Diamonds not a smart investment...

[Laila619]

Most PSers are pretty well-off, so I suppose my original post is a non-starter for most of us here.

But say you are young, just starting off, and don't have a lot of money saved up, nor do you make a lot. Would you prioritize an engagement ring over other things? Would you be content to get engaged with no ring or just a band?

 

[braga123]

I love vacations and seeing the world. These are life experiences and a good trip is never forgotten in my opinion. I see it as an investment in myself I would not use my vacation budget on bling and vice versa. I have been aching to go on another Asia trip.

+1. Designer handbags, designer clothing, and other luxury items must compete with bling budget and lately, I keep choosing bling. It helps to buy estate pieces because most people are willing to sell them for a little above gold weight.

 

[braga123]

Most PSers are pretty well-off, so I suppose my original post is a non-starter for most of us here.

But say you are young, just starting off, and don't have a lot of money saved up, nor do you make a lot. Would you prioritize an engagement ring over other things? Would you be content to get engaged with no ring or just a band?

When I was in that situation, my $300 ring was sufficient, and on most days, I even forgot to wear it! Of course, I was only 20 when I got married the first time. I didn't really catch the jewelry bug until I happened on PS after my current hubby bought my ring. And I didn't start obsessing until I felt that all my other needs--retirement, mortgage, etc.--were in a healthy state. Now I just wonder if I need to stop....

 

[Dreamer_D]

Most PSers are pretty well-off, so I suppose my original post is a non-starter for most of us here.

But say you are young, just starting off, and don't have a lot of money saved up, nor do you make a lot. Would you prioritize an engagement ring over other things? Would you be content to get engaged with no ring or just a band?

I was engaged in graduate school and my husband was just starting his career. We had no money. He saved for six months just to save $900! And he got an engagement ring that cost only a few hundred more than that amount. So, I suppose that we did believe in what you said -- we prioritized all those other essentials over the ring! I cannot imagine spending $5k we didn't have on a ring at that time in our lives. I guess people do it though.

But, I wanted an engagement ring of some kind! I would not have said, "Hey, put that $1300 towards the car payment instead of my ring". It just wasn't SO much money that it would have made such a difference. My pleasure from the ring was way more than the pleasure of that small amount in savings.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Part Gypsy - interesting that your parallel was a beautiful painting! I was about to say that for me, buying a piece of jewelry is akin to buying a piece of art. I rarely buy art because I think it's going to increase in value (though, come to think of it, some of it probably has become "collectible" at this point). I buy it because I love looking at it, and it makes me happy.

What I find interesting about both of these articles - and the many others of their ilk that I've come across over the years - is how they situate the engagement diamond as an illogical drain foisted upon innocent men by foolish, gullible women.

C'mon, where are my articles about how stupid it is to sink money into a cool-looking car? Or a fancy gaming system? Inevitably, it's the stuff that's used as a female status symbol that's presented as unnecessary and wasteful. (... shoes, anyone?) I'm pretty sure most women enjoy their engagement rings long past the time when their masculine partners revel in their new motorcycles.

Not to mention the fact that in the current socioeconomic system, women also work, and while there are exceptions, most marriages function in a shared economy post-ceremony. Dudes may be the ones making the initial outlay, but it's a shared cost in the grand scheme of things.

Let's argue about why women get engagement presents and men don't (and, for that matter, why women are discouraged from proposing, and strongly criticized if they put forth any opinion about the process, from "pressuring him into it" to flat-out ultimatums, from asking for a specific kind of ring to, even more sadly, voicing some dissatisfaction with this thing they're supposed to wear for the rest of their lives post-proposal). Let's argue about why status symbols are so important in our society. But let's admit that the engagement-ring-rage is less about financial outlay/investment, and more about gender and other social roles in a time of enormous changes .....

I agree with all of this, of course. And add another layer: The ring communicates to the world about the man's wealth (traditionally), and tells the world that his woman is taken. I think there is a lot of pressure on men to buy a nice ring -- and even if a man rejects that pressure, like you or I might reject constricting aspects of the female gender role -- on an implicit level you can never fully escape such cultural norms. So, I think there is a reactive, defensive aspect to the types of arguments that men can make that derogate the ring, on top of all the issues you mention. Vehemently denying the importance of something sure suggests that thing is important to you on some level!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

A vacation will sparkle for 2 weeks. a diamond will sparkle forever.

