Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

What''s more important?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
L

Larissa

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
276
I decided to try again because I really want to know the answer. I don''t know if I can delete the other topic, but even I can, I don''t plan to. While the responses didn''t quite answer my question I''d imagine that the writers thought through what they wanted to say before answering and don''t deserve to have their answers deleted in case someone wants to read them.

Pick one:
1) wait another 1-2 years to get engaged so that you can afford dream ring
2) get engaged now with a great ring, but not dream ring
 
Now as much as i have my dream ring in mind and would love to have it, i would rather get engaged now without the dream ring.. the ring is great and wonderful but it is not everything.. To me that is.. plus theres always the almighty upgrade someday!!!
emthup.gif
 
It''s a very subjective question and the answer will be different for everyone. Nobody can tell you what your answer should be.

For me, I pick #2 because being together now (and having a "great ring") are much better than waiting it out for my "dream ring". If it''s still my "dream ring" later on, we can always trade in for it, but there''s no sense to me in waiting longer just for the ring. If the time is right for the couple to marry, the ring is not the consideration. In fact, I didn''t want my FI to agonize over the ring decision and postpone the proposal so I asked him to propose without the ring and we''re picking out what we can afford together. Being engaged was the most important part of the proposal to me, not the ring. After our shopping excursion this weekend, I''m even happier that I don''t have to wait on the ring to be engaged since we didn''t find anything, and once we do it will be 6-8 weeks before it''s on my hand. Again, that''s for ME. How you feel may be completely different.
 
Neither.

Whatever ring he chooses will be my dream ring. I want to get engaged now, the ring doesn''t matter to me (I know I''m in the minority at PS hehe)...but to me the ring is symbolic. He knows my style (simple, elegant, platinum)...so I''m not worried about not loving my ring, I know that I will...

So, get engaged now, period. :)

M~
 
#2 for me. I do think the ring is important, for its symbolism and b/c it''s something I plan to wear for the rest of my life, but not the most important thing.
 
I choose #2 -- there is always time for plenty of fancy rings in the future. For me, being engaged is more important than having the dream ring. Although, I did get both!
 
Date: 8/14/2006 1:05:49 PM
Author: Mandarine
Neither.

Whatever ring he chooses will be my dream ring. I want to get engaged now, the ring doesn''t matter to me (I know I''m in the minority at PS hehe)...but to me the ring is symbolic. He knows my style (simple, elegant, platinum)...so I''m not worried about not loving my ring, I know that I will...

So, get engaged now, period. :)

M~
Click to expand...
I''m with Mandarine on this
28.gif
although I ended up picking the ring together.
 
#2 for me also. remember when our grandmothers only got a wedding band? and those marriages last forever. now, i would still want the great ring, don''t get me wrong, but it''s the marriage that i look forward to the most. plus, you can always upgrade into your "dream ring" later on down the line.
 
for me it''d be #2....it was never about the ring for the engagement or the marriage. i was lucky enough to be able to get what i wanted at the time (which of course changes right afterwards!!) but i wouldn''t have held up our engagement to get a ''better ring'' or whatever later. there''s always an upgrade later if it so suits your taste!
 
#2!!
 
I''m all for once you find the love of your life, you get engaged. As already posted several times, it''s about the marriage, the life together, not the ring.

I love Mandarine''s answer. My boy knew my likes and dislikes, and I was pleased with the choice he made. It''s perfect for me. Just perfect.
9.gif
 
Absolutely #2.

If someone answered #1, I''d really have to wonder if it was more about the ring than the man.
 
Date: 8/14/2006 5:50:10 PM
Author: aljdewey
Absolutely #2.

If someone answered #1, I''d really have to wonder if it was more about the ring than the man.
Click to expand...
Ditto. It''s kind of a no brainer when it comes to commentary about the relationship if you reallly truly preferred #1. Probably a bit judgmental on my part, but as aljdewey said, you gotta wonder.
20.gif
 
Date: 8/14/2006 12:33:22 PM
Author: sumbride
Being engaged was the most important part of the proposal to me, not the ring.
Click to expand...
Ditto. If one cares more about the ring than getting engaged, she definitely should reconsider getting engaged.
 
If being with your guy is most important, than get engaged now with a great ring. You can evaluate what else you want later, but to me, it is not the ring that counts. It is an important symbol, yes, but not all that matters. I have friends that got engaged without any ring at all, did not mean the guy loved them any less or the engagement was any less serious. When money was not so tight, they got their ring and it was all fine. Priorities first, the right guy and your life together...the rest happens in time.
 
#2 !!
9.gif
 
#2.

I''d happily get engaged with a piece of string around my finger, a la Count of Monte Cristo. Sure, it might cause awkward questions, but it''s the guy I want, not the ring. Upgrades are always an option. I''m guessing that the ''now'' ring would be something you wouldn''t want to wear forever. If criteria like ''must have a diamond in it'' and ''made of a precious metal'' aren''t being met by the ''now'' ring, I could see someone waiting for the finances to measure up, but I would be just too impatient.
 
definetly #2. Afterall I already have my dream guy, as far as Im concerned, I don''t even need a ring.
1.gif
 
My sweetheart and I just bought a placeholder ring in a slightly different situation. We did it because he did not know when we would find "the ring" and may not want to wait. I would not do it any differently.
 
#2...but only if you feel comfortable with that. If not, waiting may give you perspective on why a dream ring would be worth putting off an engagement for, and what that symbolizes to you.

