, not because I'm in the market.. (:p ) ..but because I overheard a conversation between women the other day, on this topic. One was concerned that her fiancee wasn't taking her seriously, wasn't planning things properly (etc.), but the icing on the cake was the ring.. I forget the size, but the whole deal with custom engraving came in at just under $6000, rather cheap. Her friend calmed her down by noting some other expenses that accounted for the guy's thrift, but agreed that the number was a bit low - beneath the 4-6 months' salary rule.

That's the part that really caught my ear. I had always heard that it was 2-4 months' salary or wages that should be spent on a ring, not 4-6.. now, I've moved around the country a bit, so I could have been misinformed.. so to get at the truth, I thought I'd post a discussion on what the proper standard is! :)lol. I just will give a woman one of my family's many heirloom rings.:cool:

I've always heard 3 months, and I thought it was absolutely ridiculous. Why on Earth should someone feel compelled to spend that much money on a ring to represent a bond that presumably is already there?

And seriously, $6000 and she's complaining?!! Sounds like a real keeper there, let me tell you. /sarcasm

My husband spent around $1000 on mine, and I actually thought that was a bit much.Kay, I personally think that men and women should be happy spending $6,000 on a wedding.

I've always heard 3 months, and I thought it was absolutely ridiculous. Why on Earth should someone feel compelled to spend that much money on a ring to represent a bond that presumably is already there?

And seriously, $6000 and she's complaining?!! Sounds like a real keeper there, let me tell you. /sarcasm

My husband spent around $1000 on mine, and I actually thought that was a bit much.

Presumably it's the level of commitment that's being symbolized, rather than the bond between people. Sort of a show of confidence, investing in something like it's a sure thing. There's tons of superstition in any kind of wedding as-is, so it's probably just another one. That's what the lady seemed nervous about - not that the guy didn't have enough money to buy a bigger diamond, but that he was holding something back, not showing total commitment. But then again, I'm not sure I can make a conclusion like that from a 5-minute conversation. :p

So he's poor is what you are telling people. Good job that you brought it up.

Huh?


lol. I just will give a woman one of my family's many heirloom rings.

That would be really cool, IMO.

Kay, I personally think that men and women should be happy spending $6,000 on a wedding.

Depending on what you want in a wedding, how many people you want to come, and where it is, $6000 can be really hard to swing. The cheapest wedding I've seen with all of the general trappings came out to about $7000 and that was in a relatively small city with the bride and groom doing a lot of things themselves and having friends and family volunteer.


Presumably it's the level of commitment that's being symbolized, rather than the bond between people.

What's the difference? Commitment is part of the bond, is it not?

Sort of a show of confidence, investing in something like it's a sure thing. There's tons of superstition in any kind of wedding as-is, so it's probably just another one. That's what the lady seemed nervous about - not that the guy didn't have enough money to buy a bigger diamond, but that he was holding something back, not showing total commitment. But then again, I'm not sure I can make a conclusion like that from a 5-minute conversation.

I'm not sure I can respect someone who measures commitment in money spent on a diamond, but that's just me.

http://blacktable.com/bruno031030.htm

I don't know what my fiance spent on my ring. I don't care. But I'm damned sure it wasn't $6k and I would have told him "Yes, but let's go get something more reasonable" if he had gotten something that expensive.

I don't know what my fiance spent on my ring. I don't care. But I'm damned sure it wasn't $6k and I would have told him "Yes, but let's go get something more reasonable" if he had gotten something that expensive.

Indeed. A new bathroom for instance. Or a very nice twoperson bed.

Huh?


You put a dollar figure on it. So. HUH.

I bet it was a diamond too.

and have a cheap wedding & ring. otherwise you can spend a fortune on the wedding...one day..and have nowhere to live...a lifetime..
crazy.
my engagement ring cost $250 - pink sapphires and is very unusual. i'm always getting compliments on it... my wedding ring cost about $25..also unusual.
our wedding cost around $500 ...
this was 6 years ago.
i'd've made it even cheaper..and had a picnic in the woods/park and have everyone bring their own food... as it was, my sister's-in-law and nieces made the food...and we had friends take the photos...and other friends/family supplied the music..
a very small, friendly wedding...
of course i'm older and my parents weren't paying for the wedding..:)

so don't bankrupt yourselves for an engagement ring....or a wedding...KISS -keep it simple, (stupid)...
having somewhere to live is much more important than a fancy ring/wedding...

You put a dollar figure on it. So. HUH.

Yes, I did, because I know how much it costs. I don't see how that implies that my husband is poor, or anything at all about his monetary status, other than the fact that he could afford this particular ring. To me, it just means he spent a more reasonable amount than people who go out and spend 3 or more months salary.

I bet it was a diamond too.

Indeed.

Yes, I did, because I know how much it costs. I don't see how that implies that my husband is poor, or anything at all about his monetary status, other than the fact that he could afford this particular ring. To me, it just means he spent a more reasonable amount than people who go out and spend 3 or more months salary.


Indeed.

Only poor people buy diamonds.

Only poor people buy diamonds.

I see.

I see.

No you don't.

But since you don't believe me, go and get your diamond ring appraised for sale. I doubt it will get more than $200 - and that is a generous guess.

But whatever. There is a reason why you and he are poor.

No you don't.

But since you don't believe me, go and get your diamond ring appraised for sale. I doubt it will get more than $200 - and that is a generous guess.

Why is that? And why would I want to sell it anyways?

But whatever. There is a reason why you and he are poor.

And again with your faulty assumptions. We aren't poor, my dear. Try again.

Marriage is a wonderful institution. But i'm not ready to be institutionalised.

I reckon i'd buy a girl a ring to the same value she spends on buying me a kick arse guitar.

Why is that? And why would I want to sell it anyways?


I really don't see how anyone could want to wear a diamond these days. That's why.

However many months of salary she deserves put into it.

6k? Man. My dad makes around 100k per year (Canadian) and he would NEVER pay that for a stupid ring. And if he ever did, my mom would call him a fucking idiot and return it.

I really don't see how anyone could want to wear a diamond these days. That's why.

And the fact that you don't personally like diamonds is going to change the market price and somehow makes anyone who does poor?

Are you on drugs?

And the fact that you don't personally like diamonds is going to change the market price and somehow makes anyone who does poor?

Are you on drugs?

Oh no, the market price has nothing to do with me. It was well established back in the early eighties at around zero.

But only poor people buy high and sell low. It's almost axiomatic.

Anyway, the diamond trade is disgusting. And the sooner we are over it, the better.

Oh no, the market price has nothing to do with me. It was well established back in the early eighties at around zero.

Right. You show me a place you can buy a diamond - particularly a colorless one of good clarity - for "zero" (or a person who would sell it for that).

But only poor people buy high and sell low. It's almost axiomatic.

I'm not planning on selling, so I don't really see your point.

Anyway, the diamond trade is disgusting. And the sooner we are over it, the better.

De Beers is disgusting. But they'll only be able to keep the lab-created diamonds out of the market for so long, and then they can go screw themselves. It'll be nice.

Anyways, it's (past) my bedtime. If you've got any more nonsense to spout, I might look at it later.

Right. You show me a place you can buy a diamond - particularly a colorless one of good clarity - for "zero" (or a person who would sell it for that).

I then suggest, yet again, that you research the history of diamonds. There are literally billions of carats of 'investment' grade diamonds that are still held and have not been written off because no one yet wants to book the loss. But like I said, go get a quote for yours.

Anyway, clarity means jack shit. Likewise color.




De Beers is disgusting. But they'll only be able to keep the lab-created diamonds out of the market for so long, and then they can go screw themselves. It'll be nice.

Anyways, it's (past) my bedtime. If you've got any more nonsense to spout, I might look at it later.


Ha, you bought one though.

1/10 of a months salary perhaps.

Isn't the crackerjack ring more romantic anyway?

I'd always heard two months' salary as "traditional," incidentally, but I would call that a lingering vestige of marriage as being related to prostitution and/or slavery.

Since most western women are of independent means these days, all bets are off. But, of course who you marry is likely to share your values - so if you're materialistic, chances are the woman you're marrying will want an impressive rock.

Traditionally, it's a sliding scale. 6k is excessive if you're a fry cook, but not if you're a CEO.. you get the idea. 6k using the 4-6 months standard just means it's appropriate if the guy is making around 24k per year.. if the guy was really bringing in 80k, it could be considered too thrifty. However, since I was a kid, I'd always heard 2-4 months, which would probably make a $6k ring completely appropriate.. hence the confusion. :)But... 24k per year is $2,000 a month!

Honestly, if you're living on $2,000 a month, how in the HELL are you going to be able to save up $6,000?? Tell her to get back to you in 3 years?

So he's poor is what you are telling people. Good job that you brought it up.
You put a dollar figure on it. So. HUH.

I bet it was a diamond too.
Only poor people buy diamonds.
No you don't.

But since you don't believe me, go and get your diamond ring appraised for sale. I doubt it will get more than $200 - and that is a generous guess.

But whatever. There is a reason why you and he are poor.
Oh no, the market price has nothing to do with me. It was well established back in the early eighties at around zero.

But only poor people buy high and sell low. It's almost axiomatic.

Anyway, the diamond trade is disgusting. And the sooner we are over it, the better.
I then suggest, yet again, that you research the history of diamonds. There are literally billions of carats of 'investment' grade diamonds that are still held and have not been written off because no one yet wants to book the loss. But like I said, go get a quote for yours.

Anyway, clarity means jack shit. Likewise color.







Ha, you bought one though.
o_O

Are you on crack?

Holy monkey fucking shit.

$6000 is fucking low???? LOW????

To quote a friend of mine, you can't fucking drive it. It's a RING!

If your love is that shallow...well, I guess you need a ring like that...fuck.


