How much should or would you expect a guy to spend on an Engagement Ring?

M.J.M.C

prinz wrote: »

True.



True.



False.



False.

Look at this horse s**t!!!
FALSE?????? The person was expressing their own opinions, there's no true or false about it....

What someone else spends on an engagement ring is their OWN BUSINESS! I would spend what i can comfortably afford, be it 100, 100k

Anyone who has a problem with how much or little you spend can GTFO its none of their business.

Anyone who judges someone by what they spend on material objects is an idiot. Be happy for someone who got engaged not for what they did or didn't spend.

If someone would rather spend money on a bigger ring and not go away or they can afford it thats fine, if someone wants to buy a cheaper ring cause money is tight or save it for other things thats fine.
Its up to the couple. There's no rules here!

OP - Agree with your oh on a budget on what you can afford etc and good luck.

Gunsfortoys

seanmc1980 wrote: »

excellent counter arguement, very well though out and insightful!

agruement flawed, resort to childish palmfaces and epic fails,

...

prinz

M.J.M.C wrote: »

Look at this horse s**t!!!
FALSE?????? The person was expressing their own opinions, there's no true or false about it.....

If someone says that disposable income and how much someone spends on an engagement ring are directly proportional I am ok in expressing an opinion that that is a mistaken conclusion.

Lady von Purple

I read somewhere that the three month wages thing was actually started by an ad campaign by an American jewellery company. I'll see if I can find a link to that later! But personal opinion- diamonds are too flashy for me, and the majority of engagement rings are diamond so I'd want something a little unusual. I'd want white gold or silver, and my birth-stone. Also, that should save my boyfriend a lot of money which I think is fair. A thousand would be my absolute maximum, and that much only if I saw an absolutely perfect ring. People are entitled to spend as much as they see fit on an engagement ring, but they shouldn't have to pay more because other people think they should. imo.

It wasn't me!

To whoever mentioned "All little girls dream about their engagement" or whatever crock that was which explained placing minimum financial parameters on the purchase of an engagement ring, maybe , instead of marrying little girls, finding an emotionally developed adult is the correct answer? Certainly, anyone who requires a minimum value of gift does not fit into this category. Also, discussing prices is incredibly classless. First of all, it's rude to ask it of someone (And certainly, unless the recipient has picked it out, they shouldn't be aware - I also don't think it's exactly classy to go looking for that information after receiving it) but to actually engage in comparative discussion? Wow, that's pretty pathetic. And to the point that people with more money spend lots of cash on things? Broadly, my experience is that the properly wealthy live relatively simple existences, out of the public eye, and enjoy what they have quietly. Certainly, some will purchase expensive things, possibly including engagement rings, but the properly wealthy certainly won't be talking about the price either. That's the sign of someone who's cheap, regardless of how much money they have.

coffee_cake

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Certainly, some will purchase expensive things, possibly including engagement rings, but the properly wealthy certainly won't be talking about the price either. That's the sign of someone who's cheap, regardless of how much money they have.

That always reminds me of that ad on tv for some housewives in the USA or something. Some woman flashing around a very tacky looking diamond-encrusted watch and boasting it cost 40k.
Tackyyyyy

Wibbs

seanmc1980 wrote: »

if you earn 100k you will spend circa 10k. if you earn 50 you will spend 5k, if you on min wage or dole you will spend few 100(i suspect a lot of posters fall into this category) . its all relitive in the end. its like anything in life you will buy a bigger house/car/TV etc.. if you have more money.

People who can't afford the more expensive things will then justify it to themselves by say "money can't buy you love" "idiots pay more than a grand for a ring" "i'd be happy with a onion ring" people say this cos they know deep down they can't afford the more expensive things in life so it makes them feel better to be Self-righteous and scoff at someone who can!

