Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t even notice their ring. I did in my 20s when a lot of people were getting engaged, but now I never really look. And so many people just wear their wedding band anyhow.
+100. Now that I’m in my 50s, I never notice unless it’s a huge ring and looks gaudy. Most of the women I know only wear their band.
Anonymous wrote:My single lesbian SIL took the 1.5 carat diamond ring my husband was going to use to make my engagement ring off her dead grandma's finger and claimed it for herself, so there's that. I'm not complaining though because I have a custom made 7mm pink sapphire with a diamond halo and pave band that suits me much better.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I do.
Sometimes when I see a woman with a tiny diamond I wonder how cheap her husband must be to not bother to get her something nicer.
The larger the diamond the more I think her husband wanted to impress her/ show his love. Also that he’s rich.
If size or cost of a ring or a wedding was a good measure of a couple's love or predictor of quality or length of the marriage, lives would be so easy.
Same goes for financial status. Just because a couple is frugal or carefree, doesn't mean they don't have higher income, investments or inheritance than schlubs with heavy loans flaunting their extravagant diamond.
I'm always amazed at American's idea of inheritance. Do you mean some cash? Because, for us, it means valuable real estate (no mortgage), good art and jewelry, not just some cash from a generation or two - liar here.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I do.
Sometimes when I see a woman with a tiny diamond I wonder how cheap her husband must be to not bother to get her something nicer.
The larger the diamond the more I think her husband wanted to impress her/ show his love. Also that he’s rich.
If size or cost of a ring or a wedding was a good measure of a couple's love or predictor of quality or length of the marriage, lives would be so easy.
Same goes for financial status. Just because a couple is frugal or carefree, doesn't mean they don't have higher income, investments or inheritance than schlubs with heavy loans flaunting their extravagant diamond.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No. I’m way too preoccupied looking at which men are wearing their rings. I barely notice women in general.
What do you assume when men aren’t wearing their wedding rings? Just curious because my husband lost his a couple months after we got married and never replaced it. It has been sixteen years. He has toyed with the idea of getting a ring tattoo but he doesn’t like rings.
For a professional, white collar man not wearing a ring I would assume first that he was single. 2nd that he was up to no good if I know he is married—especially if he is wearing other jewelry. 3rd some men are very practical with money.
In the case of men who can’t dress, clothes don’t fit properly, shoes and belt don’t match or his shoes are for a different occasion than the rest of his outfit (church shoes with jeans type of men), multiple pairs of white new balance or nike type dudes, I would assume he doesn’t like jewelry or doesn’t care about it. Or even some men the kind that are more rustic, dirty nails types, wears a uniform to work types probably aren’t wearing jewelry because they work in dangerous conditions.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No. I’m way too preoccupied looking at which men are wearing their rings. I barely notice women in general.
What do you assume when men aren’t wearing their wedding rings? Just curious because my husband lost his a couple months after we got married and never replaced it. It has been sixteen years. He has toyed with the idea of getting a ring tattoo but he doesn’t like rings.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not at all. Also, my wealthiest friends all have smaller rings. Most are vintage or family rings but not all. I’m talking friends with very high net worths or big trust funds.
How do you define high net worth?
Net worth’s over $25 million.