What do you think the average price on an e-ring is these days?

[sluke]

I live in Seattle, and work in downtown Seattle. My e-ring is 1.5 ct. Doesn't seem out of place amongst my girlfriends' rings (ranges are 1 ct to 3 ct). Three women I work with recently (w/the last 9 mos) got engaged and their e-rings were 1.74ct; 2.01ct and 2.31ct. I think the average here in Seattle is more like one carat.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

----------------
On 3/14/2004 8:43:21 PM sluke wrote:

I live in Seattle, and work in downtown Seattle. My e-ring is 1.5 ct. Doesn't seem out of place amongst my girlfriends' rings (ranges are 1 ct to 3 ct). Three women I work with recently (w/the last 9 mos) got engaged and their e-rings were 1.74ct; 2.01ct and 2.31ct. I think the average here in Seattle is more like one carat. ----------------

Possibly! I've seen larger stones, but honestly, the majority of women, like ones working in Lake City/Ballard/Northgate/U District supermarkets, drug stores, the mall, etc., don't seem to sport diamonds averaging one carat, and I'm taking all of these gals into account. Of course those working DT probably have bigger stones, BUT, honestly, they only make up a portion of the population and we can't forget those in the surrounding areas who don't have affluent professions

Now, if we included Bellevue & Kirkland, than I'd agree that one carat is a good average point. Include Everett, then I'd say .75 +/-

. . .Lacey and Shelton .25 (hahaha)


Michelle

 

[heart prongs]

I'm near Boston and I'd say that recently, as in the past 3/4 yrs., people around here are getting bigger e-rings (1-2 cts.), fancy cuts, more side stones and original settings, mostly platinum. Most of my friends who got married in the mid 90s got just shy of a carat solitaires in yellow gold tiffany settings. I'd say the average cost for an e-ring in this area today is about $6-$8K, but I'm really not sure...

 

[chris-uk04]

I think average size is larger in NYC because

a. Guys either have more money (less common) or
b. Guys spend more than they can afford so their acquaintances and neighbours will think they have more money than they do. Women in the NY area (northern NJ and Long Island) certainly don’t help. I think NY area women are generally some of the most materialistic women on earth. They way more likely to talk about how “small someone’s ring is” behind someone’s back. Size is everything to them too. It’s sorta a mix between ghetto rich and keeping up with the Joneses.

 

[Nicrez]

Chris, I would be offended by that NYC comment of being shallow and all, but I know I am not, so I will just assume you haven't met EVERYONE in this area.




Everyone has different social circles, and even where one woman can have a huge ring, she may not always want to wear it. Case in point, my friend is finishing up her grad degree in Social work, and will eventually work in NYC with impoverished and underpriviledged people. Her BF bought her a (2tcw) 3 stone ring and anymore (and she could have gotten it) on her would look silly. No point in flaunting what you have in front of those who may have nothing. My other friend has some posh social circles and has a 3ct (5tcw) ring that commands attention amoung her wealthy freinds and wealthy interior design clients. To each his own, and whatever that person feels comfortable in.




We in NYC are no more shallow than anyone in California with their "who has a better car" syndrome, or a lady in Brazil with "who has a beter body" syndrome, or in England with "who has beter breeding and lineage" syndrome, or even in Eastern Europe with "who has more fur or gold" syndrome. I say this from the many people I know from each country. Each PERSON has their bias and their pride over SOMETHING. Even if it's to be the most " down-to-earth", everyone compares. Especially women. In NYC, you can't have cars, breeding is too mixed, you're too cold to be perfectly tanned and shaped like a 21 yr old forever, so you have other ways of comparing and expressing yourself. Any insecure person can show off, regardless of where they live...I am sure someone out there in Minessota is sporting a particularly fancy something or other and bragging to the neighbors.

 

[elle_chris]

Chris-
simply put, that was just a disgusting statement to make.

"Cheers"

 

[MichelleCarmen]

----------------
Each PERSON has their bias and their pride over SOMETHING. Even if it's to be the most ' down-to-earth', everyone compares. Especially women.

hahaha - unfortunetly this is so true! I have to laugh as I'm about to go shopping at an organic whole food market with my kids and in this place I SWEAR people are competitive over who has the most vegetables in their carts

. Usually, of course, WE do

!

Michelle

 

[sumi]

I read somewhere that the overall average is something like $2500.