I want a diamond, I really do
I think that you should give me one
Then you can prove your love is true
And that the gift giving has just begun

I want that diamond, I want that thing
A tennis bracelet, a ring
It better shine, it better cut
I know it is expensive but...

What other way can you make four months of your measely salary last a lifetime
And what other thing have I ever asked you for
Besides...
The ability to read my mind
And I didn't get that either, Yet

I want that diamond, I want it so
All of my irritating friends will know
That I have worth, not only that
But that you love me even though I'm fat

I want that thing, I want it now
I'll say it once, I don't care how you get it
You can rob a store, There just is nothing I want more
Than diamond jewelry for me
And I'll talk louder so you see how very much it means to me!
Even some little stud earrings
Give me the goddamned diamond


:D

De Beers is disgusting. But they'll only be able to keep the lab-created diamonds out of the market for so long, and then they can go screw themselves. It'll be nice.

Anyways, it's (past) my bedtime. If you've got any more nonsense to spout, I might look at it later.

The problem is that diamonds are incredibly common gems. Any volcanic tube in the world will create them. But the energy costs of creating diamonds is pretty large. It takes more money to create a gem than the gem will be worth when you're done. On top of that, even if they could create gem-quality diamonds at a profit for the over inflated price, they would then go down to their fair market value, which is about $5 a carat.

Any girl who would demand thousands of dollars for a ring would be swiftly ditched while I re-examined my life to try and work out what the hell I was doing with her in the first place. I'm not a fan of the whole marriage thing anyway. To quote Mil Millington, "If you don't have a funeral, you're still dead."

I really don't see how anyone could want to wear a diamond these days. That's why.

So, because you don't understand why anyone wants a diamond, anyone who has it is poor or morally corrupt.

Since you don't like them, I suggest you don't buy them.

The problem is that diamonds are incredibly common gems. Any volcanic tube in the world will create them. But the energy costs of creating diamonds is pretty large. It takes more money to create a gem than the gem will be worth when you're done. On top of that, even if they could create gem-quality diamonds at a profit for the over inflated price, they would then go down to their fair market value, which is about $5 a carat.
See Lacadaemon? I'm guessing somewhere in your posts was something like this, just trying to get out. Next time, why not just say it instead of rambling incoherently?

Because that is in fact interesting, Domici. Let's see if I understand you correctly:

Diamonds are in fact, contrary to what most people believe, not the rarest of gems? They're on the contrary so plentiful as to there being a vast oversupply? And hence they're also not as valuable as most believe? And since they are in fact still valuable if you go by the price we pay for them, this means logically that their prices are grossly overinflated? Which one only realizes once one tries to sell the ring again?

And because diamonds are actually not worth very much it actually costs more to polish a raw diamond than the end product will be worth ($5 per carat)?

Is that correct? If so, color me surprised, I had no idea. Also, I have several questions:

- Buh?? :p I mean, I don't get it. How does that system even work? For one, if there is really such an oversupply, why are the big companies still digging up more? Shouldn't they try and keep them scarce? And how can a commodity be in such huge oversupply and have such grossly inflated prices and people know about it and yet the system still works?

- And how come diamonds are able to finance African warlords if they're not worth anything? Like, I can see that we as the consumer would still be shilling out $5000 for a ring because we think that's what they're worth, and that DeBeers would happily pocket the $4,500 in profit it made because of the inflated price, but SURELY DeBeers themselves would not be willing to pay more than a realistic pittance for their raw gems if they were offered to them by someone else. So where do all these "Blood Diamond" profits come in?

- And if everybody selling diamond jewelry only gets like $200 bucks for it, shouldn't we be swamped with cheap second-hand diamond jewelry? I mean, esp. with engagement rings there's a rather large market for "vintage" rings, if I'm not mistaken.

- And how come diamonds are still seen as the most valuable gems? It's not like "only poor people buy diamonds", as Lacadaemon suggested so charmingly :rolleyes: - no celebrity can marry these days without showing off a sizable "rock", ALL OF WHICH are diamonds. So why aren't even Lacadaemon's apparently so much more sophisticated rich people being smart enough to buy their missus a nice opal or ruby?


That's all I can think of right now. :p

There are tons of industrial grade ones that aren't pretty, I know that.... back in the dawn of time before there were CDs, there were record players, and you could get a diamond needle for them (chips of course).

As the hardest substance on earth, they are useful for cutting other things in this context.

Basically, it's supply and demand. People pay the price they are willing to pay to get a clear, nicely colored stone. If we decided that blue topaz was really desirable, and everyone wanted it, then blue topaz would gain a much higher price than it currently does.

I'd love, however, to hear about how singers and celebrities who drip with these things are poor. That smacks rather of flamebaiting because one's sense of what's right and honorable is offended.

-2 months: sell her the ring for a profit.

i am lucky if i am going to be able to afford a $600 ring

well they suggest you have 3-6 months of living expenses saved in an account. and i am betting that if someone does have that saved in an account and they decide to get married, that will be the most likely place where the money will come from.

i am lucky if i am going to be able to afford a $600 ring

well they suggest you have 3-6 months of living expenses saved in an account. and i am betting that if someone does have that saved in an account and they decide to get married, that will be the most likely place where the money will come from.

I would suggest NOT blowing that wad on a ring. If God forbid one loses one's job or ability to work, one would end up on the streets.

The problem is that diamonds are incredibly common gems. Any volcanic tube in the world will create them. But the energy costs of creating diamonds is pretty large. It takes more money to create a gem than the gem will be worth when you're done. On top of that, even if they could create gem-quality diamonds at a profit for the over inflated price, they would then go down to their fair market value, which is about $5 a carat.

there is a company here in town that makes industrial diamond by some kind of explosive process. they put a branch here because they can use our blasting range (energetic materials research something something) on the other side of the mountain for the very strong, loud blasts. i live qute a few miles away and it shakes my house.

Engagement rings are a scam, a dirty scam involving the deaths of thousands of Africans and complicit in the deaths of millions more.

are you the same person that started a post saying all women who except diamonds are whores?

Presumably it's the level of commitment that's being symbolized, rather than the bond between people. Sort of a show of confidence, investing in something like it's a sure thing. There's tons of superstition in any kind of wedding as-is, so it's probably just another one. That's what the lady seemed nervous about - not that the guy didn't have enough money to buy a bigger diamond, but that he was holding something back, not showing total commitment. But then again, I'm not sure I can make a conclusion like that from a 5-minute conversation. :p

the women were engaging in female competition. the one woman with the new engagement ring was afraid she was on the losing end of the competition.

that kind of bullshit can ruin an insecure woman's joy in the engagement period.

There are tons of industrial grade ones that aren't pretty, I know that.... back in the dawn of time before there were CDs, there were record players, and you could get a diamond needle for them (chips of course).
Oh, definitely. There are huge amounts of low-grade diamonds, no doubt about that.
BUT: those are not the ones we use for jewelry (except for tiny stones in really inexpensive pieces). So what of this speaks to an apparent oversupply in jewelry-grade high-quality diamonds? I mean, engagement rings are like the opposite of "tiny stones in really inexpensive pieces". So, acoording to Domici and certainly Lacadaemon, shouldn't there be an oversupply in big, high-quality stones, too? And, um, why have we not heard of this if there is? Why are diamonds still so expensive, then? Why would ANYBODY involved in the primary wholesale diamond business still be able to make top dollars with them? DeBeers, sure, because they dig them up themselves and sell to the end consumer. African Warlords trying to sell to DeBeers? Not so much, one would think.

Basically, it's supply and demand. People pay the price they are willing to pay to get a clear, nicely colored stone. If we decided that blue topaz was really desirable, and everyone wanted it, then blue topaz would gain a much higher price than it currently does.
Okay, on first glance, I would obviously agree. But... does it really work that way? I mean, let's see, people would want to buy more blue topaz, so stores would have to order more blue topaz, so the jewelry industry would have to make more blue topaz jewelry, so they would have to buy more blue topaz, so their suppliers would have to dig up more blue topaz.
But all I can see in that chain is a very medium rise in prices that would likely come in mainly at retail level because it's suddenly a fashion item.
But as for an actual significant rise in prices, wouldn't that only happen if it turned out that there isn't actually enough blue topaz to be dug up to satisfy demand?

What???
I've been there. We wanted to get married some day and OK, so we went to buy that rings. They've been in the sub 0.5months apprentice's wage range each and still damn pricy IMHO.

If I was still after GFs, they could get something reasonable (from which I might no way benefit) in the multi-month wage range, but if it becomes my choice again I rather have steel or silver rings and my one tatooed, since I'm not allowed to wear one at work.

Oh, definitely. There are huge amounts of low-grade diamonds, no doubt about that.
BUT: those are not the ones we use for jewelry (except for tiny stones in really inexpensive pieces). So what of this speaks to an apparent oversupply in jewelry-grade high-quality diamonds? I mean, engagement rings are like the opposite of "tiny stones in really inexpensive pieces". So, acoording to Domici and certainly Lacadaemon, shouldn't there be an oversupply in big, high-quality stones, too? And, um, why have we not heard of this if there is? Why are diamonds still so expensive, then? Why would ANYBODY involved in the primary wholesale diamond business still be able to make top dollars with them? DeBeers, sure, because they dig them up themselves and sell to the end consumer. African Warlords trying to sell to DeBeers? Not so much, one would think.


