MBKRH
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2010
- Messages
- 593
Contributing to or splitting cost of engagement ring
- Thread starter mary poppins
- Start date
Cherokee1979
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2011
- Messages
- 245
As a guy, I personally paid for the entirety of my wife's ER and WB, and she paid for my WB. I think that, as others have stated, it is only fair for the guy to invest a reasonable amount of time, money, and energy into researching and buying the ER, as it is a meaningful gift, and a gift in contemplation of a very significant and meaningful future "contract", and devoting these things to the ER hunt/purchase shows commitment to the couple's future lives together. That said, I also agree with the sentiment that the 3 months salary marketing gimmick (a la the ad men employed by De Beers nearly a century ago) is total B.S. I just so happened to spend approx. 3 months salary, but things just worked out that way b/c I really wanted to find a quality (but, unfortunately, for income limitations, not enormous) diamond/setting. Also, even if my GF at the time had offered to contribute (which I seem to remember her doing), I just could not in good conscience accept it (unless she was absolutely SET on getting an enormously expensive ring), as it would just go across the grain of my old-fashioned (and maybe imagined) spirit of chivalry. To each their own, though, and I think that any route is great (besides asking the GF to pay for the entire ER, which I just find appalling to even think of).
gregchang35
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 3,416
I am going to offer a different view to some that state that they see it as tradition. And my view comes from a place where I may expect some heated discussions.
The engagement is seen as a promise from one person to another, and for the sake of conversation, from the guy to the girl.. He makes the effort to get the ring, proposes and none the wiser. So, why wouldn't the girl be happy with it? If the lady in question wants a better diamond ring, I believe that she should offer to pay the extra money for the 'upgrade' that he could not afford. Or pipe up in conversation prior to the purchase. I suspect that when in a r/ship both parties know that they are the one, and an engagement is on the cards. So, a frank and honest conversation should occur- budget,style etc.That way both parties are happy. If the girl wants to be surprised- well get ready to be surprised is my thinking. Cos guys sometimes get it right and sometimes wrong. If that is what u wan, don't be surprised.
Now- 'tradition'( I prefer the term history as tradition changes with each generation) has it that the guy buys/ gives the intended lady the ring. History also shows that women are stay at home kinda ppl- raising kids, cooking, household affairs while the man goes out to work. How much of that 'history/ tradition' is true in today's society? Are we just choosing what parts of tradition that we like and keeping it?
I know that societal norms change all the time and I am in with all of that...we are equal, though some jurisdiction sees it differently; but we have progressed from the stage where women are seen as home makers and not allowed to earn for a living or have a right to vote, etc etc, etc.
That makes it hard for the guy. Don't get me wrong- I am a romantic at heart and I try to do most things with regards to THE ring. I managed to discuss rings, pick it out and get the sizing with SO input. We actually picked up the rings from the store together. The proposal was still a completed surprise. But there are some mixed messages out there of what is the 'right' thing to
In my opinion- when it comes down to it, I firmly believe in having the discussion of THE RING, so that the wearer will be happy. Also set a reasonable budget. Every r/ship is different. I, too, wanted to be proposed to, but I didn't. I got the thrill of proposing. But, maybe one day DH will surprise me, of course I will have a say in the ring!!! But both of us getting proposed waS not even something that he would have considered. He states now that it is done, there is no need. He didn't say it bluntly like that but u get what I mean. I am just trying to paint a good picture for me. Hehhehhehee.
In closing, I can't see why partners can't contribute to the ring if they want a better/bigger diamond ring that he can't afford.
The engagement is seen as a promise from one person to another, and for the sake of conversation, from the guy to the girl.. He makes the effort to get the ring, proposes and none the wiser. So, why wouldn't the girl be happy with it? If the lady in question wants a better diamond ring, I believe that she should offer to pay the extra money for the 'upgrade' that he could not afford. Or pipe up in conversation prior to the purchase. I suspect that when in a r/ship both parties know that they are the one, and an engagement is on the cards. So, a frank and honest conversation should occur- budget,style etc.That way both parties are happy. If the girl wants to be surprised- well get ready to be surprised is my thinking. Cos guys sometimes get it right and sometimes wrong. If that is what u wan, don't be surprised.
Now- 'tradition'( I prefer the term history as tradition changes with each generation) has it that the guy buys/ gives the intended lady the ring. History also shows that women are stay at home kinda ppl- raising kids, cooking, household affairs while the man goes out to work. How much of that 'history/ tradition' is true in today's society? Are we just choosing what parts of tradition that we like and keeping it?
I know that societal norms change all the time and I am in with all of that...we are equal, though some jurisdiction sees it differently; but we have progressed from the stage where women are seen as home makers and not allowed to earn for a living or have a right to vote, etc etc, etc.