As many others have said before, it really varies from region to region. I really don't know what the average here in Los Angeles is, but I'd guess that it's on the higher side (8k+?). It also really depends on your socioeconomic circle. I am certainly not saying that e-ring size/quality has an absolute direct correlation to wealth/education level. However, I went to a law school in Los Angeles with many very wealthy students (unfortunately, I was not one of them! ha ha ha). A lot of women in their mid to late 20's at my school had very high quality, very beautiful, (and yes, very large) and obviously very expensive e-rings. But, outside of that isolated bubble, I've seen a whole range of sizes/quality of rings.


I also agree that some people will find something to use as a comparison gauge, whether it be diamonds, cars, pets, etc.

 

[sluke]

Possibly! I've seen larger stones, but honestly, the majority of women, like ones working in Lake City/Ballard/Northgate/U District supermarkets, drug stores, the mall, etc., don't seem to sport diamonds averaging one carat, and I'm taking all of these gals into account. Of course those working DT probably have bigger stones, BUT, honestly, they only make up a portion of the population and we can't forget those in the surrounding areas who don't have affluent professions

Now, if we included Bellevue & Kirkland, than I'd agree that one carat is a good average point. Include Everett, then I'd say .75 +/-

. . .Lacey and Shelton .25 (hahaha)


Michelle
----------------[/quote]

Maybe your are right and I haven't notice. I live near the neighborhoods you mentioned, as well as the women at my work place. Anyway, a well cut diamond is beautiful, regardless of size.

 

[sumi]

----------------
Anyway, a well cut diamond is beautiful, regardless of size.
----------------

I TOTALLY AGREE!

 

[pulp_princess]

It would probably all depend too, on whether it was a first e-ring or an upgrade. Plus, weren't diamond prices very different in the 80's?

 

[MichelleCarmen]

----------------
On 3/15/2004 2:40:23 PM sluke wrote:


Possibly! I've seen larger stones, but honestly, the majority of women, like ones working in Lake City/Ballard/Northgate/U District supermarkets, drug stores, the mall, etc., don't seem to sport diamonds averaging one carat, and I'm taking all of these gals into account. Of course those working DT probably have bigger stones, BUT, honestly, they only make up a portion of the population and we can't forget those in the surrounding areas who don't have affluent professions

Now, if we included Bellevue & Kirkland, than I'd agree that one carat is a good average point. Include Everett, then I'd say .75 +/-

. . .Lacey and Shelton .25 (hahaha)


Michelle
----------------

Maybe your are right and I haven't notice. I live near the neighborhoods you mentioned, as well as the women at my work place. Anyway, a well cut diamond is beautiful, regardless of size.
----------------[/quote]


You know I was thinking about what you said and realized I'm taking into consideration all of the women who are already married not just newely engaged individuals, which probably is different from what you're doing. I'm betting the trend is for larger stones even in our region, but overall, mostly I see smaller stones on baby boomers as well as women around my age (31) and this makes a huge difference in *my* perpective v. what I'd see if I just looked those who've become engaged w/in the last year. Who knows though!

I agree, all well cut diamonds are beautiful

Michelle

 

[glitterata]

In my circle of Manhattanites & Ivy-league grads, I'm one of the very few who wears an e-ring. My husband didn't buy it, either--it was an heirloom. My friends tend to think e-rings are weird and wasteful. And believe me, they could afford them.

One of my few friends who wears an engagement ring and I were comparing rings after I got mine. I recognized hers as an old mine cut, set in a classic platinum setting with baguettes on the side. I guess it might be in the .50 to .80 carat range? I'm not sure, and I didn't ask. It was really lovely.

She said, "They told me the diamond is a hundred years old and the setting is a from a little later. I just noticed the diamond is sort of square, not round. When my brother saw it, he said, 'You know, diamond cutting technology has improved quite a bit in the last century.' I told him, 'Good. That means E. [her husband] didn't waste as much money on this thing.' "

Another couple I know wears silver wedding rings. Not platinum, not even gold--and certainly no diamonds. They own an apartment building in a wealthy part of town; she has a well paying job with a lot of responsibility, and he looks after their property. They certainly could afford diamonds if they wanted them.

Another friend hid her hand for months after she got her e-ring, she was so embarrassed to be wearing such a thing--but she didn't want to hurt her (now) husband's feelings by taking it off.

Others of my friends have narrow eternity bands, or small sapphires, or dainty cluster rings as erings, if they have erings at all. And again, let me emphasize, these are not poor people. They just have different values.