Okay, on first glance, I would obviously agree. But... does it really work that way? I mean, let's see, people would want to buy more blue topaz, so stores would have to order more blue topaz, so the jewelry industry would have to make more blue topaz jewelry, so they would have to buy more blue topaz, so their suppliers would have to dig up more blue topaz.
But all I can see in that chain is a very medium rise in prices that would likely come in mainly at retail level because it's suddenly a fashion item.
But as for an actual significant rise in prices, wouldn't that only happen if it turned out that there isn't actually enough blue topaz to be dug up to satisfy demand?

http://www.amazon.com/Sullivans-Rock-Roll-Classics-Boxed/dp/B00006AE00/ref=sr_1_6/103-0249861-4468666?ie=UTF8&s=video&qid=1179064928&sr=8-6

Do you believe it actually cost $130 to produce each of these units? Or that that is what the market is willing to bear? (Less, actually, since we see they cut the price to $123.48.)

VHS tapes don't cost much to make. (hell, why they're even selling these on VHS boggles the mind). So there must be another reason.
Is the packaging worth $123.48?
Nah, paper doesn't cost that much....

So the convenience of having these things put together in a group apparently, IS, to some people, worth the hefty price tag. And as fewer people buy it, the price will fall as the folks having this gather dust in their warehouse become more desperate to cut their losses and get back the room for a more profitable item.

If more people WANTED more Blue Topaz, despite the fact that it is very common and therefore now inexpensive, the price of the stones WOULD rise... and more likely than not, in an attempt to convince people that they were worth it, they'd throttle back "production" of it.

Much like we're seeing on gas prices, and milk prices, et al.

Yay capitalizm.

;) I'm hording all my silver and blue topaz for when the revolution comes... bwahahahaha, I'll be fabulously wealthy!
(J/k -- I just prefer silver to gold and blue topaz to other gems. Sue me.)

i am lucky if i am going to be able to afford a $600 ring

well they suggest you have 3-6 months of living expenses saved in an account. and i am betting that if someone does have that saved in an account and they decide to get married, that will be the most likely place where the money will come from.
You know, honestly? Unless I'd be marrying a really rich/investment broker kind of guy (in which case I wouldn't care about the price except when it got too frivolous) I wouldn't even WANT a ring that expensive! That's just fucked up!

I would never buy myself a ring for several hundred dollars, let alone for several thousand, so why should he have to if it means saving up for months, living hand-to-mouth, and spending money he needs for a billion other things on a ring he can't afford?

If it's a ring that I've fallen in love with or if it means something to both of us or if it's a fun thing that makes us laugh, it can just as well be a $20 ring from the fleamarket.

If it's a "serious, grown-up business" ring it would depend on what we can afford not to mention what you can actually get for the price :rolleyes:, but $500 would be PLENTY.

Or, really, no ring at all. Hell, I don't even want to marry. :p But if I should, I'd actually be much more keen on the engagement ring than on the boring ol' wedding band, so I'd totally want one. Of course, here in Germany, engagement rings are hardly even done anymore anyway.

Screqw rings, why do we need them anyway, all they are is shiny rocks, a waste of money. Isn't love enough for a Marriage, not shiney things that put you deep into debt and cause pain for inummerable Africans?

http://www.amazon.com/Sullivans-Rock-Roll-Classics-Boxed/dp/B00006AE00/ref=sr_1_6/103-0249861-4468666?ie=UTF8&s=video&qid=1179064928&sr=8-6

Do you believe it actually cost $130 to produce each of these units? Or that that is what the market is willing to bear? (Less, actually, since we see they cut the price to $123.48.)

VHS tapes don't cost much to make. (hell, why they're even selling these on VHS boggles the mind). So there must be another reason.
Is the packaging worth $123.48?
Nah, paper doesn't cost that much....

So the convenience of having these things put together in a group apparently, IS, to some people, worth the hefty price tag. And as fewer people buy it, the price will fall as the folks having this gather dust in their warehouse become more desperate to cut their losses and get back the room for a more profitable item.

If more people WANTED more Blue Topaz, despite the fact that it is very common and therefore now inexpensive, the price of the stones WOULD rise... and more likely than not, in an attempt to convince people that they were worth it, they'd throttle back "production" of it.

Much like we're seeing on gas prices, and milk prices, et al.

Yay capitalizm.

;) I'm hording all my silver and blue topaz for when the revolution comes... bwahahahaha, I'll be fabulously wealthy!
(J/k -- I just prefer silver to gold and blue topaz to other gems. Sue me.)

:( You're probably right.

This is why I've always sucked at understanding Economics.

You know, honestly? Unless I'd be marrying a really rich guy/investment broker kind of guy (in which case I wouldn't care about the price except when it got too frivolous) I wouldn't even WANT a ring that expensive! That's just fucked up!

I would never by myself a ring for several hundred dollars, let alone for several thousand, so why should he have to if it means saving up for months, living hand-to-mouth, and spending money he needs for a billion other things on a ring he can't afford?

If it's a ring that I've fallen in love with or if it means something to both of us or if it's a fun thing that makes us laugh, it can just as well be a $20 ring from the fleamarket.

If it's a "serious, grown-up business" ring it would depend on what we can afford not to mention what you can actually get for the price :rolleyes:, but $500 would be PLENTY.

Or, really, no ring at all. Hell, I don't even want to marry. :p But if I should, I'd actually be much more keen on the engagement ring than on the boring ol' wedding band, so I'd totally want one. Of course, here in Germany, engagement rings are hardly even done anymore anyway.

Some people, however, have seen it as a last-ditch "security", and have hocked the engagement ring when times were really bad. It's a poor strategy: you'll never get NEAR what you paid for it. You'd be better off with something inexpensive and an investment fund. ;)
Save the money for the inevitable curve life loves to throw us.

Holy monkey fucking shit.

$6000 is fucking low???? LOW????
Yeah seriously, if I get married and hear anyone bitching about being cheap for considering a 6k ring, they are getting a god damn decoder ring out of a cracker jack box.

On the subject of diamonds, gem quality yellow diamonds can be manufactured cheaply relative to ones dug up.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html
Wikipedia article on synthetic diamond:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_diamond

Okay, on first glance, I would obviously agree. But... does it really work that way?
Yes it does, economics is the definition of bullshit.

I haven't seen it, but if it's any good, one could buy one's fiancée an engagement DVD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Diamond_%28film%29):

See Lacadaemon? I'm guessing somewhere in your posts was something like this, just trying to get out. Next time, why not just say it instead of rambling incoherently?

Because that is in fact interesting, Domici. Let's see if I understand you correctly:...

snip long rhetorical questions.

That's all I can think of right now. :p

Once upon a time diamonds were really hard to mine. They were hard to get, thus valuable. Modern technology has made them very easy to mine, thus potentially less valuable.

By the time this started to happen, the market was already controlled by few enough people that they were able to take action to protect their financial interests. By restricting supply, they could keep prices high. About 85 percent of the world's diamond trade is controlled by one company. A bit like how realtors often get laws passed to limit the number of realtors who may operate in a given area.

Look at it this way. If you discovered a diamond mine underneath your house would you buy a backhoe and go into the diamond mining industry? You've got no capital to hire miners, none to buy the heavy equipment needed to do the job, and don't know anything about mining. DeBiers however would probably offer you several million for the mine, and if you ask, they probably wouldn't care if one of the conditions is that you keep living in the house and they don't do any mining there. So you don't go into the mining business, and DeBiers keeps their competition down.

This is not the case with many other mining endeavors. Gold for example could once be extracted from the earth in significant amounts by amateurs with pick axes and dynamite. Now it requires gigantic, enormously destructive artificial lakes of cyanide. The technology is just barely keeping up with the increasing difficulty of extraction, keeping prices genuinely high. This is not the case with diamonds. The limit in supply is cause entirely by the fact that DeBiers won't put the bulk of their supply on the open market.

i am lucky if i am going to be able to afford a $600 ring

well they suggest you have 3-6 months of living expenses saved in an account. and i am betting that if someone does have that saved in an account and they decide to get married, that will be the most likely place where the money will come from.

Check estate sales and police auctions.

I got my wife's ring at an estate sale, although I was more interested in a diamond that preceded modern genocides and felt reasonably secure that the engagement ring of a 90 year old woman engraved with the year 1917 would have most the bad karma washed off it by now.

there is a company here in town that makes industrial diamond by some kind of explosive process. they put a branch here because they can use our blasting range (energetic materials research something something) on the other side of the mountain for the very strong, loud blasts. i live qute a few miles away and it shakes my house.

That's why my post says "more energy to create a gem than the gem is worth." Not "more energy to create a diamond." The diamonds used in drill bits and so on aren't gem-quality. The process used to create gems is much more expensive.

Once upon a time diamonds were really hard to mine. They were hard to get, thus valuable. Modern technology has made them very easy to mine, thus potentially less valuable.

By the time this started to happen, the market was already controlled by few enough people that they were able to take action to protect their financial interests. By restricting supply, they could keep prices high. About 85 percent of the world's diamond trade is controlled by one company. A bit like how realtors often get laws passed to limit the number of realtors who may operate in a given area.

Look at it this way. If you discovered a diamond mine underneath your house would you buy a backhoe and go into the diamond mining industry? You've got no capital to hire miners, none to buy the heavy equipment needed to do the job, and don't know anything about mining. DeBiers however would probably offer you several million for the mine, and if you ask, they probably wouldn't care if one of the conditions is that you keep living in the house and they don't do any mining there. So you don't go into the mining business, and DeBiers keeps their competition down.

This is not the case with many other mining endeavors. Gold for example could once be extracted from the earth in significant amounts by amateurs with pick axes and dynamite. Now it requires gigantic, enormously destructive artificial lakes of cyanide. The technology is just barely keeping up with the increasing difficulty of extraction, keeping prices genuinely high. This is not the case with diamonds. The limit in supply is cause entirely by the fact that DeBiers won't put the bulk of their supply on the open market.