Amen!

DF has some great lines in this thread!

Just for the record, my husband bought my original diamond before we bought a house. he was finishing his last year of college and borrowed the money from his father and paid him back over the next year or so. So we certainly didn't have money at that time. We bought a house after a year or two and have had one ever since. So the purchase of that ring when we were very young did not hurt our future one bit. I wore that ring happily for 30 years, and he was proud to be able to buy me a new diamond ring then. I happen to think it is a sweet tradition, and I hope it continues!

As far as travel goes, our vacations might be modest compared to some, but they are relaxing and exactly what we want to do (beach, mountains, etc.). (And we have both travelled internationally a couple of times and plan to do more once he retires early.) However, if I did have to choose right this minute between a $20,000 2 week cruise and a $20,000 ring, I wouldn't have to think very long about that at all! I'll go shopping with Smith, DF, MGR, etc!

At least fine jewelry can be heirlooms, whereas a lot of other things end up thrown away. I agree with most of the posts on the thread since most seen to be of the same view.

 

[royalstarrynight]

However, if I did have to choose right this minute between a $20,000 2 week cruise and a $20,000 ring, I wouldn't have to think very long about that at all! I'll go shopping with Smith, DF, MGR, etc!

Woah $20k 2 week cruise is really pricey! I guess I'm used to taking $100 per person per day cruises....which in comparison would be a meager $1,400 per person for two weeks. That way I can have both the cruise AND $18,600 diamond!

Why not have it all! I'm a greedy girl!

 

[Dancing Fire]

A vacation will sparkle for 2 weeks. a diamond will sparkle forever.

Amen!

DF has some great lines in this thread!


As far as travel goes, our vacations might be modest compared to some, but they are relaxing and exactly what we want to do (beach, mountains, etc.). (And we have both travelled internationally a couple of times and plan to do more once he retires early.) However, if I did have to choose right this minute between a $20,000 2 week cruise and a $20,000 ring, I wouldn't have to think very long about that at all! I'll go shopping with Smith, DF, MGR, etc!

No problem if you let me use your credit card...

 

[JewelFreak]

But say you are young, just starting off, and don't have a lot of money saved up, nor do you make a lot. Would you prioritize an engagement ring over other things? Would you be content to get engaged with no ring or just a band?

I was. I didn't want the teeny thing we could afford then. Rather have nothing. It didn't bother me at all -- an e-ring is a luxury, not a necessity. I knew in time I'd be able to get a ring that thrilled me. Going into stupid debt for one NOW just seemed cray-cray. I'd do it that way again if I had to.

--- Laurie

 

[princesss]

But say you are young, just starting off, and don't have a lot of money saved up, nor do you make a lot. Would you prioritize an engagement ring over other things? Would you be content to get engaged with no ring or just a band?

I was. I didn't want the teeny thing we could afford then. Rather have nothing. It didn't bother me at all -- an e-ring is a luxury, not a necessity. I knew in time I'd be able to get a ring that thrilled me. Going into stupid debt for one NOW just seemed cray-cray. I'd do it that way again if I had to.

--- Laurie

This topic actually brought me out of lurk-dom!

I'm basically in the camp you're talking about right now, Laila. 27, in grad school, savings slowly being drained by the program of my dreams (and debt piling up disbursement by disbursement). No boyfriend/engagement on the horizon, but were it to somehow happen in the next year or two...we'd be flat broke. I'm getting an MSc in creative writing, so it's not like I'm on track to make big bucks. I like creative guys, so again...not looking at big bucks.

I'd want *something*. Some symbol of commitment. But quite frankly, as much as I'd love a big sparkly ring, I don't know that one is ever in my future. I would rather come up with a modest budget and get, say, a small stacking band as an e-ring than get nothing. But I also wouldn't want to spend all of what little savings either of us have on something that won't actually affect our day-to-day life.

So I guess for me, if it is either/or, I'd take practical over sentimental. But I'm a big sentimental fool, so I'd like *something* (if possible).