 

[sumi]

----------------
On 3/15/2004 3:39:21 PM glitterata wrote:



Others of my friends have narrow eternity bands, or small sapphires, or dainty cluster rings as erings, if they have erings at all. And again, let me emphasize, these are not poor people. They just have different values.


----------------

Sometimes when I don't feel like wearing my e-ring, I will just wear my eternity wedding band. It's a very dainty and slim band. I just think it looks really dainty and I love the look!

 

[Mara]

Yes it's definitely about what people feel comfortable with. I have some friends who own a million dollar home in the hills(they are both 30) and her e-ring is about .30c and she hardly ever wears it. Their house is their first priority, all their money goes into it and they want it that way, it's their long-term investment and they plan to stay there a very long time.

Other friends have a new townhouse quite like ours, but they have a beautiful new expensive car, all the expensive latest electronic gadgets, and a new baby. Her ring is .30c as well.




I would rather have a nice place and older cars and have a nice diamond...or a few. Greg has his expensive hobbies too (he's got a few tubas, and some other instruments that can run up to $10k each, depending...). Every time we look at getting a cool new car, we crunch the numbers...and when I look at the totals, all I can think about it what driving that shiny new car will take AWAY from elsewhere. Because we aren't rich, so compromises would have to be made elsewhere. We look at each other, at our still usable, still nice cars...and put the new car on the back-burner again. Someday maybe we'll actually go for it.

But doing things like that, knowing our priorities and being happy with them lets us do things we *really* want, like going to Tahiti for our honeymoon, being able to comfortably swing our beautiful new townhouse, etc.




It's all about what makes you happy in the end, I don't think anyone should be judged as shallow because they want a big rock or a new car or both...everyone has different priorities. I firmly believe one should do in life what makes one happy, and if others don't like it or it's not for them...tough.

 

[innerkitten]

Hey this topic went from price to carat size! Funny

Well I only have four good friends that are married. One of my best friends has a diamond thats about .75 and the other one has an opal instead of a diamond ( very unique). Then the two other women who are from a totally different social circle have really large diamonds I'd say about 2 carats or slightly larger.

Oh yeah and I have another friend who never got an engagement ring just a wedding band. They already had two kids before they finally got married and it was a quicky wedding at lake Tahoe.

 

[Nicrez]

I agree with that! Just because you can afford better things doesn't mean you do. My parents worked so hard and made good money, just to squirrel it away in investments and property. No fancy jewelery per se, some nice pieces, but nothing extravagant. They didn't take wildly pricey vacations (until now...they are getting daring in their old age!) and so they believed that their money was made for the comfort of their children and they were very self-sacrificing. Paid for college, grad school, cars, nice gifts for us, weddings (even paid fully for my brother's 100 person wedding), so who cares how much you spend on anything, except YOU.




My friends have their "things", one loves shoes, one spends on cars, one on jewelery, boats, electronics, another on investments and others in savings accounts. Either way it's your money, and whatever floats your boat!




I happen to like jewelry, and have now abandoned my clothes shopping and shoes obession for DIAMONDS!!! (alright, gemstones right now...)

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 3/14/2004 7:58:57 PM MichelleCarmen wrote:

----------------


Shameless, as it gave her nightmare's for about a year. Things are just that -things. It's the violation that gets most people.
----------------

That's too bad. I hope your friend's okay now. Has she gotten help for post traumatic stress disorder?

Michelle
----------------

She was with her young son. Both had to go to counseling. It was 2 years ago & time does heal most wounds. I think the biggest thing is she blames herself. She went to a specific store & to save time chose the one in the not so good area.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 3/15/2004 3:39:21 PM glitterata wrote:


Others of my friends have narrow eternity bands, or small sapphires, or dainty cluster rings as erings, if they have erings at all. And again, let me emphasize, these are not poor people. They just have different values.
----------------

I don't know about values in the true sense. But, everyone chooses to spend money where they want - preferences & taste. I'd rather have 15 great bottles of Barolo than a designer purse. Some would think that was foolish as one has nothing to show for it afterward. For me, there is a process that surrounds the whole Barolo "event". I take away something. To them, there's nothing to show for it. Yet, I do love those sparkley things.

This whole size thing boils down to preference within appropriateness. And, some people just don't care about the little or big buggers.

 

[ClownFishFunk]

You know, I almost never see engagement rings on anyone, anywhere - home (Long Island) or at school (Upstate New York). My mother doesn't even have an engagement ring (and she rarely wears her wedding ring), and so few people I know get engaged. Maybe I'm bad luck?