First off: those long questions you snipped were not rhetorical. Not even I make such a long-ass post just to ask rhetorical questions. I am actually trying to be sure that I understand you correctly. :p

So basically what you're saying is the diamond business has been a huge scam ever since mining became easier (around which time was that?), the scam is being driven mainly by DeBeers, and it's made possible because we still think diamonds are the most valuable gems of all?

Questions:

- Is that really true? I'm not really doubting you so much as I just can't believe something of this magnitude would have been going for decades without anybody noticing except apparently pawn shop dealers who somehow know that your diamond ring isn't worth the box it came in.

- What about my question about how those African warlords make any money with a worthless commodity? Is that where the mine below my house comes in, in that DeBeers would rather buy their diamonds than have them put them on the market themselves? But hell, shouldn't they (the warlords) have channels through which to put them on the market themselves, thus making a LOT more money than DeBeers is likely to pay them (seeing how it's such a worthless commodity DeBeers already has lots of)?

That's why my post says "more energy to create a gem than the gem is worth." Not "more energy to create a diamond." The diamonds used in drill bits and so on aren't gem-quality. The process used to create gems is much more expensive.
Not hideously more expensive than industrial diamonds, no. The only difference between synthetic and natural diamonds is that synthetic diamond manufacturers choose to mark their products, and people are willing to pay more for natural diamonds because they are "real" (i.e., kept artificially rare in order to maintain a high price.)

6 grand is LOW!?!?!?!? For a RING?!?!?!? Holy crap!

Has anyone mentioned not getting married yet? I didn't feel like wading through umpteen pages to find out.

Has anyone mentioned not getting married yet? I didn't feel like wading through umpteen pages to find out.
It was like post #3.
Laziness. Sheer, laziness.

It was like post #3.
Laziness. Sheer, laziness.

It's a Sunday, day of rest and all that. ;)

are you the same person that started a post saying all women who except diamonds are whores?

No, and I disagree with that.

The problem is that diamonds are incredibly common gems. Any volcanic tube in the world will create them. But the energy costs of creating diamonds is pretty large. It takes more money to create a gem than the gem will be worth when you're done. On top of that, even if they could create gem-quality diamonds at a profit for the over inflated price, they would then go down to their fair market value, which is about $5 a carat.

They've actually created some pretty efficient processes for creating diamonds. So far, they're only marketing them to computer companies and the like - largely because debeers is trying its damnedest to keep them out of the jewelry market (largely because they can be made pretty much absolutely flawless, at any size, etc.)

Eventually, the lab-created diamonds will be part of the jewelry market, which I think is really cool. And debeers will probably run the same kind of campaign the jewelry companies run with other stones. "Don't you want a real diamond?" as if a lab-created stone is somehow icky. LOL


- And how come diamonds are still seen as the most valuable gems? It's not like "only poor people buy diamonds", as Lacadaemon suggested so charmingly - no celebrity can marry these days without showing off a sizable "rock", ALL OF WHICH are diamonds. So why aren't even Lacadaemon's apparently so much more sophisticated rich people being smart enough to buy their missus a nice opal or ruby?

I can explain part of the problem with opals. Personally, I adore opals. They're probably my all time favorite gemstone. Unfortunately, they are very, very soft stones. I'm a big clutz, and I have a problem with hitting my hands, arms, legs, etc. on things. I'd be guaranteed to break and then lose an opal. =(

Some people, however, have seen it as a last-ditch "security", and have hocked the engagement ring when times were really bad. It's a poor strategy: you'll never get NEAR what you paid for it. You'd be better off with something inexpensive and an investment fund. ;)
Save the money for the inevitable curve life loves to throw us.

In the little bit of research I did on this when Lac was going off last night, it appeared that the actual diamond really wont depreciate much - especially if the clarity and color are pretty well matched. The setting will, due to wear and changes in styles - but the setting itself is really only a very small portion of the cost. I'd expect that you'd still get less at resale, because I am certain that jewelry stores mark things up a bit higher than general market price, but it would appear that you could get a decent amount of money for a quality diamond.

But then again, if I were in a pinch, gifts from my husband would probably be the last things I'd start to sell...

.......


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHH!!

Wasted money....sad...:(

*reads OP*

wtf? 6 grand is cheap???!! where is this land where sparkly rocks grow on trees?
I know, at my current income rate, I will earn that*computes* NEVER!

for the women you love price should not be that big a deal. You should know what ring would best suit your gal by knowing what she likes and dislikes. The price should not matter if the ring is amazing and at a reasonable price. If the ring is more than you can afford than look again because if you truly have an amazing woman than she will love you and not the ring.

I always heard 3 months, but I might be mixing that up with the lesson that you shouldn't buy anything that can't be paid off in 3 months.

If I bought an engagement right with 3 months of my salary, it would be...$5049.66.

How about this?

Fuck anybody who places such importance on a stupid ring. In my opinion, the people who are so enamored with the whole wedding thing aren't worth even a second of my time.

The nonsense with a diamond engagement ring isn't that 'traditional,' it is a 'tradition' that was invented through marketing by diamond merchants to sell more diamond rings.

Also, a 'n-month salary' rule seems a little crass and declasse to me.

It is better to give something like a family heirloom or a unique piece, and unseemly to take the size/cost of the diamond as the most important criterion.

This shit with a diamond engagement ring isn't that 'traditional,' it is a 'tradition' that was invented through marketing by diamond merchants to sell more diamond rings.

Also, a 'n-month salary' rule seems a little crass and declasse to me.

It is better to give something like a family heirloom or a unique piece, and unseemly to take the size/cost of the diamond as the most important criterion.

I personally agree with you. In fact, there are many gorgeous engagement rings out there from back in the day, like 1930s or whatever, that have different stones like aquamarine instead of a diamond. I think they're just as lovely.

I was told in high school by my misogynistic teacher that it was 6 months, that way when he realizes that you are a psychotic bitch and leaves you, you can sell it and live for a few months until you find another man to suck the life out of.

Actually, the way to do that is to squirrel away small amounts of money every month throughout the marriage so you can at least afford an apartment while having to pay your lawyer's fees. That is how my boyfriend's mom managed it.

The nonsense with a diamond engagement ring isn't that 'traditional,' it is a 'tradition' that was invented through marketing by diamond merchants to sell more diamond rings.

Also, a 'n-month salary' rule seems a little crass and declasse to me.

It is better to give something like a family heirloom or a unique piece, and unseemly to take the size/cost of the diamond as the most important criterion.

Couldn't agree more.

Oh, look at that, the tradition is 2 month's salary.

http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/minis/mini/ringmini/ringmini2.html

Actually, the way to do that is to squirrel away small amounts of money every month throughout the marriage so you can at least afford an apartment while having to pay your lawyer's fees. That is how my boyfriend's mom managed it.

I learned that from my mom being in an abusive relationship and "unable" to leave (I say unwilling, but whatever)

anyway, I have a good amount of money put away with my name only on it, and luckily a husband who understands my independent streak and has actually put money in it when I am between jobs. I think he see's it more as a "if he dies and I need money quick" thing instead of my "if all hell breaks loose" thing (not that I hope or plan for either)

I wouldn't spend more than 20 bucks on a wedding or engagement ring.

I learned that from my mom being in an abusive relationship and "unable" to leave (I say unwilling, but whatever)

anyway, I have a good amount of money put away with my name only on it, and luckily a husband who understands my independent streak and has actually put money in it when I am between jobs. I think he see's it more as a "if he dies and I need money quick" thing instead of my "if all hell breaks loose" thing (not that I hope or plan for either)

Yeah, my boyfriend's mom claims that the relationship was abusive in some fashion, which it could very well have been. I think I would just do the modern thing and have our own accounts with a joint household account, and we'd put in based on a percentage of our earnings. Seems fair, and I wouldn't have to remember where I put that jar with the money for when all hell breaks loose.

The x months pay scale was invented by the jewelry industry to drive up prices. Anyone foolish enough to pay list retail prices like you see in most stores deserves it. What should matter is she likes it, regardless of cost.

I bought my wife platinum settings and nice diamonds for her wedding band/engagement ring combo and I paid far less than most people would guess. It pays to do your due dillegence when it comes to jewelry; it's one of the biggest ripoffs out there with markups of 60-80% in most cases.

Holy Shit! 6 K is WAY too much. I'm glad I'm too young to be married!

My class ring cost aroudn 300-400 dollars but it doesn't look like those athletic ones and I can wear it for most of my life. Fuck, I thought it was too expensive too.

I don't care how much money one makes 6k would be way too much for me. I'd talk to whom ever I would be marrying and most likely have them return it. Weddings can be cheap. I saw a dress that could be wedding dress at Ross for $10 (US) if you want a casual wedding with little expense but still some flare, then it'd be perfect.

I think a ring should be nice and economical.

As for the dimond issue going by my what my economics class has taught me: It's cheaper to make them in Africa so we'll continue to exploit them because its profitable. If they change, we'll move to exploit others because of opportunity cost.

As my economics teacher said: Why NOT exploit them if you make more money? (On a purely profit level he means not moral, etc)

The x months pay scale was invented by the jewelry industry to drive up prices. Anyone foolish enough to pay list retail prices like you see in most stores deserves it. What should matter is she likes it, regardless of cost.

I bought my wife platinum settings and nice diamonds for her wedding band/engagement ring combo and I paid far less than most people would guess. It pays to do your due dillegence when it comes to jewelry; it's one of the biggest ripoffs out there with markups of 60-80% in most cases.

Yes yes, you have to read up on what to look for, drop terms when in the store so they know you're not an idiot, and then bargain like crazy.

My class ring cost aroudn 300-400 dollars but it doesn't look like those athletic ones and I can wear it for most of my life. Fuck, I thought it was too expensive too.

I thought I would wear my class ring the rest of my life too...ah, naiveté. :rolleyes: Shit, I don't even know where it is.

