To expect an engagement ring to cost at least 3 months salary?

[ThisPeppyRoseBiscuit]

It’s not about being materialistic, it’s about commitment and symbolism. I wouldn’t say yes to a cheap ring. If he can spend on tech, trainers, or cars, he can save for a proper ring. AIBU to hold this standard?

Did you manage to upgrade each of your husbands?

Asking for a friend who wonders if upgrading a husband is a better bet financially than buying a couple of buy to lets as an investment🤔.

So cringe that you apparently haven't worked out this 'rule' was invented by jewellers so they can get as much cash out of you as possible, and has nothing to do with love, marriage or commitment

Ten years into my marriage, I now absolutely cringe at how much we spent on wedding/ engagement rings, our wedding and other materialistic things when we were younger and had more disposable income. I wish we'd saved more for the difficult times (ie. now!) so we could use that money to give our kids a better life.

We forged the ring and went travelling around SE Asia for 3 months.
Ended up with a ring from Carat London. Platinum ring but with a cubic zirconia stone. I don't believe in supporting the diamond trade.

If you want to be a mugger magnet, a massive 3 months' salary ring is perfect :)

I can see another side to this debate. If he is spending loads of money on expensive trainers, tech and flashy cars for himself but plans to buy you an inexpensive engagement ring, then it probably doesn't bode very well for your future. Just saying.

I feel sorry for who ever ends up with you. Shameful.

I'd be very unhappy indeed if my DP wasted 3 months salary on a ring! Much better things to spend that money on in my opinion. Even one month seems like far too much to me.

Mine was a similar value, I think. I can't even remember to be honest but we chose it together and I absolutely love it and wouldn't want another.

I'd have been absolutely mortified and fuming if my husband spent 3 months wages on an engagement ring and would much money saved when on a holiday, home improvements etc. We already owned a house at this point, I didn't need any evidence or financial proof of his commitment to me.

I find it quite sad that some people seem to base commitment from their husband based on financial means. I expect then that the woman who are demanding their fiance spend 3 months wages on an engagement ring have also saved up three months of their wages to buy something of equal value to show their commitment to their fiance?? How's it fair that one half of the couple has to evidence their commitment by saving up but the other half doesn't?

My mums engagement ring from my dad was from a pawn shop as they saw one they both liked in the window. They've been together 52 years, married very happily for 50. Own a home and 3 children together. You can't put a price on a happy marriage, the cost of my mums engagement ring is completely irrelevant to that.

If you're going to pay all the bills, mortgage, outgoings, food, pension contributions and savings for those 3 months, sure.

Do you have a boyfriend willing to throw away a quarter of the years salary on the symbol?

I smell AI in the OP and responses here, crew – look at the format of the posts at 11:07 and 11:11, particularly the last sentences.

Don't waste your time and energy arguing with either a robot, or someone who can't formulate their own thoughts...

You can make up whatever rules you like to live your life around, but it might be worth doing a bit of research into what you're basing them on before you claim them not to be for materialistic reasons. I think that the "standard" of not accepting an engagement ring worth less than three months salary, is possibly the definition of materialism?

All I can think is ‘what a waste of money!’

Surely it’s just a token to mark the occasion? I’ve be annoyed if someone spent that amount of money on me. There are far more useful things to spend sums of money on than a bit of sparkle on your finger.

Have I woken up in the 1950s?? This is ridiculous

You've never been in love have you?

It’s a ridiculous rule - but I do think it reasonable to expect a ring that you would like to wear that is affordable for you as a couple.

3 months salary could be less than the tv cost- or more than the family car you’ll use for a decade. So if he is spending more on short-life tech or trainers fair argument. If that’s your house deposit or rent fit the year you now have to budget around it’s a very different story!

Wow been married for 40 years. Don't think he spent a months wages on wedding ring and engagement ring put together. I chose the ring with him but it was in the Jewellery Quarter in Birmingham and only 9ct gold. Wedding ring alone would have been £50 more if we'd gone to 18ct gold.

Now the eternality ring I got for my 40th birthday, well that is another story and I dread to think how much that cost

I’d much sooner the cash is used for sensible things like bills and house deposit. if that’s taken care of, I’d be picking a ring I like (second hand, better value and more interesting) rather than insisting on one that costs x regardless of how much I like it.

Of course it’s materialistic! In what ways do you think the cost of the ring is about anything else but monetary value? ‘Commitment and symbolism’ to spend more money and what else?

If someone can spend freely on themselves but cuts corners when it comes to a life partnership, that says something. It’s not about money - it’s about meaning.

This is important. It's got nothing to do with ring buying, but don't tie yourself up with someone you feel like that about.

If you are basing this on a real scenario, does he buy you other gifts? And what do you feel you contribute to the commitment, do you feel you give more than him?

It's like we're living parallel lives! 😂

I've been engaged twice too.

My first engagement ring was worth a fair amount, but cost my then fiance nothing, as his dad was a retired jeweller and had a box of rings in the loft!

My now DH is a pretty high earner and the type of ring he could have bought with 3 months salary would: a) look stupid on my short fat fingers; and b) probably look fake because it would be massive.

He actually got a bargain on my ring as it was in the sale when he bought it and was reduced by a fair amount. It's 0.32ct diamond weight but on my finger it's perfect.

In terms of how many weeks' wages it cost him? Probably about 1!

The fact that he chose it himself (and I loved it!) meant more to me than how much it cost.

But yes, if he'd only spend a couple of hundred on it, I wouldn't be impressed.

I think 3 months as a guide is stupid though. Even at minimum wage nowadays that's £5,950 if you're looking at gross wages and £5,166 at net. That, to me, is a stupid amount of money to spend on an engagement ring.

No, people have bills to pay.

Crikey!!! I thought one month’s salary was traditional. If I’d demanded a ring 3x as expensive I rather think DH would have come to the conclusion that my values were a bit warped and unaligned with his. Spending a quarter of your income on a ring is madness.

You do know that a £10,000 ring is no longer worth anything near £10,000 the moment it goes on your finger?

FYI OP you may have fallen prey to an enduring marketing strategy. So the 3 months salary phrase was coined by De Beers over 80 years ago to boost their diamond sales. Very clever really as initially it was a months salary and then it transitioned into 3 months. So all you’re doing is lining the pockets of a business. An expensive ring doesn’t denote how strong the commitment to you will be. You should already have a good idea of this before you accepted the marriage proposal

Oh.

i’d say no, then.