Engagement

[ely]

How much of a salary should be put towards an engagement ring? Honest answers please...

[Naive]

Whatever you can afford...

[ely]

Whatever you can afford...

 

A co-worker stated that it is supposed to be two months worth a salary, but I do agree with whatever you can afford.

[BareGoddess]

That's such bull about the 2 month salary thing. The diamond industry dreamed that one up I think.

 

It should be what you can comfortably afford...oh and have you considered lab created diamonds? I'm serious.

[Guest]

the x months salary thing is diamond industry b.s.! They come out with a new "tagline" every few years. I'm only 27, but since I've started paying attention, I've seen

 

"How else could 3 months salary last forever?" (just setting a precedent for price)

 

 

"For your past, present, and future" (3 stone rings & pendants gain popularity)

 

 

and now... "With every step, your love grows" (now, everyone, hawk the new "journey" style jewelry!)

 

So I guess your answer is 3 months, or 25% of your annual income. But come on! I'm a lady, so I don't forsee spending any money on an engagement ring at all, but if I was, at my salary, I'd be spending $18,000 on a ring if I followed that rule! Even someone making $20,000 would end up shelling out 5K following that rule!

 

I think most middle income people can reasonably swing $1,000-$3,000 for a decent ring.

 

Again, it all depends on your situation and how important the ring is to your partner.

 

I would personally refuse a ring over $3K, and I've asked my boyfriend to have a high quality CZ (yes, high quality CZs exist, look beautiful, nearly indistinguishable from diamonds, at about $20 a carat) set in a precious metal and/or diamond accent semi-mount of his choice. It is a piece of jewelry, and I'd like a nice one, but I'd rather not feed the monopoly, so I prefer a diamond simulant center.

 

Lab created colorless diamonds, at present, are equally or more costly than natural mined ones, right now. I had a chance to purchase lab created stones from Apollo, but passed on it because they cost just as much as stones from blue nile! You will see unbelievable price breaks on fancy colored lab-created diamonds, like pink, blue, and yellow, which are naturally very rare and therefore very costly. But per carat, these lab colored diamonds (which are easier to produce in the lab than colorless stones) still cost more than their colorless mined counterparts.

 

Beware of many companies out there that say they are selling "lab created" diamonds, but really they are selling glorified CZ. CZ is fine, but I'd hate for anyone to buy from, say, Diamond Nexus Labs, thinking the were getting a real diamond, when they are really getting CZ.

 

Just remember- lab created, or synthetic, means it is chemically identical to diamonds. The composition is pure carbon.

 

"Simulated" means something that looks like it (CZ, moissanite, white sapphire, glass) but is chemically different. Diamond Nexus Labs, Russian Brilliants, Asha, and many many others are CZ with fancy names, or CZ with a microscopic diamond coating. I don't know the chemical formula for CZ, but it is not pure carbon, that's for sure...

[Guest]

Or go with an estate piece or an antique. That's what I got. It's beautiful and it wasn't as expensive as a brand new ring would be.

[Wantingtogetitright]

with regards to the spend - whatever is affordable, save up for it, lay by it or whatever but don't go OTT a marriage is not about the ring. But it is an investment and it has to be a good one as it will be worn everyday for the rest of her life.

 

If she wants a big stone you really should look at man made. In the states on the shopping channel there is a stone called diamonique or soemthing like that, here in australia it is called diamonesque. Believe me people truly cannot tell the difference. A show I saw about this stone said thatit is made from carbon the same as a diamond but is a man made pricess where they compress it themselves withmachinery rather than in thr ground over millions of years etc. Apparently the only way a jeweller can tell the difference is by using a thermal probe.

 

I have been in jewellery stores and the jewellers have nearly yanked my arm out of it's socket as they grab my hand and have that quizzical look on their face "is it real".

 

If she isn't into big rocks though try and get a real one.

 

A CZ is not a good option as you are talking about a stone you will wear every day for the rest of your life and this simply won't stand up to it. I have a ring that is about 15 years old and only wear ocassionaly and it really has lost it's sparkle and if you look at it closely you can see where it has actually worn away on some of the edges which is what is making it dull.

[dropdeadlegs]

Is the ring really more important than the commitment? I say no, and if I were a man would not spend a fortune on a ring when marriages have such a high failure rate. She keeps the ring, he gets what? Memories? Payments?

 

Marry the man/woman, the jewelry is bull$hit.

[norajane]

I really loathe the DeBeers diamond people. They have a lock on the diamond industry, and have artificially inflated prices for decades by holding back the diamonds they have mined and put in storage - they aren't nearly as rare and scarce as their prices would indicate! Not to mention the conditions under which many of them are mined...what a tragic scam.

 

Unfortunately, they are pretty and sparkly and about a 100 years ago, DeBeers marketed them into being a 'must' for engagement rings.

 

It's just a rock from the ground! So what if it's the hardest rock of them all? It's not like I'm going to be drilling through granite with it!

 

People should only spend what they can comfortably afford on diamonds, and only if they have their heart set on one. Personally, I like the sparkle, but I just cannot rationalize spending thousands of $$$$$ on a ring that I'd be afraid to lose.

 

I love rubies and sapphires. I'd prefer an engagement ring with a nice sized ruby or sapphire at a much more reasonable price to a diamond...