I thought I would wear my class ring the rest of my life too...ah, naiveté. Shit, I don't even know where it is.

I said can not would. In reality I don't see myself with it in a few years. I was talking about the style. I know where it is because I've made an effort to wear it thought I lost a few times. At the current moment it's between my wall and my desk. I see how long I can lose something sometimes...if I even remember about it. I'm horrible with jewelery. Reason I'm not buying a college one and because of loans first pay those.

So he's poor is what you are telling people. Good job that you brought it up.

the women were engaging in female competition. the one woman with the new engagement ring was afraid she was on the losing end of the competition.

that kind of bullshit can ruin an insecure woman's joy in the engagement period.


The nonsense with a diamond engagement ring isn't that 'traditional,' it is a 'tradition' that was invented through marketing by diamond merchants to sell more diamond rings.

Also, a 'n-month salary' rule seems a little crass and declasse to me.

It is better to give something like a family heirloom or a unique piece, and unseemly to take the size/cost of the diamond as the most important criterion.


It's not really hard to understand why spending lots of money on diamond engagement rings (and the rings themselves, for that matter) became an American wedding tradition, provided you understand the circumstances surrounding the development of the tradition.

See, modern wedding traditions developed in the early twentieth century due to a perfect storm of conditions - in particular, women's place in American society was being redefined (largely in response to the Nineteenth Amendment, aka women's suffrage) just as America was transitioning into a bureaucratized consumer society. Men had grown wary of women's increasing social and political power, so male-dominated American society redefined women, restoring their sexuality (society had defined women as largely asexual during the Victorian Era, which was indirectly responsible for women's increasing power) and defining a woman's status in society by what man she was going out with - the richer and better looking the man, the higher the woman's social status (this, not coincidentally, was when dating, cosmetics, and dieting originated). Naturally, society also demanded that women show off their status, and since Americans were becoming consumers, such flaunting of social status was done through consumer goods (i.e, the woman would demand that her man buy clothes, jewelry, and other goods for her, typically by making such purchases a condition for sex).

Obviously, if a woman was going to marry a man, she would want an expensive gift as a symbol of her new status - the more expensive, the better, since that would raise her social status. She would want something she could wear, since by wearing this gift she would be showing her status in society. Excessively expensive diamond engagement rings fit society's requirements nicely.

(Why the Lacadaemon quote? Because that's what society would think you were - either you were a poor man or marrying a poor man - if you didn't have the excessively expensive ring.)

I said can not would. In reality I don't see myself with it in a few years. I was talking about the style. I know where it is because I've made an effort to wear it thought I lost a few times. At the current moment it's between my wall and my desk. I see how long I can lose something sometimes...if I even remember about it. I'm horrible with jewelery. Reason I'm not buying a college one and because of loans first pay those.

Yeah, rings get lost more easily cause you have to take them off for lots of things, like hand-washing and whatnot. I have a hard time typing in them too. Also rings seem to get looser on me along the course of the day, so by the afternoon it's just spinning around my finger like a goddamn top, and I can't stop fiddling with it. If my future husband wants me to wear an engagement ring all the time, it will have to be as non-intrusive as possible. That means no huge protruding diamond, and very comfy and snug to wear.

Geez...I see my name as the last poster on all these threads down the board that nobody is bothering with any longer. What am I, the thread-killer?

Geez...I see my name as the last poster on all these threads down the board that nobody is bothering with any longer. What am I, the thread-killer?

Hey, that's my job! Well, not really. My job is posting things that despite being intelligent and/or funny get completely ignored.

It is better to give something like a family heirloom or a unique piece, and unseemly to take the size/cost of the diamond as the most important criterion.

I think the family heirloom idea is awesome - assuming your family has something liek that. =)


Yeah, my boyfriend's mom claims that the relationship was abusive in some fashion, which it could very well have been. I think I would just do the modern thing and have our own accounts with a joint household account, and we'd put in based on a percentage of our earnings. Seems fair, and I wouldn't have to remember where I put that jar with the money for when all hell breaks loose.

Even with separate accounts, the money legally belongs to both people in a marriage. I think my husband and I are largely going to do away with our joint accounts. All they seem to do so far is cause more problems than they're worth.


(Why the Lacadaemon quote? Because that's what society would think you were - either you were a poor man or marrying a poor man - if you didn't have the excessively expensive ring.)

Not the society I live in. In the society I see, most people couldn't look at a ring and tell you how much it cost anyways. And most people wouldn't care - well, unless it was to make fun of someone for spending $6000 or something.

Meh, there's countries where a month wage is a few dollars. Taking that as the benchmark a few dozen months' salary shouldn't actually be too much.

Or pick a beautiful summer day, walk together out in the fields; then 'spontaneously' and 'romantically' braid some grass into a ring and propose.. Can't get cheaper than that ;)

(Had anyone posten http://xkcd.com/c260.html yet? Along those lines, putting some effort into it might have some merit.)

Not the society I live in. In the society I see, most people couldn't look at a ring and tell you how much it cost anyways. And most people wouldn't care.


I'm not even sure that still holds true in American culture... but at one point, it did.

This nugget of information for the day has been brought to you by Taredas, the Biology/History double major. Weirdest double major ever, huh?

I'm not even sure that still holds true in American culture... but at one point, it did.

Did it? Or did the media portray it as if it did?

This nugget of information for the day has been brought to you by Taredas, the Biology/History double major. Weirdest double major ever, huh?

Not really. I had a friend who was a History major and pre-med.

Did it? Or did the media portray it as if it did?

Hmm... probably both, given modern trends - if I recall correctly, the connection between popular culture and the media during the 1920's was very similar to the connection today, but I could easily be wrong - I'm not really well versed in what radio was like during the 1920's, sadly.

Hmm... probably both, given modern trends - if I recall correctly, the connection between popular culture and the media during the 1920's was very similar to the connection today, but I could easily be wrong - I'm not really well versed in what radio was like during the 1920's, sadly.

So basically a gigantic disconnect between pop culture and what your actual average Joe does. =)

So basically a gigantic disconnect between pop culture and what your actual average Joe does. =)

From what I've seen, it looks like the middle class and the rich bought heavily into the new consumer society, while the working class largely ignored the cultural changes for at least a decade (what's new?).

So, if the average Joe is working class, you're right. If the average Joe is middle class... crystal ball fuzzy, try again later...

(Had anyone posten http://xkcd.com/c260.html yet? Along those lines, putting some effort into it might have some merit.)

Would that actually work?

Hey, that's my job! Well, not really. My job is posting things that despite being intelligent and/or funny get completely ignored.

Yeah, I've never seen you before.

Even with separate accounts, the money legally belongs to both people in a marriage. I think my husband and I are largely going to do away with our joint accounts. All they seem to do so far is cause more problems than they're worth.

What if it was in the prenup that separate accounts had to remain legally separate property?

Oh well, I guess I'll do the old-fashioned "hiding money in a deep dark corner" method to keep myself safe.

Would that actually work?Making glass in that way? Yes, it probably would. It might be dangerous though (getting electricuted certainly is).
You could also try to find a spot where lightning struck. You can sometimes find a sort of 'frozen lightning' in the ground, because it fuses grains of sand/clay into glass. The chance of quality is less though than when you have your own pick of raw material (and it helps when it's dry, which isn't the natural state of ground during most lightning storms).

natural example: http://www.menzelphoto.com/gallery/big/lightning6.htm

Making glass in that way? Yes, it probably would. It might be dangerous though (getting electricuted certainly is).
You could also try to find a spot where lightning struck. You can sometimes find a sort of 'frozen lightning' in the ground, because it fuses grains of sand/clay into glass. The chance of quality is less though than when you have your own pick of raw material (and it helps when it's dry, which isn't the natural state of ground during most lightning storms).

natural example: http://www.menzelphoto.com/gallery/big/lightning6.htm

Well, I noticed that he tied the balloon to a stake in the ground, not holding the string during the storm.

Edit: I just looked at the picture, how crazy! So if it was ground down, it would look like shiny clear glass? Or like hard, shiny sand?

Along the same lines: http://home.c2i.net/metaphor/mvpage.html
Metallurgy in your microwave ;)
You could cast your own jewelry.

What if it was in the prenup that separate accounts had to remain legally separate property?

Hard to tell. The trend towards prenups is fairly new and different courts have treated them differently. Unless one party had a pretty darn expensive lawyer to challenge it, or there was something about the prenup that made it an unconscionable contract, I think it'd probably hold up.

Oh well, I guess I'll do the old-fashioned "hiding money in a deep dark corner" method to keep myself safe.

hehe

See Lacadaemon? I'm guessing somewhere in your posts was something like this, just trying to get out. Next time, why not just say it instead of rambling incoherently?


No, rambling incoherently is my method, and I will stick to it.

And there is more to the diamond trade than just the ubiquitous nature of kimberlite pipes.

Along the same lines: http://home.c2i.net/metaphor/mvpage.html
Metallurgy in your microwave ;)
You could cast your own jewelry.

Damn, that is cool!

Hard to tell. The trend towards prenups is fairly new and different courts have treated them differently. Unless one party had a pretty darn expensive lawyer to challenge it, or there was something about the prenup that made it an unconscionable contract, I think it'd probably hold up.



hehe

Good to know. I just want to be able to protect myself in the case of a divorce. My boyfriend's mom founded a business with his dad, and during the divorce it came out that he had secretly taken her name off it 5 years ago, so she wasn't entitled to anything the business made during its most profitable time. Even though she worked there and acted like an owner and generally made sure it did well by micromanaging and whatnot. Geez!

