Women: do you care how much your engagement ring costs?

[Anonymous]

My best buddy in law school got married when she was 19, and her husband was in the NAVY. He got her a $500 diamond ring before he left on deployment. That was almost 25 years ago and they have the best marriage I've ever seen. Three kids, very successful careers, very happy individuals. She is very sentimental about that ring, and has never "traded up.

My brother, on the other hand, gets huge rings for his fiancees (yes, plural). The last one cost $25,000. I give this relationship a year tops.

Not that there is a correlation between the larger the ring, the crappier the marriage. But "if" two people tend to focus highly on the superficial aspects of marriage (like a ring), they often fail to focus on the marriage itself.

Short version: The spouse is way more important than the ring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OP here. "cheap" to me would be $1K-3K.

I was ideally looking in the 5k-8k range.

But after reading some of the posts and giving it some thought, I just don't care anymore. I want the guy more than the ring. So if I get a 1K ring, oh well.

OP would you be open to other stones? I have a 2.5 carat sapphire ring that is insanely stunning and it was about 5k. We got it from dominion jewelers which is cheaper because they make the rings there. My ring is really big and beautiful, you could totally get something gorgeous there in the 1-3 range if you forego the diamond, that's the real money suck.

If you want the budget to go further, consider stones other than diamonds. I've always thought of a sapphire engagement ring as being classic and elegant. Also, hopefully you guys go for pre-marital counseling and work out some of the differences in how you see the world and how you communicate with each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expensive engagement rings have been linked to higher divorce rates.

Spending two months' salary (or some other ridiculous sum) on an engagement ring is not only the norm, it's expected. But unless your monthly earnings are less than $1,000, that might not be the best decision, at least according to a study out of Emory University last September.

The study, from Andrew M. Francis and Hugo M. Mialon, surveyed 3,000 heterosexual couples and found that "marriage duration is inversely associated with spending on the engagement ring and wedding ceremony." Specifically, those who had spent $2,000-$4,000 were 30% more likely to get divorced.

That is BS, and Carolyn Hax has debunked this hundreds of times through the years (advice columnist for those that do not know).

Carolyn Hax, advice columnist, debunks empirical, peer-reviewed research?

Hahahaha, no. Just no.

She might have some good insights, but she's no scientist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OP here. "cheap" to me would be $1K-3K.

I was ideally looking in the 5k-8k range.

But after reading some of the posts and giving it some thought, I just don't care anymore. I want the guy more than the ring. So if I get a 1K ring, oh well.

OP would you be open to other stones? I have a 2.5 carat sapphire ring that is insanely stunning and it was about 5k. We got it from dominion jewelers which is cheaper because they make the rings there. My ring is really big and beautiful, you could totally get something gorgeous there in the 1-3 range if you forego the diamond, that's the real money suck.

If you want the budget to go further, consider stones other than diamonds. I've always thought of a sapphire engagement ring as being classic and elegant. Also, hopefully you guys go for pre-marital counseling and work out some of the differences in how you see the world and how you communicate with each other.

If it's truly about wanting a pretty ring, I second the recommendation to consider other stones. I have a beautiful sapphire ring, and I love it so much more than a diamond. It was also a much prettier ring than a diamond ring at the same price. Diamonds are artificially inflated; other stones are much more reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expensive engagement rings have been linked to higher divorce rates.

Spending two months' salary (or some other ridiculous sum) on an engagement ring is not only the norm, it's expected. But unless your monthly earnings are less than $1,000, that might not be the best decision, at least according to a study out of Emory University last September.

The study, from Andrew M. Francis and Hugo M. Mialon, surveyed 3,000 heterosexual couples and found that "marriage duration is inversely associated with spending on the engagement ring and wedding ceremony." Specifically, those who had spent $2,000-$4,000 were 30% more likely to get divorced.

That is BS, and Carolyn Hax has debunked this hundreds of times through the years (advice columnist for those that do not know).

Carolyn Hax, advice columnist, debunks empirical, peer-reviewed research?

Hahahaha, no. Just no.

She might have some good insights, but she's no scientist.

Not the PP, but you clearly didn't notice that the person was speaking specifically of the bolded text.

So unless you think that scientists developed the "two months salary rule," you should admit you are wrong.

[Anonymous]

I didn't want to spend a lot on it but I still wanted a "nice" ring. Nice to me means classy and not ostentatious. We got an antique ring for about $4k amd I love it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expensive engagement rings have been linked to higher divorce rates.

Spending two months' salary (or some other ridiculous sum) on an engagement ring is not only the norm, it's expected. But unless your monthly earnings are less than $1,000, that might not be the best decision, at least according to a study out of Emory University last September.

The study, from Andrew M. Francis and Hugo M. Mialon, surveyed 3,000 heterosexual couples and found that "marriage duration is inversely associated with spending on the engagement ring and wedding ceremony." Specifically, those who had spent $2,000-$4,000 were 30% more likely to get divorced.

That is BS, and Carolyn Hax has debunked this hundreds of times through the years (advice columnist for those that do not know).

Carolyn Hax, advice columnist, debunks empirical, peer-reviewed research?

Hahahaha, no. Just no.

She might have some good insights, but she's no scientist.

Not the PP, but you clearly didn't notice that the person was speaking specifically of the bolded text.

So unless you think that scientists developed the "two months salary rule," you should admit you are wrong.

No, I clearly noticed that the topic sentence she bolded was "Expensive engagement rings lead to higher divorce rates."

Again, Carolyn Hax is an advice columnist, and doesn't have the clout to "debunk" anything.

[Anonymous]

A ring is "a symbol of your love"???? You are an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expensive engagement rings have been linked to higher divorce rates.