 

[TC1987]

If I buy my lunch at Wendy's every workday, let's do the approximate math:
Lunch price $6.50 * 1.06 for tax = $6.89/day
days worked in a year: Use typical 2000 man-hours/8 = 250 days = 250 lunches bought
$1722.50 / year

If I do that for 6 years, I have spent about $10,335, and that is probably MORE than what the average e-ring currently sold to PS-ers costs. And at the end of that 6 years, where is all of that food, and exactly how much can I resell it for? To say nothing of did I ruin my health or gain too much weight with the excess calories and sodium, and how much extra time and money do I have to expend to correct that situation?

I concur with the post that said inevitably whatever women choose to spend money on for fun, or for themselves, is constantly criticized while men's entertainment spending is not. Women are supposed to be self-sacrificing, passive, altruistic, and servile, and (eta) always softspoken, lol. And the more rural, bible-thumping, and poorly educated the people (in bumpkin western Pennsylvania, anyhow) the more they criticize women for wanting or having nice things. And the more the men gripe and resent having to buy her a diamond engagement ring. Gawd knows, a man's money is for spending on himself.

 

[Laila619]

But say you are young, just starting off, and don't have a lot of money saved up, nor do you make a lot. Would you prioritize an engagement ring over other things? Would you be content to get engaged with no ring or just a band?

I was. I didn't want the teeny thing we could afford then. Rather have nothing. It didn't bother me at all -- an e-ring is a luxury, not a necessity. I knew in time I'd be able to get a ring that thrilled me. Going into stupid debt for one NOW just seemed cray-cray. I'd do it that way again if I had to.

--- Laurie

This topic actually brought me out of lurk-dom!

I'm basically in the camp you're talking about right now, Laila. 27, in grad school, savings slowly being drained by the program of my dreams (and debt piling up disbursement by disbursement). No boyfriend/engagement on the horizon, but were it to somehow happen in the next year or two...we'd be flat broke. I'm getting an MSc in creative writing, so it's not like I'm on track to make big bucks. I like creative guys, so again...not looking at big bucks.

I'd want *something*. Some symbol of commitment. But quite frankly, as much as I'd love a big sparkly ring, I don't know that one is ever in my future. I would rather come up with a modest budget and get, say, a small stacking band as an e-ring than get nothing. But I also wouldn't want to spend all of what little savings either of us have on something that won't actually affect our day-to-day life.

So I guess for me, if it is either/or, I'd take practical over sentimental. But I'm a big sentimental fool, so I'd like *something* (if possible).

I think a sparkly, pretty diamond band that doesn't break the bank is a great idea for an engagement ring, Princesss! Practical yet you still get to have something beautiful on your finger.

 

[Laila619]

If I buy my lunch at Wendy's every workday, let's do the approximate math:
Lunch price $6.50 * 1.06 for tax = $6.89/day
days worked in a year: Use typical 2000 man-hours/8 = 250 days = 250 lunches bought
$1722.50 / year

If I do that for 6 years, I have spent about $10,335, and that is probably MORE than what the average e-ring currently sold to PS-ers costs. And at the end of that 6 years, where is all of that food, and exactly how much can I resell it for? To say nothing of did I ruin my health or gain too much weight with the excess calories and sodium, and how much extra time and money do I have to expend to correct that situation?

I concur with the post that said inevitably whatever women choose to spend money on for fun, or for themselves, is constantly criticized while men's entertainment spending is not. Women are supposed to be self-sacrificing, passive, altruistic, and servile, and (eta) always softspoken, lol. And the more rural, bible-thumping, and poorly educated the people (in bumpkin western Pennsylvania, anyhow) the more they criticize women for wanting or having nice things. And the more the men gripe and resent having to buy her a diamond engagement ring. Gawd knows, a man's money is for spending on himself.

Oh I think mens' spending is criticized too, lol. But the difference is that a woman's ring doesn't do anything but look pretty. What do men spend money on? Boat, car, RV, dirt bike, guitar, computer, TV, etc? Those at least do something and can be enjoyed by multiple people.

 

[insured]

Most PSers are pretty well-off, so I suppose my original post is a non-starter for most of us here.

But say you are young, just starting off, and don't have a lot of money saved up, nor do you make a lot.

I think this is the scenario the articles are getting at - they aren't talking about what well off people later in life (or even early in life) choose to spend disposable income on.