That makes it hard for the guy. Don't get me wrong- I am a romantic at heart and I try to do most things with regards to THE ring. I managed to discuss rings, pick it out and get the sizing with SO input. We actually picked up the rings from the store together. The proposal was still a completed surprise. But there are some mixed messages out there of what is the 'right' thing to
In my opinion- when it comes down to it, I firmly believe in having the discussion of THE RING, so that the wearer will be happy. Also set a reasonable budget. Every r/ship is different. I, too, wanted to be proposed to, but I didn't. I got the thrill of proposing. But, maybe one day DH will surprise me, of course I will have a say in the ring!!! But both of us getting proposed waS not even something that he would have considered. He states now that it is done, there is no need. He didn't say it bluntly like that but u get what I mean. I am just trying to paint a good picture for me. Hehhehhehee.
In closing, I can't see why partners can't contribute to the ring if they want a better/bigger diamond ring that he can't afford.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 55,106
If you had asked me this question 20 years ago I would have had a different answer. I would have agreed that it is a sign of commitment and love and it is the man's responsibility to pay for the woman's ER. Now my answer is it depends on the couple in question and there is no absolute right answer for all couples. As gregchang wrote, if the woman wants a specific ER that is above her bf's budget and the bf is cool with her contributing $ to get the ring she really wants well who is to judge? Not the way I would have wanted to do it but again there is more than one right way because each couple is different.
To give an international perspective to this thread: I'm Finnish and so is my FI. In FInland the tradition is that engagement rings are just plain bands of gold which are worn by both man and woman. Traditionally man buys a band for his sweetheart and vice versa.
Wedding ring for man is usually his engagement ring which is just buffed and re-engraved for the occasion. Woman usually receives a separate wedding ring which is the flashier one of her rings. Finns tend to like rather modest jewelry and a .50ct diamond is considered huge here. This probably has something to do with the fact that jewelers here have super high markups so fine jewelry is very expensive. But I do feel times are changing as in my generation (20-30-year-olds) are willing to spend more money in their rings and other jewelry. Also diamonds sold here tend to have very high color and clarity but cut usually is unheard of.
I'm probably going for a solitaire (American engagement ring style) for my wedding ring but diamond bands are more common and a very popular choice here. Woman's wedding ring used to be funded by the man only but many couples just add the ring to their wedding budget and split the cost.
Wedding ring for man is usually his engagement ring which is just buffed and re-engraved for the occasion. Woman usually receives a separate wedding ring which is the flashier one of her rings. Finns tend to like rather modest jewelry and a .50ct diamond is considered huge here. This probably has something to do with the fact that jewelers here have super high markups so fine jewelry is very expensive. But I do feel times are changing as in my generation (20-30-year-olds) are willing to spend more money in their rings and other jewelry. Also diamonds sold here tend to have very high color and clarity but cut usually is unheard of.
I'm probably going for a solitaire (American engagement ring style) for my wedding ring but diamond bands are more common and a very popular choice here. Woman's wedding ring used to be funded by the man only but many couples just add the ring to their wedding budget and split the cost.
sparkle45
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2013
- Messages
- 123
As one person has already pointed out, the tradition of guy buys ring and gives ring to girl comes from a time when women were still cloistered away. Most weren't "allowed" to earn an income. The purpose of the guy buying the ring was to show the girl and her family that he was financially able to provide for her. It was a symbol of being ready to PROVIDE FOR. Not love. Well, I guess you could say it was a symbol of love via the understanding that he had chosen HER to provide FOR. But, primarily, it was symbolic of his readiness and willingness to take another person into his home and pay her way for life.
Nowadays, that's not required. Some woman (such as myself) still want to be stay at home moms and as such, won't be contributing as much as the man, but that's a choice now. The more common case is that more and more women are earning just as much, if not more than, their SO's these days. So why the need to prove you can provide?
Additionally, someone made the very astute point that requiring the guy to foot the whole bill requires him to "man up" and think about the future, to put effort into saving up for something, to plan and to place value on his girlfriend. In that way, it becomes a measure of the woman's feeling of worth to her SO. Such that, "If guy loves me X amount, then he'll spend X amount of money on my ring." I'm not saying this is right, but I know that many of my girlfriends feel this way. And I used to feel that way, too. But I think there are other ways your SO can show you that he loves you and values you above all others that don't involve spending limited resources on a piece of jewelry. Moving in together, spending all your free time together, going to great lengths to make sure you're happy, being considerate and sweet, and proposing at ALL! I would never tell someone that their man wasn't as serious about their relationship or about the promise they were making to each other because they split the cost of the ring, or because he couldn't afford a ring yet, etc.