For the few rings that I *have* seen, my guess is they were around 2-3 thousand dollars...however I did see one horrifying incident at Walmart where someone was about to buy a ring and the consumer commented "It's 125 dollars! Of course thats a real diamond!" They obviously had not done much research.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

----------------
On 3/15/2004 4:06:58 PM Nicrez wrote:


I agree with that! Just because you can afford better things doesn't mean you do. My parents worked so hard and made good money, just to squirrel it away in investments and property. No fancy jewelery per se, some nice pieces, but nothing extravagant. They didn't take wildly pricey vacations (until now...they are getting daring in their old age!) and so they believed that their money was made for the comfort of their children and they were very self-sacrificing. Paid for college, grad school, cars, nice gifts for us, weddings (even paid fully for my brother's 100 person wedding), so who cares how much you spend on anything, except YOU.


My friends have their 'things', one loves shoes, one spends on cars, one on jewelery, boats, electronics, another on investments and others in savings accounts. Either way it's your money, and whatever floats your boat!


I happen to like jewelry, and have now abandoned my clothes shopping and shoes obession for DIAMONDS!!! (alright, gemstones right now...)

----------------

You know, I love jewelry so much too

lol, but once you become a parent priorites do change. Like your parents, my husband and I are trying to invest as much as we can in property and so unfortunely, diamonds aren't too high on our list right now (of course I've planned out my next five purchases, but will be saving slowly for these items).

I think you've got to balance your interest in baubles or any fun hobby item with reality, which IS not spending what could be your child's/future child's college fund on an overabundance of jewelry/cars/housestuff (unless you're super rich) or risk going into debt for something that you'll only gain a superficial enjoyment of. And, even I admit, all of these things we DON'T need and so are superficial. It's mostly for fun, but not life sustaining and prospective must be maintained when blowing money on any purchase.

Also, you can only wear so many jewely pieces at one time so unless you're following the trends of Carmela from the Sapranos and enjoy wearing 10 necklaces at once, I can't imagine buying over a few HIGH QUALITY pieces per year.


Michelle

 

[Mara]

----------------
unless you're following the trends of Carmela from the Sapranos and enjoy wearing 10 necklaces at once, I can't imagine buying over a few HIGH QUALITY pieces per year.

----------------

HEY! That was my plan and now you are telling me you don't like it?

With my existing Regent which I love....the new squarish H&A coming out @ GOG AND the local jeweler having an amazing .54 H I1 Eightstar perfect for a pendant...I am going to have to start layering my solitaire pendants!!

 

[chris-uk04]

----------------
On 3/15/2004 12:00:55 PM Nicrez wrote:


Chris, I would be offended by that NYC comment of being shallow and all, but I know I am not, so I will just assume you haven't met EVERYONE in this area.


Everyone has different social circles, and even where one woman can have a huge ring, she may not always want to wear it. Case in point, my friend is finishing up her grad degree in Social work, and will eventually work in NYC with impoverished and underpriviledged people. Her BF bought her a (2tcw) 3 stone ring and anymore (and she could have gotten it) on her would look silly. No point in flaunting what you have in front of those who may have nothing. My other friend has some posh social circles and has a 3ct (5tcw) ring that commands attention amoung her wealthy freinds and wealthy interior design clients. To each his own, and whatever that person feels comfortable in.


We in NYC are no more shallow than anyone in California with their 'who has a better car' syndrome, or a lady in Brazil with 'who has a beter body' syndrome, or in England with 'who has beter breeding and lineage' syndrome, or even in Eastern Europe with 'who has more fur or gold' syndrome. I say this from the many people I know from each country. Each PERSON has their bias and their pride over SOMETHING. Even if it's to be the most ' down-to-earth', everyone compares. Especially women. In NYC, you can't have cars, breeding is too mixed, you're too cold to be perfectly tanned and shaped like a 21 yr old forever, so you have other ways of comparing and expressing yourself. Any insecure person can show off, regardless of where they live...I am sure someone out there in Minessota is sporting a particularly fancy something or other and bragging to the neighbors.


----------------

First off, I said generally. Secondly, I think you are right about how other cultures/people brag about different thing, but GENERALLY New York women are worse. Since, I’ve spent 23 years in the NYC area and subsequent substantial time in the Midwest, the South, and now Britain, I can say GENERALLY NY women are much more materialistic by comparison…especially when it comes to e-rings. (British women are all about fashion, but they don’t care about diamonds). That being said I haven’t spent much time in California, and by reputation, LA women probably could give them a run for their money.