Utter toss. I can afford to drop 10k on a ring. I just wouldn't. I have a nice house, bought and paid for BTW. No mortgage. I dont require a bigger car or flat screen TV. If I want one I'll get one, but there's too much of a consumerist con going on around most of this guff. Like in the thread about diamonds, it is a con. Your 10k ring? If the bulk of it was the name and stones, not the scrap value of the setting, then you were done as surely as any eejit who buys a vacuum cleaner from a door to door salesman.

saywhatyousee wrote: »

Probaly between 3-6k girls look forward to this and there are two important points you have to consider
1.your future bride will be dissapointed (not a good start right there)
2.nasty condesending comments from other girls.and people will think your a cheap skate too.

So I make decisions based on what daft chicks* who giggle excessively may think? Eh no. If I do get to that stage, I'll be buying her as much as anything and.....

saywhatyousee wrote: »

i think it is a fair arrangement 5k ring for going through child birth
imagine trying to push a roast beef out through your nose:eek:

... if that happens, not pleasant and she'd be ruined after that. Best upgrade her for a less saggy less whiny model then. *May require more expensive ring*.

foxyboxer wrote: »

BIG HAT, NO CATTLE.

Bingo.

i.e. You may LOOK rich (10k engagement rings, rolex watch, louis vuitton etc) but actually you are in reality "one-missed-leased payment-on-that-Lexus", away from bankruptcy!

Two for two.

Realise that a lot of wealthy people are actually extremely frugal and would scoff at the suggestion of "rules" surrounding the purchase of an engagement ring.

and there's the hat trick. I have a couple of seriously wealthy relatives. And I'm not talking "middle management, we've a house teeny apartment time share in Portugal" either. Actual generational wealth. Yep they are extremely frugal. It's only the nouveau riche who tend towards public ostentation. Celti tiger cubs were/are by far the worst for it.


*not to be confused with actual women.

It wasn't me!

bluewolf wrote: »

That always reminds me of that ad on tv for some housewives in the USA or something. Some woman flashing around a very tacky looking diamond-encrusted watch and boasting it cost 40k.
Tackyyyyy

Yep, nothing like it to really make my stomach turn. Pathetic.

M.J.M.C

prinz wrote: »

If someone says that disposable income and how much someone spends on an engagement ring are directly proportional I am ok in expressing an opinion that that is a mistaken conclusion.

FALSE :rolleyes:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

time4tea

saywhatyousee wrote: »

i think it is a fair arrangement 5k ring for going through child birth
imagine trying to push a roast beef out through your nose:eek:

Marriage isn't an exchange of shiny things for kids :mad:

Wibbs

[off topic]

Hells Belle wrote: »

Really? The fiance asked me messing the other day why I didn't have to get him something so I've been researching nice watches on the internet, do men not like this?

A fair few do and if you buy well can be an investment and something you can hand on to kids. Maybe dont go the usual Tag Heuer/Brietling route though. You can get more for less with other brands. [/off topic]:o:)

opinion guy

Hells Belle wrote: »

Really? The fiance asked me messing the other day why I didn't have to get him something so I've been researching nice watches on the internet, do men not like this? I don't think its fair I get a lovely ring and he gets the bill. Maybe I'll get him a tattoo instead, ya can't loose that.

Yeah i suppose that could be nice. Depends on the guy though. I personally hate wearing a watch. I have a couple, including a nice 21st birthday present from the folks that I never wear. I just don't like the feeling of a watch on my wrist and I use my phone to tell the time. When I used to wear them I broke them regularly. Then again an engagement watch may not be for everyday wear anyhow.
i guess it depends on whether your fella is into watches or not.

mariaalice

Who cares what anyone spends on an engagement ring ...it not about how much it cost... its a symbol of love and commitment i go engaged recently and the ring is exactly what i wanted it wasn't hugely experiencing..but yes i do think its vulgar to be interested in how much it cost and its even more vulgar for anyone to ask how much it cost.

time4tea

opinion guy wrote: »

Yeah i suppose that could be nice. Depends on the guy though. I personally hate wearing a watch. I have a couple, including a nice 21st birthday present from the folks that I never wear. I just don't like the feeling of a watch on my wrist and I use my phone to tell the time. When I used to wear them I broke them regularly. Then again an engagement watch may not be for everyday wear anyhow.
i guess it depends on whether your fella is into watches or not.

yeah never really wear watches... though i have one bought as a present.
With everyone having a phone I don't really see the need for a watch.

