Hey make him give you two $10,000 pieces of jewelry or the cheaper ring and cash. That should clarify your intention to him and let him see your dynamic. Good luck on OLD when you get nada.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This calls my mother's third marriage to mind.

Her third DH wouldn't get her an engagement ring at all, because he'd bought a nice one for his first wife and "it didn't work out." My mother said she didn't "need one" and it would be a "waste of money" while secretly feeling horrible about it but never speaking up. It was just one sign of how he wasn't ever going to be all-in on the marriage the way he was with his first, and also a sign of how he enjoyed withholding and controlling with his second. The relationship with my mother was transactional for him, and he was only going to "buy" at a "steep discount." And he made it clear and it was very hurtful (and like an idiot she married him anyway).

YMMV quite a bit, of course. But I wouldn't accept less than what the first wife got, unless finances had tanked in an extreme way or something.

As far as diamonds go, I know a bit about them and have quite a few mined diamonds ... but today? I'd absolutely buy lab. I'm 100% for lab. For many reasons.

I can’t believe you think the problem was the lack of a diamond.

Your reading comprehension is very poor.

Clearly I do not think "the problem was the lack of a diamond." The lack of the diamond was a sign of the problem and a harbinger.

And those problems would have existed regardless of jewelry, and had other signs. Focusing on the ring is dumb.

I have ten aunts/uncles and only divorce. In that marriage, the woman didn’t change her name. So are all women who keep their name in sufficiently dedicated to marriage? No. Same for your mother’s third marriage, which was clearly doomed to fail for many reasons unrelated to diamonds.

People should pay attention to early warning signs about how they will be treated and about how the other person views the marriage. Many do not. OP should pay attention. The fact that you cannot understand this doesn't mean it isn't so.

DP. I am sure there were early warning signs before this one.

Ok?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This calls my mother's third marriage to mind.

Her third DH wouldn't get her an engagement ring at all, because he'd bought a nice one for his first wife and "it didn't work out." My mother said she didn't "need one" and it would be a "waste of money" while secretly feeling horrible about it but never speaking up. It was just one sign of how he wasn't ever going to be all-in on the marriage the way he was with his first, and also a sign of how he enjoyed withholding and controlling with his second. The relationship with my mother was transactional for him, and he was only going to "buy" at a "steep discount." And he made it clear and it was very hurtful (and like an idiot she married him anyway).

YMMV quite a bit, of course. But I wouldn't accept less than what the first wife got, unless finances had tanked in an extreme way or something.

As far as diamonds go, I know a bit about them and have quite a few mined diamonds ... but today? I'd absolutely buy lab. I'm 100% for lab. For many reasons.

I can’t believe you think the problem was the lack of a diamond.

Your reading comprehension is very poor.

Clearly I do not think "the problem was the lack of a diamond." The lack of the diamond was a sign of the problem and a harbinger.

And those problems would have existed regardless of jewelry, and had other signs. Focusing on the ring is dumb.

I have ten aunts/uncles and only divorce. In that marriage, the woman didn’t change her name. So are all women who keep their name in sufficiently dedicated to marriage? No. Same for your mother’s third marriage, which was clearly doomed to fail for many reasons unrelated to diamonds.

People should pay attention to early warning signs about how they will be treated and about how the other person views the marriage. Many do not. OP should pay attention. The fact that you cannot understand this doesn't mean it isn't so.

DP. I am sure there were early warning signs before this one.

Anonymous wrote:Would you choose a $10K lab diamond engagement ring from him if you knew he'd spent $20K on his first wife's mined diamond ring? FWIW, $10K today buys you a lab diamond ring that is a nice as a $30K+ mined diamond ring.

Am I wrong to feel funny about asking for a ring that costs so much less than the first ring he bought? FWIW, over on the Beauty & Fashion page, the advice about lab vs. mined diamonds is pretty much 99% in favor of buying lab these days given the high quality that is now being offered.

Would asking to spend so much less create a bad dynamic in the relationship?

Wow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This calls my mother's third marriage to mind.

