Engagement ring size in your social circle?

[Anonymous]

Typically .95-1.5 all engaged post-2010

Social circle is late 20s-mid 30s, well educated (masters, doctorates), dual working partners

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would say nearly every woman has a 1.5ct. We're late 20s.

We're mid-late 30's (most of us in the 10th anniversary range, give or take) and the rings are .75 - 1.0 I'd guess. Maybe 1 or 2 have something bigger but that's definitely not common. My group is mostly long term SAHM's though, so I guess our priorities are a little different.

What does that even mean?

That we career shrews are demanding the 5-carat D flawless ideal cut rocks, I guess?

[Anonymous]

For those with big rings (1.75 carats or larger) are they even high quality diamonds? From my previous engagement to my ex, back in 2008 I knew that a 1.2 carat ring with a diamond of high quality would easily break $10K.

It's absurd when people have something that's 2 carats. No way it hell it is a high quality rock. The stone itself would easily be $20-25K

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where do you all live that you get married so early? 10 year anniversary range for mid-late 30s and 28 being late for another circle? This doesn't sound like DC at all.

Right? Downright bizarre, especially if 28 is supposed to be late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those with big rings (1.75 carats or larger) are they even high quality diamonds? From my previous engagement to my ex, back in 2008 I knew that a 1.2 carat ring with a diamond of high quality would easily break $10K.

It's absurd when people have something that's 2 carats. No way it hell it is a high quality rock. The stone itself would easily be $20-25K

Try double that number, if it's a nice stone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where do you all live that you get married so early? 10 year anniversary range for mid-late 30s and 28 being late for another circle? This doesn't sound like DC at all.

I'm the 10-year anniversary poster. I live in the NoVa suburbs. Yes, out here most SAHM's got married in their late 20's and had their first child by 30. I have a few friends who married at 24/25. Most of us are not "from" here, just along for the ride.

Women who get married "younger" and chose to SAH are generally more budget conscious, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would say nearly every woman has a 1.5ct. We're late 20s.

We're mid-late 30's (most of us in the 10th anniversary range, give or take) and the rings are .75 - 1.0 I'd guess. Maybe 1 or 2 have something bigger but that's definitely not common. My group is mostly long term SAHM's though, so I guess our priorities are a little different.[/quote]

ugh. go away.
or other people have more disposable income
i hate these passive aggressive judgments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would say nearly every woman has a 1.5ct. We're late 20s.

We're mid-late 30's (most of us in the 10th anniversary range, give or take) and the rings are .75 - 1.0 I'd guess. Maybe 1 or 2 have something bigger but that's definitely not common. My group is mostly long term SAHM's though, so I guess our priorities are a little different.

What does that even mean?

It means that it has never occurred to the PP that mothers work for many reasons, both material and non-material... It means that it has never occurred to PP that it is completely OK for a mother to work for material possessions... It means that it has never occurred to the PP that there is a whole world of wealthy SAHMs who have very nice things (and that that's okay, too)...

Signed,
SAHM, on a tight budget

[Anonymous]

No, it just means they don't prioritize jewelry in their budgets. No judgement.

[Anonymous]

Wow, you are a bunch of shallow people if you know the size of your friends' engagement rings! I know that some of my friends have pretty rings, but I certainly haven't inspected them well enough to know how big they are, nor would I be tacky enough to ask about it. Geez!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, you are a bunch of shallow people if you know the size of your friends' engagement rings! I know that some of my friends have pretty rings, but I certainly haven't inspected them well enough to know how big they are, nor would I be tacky enough to ask about it. Geez!!

Most women share that info with close friends so either you don't have too many close friends, or you have friends who don't give a damn about rings which is fine but that's just the company you keep. Ring conversation and observation is pretty normal regardless what social circle you keep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mine is 0.5; most in my circle are larger. I got married early and DH paid for it all himself.

My BFF has a HUGE ring. That her DH put on their joint credit card and took forever to pay off.

Better than being saddled with a tiny ring. I want a rock and if I had to pay for it, no problem.

DH makes 7 figures now; trust me - if I want a new one its not a problem. Its not a priority for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, you are a bunch of shallow people if you know the size of your friends' engagement rings! I know that some of my friends have pretty rings, but I certainly haven't inspected them well enough to know how big they are, nor would I be tacky enough to ask about it. Geez!!

Most women share that info with close friends so either you don't have too many close friends, or you have friends who don't give a damn about rings which is fine but that's just the company you keep. Ring conversation and observation is pretty normal regardless what social circle you keep.

They do??
I swear to god, I just don't understand these posts on engagement rings. If I were a guy reading this shit I would commit to never getting married.

[Anonymous]

I have the smallest ring out of our group. My engagement solitaire is 1.3 and then I have a 5 stone band on either side. Each band is 1.5 total (one is passed down family ring and DH had another made to match it). I did not pick out or even know about my rings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those with big rings (1.75 carats or larger) are they even high quality diamonds? From my previous engagement to my ex, back in 2008 I knew that a 1.2 carat ring with a diamond of high quality would easily break $10K.

It's absurd when people have something that's 2 carats. No way it hell it is a high quality rock. The stone itself would easily be $20-25K

Why is it absurd to you? For some people, $25k isn't a ton of money. Most of my friends' husbands are in finance. They were late 20s/early 30s when they got engaged. They don't have grad school/law school loans and they'd been making mid six figures for awhile.