Edit: I just looked at the picture, how crazy! So if it was ground down, it would look like shiny clear glass? Or like hard, shiny sand?I'm not quite sure actually. I suppose it depends on how hot the sand fused. A lot of the images on google (searching for fulgurite) show mostly sandy often hollow examples.
Using finer sand would probably give a better result, since it can melt faster. But the air between the grains would still have no place to go, so I doubt you'd ever get really clear glass from it.

It's not really hard to understand why spending lots of money on diamond engagement rings (and the rings themselves, for that matter) became an American wedding tradition, provided you understand the circumstances surrounding the development of the tradition.

See, modern wedding traditions developed in the early twentieth century due to a perfect storm of conditions - in particular, women's place in American society was being redefined (largely in response to the Nineteenth Amendment, aka women's suffrage) just as America was transitioning into a bureaucratized consumer society. Men had grown wary of women's increasing social and political power, so male-dominated American society redefined women, restoring their sexuality (society had defined women as largely asexual during the Victorian Era, which was indirectly responsible for women's increasing power) and defining a woman's status in society by what man she was going out with - the richer and better looking the man, the higher the woman's social status (this, not coincidentally, was when dating, cosmetics, and dieting originated). Naturally, society also demanded that women show off their status, and since Americans were becoming consumers, such flaunting of social status was done through consumer goods (i.e, the woman would demand that her man buy clothes, jewelry, and other goods for her, typically by making such purchases a condition for sex).

Obviously, if a woman was going to marry a man, she would want an expensive gift as a symbol of her new status - the more expensive, the better, since that would raise her social status. She would want something she could wear, since by wearing this gift she would be showing her status in society. Excessively expensive diamond engagement rings fit society's requirements nicely.

(Why the Lacadaemon quote? Because that's what society would think you were - either you were a poor man or marrying a poor man - if you didn't have the excessively expensive ring.)

nicely spun together but not particularly reflective of the truth.

women have always been judged by the man they are associated with, its not new to the 20th century. (and you cant say "the man she is dating" when talking about flashy engagement rings)

engagement rings have a long tradition. its the diamond part that is relatively new. that is due to aggressive marketing by debeers starting in the mid century not at the time of women's suffrage. certainly postwar prosperity contributed to people's willingness to go along with this idea that an engagement ring must have a diamond.

in some circles, that "im marrying a man who can afford to throw money down a hole to buy me a diamond ring" is so strong that a woman is insulted if the man shopped around and got a great deal on the ring. weddings and their associated traditions are one of the last bastions of otherwise independant women's insanity

in some circles, that "im marrying a man who can afford to throw money down a hole to buy me a diamond ring" is so strong that a woman is insulted if the man shopped around and got a great deal on the ring. Hmm, in that vein; you could try to get a famous designer to make a custom ring. Preferably made from a rediculous material like string or grass (i.e. something you could have made yourself for free). Because then you're really throwing money down the drain. (But be sure to get a certificate of authenticity with it, otherwise people won't believe it).

in some circles, that "im marrying a man who can afford to throw money down a hole to buy me a diamond ring" is so strong that a woman is insulted if the man shopped around and got a great deal on the ring.

Well, the guy doesn't have to TELL her. Frankly, I'd be glad if I got a sweet ring and I knew my man didn't pay market price for it, cause that means more money for us as a couple. Or maybe it's because I'm a Jew. ;)

Hmm, in that vein; you could try to get a famous designer to make a custom ring. Preferably made from a rediculous material like string or grass (i.e. something you could have made yourself for free). Because then you're really throwing money down the drain. (But be sure to get a certificate of authenticity with it, otherwise people won't believe it).

Yeah, but have it encased in glass or something so it doesn't fall apart. I think that would be cute.

Well, the guy doesn't have to TELL her. Frankly, I'd be glad if I got a sweet ring and I knew my man didn't pay market price for it, cause that means more money for us as a couple. Or maybe it's because I'm a Jew. ;)

LOL. You don't have to be Jewish to be sensible. =)

Although, to be fair, my husband wishes he were Jewish. He really, really, really wanted to stomp on a glass at our wedding, but couldn't come up with a way to explain using a Jewish tradition when neither of us are Jewish. We did play Hava Nagila and the whole wedding party danced to it, though. =)

LOL. You don't have to be Jewish to be sensible. =)

Although, to be fair, my husband wishes he were Jewish. He really, really, really wanted to stomp on a glass at our wedding, but couldn't come up with a way to explain using a Jewish tradition when neither of us are Jewish. We did play Hava Nagila and the whole wedding party danced to it, though. =)

I know, I was just making a reference to the stereotypes. In fact, I made a picture about that during a particularly anti-semitic thread...let's see, where is that thing...ah yes:

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h153/IlieNS/photos%20of%20me/jew.jpg

Well, why didn't he just do it? And if he wants to be Jewish so much, he should look into converting. Of course, it won't matter much in your family unless you convert too, making your kids also Jewish. It's supposedly passed down by the mother.

I don't know how many months' salary my dad spent, I just know my moms ring was $12,400. Considering he was living in the projects and was poor back then, it was probably a couple of years worth. :p

My fiance spent $2,100 on mine, which is a bit less than one months' salary for him, and it is very nice. Better than anything I could have asked for.

I don't know how many months' salary my dad spent, I just know my moms ring was $12,400. Considering he was living in the projects and was poor back then, it was probably a couple of years worth. :p

Goddamn, that ring must be awesome. Why did he spend so much on it, considering what that money could have done for the family?

I know, I was just making a reference to the stereotypes. In fact, I made a picture about that during a particularly anti-semitic thread...let's see, where is that thing...ah yes:

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h153/IlieNS/photos%20of%20me/jew.jpg

LOL, nice.

Well, why didn't he just do it? And if he wants to be Jewish so much, he should look into converting. Of course, it won't matter much in your family unless you convert too, making your kids also Jewish. It's supposedly passed down by the mother.

LOL. He's an atheist. He just liked some of the Jewish traditions at weddings. =)

I don't know how many months' salary my dad spent, I just know my moms ring was $12,400. Considering he was living in the projects and was poor back then, it was probably a couple of years worth.

Damn! Does it do the laundry and the dishes or something? Can you drive it? That's more than I paid for my car, and I don't live in the projects.

[stereotype alert]You know poor people don't manage their money well[stereotype alert.]

In all seriousness; I have no clue. :confused: But it is indeed a beautiful ring.

[stereotype alert]You know poor people don't manage their money well[stereotype alert.]

In all seriousness; I have no clue. :confused: But it is indeed a beautiful ring.

Well, I guess he knew they'd be wealthy one day and she'd need to have a nice status symbol for that. :cool:

Damn! Does it do the laundry and the dishes or something? Can you drive it? That's more than I paid for my car, and I don't live in the projects.My dad went through a period where he just spent liberally. In that same year he bought a new Buick, and then soon after bought a house, and had built up $90,000 in student loans.

Luckily soon after he received his masters degree he was offered the job of a lifetime and paid most of it off. (He's just got the mortgage now...)

My dad went through a period where he just spent liberally. In that same year he bought a new Buick, and then soon after bought a house, and had built up $90,000 in student loans.

Luckily soon after he received his masters degree he was offered the job of a lifetime and paid most of it off. (He's just got the mortgage now...)

Alright, I can see how peer pressure forces you into the diamond scam.

But a Buick?! (interrobang).

There is just no reason for that.

Well, I guess he knew they'd be wealthy one day and she'd need to have a nice status symbol for that. :cool:My mom is the least materialistic person you'll ever know, too. Anything related to wealth and status she is really standoffish about because she just isn't into all that...

... not that she's complaining, though.

Alright, I can see how peer pressure forces you into the diamond scam.

But a Buick?! (interrobang).

There is just no reason for that.LOL, it turned out to be the crappiest car on the face of the planet, too! It was in the shop all the damn time. After three lemons he just leases cars now, because if they turn out crap, at least he isn't stuck with 'em.

Gayness. If they really in love then the value of the ring means nouthing.

If she really thinks months wages/ring matters then i think marrige is not going to last.

Gayness. If they really in love then the value of the ring means nouthing.

If she really thinks months wages/ring matters then i think marrige is not going to last.

You can never tell. It became a tradition/superstition for a reason, after all. :)

nicely spun together but not particularly reflective of the truth.

women have always been judged by the man they are associated with, its not new to the 20th century. (and you cant say "the man she is dating" when talking about flashy engagement rings)

Before I answer this, let me ask you a somewhat relevant question - from what you know, at what time did childrearing become important to society, particularly American society?

The subject of childrearing and the subject of diamond rings are more interconnected than you might think.

engagement rings have a long tradition. its the diamond part that is relatively new. that is due to aggressive marketing by debeers starting in the mid century not at the time of women's suffrage. certainly postwar prosperity contributed to people's willingness to go along with this idea that an engagement ring must have a diamond.

Hmm. I thought DeBeers and the diamond tradition started earlier than that (mid-1920's, to be specific), but I could easily be wrong there. That said, if the diamond tradition developed after WWII, then the tradition that engagement rings should be expensive almost certainly predates the tradition that engagement rings should have a diamond.

in some circles, that "im marrying a man who can afford to throw money down a hole to buy me a diamond ring" is so strong that a woman is insulted if the man shopped around and got a great deal on the ring. weddings and their associated traditions are one of the last bastions of otherwise independant women's insanity

... and that "im marrying a man who can afford to throw money down a hole to buy me a diamond ring" attitude is definitely a relic of the 1920's, though the gem itslef may not have been defined until the 1950's.

Alright, I can see how peer pressure forces you into the diamond scam.

But a Buick?! (interrobang).

There is just no reason for that.

Come on now, Buick makes a fine automobile. I knew a guy with a Century that ran like a dream for 15 years. :)

Before I answer this, let me ask you a somewhat relevant question - from what you know, at what time did childrearing become important to society, particularly American society?