What about engagement rings for men? no?

My wife got me an engagement ring which I love, nothing flashy and nowhere near the price of her engagement ring which was somewhere around the 500 mark. Twas as much as we could justify at the time and it was one she picked herself.

Hells Belle

Wibbs wrote: »

[off topic]A fair few do and if you buy well can be an investment and something you can hand on to kids. Maybe dont go the usual Tag Heuer/Brietling route though. You can get more for less with other brands. [/off topic]:o:)

opinion guy wrote: »

Yeah i suppose that could be nice. Depends on the guy though. I personally hate wearing a watch. I have a couple, including a nice 21st birthday present from the folks that I never wear. I just don't like the feeling of a watch on my wrist and I use my phone to tell the time. When I used to wear them I broke them regularly. Then again an engagement watch may not be for everyday wear anyhow.
i guess it depends on whether your fella is into watches or not.

Thanks guys, no he's definately a watch man I've never seen him wear any other jewellery. He's been wearing the same watch a few years now so maybe an upgrade would be nice. Engagement phone just doesn't really say it.

One to think about, why shouldn't the guy get a little present too? I know it would make him more obedient for a few weeks anyway so its win/win for me* :pac:

Ok back to the bickering

*only messin, don't kill me!

seanmc1980

my fiance got me a lovely Thomas Sabo watch as an engagment prestent, i love it and i wouldn't have been a big watch wearer before but love it now, great idea, go with it

Johro

MLH1 wrote: »

How much should or would you expect a guy to spend on an Engagement Ring?

What he can reasonably afford. I would hope it's the sentiment and not the size or worth of the stone that matters.

opinion guy

Hells Belle wrote: »

Thanks guys, no he's definately a watch man I've never seen him wear any other jewellery. He's been wearing the same watch a few years now so maybe an upgrade would be nice. Engagement phone just doesn't really say it.

One to think about, why shouldn't the guy get a little present too? I know it would make him more obedient for a few weeks anyway so its win/win for me* :pac:

Ok back to the bickering

*only messin, don't kill me!

If hes a watchman sounds good then!!

Wait what kind of Watchman or we talking about here.....he does't prowl the streets at night fighting criminals does he ???

smilerxxx

I genuinely would not care how much it cost. I think other things are more important to be honest. I'd like him to pick it out (possibly with the help of a girl-friend ) I just like the sentiment of it. And then i'd like to buy him something too..

It's the meaning of it that matters to me. Feic the passing on of it to the kids, they're gonna be living the fabulous life abroad :P

Hells Belle

opinion guy wrote: »

If hes a watchman sounds good then!!

Wait what kind of Watchman or we talking about here.....he does't prowl the streets at night fighting criminals does he ???

Oh christ he'd be the worst Watchman ever, tights is not a good look for him plus he's always falling over stuff and off stuff :pac:

Although now I think about it I wouldn't say no to him dressing up every now and again as The Comedian...oh that might just be the weekend saucyness sorted!

Thanks for the suggestions AH guys

opinion guy

Hells Belle wrote: »

Oh christ he'd be the worst Watchman ever, tights is not a good look for him plus he's always falling over stuff and off stuff :pac:

Although now I think about it I wouldn't say no to him dressing up every now and again as The Comedian...oh that might just be the weekend saucyness sorted!

Thanks for the suggestions AH guys

Lol...


Oh and don't forget Clark Kent was a bumbling awkward klutz. Key to a good secret identity that is

Lumen

Wibbs wrote: »

I can afford to drop 10k on a ring. I just wouldn't. I have a nice house, bought and paid for BTW. No mortgage. ...I have a couple of seriously wealthy relatives. And I'm not talking "middle management, we've a house teeny apartment time share in Portugal" either. Actual generational wealth. Yep they are extremely frugal. It's only the nouveau riche who tend towards public ostentation. Celti tiger cubs were/are by far the worst for it.

You've just defined a set of consumer behaviour you're personally comfortable with and mocked people who choose differently. I didn't realise that sort of pomposity existed in Ireland.