 

[sumi]

HEY! That was my plan and now you are telling me you don't like it?

With my existing Regent which I love....the new squarish H&A coming out @ GOG AND the local jeweler having an amazing .54 H I1 Eightstar perfect for a pendant...I am going to have to start layering my solitaire pendants!!

----------------[/quote]



Actually, I've seen people layer two or three pendants and I think it looks really nice. It's a really cute look as long as the pendants are simple!

 

[hoorray]

----------------
On 3/15/2004 9:55:43 PM MichelleCarmen wrote:

----------------

You know, I love jewelry so much too

lol, but once you become a parent priorites do change. Like your parents, my husband and I are trying to invest as much as we can in property and so unfortunely, diamonds aren't too high on our list right now (of course I've planned out my next five purchases, but will be saving slowly for these items).

----------------

I think you go through phases in life and your priorities shift accordingly. (geez I sounds old.....

) I've gone through major jewelry phases, and then minimal periods. Hubby used to give me some nice babble each birthday and then one year I got a stairmaster. hmmmmmm.......

We spend then we save..... the good news is that if diamonds aren't high on your list now, that doesn't mean they can't be in the future! good news is that diamonds are back in vogue at my household!

 

[Tenwood]

Update: http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/20/pf/weddings/
Category 2005 average cost Change from 1999
Engagement ring $4,146 39%
Photography/videography $2,570 103%
Ceremony/reception music $1,250 68%
Rehearsal Dinner $1,153 51%
Flowers $1,121 45%

Dang it, should have gotten married way back when. Of course, not to the woman of my dreams but I would have saved a bundle.

 

[perry]

There are advantages to just eloping...

I did mention to one of my brothers that I had asked a gal to marry me, and his comment was to either let him know when - or to just zip off somewhere for the weekend or week and let him know after.

I think a picknick in a park would do just fine for the reception.

Perry

 

[jaysonsmom]

I guess in my social circle, above $4k seems to be the norm. I''m in southern California, and all of my friends e-rings are really good quality .75ct or bigger. In fact, I can''t name a single friend that got married in the past 10 years that has anything smaller than a .75ct!

Since my circle of friends know me as a diamond buff, a lot of their S.O. ask me to help them with ring selection, and their budgets are all in the 4-10K range. Only a couple people I know have 2+ ct, and over $15K rings. Most tend to care about the 1 ct. mark more than anything. Even if they have a $4k budget, they ask me the max carat size they can get.

 

[londonmlle]

I read an article somewhere about the average size (and hence price) of engagement rings increasing recently and 3 carat + rings becoming more common. I wish I could remember where this article was from. But I believe this to be true based on my own experience. It seems that many people I know have rings around 2 carats or more. I think this results from the fact that people these days are getting engaged at an older age (late 20s, early 30s for my friends) and can therefore afford to spend more on an engagement ring. Couples are also working more and earning more and they probably want to enjoy the money that their hard work has earned. That and the fact that DeBeers has done some pretty good marketing!

A lot of people, including some who have posted in this thread, complain about how it is showy or shallow to have a larger diamond. Some people have even shared this opinion with me (I have a nice sized diamond so this is a rude and thinly veiled criticism of myself)! I find this to be very judgmental. People have different priorities when it comes to how they spend their money. Some women want a big diamond. Some men want an expensive sports car. Some couples want to spend all their money on a nice house. People should do what makes them happy.

I agree that ladies in Manhattan wear bigger rings. Go to any of the nice department stores and have a look around at the shoppers. There''s more bling in Bergdorfs than at many jewelry stores!

 

[ammayernyc]

I live in NYC and there are definitely large rings here. In my social circle, I would say most people have at least a 2 ct ring.

I think the rings are so large for a number of reasons:

1. The men make money. They can afford to buy large rings and so they do. I think most of the women I know would be upset if they had a small ring since they know that their husbands can afford a larger one.

2. Access. Living in a city where there are so many diamond dealers and so many jewelry stores, you are just drawn towards the larger rings since that''s usually what''s showcased.

3. Connections. I know two diamond brokers myself. I have also been told by three people that they can hook my bf up with their jewelery guy when he''s ready to buy. People know people...

I also think there is nothing wrong with wanting or having a large ring. I get the distinct impression that people can feel that having a big ring means they are materialistic and snobby. I don''t think this is the case at all...