The subject of childrearing and the subject of diamond rings are more interconnected than you might think.

i dont understand the question. do you mean when did proper childrearing become an obsession?


Hmm. I thought DeBeers and the diamond tradition started earlier than that (mid-1920's, to be specific), but I could easily be wrong there. That said, if the diamond tradition developed after WWII, then the tradition that engagement rings should be expensive almost certainly predates the tradition that engagement rings should have a diamond.

ya but then there was the great depression and no one could afford fancy rings. after the war and the rise of a prosperous middle class you could talk more than just the rich people into buying diamond rings. it became more of a status symbol available to the average couple.


... and that "im marrying a man who can afford to throw money down a hole to buy me a diamond ring" attitude is definitely a relic of the 1920's, though the gem itslef may not have been defined until the 1950's.

ok

I don't hate black people, so I don't buy diamonds.

I don't hate black people, so I don't buy diamonds.

Buy a Canadian diamond then, unless you hate socialism.. you don't, do you? :confused:

Also, I heard a black person call you a dope, and an egg-head.. don't you think you should stand up for yourself by buying at least a few diamonds? I know I would.

Come on now, Buick makes a fine automobile. I knew a guy with a Century that ran like a dream for 15 years. :)

The problem with american automobiles is that they are either 'magic' cars that run forever without problems, or they are in the shop every other week. Unfortunately you are far more likely to get the latter.

Also, apart from older Cadillacs, they don't tend to drive that well.

Buy a Canadian diamond then, unless you hate socialism.. you don't, do you? :confused:

Also, I heard a black person call you a dope, and an egg-head.. don't you think you should stand up for yourself by buying at least a few diamonds? I know I would.

I hate Canada, but they only sell ice diamonds, not those delicious blood diamonds.

The problem with american automobiles is that they are either 'magic' cars that run forever without problems, or they are in the shop every other week. Unfortunately you are far more likely to get the latter.

Also, apart from older Cadillacs, they don't tend to drive that well.

Ah, good thing I drive an older-model Cadillac.. :p

Other than that, though, I guess I don't have enough experience to confirm or deny that reputation.

Yeah American cars suck.

That is why god gave us European ones. :) Dad's owned six this far, and none have needed repairs (from his '88 Volvos to his '04 BMWs).

Yeah American cars suck.

That is why god gave us European ones. :) Dad's owned six this far, and none have needed repairs (from his '88 Volvos to his '04 BMWs).

Don't forget, american cars tend to eat their own brakes.

I don't know why they design them that way, but there it is.

OMFG!

Yes, yes they do. My mom's GMC needed its brakes replaced twice a year and it was getting ridiculous at $800 a pop, so she just got fed up with it and sold it off for $800 to some desperate guy and bought a European car and the problems just vanished.

OMFG!

Yes, yes they do. My mom's GMC needed its brakes replaced twice a year and it was getting ridiculous at $800 a pop, so she just got fed up with it and sold it off for $800 to some desperate guy and bought a European car and the problems just vanished.

It's a long story, and I would be accused of being rambling and incoherent again.

Suffice to say, most american cars are not designed for the urban cycle.

'Tis a shame most European cars are vastly more expensive than American and Asian cars. European cars are truly more durable and reliable. Especially German ones; they do need to drive on the autobahn, after all.

'Tis a shame most European cars are vastly more expensive than American and Asian cars. European cars are truly more durable and reliable. Especially German ones; they do need to drive on the autobahn, after all.

Actually, they are not that much more expensive, if you factor in all the repair costs.

Asian cars are the most reliable though. They just don't drive the same way,

When I got engaged 28 years ago the tradition was 10% of a year's wages.

Even with separate accounts, the money legally belongs to both people in a marriage.

Not in the UK, happily. You earn and are taxed as two seperate individuals, and retain separate ownership rights. Partners are expected to support one another, and total household income is assessed for benefits, whether the partners are married or living together as though they were married. I suppose a benefit of being married is that there is no IHT liability between spouses but there is between people who live together.

$6,000 is cheap for a ring considering what some people pay..look at Tiffany & Co which has a store in almost every major city/state capital in a luxury mall. Their rings are often $10,000+ or even someone could get a ring $100,000. Its a sad world we live in that some are able to afford outrageous luxuries (Louis Vuitton has $10,000 luggage, I know this for a fact my friend works there. And when I was there women were buying $3000 bags like it was nothing)

Jumpin' Buddha on a reinforced pogo stick -- where's the option for "zero months"?

What is this greedheaded nonsense? You spend what you can afford, and if the little princess isn't happy with that, she's not worth your time. I've been down the "princess" road, and it does not lead to anywhere nice. If you must buy a ring, buy one you think she'll like and make it reasonable for you to afford. Anything more is being a slave to an already overfed jewelry industry, and the vanity of a woman who demands SIX MONTHS of your salary will certainly not stop there.

I then suggest, yet again, that you research the history of diamonds. There are literally billions of carats of 'investment' grade diamonds that are still held and have not been written off because no one yet wants to book the loss. But like I said, go get a quote for yours.

Anyway, clarity means jack shit. Likewise color.


Wow. Not just unnecessarily belligerent and abusive, but hopelessly ignorant as well. You win.

This is one for the traditionalists out there.. how many months' salary should be spent on an engagement ring?

Why do I ask? No, not because I'm in the market.. (:p ) ..but because I overheard a conversation between women the other day, on this topic. One was concerned that her fiancee wasn't taking her seriously, wasn't planning things properly (etc.), but the icing on the cake was the ring.. I forget the size, but the whole deal with custom engraving came in at just under $6000, rather cheap. Her friend calmed her down by noting some other expenses that accounted for the guy's thrift, but agreed that the number was a bit low - beneath the 4-6 months' salary rule.

That's the part that really caught my ear. I had always heard that it was 2-4 months' salary or wages that should be spent on a ring, not 4-6.. now, I've moved around the country a bit, so I could have been misinformed.. so to get at the truth, I thought I'd post a discussion on what the proper standard is! :)

i voted six plus months...cause if your an idiot you will waste your money on a shiney object.so let the waste begin,i am getting married soon,and if i thought it mattered to my girl that i wasted a ton of money on a trinket..i would not be getting married...she would be pissed at me..that money could be used for something tangible..like a home for our kids...everyone is different i guesss..so i aint passing judgement,but i think it is foolish...a simple ring or momento is all that is needed and neccasary

$6,000 is cheap for a ring considering what some people pay..look at Tiffany & Co which has a store in almost every major city/state capital in a luxury mall. Their rings are often $10,000+ or even someone could get a ring $100,000. Its a sad world we live in that some are able to afford outrageous luxuries (Louis Vuitton has $10,000 luggage, I know this for a fact my friend works there. And when I was there women were buying $3000 bags like it was nothing)

Exactly. Lots of people are willing to spend on things like engagement rings. It's a status symbol at the very least, like an SUV or large house, no different.

You can never tell. It became a tradition/superstition for a reason, after all. :)

Do you work for DeBeers or something? I don't envy your karma if you do. This whole thread you've been defending the reprehensible mainstream diamond trade like it was your life's work.

Exactly. Lots of people are willing to spend on things like engagement rings. It's a status symbol at the very least, like an SUV or large house, no different.

With the difference that a SUV and large house have some actual use...
Though of course people that only drive a SUV within a city are just silly polluters.

Come on now, Buick makes a fine automobile. I knew a guy with a Century that ran like a dream for 15 years. :)

Okay, now he works for GM...

Thumbless Pete, you are either a mindless consumer or work for mindless marketers. Either way, it's refreshing to see that in this whole thread, nobody's bought your bullshit.

With the difference that a SUV and large house have some actual use...
Though of course people that only drive a SUV within a city are just silly polluters.

Well, cars and houses have uses, sure. But those empty extra four rooms in a huge house, or those extra 6 seats no one sits in in an SUV are as "useless" as jewelry, in that sense. :p The point I was trying to make is, it's about status, and status isn't a tangible thing. It's more of an imagined good, that pays off in various ways.

Exactly. Lots of people are willing to spend on things like engagement rings. It's a status symbol at the very least, like an SUV or large house, no different.

Sociological term is conspicuous consumption. Though some say that the worth is more psychological, some people just like the idea of having something authentic.

Sociological term is conspicuous consumption. Though some say that the worth is more psychological, some people just like the idea of having something authentic.

Sounds like an accurate statement. :)

The question should be: "how much of the month's salary".
I'd say, no more than 1/3. It's an engagement ring, not your home!
An average salary here in Italy is about 1200 €, you can buy quite a pretty ring for 400 €.

Well, cars and houses have uses, sure. But those empty extra four rooms in a huge house, or those extra 6 seats no one sits in in an SUV are as "useless" as jewelry, in that sense. :p
One could offer the empty rooms to the homeless and the empty seats to carpoolers.
With the ring one can.. eehm.. attempt to summon captain planet ?

One could offer the empty rooms to the homeless and the empty seats to carpoolers.
With the ring one can.. eehm.. attempt to summon captain planet ?

Want to guess how many people let homeless sleep in their spare rooms, or carpool with others in their Hummers? :p Sure, it's possible, just not likely.

Want to guess how many people let homeless sleep in their spare rooms, or carpool with others in their Hummers? :p Sure, it's possible, just not likely.

But *possible* nevertheless. The potential practical use of the ring is about 0.

With the ring one can.. eehm..

Unless it's the One Ring... MUUHAHAHAHAH!

But *possible* nevertheless. The potential practical use of the ring is about 0.

Of course, the value is in the mind of the owner and other observers.

Zero. The whole thing is pointless.

Of course, the value is in the mind of the owner and other observers.