Would you prioritize an engagement ring over other things? No!

Would you be content to get engaged with no ring or just a band? Yes!

The relationship and mutual respect (which goes both ways) is what matters

My DH proposed with an empty ring box containing a help wanted ad! When there was money to post the job, the position was filled We also chose to elope to a place we both really wanted to travel and have a honeymoon there rather than spend the money on a traditional wedding. My parents offered money for a wedding or a downpayment on a house, we took the latter without hesitation. It started us out on solid financial footing and I have NO regrets. My brother on the other hand spent money he couldn't really afford on a ring, took the wedding and two years later the marriage dissolved largely over financial strain. To each his own, but diamonds are a luxury for those who can afford them, not an essential IMO.

 

[JewelFreak]

You said it better than I did, Insured. Exactly what I meant.

To Princesss's point -- a stacker is a good solution. I was lucky in that my mother offered me her half-eternity wedding ring from her 1st marriage (her husband died in WWII). The diamonds are not great quality but it sparkles & as time went on I stacked it with other rings. You can buy nice eternities in a variety of gems for reasonable prices. It's a great way to go.

I married the man. Didn't feel I needed a symbol of commitment that I knew was there. I always felt a little pity for women who wore tiny diamond chips because they had to have a ring to make it a real engagement. Every couple should do what makes them comfortable -- I just felt we'd take on too much debt for a ring I'd want to upgrade from Day 1 anyway. It worked for me; might not for someone else.

--- Laurie

 

[braga123]

If I buy my lunch at Wendy's every workday, let's do the approximate math:
Lunch price $6.50 * 1.06 for tax = $6.89/day
days worked in a year: Use typical 2000 man-hours/8 = 250 days = 250 lunches bought
$1722.50 / year

If I do that for 6 years, I have spent about $10,335, and that is probably MORE than what the average e-ring currently sold to PS-ers costs. And at the end of that 6 years, where is all of that food, and exactly how much can I resell it for? To say nothing of did I ruin my health or gain too much weight with the excess calories and sodium, and how much extra time and money do I have to expend to correct that situation?

I concur with the post that said inevitably whatever women choose to spend money on for fun, or for themselves, is constantly criticized while men's entertainment spending is not. Women are supposed to be self-sacrificing, passive, altruistic, and servile, and (eta) always softspoken, lol. And the more rural, bible-thumping, and poorly educated the people (in bumpkin western Pennsylvania, anyhow) the more they criticize women for wanting or having nice things. And the more the men gripe and resent having to buy her a diamond engagement ring. Gawd knows, a man's money is for spending on himself.

Oh I think mens' spending is criticized too, lol. But the difference is that a woman's ring doesn't do anything but look pretty. What do men spend money on? Boat, car, RV, dirt bike, guitar, computer, TV, etc? Those at least do something and can be enjoyed by multiple people.

I disagree. Comic books and baseball cards for their collections or other collectible sports memorabilia.

 

[Circe]

If I buy my lunch at Wendy's every workday, let's do the approximate math:
Lunch price $6.50 * 1.06 for tax = $6.89/day
days worked in a year: Use typical 2000 man-hours/8 = 250 days = 250 lunches bought
$1722.50 / year

If I do that for 6 years, I have spent about $10,335, and that is probably MORE than what the average e-ring currently sold to PS-ers costs. And at the end of that 6 years, where is all of that food, and exactly how much can I resell it for? To say nothing of did I ruin my health or gain too much weight with the excess calories and sodium, and how much extra time and money do I have to expend to correct that situation?

I concur with the post that said inevitably whatever women choose to spend money on for fun, or for themselves, is constantly criticized while men's entertainment spending is not. Women are supposed to be self-sacrificing, passive, altruistic, and servile, and (eta) always softspoken, lol. And the more rural, bible-thumping, and poorly educated the people (in bumpkin western Pennsylvania, anyhow) the more they criticize women for wanting or having nice things. And the more the men gripe and resent having to buy her a diamond engagement ring. Gawd knows, a man's money is for spending on himself.

Oh I think mens' spending is criticized too, lol. But the difference is that a woman's ring doesn't do anything but look pretty. What do men spend money on? Boat, car, RV, dirt bike, guitar, computer, TV, etc? Those at least do something and can be enjoyed by multiple people.

