Gallaxia Posted June 4, 2010 Posted June 4, 2010 Have you heard of giving something other than a diamond as an engagement ring? Happened to someone I know and although she was happy he proposed she was trying to downplay her disappointment If it were you how would you feel?
xxoo Posted June 4, 2010 Posted June 4, 2010 Princess Diana had a sapphire solitaire, surrounded by smaller diamonds. I didn't have an engagement ring, diamond or otherwise. We were young and broke, and I wanted the man without the debt It was my choice (he would have taken the debt, lol!). I've since inherited a family diamond that I wear, but I wouldn't spend the money on one, personally.
schro31185 Posted June 4, 2010 Posted June 4, 2010 I guess its tough to suppress the disappointment of not getting a diamond, after a life full of society (mostly jewelry store advertisements) have told us all that the only proper way to symbolize your love for a woman, and your desire to spend your life together is to get her a shiny metal thingy for her finger, that has a particular kind of rock in it, that is expensive. Also that the bigger and more expensive rock you buy, conveys more love. There's nothing personal about buying something really expensive that someone else mined, designed, and made. If a guy actually made and designed the ring, and the only rock on it was a piece of granite, that would have more personal value in my opinion. But hey, I'm a financially stable male, so I guess my answer is irrelevant.
Fight4Me Posted June 4, 2010 Posted June 4, 2010 Have you heard of giving something other than a diamond as an engagement ring? Happened to someone I know and although she was happy he proposed she was trying to downplay her disappointment If it were you how would you feel? It would honestly depend. If he had put a lot of thought into the alternative stone, either to make it more unique and stand out, or if it had a specific meaning to him/her and was thinking romantically, then I would be more than happy with it. Also, if it was a case where he simply couldn't afford a diamond, or was planning on spending the money on a nice wedding ring, then I'd still be content. If he was doing it purposely to be "cheap," then I would be disappointed too, particularly if he otherwise had no problem spending money on himself, which could mean there were greater issues to be concerned about. From what I understand, there's also a trend to go with different kinds of stones that allow more brilliance and size for the money over a diamond. They are still gem stones, though. Maybe he got advice to go that direction and hoped she would be happier with it. By the way, I don't buy into the whole "you-have-to-spend-so-many-months-worth-of-paychecks" rule, since it seems to detract from the meaning and intent of marriage. At the same time, if the engagement ring is going to be part of the wedding set itself, it should be something she loves since it will be on her finger for the rest of her life (hopefully!).
LittleTiger Posted June 4, 2010 Posted June 4, 2010 If the man I loved proposed to me, I couldn't care less what he gave me, or even if he gave me anything at all. I didn't have an engagement ring the first time around because I didn't want one. Waste of money, as far as I was concerned. I had a diamond set into my wedding ring which cost considerably less, and we spent the rest of the money we had on holidays. In my mind, it's the man that matters not the jewellery.
SarahRose Posted June 4, 2010 Posted June 4, 2010 It seems to me the main purpose these days of the ring is to impress girlfriends and family. I guess it can be kind of insulting when a man spends a small amount on a ring when you know he drops thousands on a hobby and boozing it up in a bar with friends. Then you know he is just being cheap. Most men really have bad taste when it comes to jewelry. My first husband bought me a tiny emerald cut solitaire. Probably the most hideous stone shape I could think of. I had hinted a bit before and showed him rings that I liked so it wasn't' like he didn't have a clue on what to get but it seemed more important to him to give me what HE thought I should have rather than what I actually wanted. Funny how that played out throughout the rest of our marriage. The only way to get rid of an ugly ring though is to do it tactfully by saying the stone sticks up too much and catches on things or the band is too large or too small and hurts your finger. Make a practical and logical reason why it won't work and they guy won't be offended at all.
Stung Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 When my then-boyfriend, now-husband and I first started talking about getting married, I asked him specifically to NOT get me a diamond. IMO, a diamond is not really an ethical choice, unless it's certified conflict-free. Also, I just generally dislike the diamond industry as a whole, not only for their inhumane practices but also for the way they've jacked up the prices totally out of scale with the market and wildly misled people into believing diamonds are actually rare. My engagement ring is a colored sapphire. It's beautiful and more unusual than a diamond.
Eeyore79 Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 In Victorian times, diamonds were thought to be colourless and boring, and coloured stones were preferred. The current trend for diamond engagement rings originated as a marketing campaign by DeBeers, who needed a way to get rid of all the small diamond chips that were useless for anything else. Nowadays, the expectation for a diamond engagement ring is so strong that most girls would be disappointed if they received anything else. Personally I'd prefer a diamond and sapphire combo, but most girls want a diamond solitaire. Make sure your girl would be happy with an alternative stone before you buy one!
Jilly Bean Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 If he couldn't afford a diamond, but we loved each other, and wanted to be married, it wouldn't bother me. Now, if he COULD afford it, and was being a cheap ass, I wouldn't accept the proposal. lol
Feelin Frisky Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 I find the whole thing rather nauseatin--a trumped up pseudo tradition anlogous to the commercialization of Christmas where it's all about the showing off of status rather than some kind of solemn and meanigful gesture of love and honor. Consider yourself bought.