The traditional reason that "old money" types don't piss their money away is because they've stopped whatever economic activity generated the wealth in the first place and are desperate to cling to whatever they have left.

edit: and "nouveau riche" generally refers to people who've earned their wealth rather than inherited it. So you're basically mocking anyone with the talent to get off their arse and earn a decent living rather than relying on handouts from their parents.

smilerxxx

You've just defined a set of consumer behaviour you're personally comfortable with and mocked people who choose differently. I didn't realise that sort of pomposity existed in Ireland.

The traditional reason that "old money" types don't piss their money away is because they've stopped whatever economic activity generated the wealth in the first place and are desperate to cling to whatever they have left.

edit: and "nouveau riche" generally refers to people who've earned their wealth rather than inherited it. So you're basically mocking anyone with the talent to get off their arse and earn a decent living rather than relying on handouts from their parents.

I've just given you a round of applause

Wibbs

Lumen wrote: »

You've just defined a set of consumer behaviour you're personally comfortable with and mocked people who choose differently.

Yep because the mentality I described accounts for much of the mess too many people in this country are in today.

I didn't realise that sort of pomposity existed in Ireland.

No? You should get out more then. In any case sometimes stuff is just, well, vulgar, tacky and crass. They would likely mock me for my tastes so I have no issue with mocking them.

The traditional reason that "old money" types don't piss their money away is because they've stopped whatever economic activity generated the wealth in the first place and are desperate to cling to whatever they have left.

Now who is banging into the old stereotypes?

edit: and "nouveau riche" generally refers to people who've earned their wealth rather than inherited it. So you're basically mocking anyone with the talent to get off their arse and earn a decent living rather than relying on handouts from their parents.

I used it in the sense of vulgarity. I earned my money. Within the family one side did it in one generation and others in several. I have a lot of respect for those who do it in one go. Talent rarely comes into it either. Hard work and application and determination is what will earn big money more than anything else. Luck helps.

No I'm mocking the crass, the easily influenced, the tasteless, the stupid, the vainglorious, the empty wealth based on credit píssed up the wall in the pursuit of oneupmanship of their neighbours. Yep, I'm mocking them, although I harbour some residual guilt for doing so as they're too easy a target.

Capt'n Midnight

Nothing says i love you like a superficial and overvalued rock clawed from the guts of the earth by slave labour.

Gold is a crazy price at the moment, during the 20th century the price of diamonds was set by De Beers who controlled the marked. The were the ones with the whole "Diamonds are forever" thing despite the fact that diamonds like other forms of carbon like soot and graphite will burn.

http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2008/07/12/de-beers-a-successful-cartel/

Simply put, diamonds are not rare. They are expensive yes, but they exist freely on earth. However, like any other commodity, they do follow the laws of supply and demand. The supply has been artificially constrained so that there is no proliferation of diamonds in the market. Because of this, the prices of diamonds are higher than they would be in a free market.

So why is the cartel put together and led by De Beers stable? One would have thought that according to the laws of game theory, it should have broken apart by a defecting member. There are two reasons for this. First of all, most of the cartel members have major holdings by De Beers themselves. This means that there are even fewer players than it looks. Fewer players makes it less likely that there will be a defection.

Secondly, the real partners of De Beers in the cartel are the Russians. They mine small diamonds from Siberia and channel them through De Beers. The Russians know that if they put their diamonds directly into the market, the prices will drop. And that will be bad for them in the long run.

Mike 1972

snuggles285 wrote: »

I don't care how much a guy earns as long as he is earning something and can have a decent standard of living and look after me.

Arent you able to "look after" yourself then ?

Lumen wrote: »

Some say "materialistic", some say "practical".

It's all very well saying that you'd happily marry someone poor, but financial stress can destroy a marriage.

Like it or not, women are usually the ones to take a career hit when kids come along. If I was a woman, I would at least consider how finances would work out in that situation.

Of course there are exceptions, different people want different things, and love should trump all other considerations, but some easy-going people could happily love and live with any of a large number of potential partners, so why shouldn't they choose one with a fat wallet?