Spending two months' salary (or some other ridiculous sum) on an engagement ring is not only the norm, it's expected. But unless your monthly earnings are less than $1,000, that might not be the best decision, at least according to a study out of Emory University last September.

The study, from Andrew M. Francis and Hugo M. Mialon, surveyed 3,000 heterosexual couples and found that "marriage duration is inversely associated with spending on the engagement ring and wedding ceremony." Specifically, those who had spent $2,000-$4,000 were 30% more likely to get divorced.

That is BS, and Carolyn Hax has debunked this hundreds of times through the years (advice columnist for those that do not know).

Carolyn Hax, advice columnist, debunks empirical, peer-reviewed research?

Hahahaha, no. Just no.

She might have some good insights, but she's no scientist.

Not the PP, but you clearly didn't notice that the person was speaking specifically of the bolded text.

So unless you think that scientists developed the "two months salary rule," you should admit you are wrong.

No, I clearly noticed that the topic sentence she bolded was "Expensive engagement rings lead to higher divorce rates."

Again, Carolyn Hax is an advice columnist, and doesn't have the clout to "debunk" anything.

Sorry, you are still wrong. The PP who claimed that CH debunked the two months rule was herself replying to a post in which the first statement was bolded (poster at 13:39, if you need to verify. The only statement she bolded was the part about two months salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expensive engagement rings have been linked to higher divorce rates.

Spending two months' salary (or some other ridiculous sum) on an engagement ring is not only the norm, it's expected. But unless your monthly earnings are less than $1,000, that might not be the best decision, at least according to a study out of Emory University last September.

The study, from Andrew M. Francis and Hugo M. Mialon, surveyed 3,000 heterosexual couples and found that "marriage duration is inversely associated with spending on the engagement ring and wedding ceremony." Specifically, those who had spent $2,000-$4,000 were 30% more likely to get divorced.

That is BS, and Carolyn Hax has debunked this hundreds of times through the years (advice columnist for those that do not know).

Carolyn Hax, advice columnist, debunks empirical, peer-reviewed research?

Hahahaha, no. Just no.

She might have some good insights, but she's no scientist.

Not the PP, but you clearly didn't notice that the person was speaking specifically of the bolded text.

So unless you think that scientists developed the "two months salary rule," you should admit you are wrong.

No, I clearly noticed that the topic sentence she bolded was "Expensive engagement rings lead to higher divorce rates."

Again, Carolyn Hax is an advice columnist, and doesn't have the clout to "debunk" anything.

Sorry, you are still wrong. The PP who claimed that CH debunked the two months rule was herself replying to a post in which the first statement was bolded (poster at 13:39, if you need to verify. The only statement she bolded was the part about two months salary.

Whatever lady. Now tell me how Carolyn Hax has the authority to "debunk" anything.

[Anonymous]

... Let alone "hundreds of times!"

12:30 PP, what's your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expensive engagement rings have been linked to higher divorce rates.

Spending two months' salary (or some other ridiculous sum) on an engagement ring is not only the norm, it's expected. But unless your monthly earnings are less than $1,000, that might not be the best decision, at least according to a study out of Emory University last September.

The study, from Andrew M. Francis and Hugo M. Mialon, surveyed 3,000 heterosexual couples and found that "marriage duration is inversely associated with spending on the engagement ring and wedding ceremony." Specifically, those who had spent $2,000-$4,000 were 30% more likely to get divorced.

That is BS, and Carolyn Hax has debunked this hundreds of times through the years (advice columnist for those that do not know).

Carolyn Hax, advice columnist, debunks empirical, peer-reviewed research?

Hahahaha, no. Just no.

She might have some good insights, but she's no scientist.

Not the PP, but you clearly didn't notice that the person was speaking specifically of the bolded text.

So unless you think that scientists developed the "two months salary rule," you should admit you are wrong.

No, I clearly noticed that the topic sentence she bolded was "Expensive engagement rings lead to higher divorce rates."

Again, Carolyn Hax is an advice columnist, and doesn't have the clout to "debunk" anything.

Sorry, you are still wrong. The PP who claimed that CH debunked the two months rule was herself replying to a post in which the first statement was bolded (poster at 13:39, if you need to verify. The only statement she bolded was the part about two months salary.

Whatever lady. Now tell me how Carolyn Hax has the authority to "debunk" anything.

Since y'all are quoting me, Carolyn Hax is very successful at her advice, and if you read the comments on any given day, 90% of them agree with her and more importantly, her wording. Anyone can dish advice, but wording in a way that makes sense is a another matter all together.

The 2 month salary rule is BS, and unrealistic this day in age. If you don't love the person for who they are on the inside, you don't love the person at all. Bottom line.

[Anonymous]

The diamond industry successfully tied women's status and class anxieties to their engagements. Brilliant.

[Anonymous]

I don't care how much per se, but if I get trinkets, I want them nice. And nice usually costs. Having said that, if I can't afford it, I can't afford it, end of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you?

My bf told me he wants to propose to me but he cannot afford to get me an expensive one so he'll get me a cheap one for now. I'm kinda upset since I have told him how I want to always be wearing it and so I want it to be nice. Also it is annoying me that he thinks I'm not worth a more expensive ring.

Am I being superficial?

Hi, it seems like a waste for him to spend money on a ring you aren't going to love. Why not tell him that, and buy one of those cheap fake diamond kind of your choosing. No one is going to know, and then, once you guys can afford a nice ring, replace the one you have for the "real" one. But do be honest with him, don't make him spend money on a ring you are going to hate looking at every day. It will create tension for no reason.