Her third DH wouldn't get her an engagement ring at all, because he'd bought a nice one for his first wife and "it didn't work out." My mother said she didn't "need one" and it would be a "waste of money" while secretly feeling horrible about it but never speaking up. It was just one sign of how he wasn't ever going to be all-in on the marriage the way he was with his first, and also a sign of how he enjoyed withholding and controlling with his second. The relationship with my mother was transactional for him, and he was only going to "buy" at a "steep discount." And he made it clear and it was very hurtful (and like an idiot she married him anyway).

YMMV quite a bit, of course. But I wouldn't accept less than what the first wife got, unless finances had tanked in an extreme way or something.

As far as diamonds go, I know a bit about them and have quite a few mined diamonds ... but today? I'd absolutely buy lab. I'm 100% for lab. For many reasons.

I can’t believe you think the problem was the lack of a diamond.

Your reading comprehension is very poor.

Clearly I do not think "the problem was the lack of a diamond." The lack of the diamond was a sign of the problem and a harbinger.

And those problems would have existed regardless of jewelry, and had other signs. Focusing on the ring is dumb.

I have ten aunts/uncles and only divorce. In that marriage, the woman didn’t change her name. So are all women who keep their name in sufficiently dedicated to marriage? No. Same for your mother’s third marriage, which was clearly doomed to fail for many reasons unrelated to diamonds.

People should pay attention to early warning signs about how they will be treated and about how the other person views the marriage. Many do not. OP should pay attention. The fact that you cannot understand this doesn't mean it isn't so.

OP's partner should pay attention, because this is a warning sign about OP.

It's a warning sign about both. Sounds like a mess.

Why the guy? He sounds nice, he offered to buy a 10K ring! it's OP who is crazy.

Aye, Captain, engaging entitlement overdrive!

I would hope by the time one is contemplating a second marriage, one would be mature enough to realize engagement rings are a product of the wedding industrial complex and have no bearing on the marriage.

I'm still on marriage 1 and I don't wear my engagement ring anymore because my finger swelled post kids and I was afraid to get it modified because it might get ruined (channel set band). And I'm no longer in "stare at my hand" or "prove something" mode.

So many things have changed since decades ago.

1) Women, even celebrities, are contributing their own funds to make sure their rocks are big. So no longer shows anything about fiance, if one was trying to prove something there.

2) Lab-created has blown up the market. Which was artificial anyway...just like all luxury goods.

3) The above has really changed even the worth of the shallow status marker for try hards.

If I could do it over, I'd get a larger, fancier, custom-made gold wedding band (with or without stones) and skip a projecting, pronged central stone completely. Something that reads expensive and married and raises no "is it fake" thoughts. Been contemplating this for an anniversary. Haven't got around to it. Jewelry is really low on my priorities list but I do work with lots of women who are rocking the big a$$ diamond look.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This calls my mother's third marriage to mind.

Her third DH wouldn't get her an engagement ring at all, because he'd bought a nice one for his first wife and "it didn't work out." My mother said she didn't "need one" and it would be a "waste of money" while secretly feeling horrible about it but never speaking up. It was just one sign of how he wasn't ever going to be all-in on the marriage the way he was with his first, and also a sign of how he enjoyed withholding and controlling with his second. The relationship with my mother was transactional for him, and he was only going to "buy" at a "steep discount." And he made it clear and it was very hurtful (and like an idiot she married him anyway).

YMMV quite a bit, of course. But I wouldn't accept less than what the first wife got, unless finances had tanked in an extreme way or something.

As far as diamonds go, I know a bit about them and have quite a few mined diamonds ... but today? I'd absolutely buy lab. I'm 100% for lab. For many reasons.

I can’t believe you think the problem was the lack of a diamond.

Your reading comprehension is very poor.

Clearly I do not think "the problem was the lack of a diamond." The lack of the diamond was a sign of the problem and a harbinger.

And those problems would have existed regardless of jewelry, and had other signs. Focusing on the ring is dumb.

I have ten aunts/uncles and only divorce. In that marriage, the woman didn’t change her name. So are all women who keep their name in sufficiently dedicated to marriage? No. Same for your mother’s third marriage, which was clearly doomed to fail for many reasons unrelated to diamonds.

People should pay attention to early warning signs about how they will be treated and about how the other person views the marriage. Many do not. OP should pay attention. The fact that you cannot understand this doesn't mean it isn't so.

OP's partner should pay attention, because this is a warning sign about OP.

