Anonymous wrote:I have no idea - I think it was probably in the $5-7K range? We were fairly young, my now-husband was in the military and making not a ton of money. It was probably more than he should have spent at the time.
I won't complain though - I LOVE my ring. It was exactly what I wanted and more. It isn't huge, but it is very unique and very me. A huge rock would look ridiculous on my finger, anyway. It really is the only jewelry I ever wear, and I wouldn't trade it for the world.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't want a second hand ring. People were floored that kate middleton was given Diana's ring. Nobody wants that.
What people? You? Pull yourself together!

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What a waste of money
I completely agree. $25k+ for something the size of a nickel? I'd much rather use that money to take nice vacations for the next 5-10 years.
But why not spend that much if you can still take nice vacations?
It still just seems like a ridiculous waste. Seriously, 25k+ for something the size of a nickel? That is absurdly, gratuitously wasteful.
You're not a jewelry person, we get it. You think the fuel that gets you to your vacation destination isn't "absurdly, gratuitously wasteful"?
Once again, I am blown away by the number of allegedly educated, intelligent adults on this board who haven't grasped that different people have goals and ideals.
To the people who have the bands from Walmart, for example, how have they held up? I have one or two costume pieces from similar places and they look like costume pieces a few weeks into wearing them.
My engagement ring was $1100, and my band was $70 (this was eleven years ago). Ah, the joys of small town prices! I love how diamonds look, but even the lab created ones are out of our budget for now.
Where did I say that I'm not a jewelry person? Jewelry as accessories, I completely get. Wanting something that's attractive and "pretty" is understandable. But I suppose for me, the whole concept of an engagement ring is rather batshit - and further, designating a pricetag as if it bears some relevance to worth of your relationship or love. It's perfectly possible to have and wear something "pretty" and "quality" without costing nearly so much, as the price of diamonds are one of the most blatantly artificial forms of price inflation - the pricetag truly bears no relevance to value. It's such a bizarre concept. And before someone pulls the "you're just jealous card" - I could easily go out and purchase more than a dozen 25k rings today, from readily available liquid assets. It seems just as frivolous as spending 25k on a bra, just because that's the random price someone sets for it.
Anonymous wrote:Gosh I would feel nervous wearing something worth 20k on my finger. Maybe for a special event, but not every day.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What a waste of money
I completely agree. $25k+ for something the size of a nickel? I'd much rather use that money to take nice vacations for the next 5-10 years.
But why not spend that much if you can still take nice vacations?
It still just seems like a ridiculous waste. Seriously, 25k+ for something the size of a nickel? That is absurdly, gratuitously wasteful.
You're not a jewelry person, we get it. You think the fuel that gets you to your vacation destination isn't "absurdly, gratuitously wasteful"?
Once again, I am blown away by the number of allegedly educated, intelligent adults on this board who haven't grasped that different people have goals and ideals.
To the people who have the bands from Walmart, for example, how have they held up? I have one or two costume pieces from similar places and they look like costume pieces a few weeks into wearing them.
My engagement ring was $1100, and my band was $70 (this was eleven years ago). Ah, the joys of small town prices! I love how diamonds look, but even the lab created ones are out of our budget for now.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What a waste of money
I completely agree. $25k+ for something the size of a nickel? I'd much rather use that money to take nice vacations for the next 5-10 years.
But why not spend that much if you can still take nice vacations?
It still just seems like a ridiculous waste. Seriously, 25k+ for something the size of a nickel? That is absurdly, gratuitously wasteful.
You're not a jewelry person, we get it. You think the fuel that gets you to your vacation destination isn't "absurdly, gratuitously wasteful"?
Once again, I am blown away by the number of allegedly educated, intelligent adults on this board who haven't grasped that different people have goals and ideals.
To the people who have the bands from Walmart, for example, how have they held up? I have one or two costume pieces from similar places and they look like costume pieces a few weeks into wearing them.
My engagement ring was $1100, and my band was $70 (this was eleven years ago). Ah, the joys of small town prices! I love how diamonds look, but even the lab created ones are out of our budget for now.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What a waste of money
I completely agree. $25k+ for something the size of a nickel? I'd much rather use that money to take nice vacations for the next 5-10 years.
But why not spend that much if you can still take nice vacations?
It still just seems like a ridiculous waste. Seriously, 25k+ for something the size of a nickel? That is absurdly, gratuitously wasteful.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What a waste of money
I completely agree. $25k+ for something the size of a nickel? I'd much rather use that money to take nice vacations for the next 5-10 years.
But why not spend that much if you can still take nice vacations?
Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't want a second hand ring. People were floored that kate middleton was given Diana's ring. Nobody wants that.