"Well hun, I gave you this very expensive diamond ring so you can show it to other people. Remember, while the ring itself is completely useless, parts of the proceeds will most likely be used to fund bloody wars, the diamond was obtained through slave labour and if I had donated the money for this ring to UNICEF instead a few hundred kids would not have died needlessly. It is therefor extremely valuable - remember that next time I ask you to iron my shirt !"

*rattling thud from the dustbin of history*

"Well hun, I gave you this very expensive diamond ring so you can show it to other people. Remember, while the ring itself is completely useless, parts of the proceeds will most likely be used to fund bloody wars, the diamond was obtained through slave labour and if I had donated the money for this ring to UNICEF instead a few hundred kids would not have died needlessly. It is therefor extremely valuable - remember that next time I ask you to iron my shirt !"

Same goes for millions of different things, from silver napkin-holders to fancy lightswitches. People just seem to buy things they like. :p

Many hours later, I've overcome my initial distaste at the idea that betrothal be marked by a display of earnings. That the question was in terms of "how many months wages" rather than "how many thousand bucks" helps.

There is some sense to this. Marriage, if it means anything, must be a commitment. What better way to demonstrate your willingness to make sacrifices in the future, for your partner and the marriage, than to willfully squander a bunch of cash up front?

If it's not mutual, if brides and grooms are not expected to make equal sacrifices in earnest of their intention to marry, I would oppose it.

Same goes for millions of different things, from silver napkin-holders to fancy lightswitches. People just seem to buy things they like. :p

You say that as if it is not a bad thing.

There is some sense to this. Marriage, if it means anything, must be a commitment. What better way to demonstrate your willingness to make sacrifices in the future, for your partner and the marriage, than to willfully squander a bunch of cash up front?

Squandering on something useful for both partners - like the house ;)

Same goes for millions of different things, from silver napkin-holders to fancy lightswitches. People just seem to buy things they like. :p

Really, I've never seen such an apologist for unenlightened conspicuous consumption that didn't work for a media outlet, major corporation, bank, ad firm, or credit card company. Seriously, who do you represent?

Many hours later, I've overcome my initial distaste at the idea that betrothal be marked by a display of earnings. That the question was in terms of "how many months wages" rather than "how many thousand bucks" helps.

There is some sense to this. Marriage, if it means anything, must be a commitment. What better way to demonstrate your willingness to make sacrifices in the future, for your partner and the marriage, than to willfully squander a bunch of cash up front?

If it's not mutual, if brides and grooms are not expected to make equal sacrifices in earnest of their intention to marry, I would oppose it.

And there's the problem -- it isn't, or wasn't, at any rate. Though some would say bearing children is more than compensation for any overpriced trinket, I'm certain that the notion of one side of the couple's family covering the cost of a wedding is fading into the mists of history as yet another nonsensical outgrowth of patrilinealism...as it should.

Squandering on something useful for both partners - like the house ;)

Yeah -- you wanna talk commitment? Property is more of a commitment than an artificially-inflated piece of jewelry ever will be. Prove your love by investing in a nest!

A girl should be happy that I'll deign to penetrate her with my sausage link of love. Multi-thousand dollar ring? GET BACK IN THE KITCEHN.

Bonus points for correctly using the word deign in a sentence. Though you did misspell Kitchen..

This is one for the traditionalists out there.. how many months' salary should be spent on an engagement ring?

Why do I ask? No, not because I'm in the market.. (:p ) ..but because I overheard a conversation between women the other day, on this topic. One was concerned that her fiancee wasn't taking her seriously, wasn't planning things properly (etc.), but the icing on the cake was the ring.. I forget the size, but the whole deal with custom engraving came in at just under $6000, rather cheap. Her friend calmed her down by noting some other expenses that accounted for the guy's thrift, but agreed that the number was a bit low - beneath the 4-6 months' salary rule.

That's the part that really caught my ear. I had always heard that it was 2-4 months' salary or wages that should be spent on a ring, not 4-6.. now, I've moved around the country a bit, so I could have been misinformed.. so to get at the truth, I thought I'd post a discussion on what the proper standard is! :)

She's a fucking bitch. He should cancel the engagement.

The early days of a marriage are when most money problems crop up, and are often the cause of a marriage failure.

If he has to go in debt for a fucking ring, in order to placate her sense of "worth" (and what does that make her?) then he's stupid if he marries her.

*snip*

There is some sense to this. Marriage, if it means anything, must be a commitment. What better way to demonstrate your willingness to make sacrifices in the future, for your partner and the marriage, than to willfully squander a bunch of cash up front?

Squandering on something useful for both partners - like the house ;)
Well, you're joking with me and I like that. :)
But it's just a joke, right? Money spent on something useful is not squandered.

I read somewhere of a military tactic somewhat like this. (I thought 'kreplatch' but that's a food.) Instead of fighting, one side would bring out valuable goods (including military goods) and deliberately destroy them in the sight of the other party. A boast perhaps, or perhaps a demonstration of willingness to take losses.

In contrast, buying a house together simply adds a financial commitment to the emotional one. All emotional commitment, possibly sexual relations, could cease between the married partners, and they would still have a common interest in the valuable gifts they gave each other. You know that isn't pretty ...

None.

An engagement ring is a temporary ring. The wedding ring is far more important and I swear, at the time you get engaged, you will need the money for something far more important.

Get a moissanite ring: It's brighter, it's meteorite rock and it's far more awesome. Only downside? It's cheaper.

This is one for the traditionalists out there.. how many months' salary should be spent on an engagement ring?

Why do I ask? No, not because I'm in the market.. (:p ) ..but because I overheard a conversation between women the other day, on this topic. One was concerned that her fiancee wasn't taking her seriously, wasn't planning things properly (etc.), but the icing on the cake was the ring.. I forget the size, but the whole deal with custom engraving came in at just under $6000, rather cheap. Her friend calmed her down by noting some other expenses that accounted for the guy's thrift, but agreed that the number was a bit low - beneath the 4-6 months' salary rule.

That's the part that really caught my ear. I had always heard that it was 2-4 months' salary or wages that should be spent on a ring, not 4-6.. now, I've moved around the country a bit, so I could have been misinformed.. so to get at the truth, I thought I'd post a discussion on what the proper standard is! :)

Don't be a sucker. Why would you pay for a chip of shiny crystal? Dress up nice, get a presentable looking female accomplice, go into the jewelery store, ask to see several rings, then have the girl distract the jeweler while you run out with the one you like.

*replies*

... Though some would say bearing children is more than compensation for any overpriced trinket, I'm certain that the notion of one side of the couple's family covering the cost of a wedding is fading into the mists of history as yet another nonsensical outgrowth of patrilinealism...as it should.

Hmm, my rhetoric is a little dated. 'Patrilinearlism' is my new word for the day!
Henceforth I will refer only to "the recycle bin of history."

Cupidity: A state of diminished judgement consequent on being shot through the heart by a flying baby with a toy bow. (No, not really ;) )

I spent about a weeks salary on my wifes engagement ring. She loves it. Meh.

Don't be a sucker. Why would you pay for a chip of shiny crystal? Dress up nice, get a presentable looking female accomplice, go into the jewelery store, ask to see several rings, then have the girl distract the jeweler while you run out with the one you like.

Probably the best idea yet. :p

This is one for the traditionalists out there.. how many months' salary should be spent on an engagement ring?

Why do I ask? No, not because I'm in the market.. (:p ) ..but because I overheard a conversation between women the other day, on this topic. One was concerned that her fiancee wasn't taking her seriously, wasn't planning things properly (etc.), but the icing on the cake was the ring.. I forget the size, but the whole deal with custom engraving came in at just under $6000, rather cheap. Her friend calmed her down by noting some other expenses that accounted for the guy's thrift, but agreed that the number was a bit low - beneath the 4-6 months' salary rule.

That's the part that really caught my ear. I had always heard that it was 2-4 months' salary or wages that should be spent on a ring, not 4-6.. now, I've moved around the country a bit, so I could have been misinformed.. so to get at the truth, I thought I'd post a discussion on what the proper standard is! :)

Obviously.. in this.... _You_ also want to look like the mac daddy. Seems to me, you are both materialistic as hell. Just that you are trying to find out where exactly this shit cuts off.

Good luck to you and yours. You remind me of Cosa Nostra. And they wonder why Negroes imitate them.

Obviously.. in this.... _You_ also want to look like the mac daddy. Seems to me, you are both materialistic as hell. Just that you are trying to find out where exactly this shit cuts off.

Good luck to you and yours. You remind me of Cosa Nostra. And they wonder why Negroes imitate them.

Aren't you feeling well? I'm simply asking about others' concept of tradition. I am in no way in the market for either diamonds, other jewelry, or marriage. :p Might want to read what you're quoting. No harm done, though. :)

I spent about a weeks salary on my wifes engagement ring. She loves it. Meh.

That's what's important. :)

Aren't you feeling well? I'm simply asking about others' concept of tradition. I am in no way in the market for either diamonds, other jewelry, or marriage. :p Might want to read what you're quoting. No harm done, though. :)


Sorry.

I like my rocks like I like my cocks.




Big.

I spent what worked out to about a month and a half's salary at the time on her ring. I've never heard a bad word about it. Granted, it works out to less than a month of my current salary, but still...I was poor at the time.

I didn't go by a money rule or X number of months' salary. I just got a ring I knew she would like. The hell with how much I spent on it.

On the other hand, as much money as I did spend on it, the least they could do was size the damn thing. When I proposed to her (in front of my entire family, no less,) I was wondering in the back of my mind, "Why won't this damn thing go on her finger?" I had to get the thing sized afterwards. And I told them what her ring size was beforehand. Sheesh.

Incidentally, my jeweler's position on blood diamonds was "We don't know where our diamonds come from. We just sell the damn things."