LOL just LOL

Lumen

Wibbs wrote: »

No I'm mocking the crass, the easily influenced, the tasteless, the stupid, the vainglorious, the empty wealth based on credit píssed up the wall in the pursuit of oneupmanship of their neighbours.

You can tell all that from looking at someone's engagement ring?

The problem is that on the one hand the diamond engagement ring represents the very distillation of all that is empty and meaningless about our consumer capitalist culture, and on the other hand it's a symbol of optimistic love and commitment. Maybe you see cross-pollution where I see simple ambiguity.

You're directing all your (arguably reasonable) hatred of debt-ridden-property-bubble-driven-must-have-a-60-inch-plasma-TV-in-my-toilet stupidity on to a piece of jewellery, which many people happen to just see as a simple symbol of hope for their future together.

Personally speaking, from my terribly nouveau riche perspective (a term which also applies to you, since you claim to have made rather than inherited your money), money and effort and somewhat interchangeable, since the harder I work the more money I earn. Consequently, expensive things represent the fruits of my labours, and an expensive ring represented a completely impractical and unjustifiable sinking of a couple of weeks of toil into a possibly worthless symbol.

I knew when I purchased it about all the DeBeers market manipulation and the underlying worthlessness of the object, and I didn't care. That's the cynical, analytical part of my brain I turned off when I proposed. The worthlessness is half the point.

Sure, I could have spent the money on some government bonds or sent it to Africa to build a well; I know people who would prefer either of those to a rock on a chunk of metal and I don't disagree with their choices. I would rather just live and let live, and be respected for my own decisions in matters of buying shít for someone I love.

Swampy

saywhatyousee wrote: »

what women's opinion on an engagement watch?i am thinking outside the box??

Great selection of engagement watches in BT's. You'd wanting to be spending 15k plus though to get anything decent.

Mike 1972

Swampy wrote: »

Great selection of engagement watches in BT's. You'd wanting to be spending 15k plus though to get anything decent.

Why would anyone spend 15 grand on a watch . Thats worse than blowing it on a ring FFS ? Lidl were doing perfectly decent watches for a fiver a while back. They told the time without saying "please mug me" to every passer by one might encounter.

Wibbs

Lumen wrote: »

You can tell all that from looking at someone's engagement ring?

Maybe try reading my first post on the matter? I was arguing against this tossology;

seanmc1980 wrote:

if you earn 100k you will spend circa 10k. if you earn 50 you will spend 5k, if you on min wage or dole you will spend few 100(i suspect a lot of posters fall into this category) . its all relitive in the end. its like anything in life you will buy a bigger house/car/TV etc.. if you have more money.

People who can't afford the more expensive things will then justify it to themselves by say "money can't buy you love" "idiots pay more than a grand for a ring" "i'd be happy with a onion ring" people say this cos they know deep down they can't afford the more expensive things in life so it makes them feel better to be Self-righteous and scoff at someone who can!

Which is such a crass nouveau take, I'm partially thinking they must be making this up for effect. That attitude I have utter contempt for. It's just so bloody... well, vulgar.

The problem is that on the one hand the diamond engagement ring represents the very distillation of all that is empty and meaningless about our consumer capitalist culture, and on the other hand it's a symbol of optimistic love and commitment. Maybe you see cross-pollution where I see simple ambiguity.

Maybe. Mostly I see advertising.

You're directing all your (arguably reasonable) hatred of debt-ridden-property-bubble-driven-must-have-a-60-inch-plasma-TV-in-my-toilet stupidity on to a piece of jewellery, which many people happen to just see as a simple symbol of hope for their future together.

Well hatred, not so much. Disapproval would cover it more I reckon.

I knew when I purchased it about all the DeBeers market manipulation and the underlying worthlessness of the object, and I didn't care. That's the cynical, analytical part of my brain I turned off when I proposed. The worthlessness is half the point.

Oh I get the worth as a symbol and how you see it alright and fair play and the cost really doesnt come into it. It's just some of the comments here that are based very much on greasy till considerations so I do scratch my head.