[adnCat]

If she wants a big stone you really should look at man made. In the states on the shopping channel there is a stone called diamonique or soemthing like that, here in australia it is called diamonesque. Believe me people truly cannot tell the difference. A show I saw about this stone said thatit is made from carbon the same as a diamond but is a man made pricess where they compress it themselves withmachinery rather than in thr ground over millions of years etc. Apparently the only way a jeweller can tell the difference is by using a thermal probe.

 

A CZ is not a good option as you are talking about a stone you will wear every day for the rest of your life and this simply won't stand up to it. I have a ring that is about 15 years old and only wear ocassionaly and it really has lost it's sparkle and if you look at it closely you can see where it has actually worn away on some of the edges which is what is making it dull.

 

Hey, I'm the long guest post above. I always forget to log in before I post. Anyway...

 

I have to correct this. I've done a lot of research on diamond synthetics and simulants, and I'm sorry to inform you, but diamonesque and diamonique are both NOT man made diamonds. A true man made diamond is chemically, physically, optically, and thermically (is that even a word?) identical to mined diamonds. A thermal probe cannot tell the difference between a true synthetic and a mined diamond. In fact, a thermal probe cannot even tell the difference between moissanite and diamonds, as they both have high thermal conductivity. (Althought the moissanite, in my opinion, looks quite different than a diamond since is has the property of double refraction.) DeBeers has poured tons of money into machines that can tell the difference between synthetic (man made) and mined diamonds, but the machines are wildly expensive and very few outlets have them.

 

Further proof that Diamonesque is not a true synthetic? Go to the website that sells them. It even says there that it is a simulant, not a synthetic. And then it says that diamonesque is a 8.5 on the mohs scale. (Curiously, CZ is also an 8.5!) Real diamonds, both synthetic and mined, have a mohs hardness of 10. (It doesn't sound that different, but the mohs scale is not linear. 1 point of difference on is is actually exponential!) If you heard anything about the diamonesque stones being pure carbon, you were probably mis-informed. Another possibility is that the diamonesque stone is coated in a microscopic layer of pure carbon. Many CZ manufacturers (Asha, DNL) can do this through a process known as chemical vapor disposition.

 

I'm pretty sure Diamonesque and Diamonique are actually CZ diamond simulants. The reason your other CZ looks so bad now is because it was not cut an polished properly. Cheaply cut and polished CZs have rough edges, and less smooth surfaces, at a micro-level. Since they are not a finely polished as diamonds, they will grab dirt and oils and then start to look gross. Get a high quality CZ simulant, like your Diamonesque (or Asha, Interlap, etc) and it will sparkle beautifully forever. CZs are higher on the mohs scale than many other jewelry quality gemstones, like aquamarine, peridot, garnet. CZs just have a bad rep because they were overproduced and sloppily cut, set in jewelry with terrible workmanship when they hit the scene in the 70s.

 

Again, the only true man-made diamonds (jewelry quality) are still as expensive as the mined stones, except for the fancy colored ones. Companies have been making man made or synthetic diamonds for years, but for industrial purposes. The companies that are making them for jewelry are being very very careful at their placement in the diamond market because they don't want their product to be priced super low. The industry has learned a lesson from the synthetic sapphire and ruby trades, which took a hit when the lab created stones were over-produced. Supply and demand, folks!

 

One great resource for this type of info is simstalk.com. There are forums and a wealth of info on this stuff.

[Guest]

I say the ring should not matter as long as there is LOYALTY, RESPECT and LOVE... I think that is what is most important...

[vanessabg]

I say the ring should not matter as long as there is LOYALTY, RESPECT and LOVE... I think that is what is most important...

I agree to Guest! here,important is loyalty,respect and love then the costly ring.

[Woggle]

Buy a cheap ring and if she gets mad that should be a hint that you should not marry her.. I got my wife a blue sapphire ring that cost about 200 dollars and I thought it was different. She loved it and was glad I did not go broke buying a ring for her.

[IpAncA]

I say the ring should not matter as long as there is LOYALTY, RESPECT and LOVE... I think that is what is most important...

Well said.

[Okeydokey]

I say the ring should not matter as long as there is LOYALTY, RESPECT and LOVE... I think that is what is most important...

 

Absolutely right here. Get a simple ring that is w/in your price range. I personally would not want an engagement ring - just the wedding ring.

 

The most important thing is to start your life together with financial stability. You can have a rock star wedding, but do you want to start off as newlyweds with serious financial problems? Not a good idea. arguments over money suck. Save the money and go on a trip or make a down payment on a house or start a retirement savings plan.

 

Plus, have you heard about conflict diamonds? I'd do some research on that subject and talk to your gf about it... then ask yourself if you still want to do the engagement ring thing:

 

Did Someone Die for That Diamond?

Some diamonds have helped fund devastating civil wars in Africa, destroying the lives of millions. Conflict diamonds are those sold in order to fund armed conflict and civil war. Profits from the trade in conflict diamonds, worth billions of dollars, were used by warlords and rebels to buy arms during the devastating wars in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Sierra Leone. Wars that have cost an estimated 3.7 million lives.

 

While the wars in Angola and Sierra Leone are now over, and fighting in the DRC has decreased, the problem of conflict diamonds hasn't gone away. Diamonds mined in rebel-held areas in Côte d'Ivoire, a West African country in the midst of a volatile conflict, are reaching the international diamond market. Conflict diamonds from Liberia are also being smuggled into neighboring countries and exported as part of the legitimate diamond trade.

 

http://www.amnestyusa.org