Two points:

1) Not necessarily.

2) Why does it have to be enjoyed by multiple people to be valid?

Personally, I wouldn't enjoy a single thing on that list. Some of them would actively harm my quality of life (lookin' at you, guitar-playing exes). Some of them I'd be tolerant of while quietly rolling my eyes (I loathe the way our tv dominates the living room, but ... fine, it makes the husband happy). And some of them I'm happy enough to get for him: I don't play strategy games and don't need a powerful computer, he does, more power to him; that's the time I spend on my hobbies! But I do think this idea that anything and everything must be communal property, share and share alike, is unrealistic: almost always, the strongest personality will dominate.

And in a patriarchy, given all the social messages encouraging men to be active, aggressive, and forceful, and all the messages encouraging women to be passive, nurturing, self-sacrificing, martyr-like ... I think it's not a coincidence that a lot of households skew towards humoring the man, either because he flat-out earns more and has more pull when it comes to expenditures, or just because he's likelier to stand his ground while the woman might feel more pressure to compromise or make up.

I think I've championed, if not selfishness, then at least healthy self-interest, on here before. Consider this me raising the flag once more.

 

[yssie]

If I buy my lunch at Wendy's every workday, let's do the approximate math:
Lunch price $6.50 * 1.06 for tax = $6.89/day
days worked in a year: Use typical 2000 man-hours/8 = 250 days = 250 lunches bought
$1722.50 / year

If I do that for 6 years, I have spent about $10,335, and that is probably MORE than what the average e-ring currently sold to PS-ers costs. And at the end of that 6 years, where is all of that food, and exactly how much can I resell it for? To say nothing of did I ruin my health or gain too much weight with the excess calories and sodium, and how much extra time and money do I have to expend to correct that situation?

I concur with the post that said inevitably whatever women choose to spend money on for fun, or for themselves, is constantly criticized while men's entertainment spending is not. Women are supposed to be self-sacrificing, passive, altruistic, and servile, and (eta) always softspoken, lol. And the more rural, bible-thumping, and poorly educated the people (in bumpkin western Pennsylvania, anyhow) the more they criticize women for wanting or having nice things. And the more the men gripe and resent having to buy her a diamond engagement ring. Gawd knows, a man's money is for spending on himself.

Oh I think mens' spending is criticized too, lol. But the difference is that a woman's ring doesn't do anything but look pretty. What do men spend money on? Boat, car, RV, dirt bike, guitar, computer, TV, etc? Those at least do something and can be enjoyed by multiple people.

Two points:

1) Not necessarily.

2) Why does it have to be enjoyed by multiple people to be valid?

Personally, I wouldn't enjoy a single thing on that list. Some of them would actively harm my quality of life (lookin' at you, guitar-playing exes). Some of them I'd be tolerant of while quietly rolling my eyes (I loathe the way our tv dominates the living room, but ... fine, it makes the husband happy). And some of them I'm happy enough to get for him: I don't play strategy games and don't need a powerful computer, he does, more power to him; that's the time I spend on my hobbies! But I do think this idea that anything and everything must be communal property, share and share alike, is unrealistic: almost always, the strongest personality will dominate.

And in a patriarchy, given all the social messages encouraging men to be active, aggressive, and forceful, and all the messages encouraging women to be passive, nurturing, self-sacrificing, martyr-like ... I think it's not a coincidence that a lot of households skew towards humoring the man, either because he flat-out earns more and has more pull when it comes to expenditures, or just because he's likelier to stand his ground while the woman might feel more pressure to compromise or make up.

I think I've championed, if not selfishness, then at least healthy self-interest, on here before. Consider this me raising the flag once more.

My first thought is that my thoughts on this are awfully archaic. My second thought is that perhaps that's because many of my thoughts on marriage are rather archaic too.

I've always held to the sentiment that once two people are married they should be financially self-sufficient, and for me 'self-sufficiency' includes having the means to pay for daily expenses, having an emergency fund, and having some disposable income to play with. So buying a pretty sparkly to celebrate getting married was just part of comfortably supporting ourselves... so yes, I did have certain expectations, and I would've waited to marry DH until we could afford a ring that fulfilled those expectations. It's got nothing to do with the ring itself, only whether or not I felt we were 'ready' for marriage, and from that perspective it's actually a fantastic metric because disposable income is at the very bottom of the savings priority list and there are few expenses so totally frivolous by which to judge how you're doing!

