Let’s have a conversation about engagement rings. Traditionally, one party purchases a diamond ring to propose to the love of their life and puts up a significant chunk of money to do so. The amounts vary from person to person, but DeBeers told us in the 80’s that two months’ salary would really prove your love. Times have changed and so have engagement rings, but diamonds are by and large still the most popular choice. But should the burden of purchase fall on just one party? I guess back in the day, the “groom” paid for the ring and the family of the “bride” paid for the wedding. That’s still pretty one sided as the “groom” is directly out of pocket and the “bride’s” family foots the bill. This goes back to the days when a woman went directly from her father’s house to her husband’s and hadn’t been out in the world making her own money. Well, that’s almost ancient thinking at this point, and many couples end up paying for their own ceremonies. So why does this notion linger that one person should fork over thousands of dollars to pay for a ring? I want to put forth a couple of alternate scenarios from some casual conversations I’ve had over the years.
What if the “bride” chipped in to pay for her ring? I worked with a woman once who had been married about two years. She told me that when her husband first proposed, she was so disappointed by the ring that she said “yes”, but let him know that they needed to go back and upgrade the diamond. She then chipped in the additional money to get a bigger stone. This seems totally fair to me. I asked her if he was offended and she said that he was initially, but she asked him to look at it as though they were buying a house together. In that instance, since they were both working, it would be totally reasonable for them to each contribute an amount to the down payment that was proportional to their incomes. In this case, he had already committed the money that he wanted to put towards a ring, and she was simply doing the same to get something they could both be proud of.
On the flip side, I have a good friend that was a bit embarrassed by the size of her ring when she first got engaged. She actually got married quite young by today’s standards at a time when most people haven’t put aside a lot of money for a ring. The problem was that she worked for a large corporation and she was concerned about the impression people would get or opinion they would form by wearing a smaller sized diamond. Ultimately, she decided that the sentiment behind the ring, the fact that her fiancé had chosen it, meant more to her, and over 15 years later she still wears that ring. Yes, she could have upgraded it many times, but for her it’s a symbol of their relationship.
What if the “groom’s” family supplied the diamond like the “bride’s” family pays for the wedding? I sat next to a woman on a commuter train once, that was wearing an engagement ring with three HUGE stones. The center was a princess cut diamond flanked by matching trillion cuts. It immediately caught my eye because she looked to be my age, I was 24 at the time, and I was wondering how her fiancé could afford such a huge ring! We ended up chatting and, I’m not known for my subtlety, I eventually asked her about the ginormous diamonds in her ring. She told me that her fiancé’s mom had two sons and she’d purchased diamonds years ago for them to use when they got married. On the one hand, I thought this was neat because it meant that nobody needed to go into debt or spend two month’s salary buying an engagement ring. On the other hand, there was no choice as to the shape of the stone that the couple could use for the ring. They had to select from the “family inventory”. I’m still not sure what my opinion is on this approach. Is there something to be said for the discipline needed to save up for a major purchase? Personally, I’m going to see how I feel once my kids get older. Maybe if I really like my son’s fiancé, I’ll supply the diamonds.
There’s no right or wrong here, just different paths to having something you can be happy with. I would say it’s not a good idea to go into debt for an “ideal” version of a ring. The engagement ring is the outward symbol of your commitment, but it’s not more important than the relationship it represents. Just be sure to be in agreement with your partner about what’s best for both of you.
Note: I use the traditional terms “bride” and “groom” in quotes here as representative nouns. There can be any combination or terms in a real relationship “bride and bride” “groom and groom” etc. I guess human and human is all that matters. At least up until we confirm alien life. Please feel free to contact us with any questions on this or any jewelry topic.
