To think 3 months salary for an engagement ring is a bit bonkers?

[VenetiaFleet]

Was chatting to a friend earlier and she mentioned that the "rule" for buying engagement rings is that the man (she was talking hetero weddings) should spend three months salary on a ring. Apparently this is the done thing but I alone in thinking this is ridiculous? If DP were to ever propose then there's a lot of other things I'd rather he spent three months salary on than a piece of jewellery!

Mine was quite cheap from H Samuel so yes, I wouldn't spend that amount on an engagement ring

I thought it was a months salary in tradition.

Blimey sounds like she's after the Rock of all rocks there

YANBU.

Would your friend say no if her partner proposed with a ring that didn't cost 3 months wages?

Setting any kind of 'rule' is odd in my book. It's such a personal thing. Mine is an old family ring on his side, means so much to me that it is.

Is this before or after tax?

Hah, probably. She's also said that if she doesn't get a ring on her finger within 18 months then she's out of there. Note: she is currently single.

If you can afford it - brilliant.. 3 mos wage can buy you a beaaauuuutiful ring!!

However, some people would hate to have that much money on their finger - metal hoop with a rock in it after all...

My rings are the most expensive thing I own (no house yet) and I adore them.. People should spend whatever amount fits their financial situation and personal preferences :)

I had a cheapo one and gave it back when we were done. I understand the next one got the three months salary rock.

I don't think you should ever know how much your engagement ring costs, would she ask to see the receipt?!

It was never an option for us so I had never thought about the actual amount of money involved until reading this thread. All I can say is bloody hell, no way that would ever happen, nor would I want it to happen.

My engagement ring cost approx. one two-hundred-and-fiftieth of DP's monthly wage before tax. And I am very happy with it, picked it myself.

I'd be furious at 3 months salary being spent on a ring, but then we can ill afford it. I imagine it's only the done thing for those that put more importance on the wedding as opposed to the marriage. Most people I know wouldnt care but there's a few I know who believe a less expensive ring is an insult.

I always heard it was 1 month. Mine was nowhere near!

She's got it wrong as far as I know- "tradition" dictates a month's salary, not three months! (I thought my salary was for bills/rent/savings?!)

Either way, it shouldn't matter at all. My engagement ring was much less than that- and on sale, bloody bargainous. I think it's lovely, as it was a surprise, and I know that DP put a lot of thought into choosing it.

It's one month's salary...and originated as some very clever marketing by de Beers...

The idea that a man should spend a significant fraction of his annual income for an engagement ring originated de novo from De Beers marketing materials in the mid-20th century, in an effort to increase the sale of diamonds. In the 1930s, they suggested that a man should spend the equivalent of one month's income in the engagement ring; later they suggested that he should spend two months' income on it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_ring

I'm sure I watched a program that covered this once. She's right it is a "tradition" but I'm sure its 1 months salary and it came about when a very clever diamond company brought out a poster/ advertising campaign aimed at those poor men who had no idea how to shop because that was their mothers and wives work about how to shop for an engagement ring. It suggested that the lady wouldn't be impressed with anything other than a months salary spent.

It must have been years ago I watched it, found it quite amusing though. Mines was less than £100, wedding ring £59 and I'm quite happy with them

When we got engaged my husband borrowed some cash for the ring from his gran. When we got married (a few years later) she declared the ring our wedding present which was sweet. My ring was nowhere near 3 months salary and I really wouldn't want anything that expensive anyway.

I'd much rather the mortgage got paid than have an over priced lump of compressed carbon on my finger.

Its nuts. If I ever get a ring I will revel in its cheapness. I am thinking £300 tops.

When I got engaged years ago, my ring was lovely and about £400 (a lot of ££ to me at the time and to DH) a girl at work said 'well fine if you accept that but I wouldn't' I was speechless!!!

Far more important things, I've also since got a gold allergy and can't wear my wedding or engagement ring anymore :(

My ring from OH was more than 3 months salary?? but to be fair it was the only ring he came across in his search that he liked and I absolutely adore it! I think it's definitely more about the sentiment than the cost when it comes to ring hiying!

Agree with pp, tradition is one month salary no?

Sure when she finds a good un she won't give a monkeys how much he spends on a ring. Dp could give me the ring out of a haribo and I'd never take it off!

I've been married 16 years ... Lost my engagement ring years ago and haven't bothered replacing it ....I don't need a bit of shiny metal costing 3 months salary on my finger to love my DH and know I'm loved. But if monetary value is what someone believes in then fair enough.

Westeast my sentiments exactly.

Is your friend liz jones?