Ann_Igma Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 I haven't got an engagement ring. I'm not a huge fan of rings in general, and I'm very much not a fan of diamonds, either. If I was going to have any stone, it would be alexandrite, but all these years later, I still haven't found an alexandrite ring that sings to me. Not that I've ever really looked hard for the right one - like xxoo, I'd prefer the man without the debt. Did the stone have any significant meaning between your friend and her fiancee? Or is her fiancee perhaps ethical and doesn't want to support the diamond industry? I can understand being a touch disappointed, but I'm sure she'll soon realise that the fiancee and the love they share is far more important than a ring.
sweetjasmine Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 IMO, a diamond is not really an ethical choice, unless it's certified conflict-free. Also, I just generally dislike the diamond industry as a whole, not only for their inhumane practices but also for the way they've jacked up the prices totally out of scale with the market and wildly misled people into believing diamonds are actually rare. I agree with all of that. I'd be perfectly happy with a different stone on an engagement ring.
SarahRose Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 I find the whole thing rather nauseatin--a trumped up pseudo tradition anlogous to the commercialization of Christmas where it's all about the showing off of status rather than some kind of solemn and meanigful gesture of love and honor. Consider yourself bought. Aren't a lot of things people do is about showing off status?
Woggle Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 Be glad some kid in Africa did not lose his arm mining her ring.
threebyfate Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 Diamonds, sapphires, rubies and emeralds are all fine. Anything else would be fine if it's not an engagement ring. Glad that's not an issue anymore.
Stung Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 (edited) Diamonds, sapphires, rubies and emeralds are all fine. These are the natural stones best suited for something like an engagement ring, which is traditionally worn every day throughout the engagement at least and possibly every day for the rest of the woman's life--not because they are more expensive or what-have-you, but because they are the hardest and most durable gemstones. I would have kind of liked a pearl engagement ring, but pearls are soft and not suited for everyday wear without taking damage. My husband wanted me to be able to wear my ring every day for eighty years, he wanted it to be as enduring as our marriage. Hence my sapphire stone, which is only slightly less hard than a diamond (sapphires are used in industrial work just as diamonds are as they are very very difficult to damage). All that being said, a good friend of mine has a beautiful opal engagement ring bought at an estate sale, very inexpensively. She and her fiancee are both PhD students and don't have a lot of extra money for extravagances like overpriced blood diamonds. Her opal is large, filled with fire, absolutely gorgeous and suits her to a T. I love opals, they are another favorite stone of mine. She will not wear it every day after the wedding, as she knows it could eventually crack under everyday stressors, but she'll still wear it a lot, and she absolutely loves the ring. Another very good friend of mine wears an amethyst engagement ring because she's an absolute freak about the color purple. Another woman I know tossed the traditional engagement thing on it's ear completely and she and her fiancee bought each other matching bands when they got engaged, and then complementary bands when they got married. No stones at all, but some really nice carved designs. No offense, btw, to all those on this forum who do wear diamonds. I don't happen to believe in them as a general rule, but hey, some of my best friends wear diamonds . I might even have myself turned into one after I die. Edited June 5, 2010 by Stung
Stung Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 I find the whole thing rather nauseatin--a trumped up pseudo tradition anlogous to the commercialization of Christmas where it's all about the showing off of status rather than some kind of solemn and meanigful gesture of love and honor. Consider yourself bought. I can respect this viewpoint and I do think it applies roughly to some, but not everyone views their engagement ring as a status symbol. I would personally have had a silly-big rock if I'd wanted to hold my husband to some 2-or-3 month 'rule' (a rule dreamed up by DeBeers), but I didn't even want a diamond in the first place and I am way more concerned with paying our mortgages and putting money into the college accounts for our kids. Still I do love my ring as a symbol of our love and his commitment and definitely do NOT consider myself bought.
Krytie TV Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 I wanted to let all the guys that aren't married know that there is hope. When I proposed, I gave my then gf a $16 belly button ring in which the stone was meaningless but the symbol the ring was made in meant everything. She loved it and left it in as long as she could during pregnancy. Oh, and she hates diamonds. They exist.
sally4sara Posted June 5, 2010 Posted June 5, 2010 My engagement ring had the stones I picked out and none of them are diamonds. Color change garnets and a spinel in an antique style setting. Its gorgeous! My wedding band is made of two antique diamond bands fused together. One was a family piece and the other was purchased at an estate sale because it had the date of my bday engraved inside(we got married on my bday) but the year is 1932. I had the other band engraved with the same date only in 2010.
LucreziaBorgia Posted June 6, 2010 Posted June 6, 2010 Mine is exactly what I could have hoped for: a custom designed engagement ring passed down in his family since the 1920's: a diamond in an art deco setting with a diamond halo bezel, white gold, just beautiful. I don't think that any ring that he could pick out (and originally I was wanting a black diamond ring - so I was looking for the 'non traditional myself') now would mean a fraction of what this one means to the both of us, mainly for the nostalgia factor and not just for the ring itself. Plus, I have big hands. This ring is perfect even on the most shallow levels.
threebyfate Posted June 6, 2010 Posted June 6, 2010 (edited) These are the natural stones best suited for something like an engagement ring, which is traditionally worn every day throughout the engagement at least and possibly every day for the rest of the woman's life--not because they are more expensive or what-have-you, but because they are the hardest and most durable gemstones.Yes, those stones are the most durable. But my number 1 choice is diamond, which is what H. gave to me. Had he bought any of the other three, it would also have been fine. I'm not going to knock diamonds since I adore them. Edited June 6, 2010 by threebyfate
MrSnufkin Posted June 8, 2010 Posted June 8, 2010 "I guess its tough to suppress the disappointment of not getting a diamond, after a life full of society (mostly jewelry store advertisements) have told us all that the only proper way to symbolize your love for a woman, and your desire to spend your life together is to get her a shiny metal thingy for her finger, that has a particular kind of rock in it, that is expensive. Also that the bigger and more expensive rock you buy, conveys more love." I'm so pleased my fiancee appreciates that the only proper way to symbolize love for her is to actually, you know, love her
Recommended Posts