It's a warning sign about both. Sounds like a mess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This calls my mother's third marriage to mind.

Her third DH wouldn't get her an engagement ring at all, because he'd bought a nice one for his first wife and "it didn't work out." My mother said she didn't "need one" and it would be a "waste of money" while secretly feeling horrible about it but never speaking up. It was just one sign of how he wasn't ever going to be all-in on the marriage the way he was with his first, and also a sign of how he enjoyed withholding and controlling with his second. The relationship with my mother was transactional for him, and he was only going to "buy" at a "steep discount." And he made it clear and it was very hurtful (and like an idiot she married him anyway).

YMMV quite a bit, of course. But I wouldn't accept less than what the first wife got, unless finances had tanked in an extreme way or something.

As far as diamonds go, I know a bit about them and have quite a few mined diamonds ... but today? I'd absolutely buy lab. I'm 100% for lab. For many reasons.

I can’t believe you think the problem was the lack of a diamond.

Your reading comprehension is very poor.

Clearly I do not think "the problem was the lack of a diamond." The lack of the diamond was a sign of the problem and a harbinger.

And those problems would have existed regardless of jewelry, and had other signs. Focusing on the ring is dumb.

I have ten aunts/uncles and only divorce. In that marriage, the woman didn’t change her name. So are all women who keep their name in sufficiently dedicated to marriage? No. Same for your mother’s third marriage, which was clearly doomed to fail for many reasons unrelated to diamonds.

People should pay attention to early warning signs about how they will be treated and about how the other person views the marriage. Many do not. OP should pay attention. The fact that you cannot understand this doesn't mean it isn't so.

OP's partner should pay attention, because this is a warning sign about OP.

I wouldn’t let it bother me if he showed me that I was valued in other ways. It’s not the data point, OP. It’s the pattern. Look for the patterns of behavior. That will reveal his heart.

I have basically picked mine out. It is not a diamond. It is a gemstone solitaire. We are splitting it. I can't let him buy it all bc he is putting kids through college, etc.

Anonymous wrote:This marriage is doomed.

+1 lol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This calls my mother's third marriage to mind.

Her third DH wouldn't get her an engagement ring at all, because he'd bought a nice one for his first wife and "it didn't work out." My mother said she didn't "need one" and it would be a "waste of money" while secretly feeling horrible about it but never speaking up. It was just one sign of how he wasn't ever going to be all-in on the marriage the way he was with his first, and also a sign of how he enjoyed withholding and controlling with his second. The relationship with my mother was transactional for him, and he was only going to "buy" at a "steep discount." And he made it clear and it was very hurtful (and like an idiot she married him anyway).

YMMV quite a bit, of course. But I wouldn't accept less than what the first wife got, unless finances had tanked in an extreme way or something.

As far as diamonds go, I know a bit about them and have quite a few mined diamonds ... but today? I'd absolutely buy lab. I'm 100% for lab. For many reasons.

I can’t believe you think the problem was the lack of a diamond.

Your reading comprehension is very poor.

Clearly I do not think "the problem was the lack of a diamond." The lack of the diamond was a sign of the problem and a harbinger.

And those problems would have existed regardless of jewelry, and had other signs. Focusing on the ring is dumb.

I have ten aunts/uncles and only divorce. In that marriage, the woman didn’t change her name. So are all women who keep their name in sufficiently dedicated to marriage? No. Same for your mother’s third marriage, which was clearly doomed to fail for many reasons unrelated to diamonds.

People should pay attention to early warning signs about how they will be treated and about how the other person views the marriage. Many do not. OP should pay attention. The fact that you cannot understand this doesn't mean it isn't so.

Anonymous wrote:Imho any jewelry worth more than buyer's one month's salary is an unjustified expense and no sensible woman would support such questionable purchase. If cost of the ring or size of the diamond was a symbol of love and fidelity, everyone in Hollywood would be living happily in their first marriage.

I think you should probably take the "h" out of that imho -- plenty of "sensible" women out there wearing jewelry that cost more than "one month's salary." Some people enjoy jewelry enough that it is worth it, some don't. Some people make/have enough money that it doesn't effect the overall budget to spend that much. No need to insult people for wearing jewelry that costs more than what you think it reasonable to spend.