I also, in the middle of planning to always have my own very successful career and to never be dependent on a man, married someone who would be able to be the sole provider for our family if necessary, and who would be (emotionally) comfortable with the pressure of that role. What does that say about me? I don't *think* I'm a closet patriarch but I do think the quest for equality between genders has been perverted to the point of absurdity. Men and women aren't equal - we're built differently physically, maybe we think differently too? But instead of exploring that possibility we've all stuck our heads in the sand and declared the whole topic taboo... the idealist on my shoulder notes that we as a society continually fail to embrace "Equality" in the "eye for an eye" sense in every way - religion, race, ethnicity, culture, gender - maybe we'd be better off spending our time and effort trying to fix that whole 'separate but equal' thing?
And yeah, then the realist on the other shoulder tells the idealist to shut the h*ll up, because even I can see that that way lies the sort of power struggle that I, as a member of said society, don't even want to imagine.. which is really a sorry statement by itself.

 

[missy]

Part Gypsy - interesting that your parallel was a beautiful painting! I was about to say that for me, buying a piece of jewelry is akin to buying a piece of art. I rarely buy art because I think it's going to increase in value (though, come to think of it, some of it probably has become "collectible" at this point). I buy it because I love looking at it, and it makes me happy.

What I find interesting about both of these articles - and the many others of their ilk that I've come across over the years - is how they situate the engagement diamond as an illogical drain foisted upon innocent men by foolish, gullible women.

C'mon, where are my articles about how stupid it is to sink money into a cool-looking car? Or a fancy gaming system? Inevitably, it's the stuff that's used as a female status symbol that's presented as unnecessary and wasteful. (... shoes, anyone?) I'm pretty sure most women enjoy their engagement rings long past the time when their masculine partners revel in their new motorcycles.

Not to mention the fact that in the current socioeconomic system, women also work, and while there are exceptions, most marriages function in a shared economy post-ceremony. Dudes may be the ones making the initial outlay, but it's a shared cost in the grand scheme of things.

Let's argue about why women get engagement presents and men don't (and, for that matter, why women are discouraged from proposing, and strongly criticized if they put forth any opinion about the process, from "pressuring him into it" to flat-out ultimatums, from asking for a specific kind of ring to, even more sadly, voicing some dissatisfaction with this thing they're supposed to wear for the rest of their lives post-proposal). Let's argue about why status symbols are so important in our society. But let's admit that the engagement-ring-rage is less about financial outlay/investment, and more about gender and other social roles in a time of enormous changes .....

I agree with all of this, of course. And add another layer: The ring communicates to the world about the man's wealth (traditionally), and tells the world that his woman is taken. I think there is a lot of pressure on men to buy a nice ring -- and even if a man rejects that pressure, like you or I might reject constricting aspects of the female gender role -- on an implicit level you can never fully escape such cultural norms. So, I think there is a reactive, defensive aspect to the types of arguments that men can make that derogate the ring, on top of all the issues you mention. Vehemently denying the importance of something sure suggests that thing is important to you on some level!

And to add just another layer to this already complicated issue-it also communicates to many in the world (wrongly ofc) how much your SO loves you. I lost count the number of times people commented on how much my dh must love me to have bought me such a beautiful and huge ring. And those comments started with my original ER and continue still with my current ER. It's incredible the baggage people carry around attaching emotions like that to possessions!

 

[missy]

Most PSers are pretty well-off, so I suppose my original post is a non-starter for most of us here.

But say you are young, just starting off, and don't have a lot of money saved up, nor do you make a lot. Would you prioritize an engagement ring over other things? Would you be content to get engaged with no ring or just a band?

Absolutely. If we had gotten engaged/married at a young age when we didn't have much money I would have been perfectly content to marry my dh with nothing or a token band. A no brainer for me. And in fact that is exactly what my parents did. When my dad proposed he had nothing in terms of extra money as he was just starting a practice so they got engaged with no ring. When my dad started earning money he went out with her and bought a beautiful diamond ER that she wears to this day 50 years later.