Don't get me wrong - if the guy is just chomping at the bit to foot the whole bill, go for it! But I don't think it can any longer be assumed that the guy should pay for the whole thing. Too much in our society has changed. Also, I'm NOT saying there's anything wrong with any decision any couple makes - On the contrary, I think every couple should feel freedom from social judgement to do what's best for them. I'm only arguing the minority side because it's the least heard side.
When my current SO and I started talking rings and weddings, I had to closely reexamine my thoughts on this. I've never owned much jewelry and, coming from a very modest past, have always coveted a NICE ring.
But "the ring" had always been an intangible thing off in an indefinite future. Who knew, maybe I'd fall in love with a neurosurgeon?? Or someone else similarly financially gifted. 
So I had never really thought practically about how I'd be receiving this incredibly nice ring. Until I met the actual guy. And the actual guy did not make much money. Nor did I. Oh well.
Once I realized that my feelings about The Ring were so extravagant and unrealistic, and that they were completely out of sync with what my SO could even hope to afford, I immediately offered to pay half. I made it clear that the issue was with me and how detail-oriented I am, that I didn't think he was lacking in any way, and that I have complete faith in him to provide for me and future kids (don't get me wrong, I intend to raise money working from home while raising my kids, but I will need to be supported for a time before my projects take off.) I also, because I'm strange and care more about the setting and the over "look" of the ring than the diamond, have opted for a non diamond center.
Basically, each couple has to look at their own finances, their projected future finances, and their financial plans for the next 5 years or so.
A couple who have been together for years and years, maybe the guy started saving a few months in, so that he's suddenly able to shell out 10K on a relatively small income, and still have savings to work from.
A couple who meet a little later in life and who are eager to start their lives together, maybe they need to look at the realist costs of 1) ring + 2) wedding + 3) honeymoon + 4) house downpayment + 5) moving expenses + 6) the additional household expense of having a first child. Because that is a LOT of large expenses to cram into a 3-5 year timeline without coming out broke on the other side.
My SO and I are both in our late 20's, and I definitely want to start having kids within 3 years. We both also love to travel and want to have a kick*ss, extended honeymoon. Once I started looking at the costs of everything (and knowing that we would be getting no contribution from my family and minimal from his), the only practical option was to offer to pay half and to put off the substantial expense of having a real diamond.
We're still juggling a few options, but basically it's been boiled down to: If I were a "normal" girl (who didn't have weird built up fantasies about the ring - aren't most girls supposed to dream about the wedding? I could care less there!), I'd probably be happy with something in the just under 1 ct range with a stock setting. (I'm not at all putting that setup down - am just saying that doesn't give me the "look" I've been dreaming about in a vague way all these years.)
So we have compromised. He, of course, wants to pay for the whole thing, and would literally stop eating in order to save any amount, but I a) don't feel right about having him pay the whole thing when I'm being such a spoiled brat, on his salary and b) don't want to wait that long (and I know he doesn't either)!
The agreement is that he'll pay up to $6,000 - because we both agree that is a "reasonable" ering price for our finances and our social group. Anything costlier than that, I cover, because that's my impractical, bratty side coming through.
(My thoughts, not his 
)
Nowadays, that's not required. Some woman (such as myself) still want to be stay at home moms and as such, won't be contributing as much as the man, but that's a choice now. The more common case is that more and more women are earning just as much, if not more than, their SO's these days. So why the need to prove you can provide?
Additionally, someone made the very astute point that requiring the guy to foot the whole bill requires him to "man up" and think about the future, to put effort into saving up for something, to plan and to place value on his girlfriend. In that way, it becomes a measure of the woman's feeling of worth to her SO. Such that, "If guy loves me X amount, then he'll spend X amount of money on my ring." I'm not saying this is right, but I know that many of my girlfriends feel this way. And I used to feel that way, too. But I think there are other ways your SO can show you that he loves you and values you above all others that don't involve spending limited resources on a piece of jewelry. Moving in together, spending all your free time together, going to great lengths to make sure you're happy, being considerate and sweet, and proposing at ALL! I would never tell someone that their man wasn't as serious about their relationship or about the promise they were making to each other because they split the cost of the ring, or because he couldn't afford a ring yet, etc.
Don't get me wrong - if the guy is just chomping at the bit to foot the whole bill, go for it! But I don't think it can any longer be assumed that the guy should pay for the whole thing. Too much in our society has changed. Also, I'm NOT saying there's anything wrong with any decision any couple makes - On the contrary, I think every couple should feel freedom from social judgement to do what's best for them. I'm only arguing the minority side because it's the least heard side.
When my current SO and I started talking rings and weddings, I had to closely reexamine my thoughts on this. I've never owned much jewelry and, coming from a very modest past, have always coveted a NICE ring.
But "the ring" had always been an intangible thing off in an indefinite future. Who knew, maybe I'd fall in love with a neurosurgeon?? Or someone else similarly financially gifted. So I had never really thought practically about how I'd be receiving this incredibly nice ring. Until I met the actual guy. And the actual guy did not make much money. Nor did I. Oh well. Once I realized that my feelings about The Ring were so extravagant and unrealistic, and that they were completely out of sync with what my SO could even hope to afford, I immediately offered to pay half. I made it clear that the issue was with me and how detail-oriented I am, that I didn't think he was lacking in any way, and that I have complete faith in him to provide for me and future kids (don't get me wrong, I intend to raise money working from home while raising my kids, but I will need to be supported for a time before my projects take off.) I also, because I'm strange and care more about the setting and the over "look" of the ring than the diamond, have opted for a non diamond center.
Basically, each couple has to look at their own finances, their projected future finances, and their financial plans for the next 5 years or so.
A couple who have been together for years and years, maybe the guy started saving a few months in, so that he's suddenly able to shell out 10K on a relatively small income, and still have savings to work from.
A couple who meet a little later in life and who are eager to start their lives together, maybe they need to look at the realist costs of 1) ring + 2) wedding + 3) honeymoon + 4) house downpayment + 5) moving expenses + 6) the additional household expense of having a first child. Because that is a LOT of large expenses to cram into a 3-5 year timeline without coming out broke on the other side.
My SO and I are both in our late 20's, and I definitely want to start having kids within 3 years. We both also love to travel and want to have a kick*ss, extended honeymoon. Once I started looking at the costs of everything (and knowing that we would be getting no contribution from my family and minimal from his), the only practical option was to offer to pay half and to put off the substantial expense of having a real diamond.
We're still juggling a few options, but basically it's been boiled down to: If I were a "normal" girl (who didn't have weird built up fantasies about the ring - aren't most girls supposed to dream about the wedding? I could care less there!), I'd probably be happy with something in the just under 1 ct range with a stock setting. (I'm not at all putting that setup down - am just saying that doesn't give me the "look" I've been dreaming about in a vague way all these years.)
So we have compromised. He, of course, wants to pay for the whole thing, and would literally stop eating in order to save any amount, but I a) don't feel right about having him pay the whole thing when I'm being such a spoiled brat, on his salary and b) don't want to wait that long (and I know he doesn't either)!
The agreement is that he'll pay up to $6,000 - because we both agree that is a "reasonable" ering price for our finances and our social group. Anything costlier than that, I cover, because that's my impractical, bratty side coming through.
(My thoughts, not his )
HopeDream
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Messages
- 2,146
Couples should do whatever makes the most sense for them!
I bought my own engagement ring, because at the time I had the money and he didn't. I didn't say anything about it and he got to look like a big shot in front of his friends and family. He contributed half to the wedding (we paid for it ourselves) and now that we've combined finances and I'm going to grad school in January, he'll be supporting me for two years.
It all works out equally in the end. Currently he makes twice my salary, but hopefully that will change in the future.
Personally I think sometimes it's best if the gal picks it out and pays for it because then she can make the decision about what is reasonable to spend, and how to allot the funds available (bigger stone vs. blingier setting etc.). It's very easy to acquire expensive tastes if you're not the one paying for it.
I bought my own engagement ring, because at the time I had the money and he didn't. I didn't say anything about it and he got to look like a big shot in front of his friends and family.
He contributed half to the wedding (we paid for it ourselves) and now that we've combined finances and I'm going to grad school in January, he'll be supporting me for two years.It all works out equally in the end.
Currently he makes twice my salary, but hopefully that will change in the future. Personally I think sometimes it's best if the gal picks it out and pays for it because then she can make the decision about what is reasonable to spend, and how to allot the funds available (bigger stone vs. blingier setting etc.). It's very easy to acquire expensive tastes if you're not the one paying for it.
totallyfree
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 198
I wouldn't feel right NOT contributing... or at least getting him a gift in return. He won't get to wear it and show it off, and an engagement ring doesn't signify that I have someone to provide for me. I want to be a partner in this venture.
We're in our early twenties and have both worked very hard so my dream ring would also be something of a reward that I can wear every day. I'd be happy to buy SO a watch (if he didn't have one!) but lets face it - a lot of men don't wear thousands of dollars of accessories so my options are limited...
If SO is adamant that I'm not contributing to any ring then I'll be offering to pay for an engagement holiday and/or honeymoon at the very least.
We're in our early twenties and have both worked very hard so my dream ring would also be something of a reward that I can wear every day. I'd be happy to buy SO a watch (if he didn't have one!) but lets face it - a lot of men don't wear thousands of dollars of accessories so my options are limited...
If SO is adamant that I'm not contributing to any ring then I'll be offering to pay for an engagement holiday and/or honeymoon at the very least.
300x240.png)