1.gif
 
I haven''t posted in ages due to being so busy but when I read this, I wanted to jump in because I had asked something similar earlier. Now, please don''t jump on me, but when faced with the same question few months ago, my boyfriend and I talked about it together and we decided on #1 for these reasons:

1. I''m very, very, VERY picky about jewelry. I hardly wear any, even when I receive expensive jewelry as gifts. Since an engagement ring is something I will wear for the rest of my life, I want to make sure that I love it.
2. I''m also super-sentimental and I could never think of upgrading in the future.
3. My boyfriend and I already know we''re going to get married in three years. We practically consider ourselves engaged already. We''ve talked it over and we don''t see much of a difference between officially getting engaged now vs a year from now. (Right now we''re aiming for the end of this year.)

This isn''t to say that if my boyfriend proposed with a less expensive ring - heck, with a piece of string right now, I would be disappointed. In fact, I would be ecstatic! But this is a decision we made together and we''re happy with it.

I can see why anyone may be suspicious of decision #1. But in our case, we''re not holding up the engagement just for the sake of the ring (there are many other factors) and so choosing #1 was a happy decision for the both of us.
 
Date: 8/14/2006 9:25:50 PM
Author: JenStone
I haven't posted in ages due to being so busy but when I read this, I wanted to jump in because I had asked something similar earlier. Now, please don't jump on me, but when faced with the same question few months ago, my boyfriend and I talked about it together and we decided on #1 for these reasons:

1. I'm very, very, VERY picky about jewelry. I hardly wear any, even when I receive expensive jewelry as gifts. Since an engagement ring is something I will wear for the rest of my life, I want to make sure that I love it.
2. I'm also super-sentimental and I could never think of upgrading in the future.
3. My boyfriend and I already know we're going to get married in three years. We practically consider ourselves engaged already. We've talked it over and we don't see much of a difference between officially getting engaged now vs a year from now. (Right now we're aiming for the end of this year.)

This isn't to say that if my boyfriend proposed with a less expensive ring - heck, with a piece of string right now, I would be disappointed. In fact, I would be ecstatic! But this is a decision we made together and we're happy with it.

I can see why anyone may be suspicious of decision #1. But in our case, we're not holding up the engagement just for the sake of the ring (there are many other factors) and so choosing #1 was a happy decision for the both of us.
Click to expand...
That's a fair enough argument Jen. But your reasons 1&2 kind of lead me to believe you wouldn't be (no offense). And btw...I am with you on your two reasons...I am the same way. If it's a mutual decision, I think more power to the couple. But if, say...he wanted to get engaged now and the gal didn't because she wanted a better ring...or the girl wanted to get engaged but felt torn because she wanted to wait for the better ring...then I'd say something may be a bit amiss.

Bottom line though, each couple decides what works for them, and I think that's where you're on the money........

ETA - fixed some spelling errors!
 
Date: 8/14/2006 2:25:41 PM
Author: *Lindsey*
I choose #2 -- there is always time for plenty of fancy rings in the future. For me, being engaged is more important than having the dream ring. Although, I did get both!
Click to expand...
I agree with Linds on this...i got both too!
 
Well I think that everyone has different opinons on what their "dream proposal" was. So I can understand being a little disappointed that the proposal (and if a ring is part of it) isn't EXACTLY what you want, or that your boyfriend didn't give the process any thought,

Although honestly, my take on it, is if he wants to propose and he can afford X, but you want XYZ, then the girl should just contribute to the ring. And I know some girls out there are going say "but then it's not romantic" but I don't think there's anything less romantic then saying "I want to wait because I want a better ring"

Jenstone: I remember your thread very clearly, and you mentioned that you were disappointed that he had cut his budget in half and that you were worried you would be disappointed. I know that you are asian, and you mentioned that there were many reasons that you wanted to wait etc. Although I am asian and I didn't agree with all of the reasons you gave, I can certinly understand why you would feel this way.
 

Whoops! I meant to say, "I WOULDN''T be disappointed" if he proposed to me with a piece of string. I see where you can see a discrepancy in my argument, TravelingGal. I guess deep down, I feel safe saying something like this because I know that he wouldn''t propose to me until he has our dream ring. And I admit - I can be materialistic about certain things (ie - I have a weakness for designer bags but I don''t mind going to Payless for shoes

20.gif
), and my boyfriend knows this. I''m very lucky to have found someone who can tolerate my being spoiled
2.gif
yet brings me back to earth regarding certain luxury items. The ring, however, is something we decided together to not compromise too much. We''re both still young and we still have 3 years before we want to get married - so why not wait a bit more? Why not save for a more stable future alongside the ring as opposed to saving solely for the ring then saving for our future together?


When I first joined PS, I have to admit that I wanted to get engaged sooner rather than later, especially with all my friends getting engaged left and right. I admit I wanted a 2.5 carat flawless ring with the perfect proposal to boot. It was only a few months ago, but those sentiments just seem so silly now! Maybe I wasn''t thinking straight with the green monster of envy in tow?

Allycat: Thanks for remembering! I''m now glad that he cut his budget! When we went to go try on rings, the larger stones just looked silly on my small hands. The new budget is perfect for my new dream ring. Plus, now we have more more money to put toward buying an apartment together.
1.gif
And I agree with you - if a guy cannot afford the girl''s dream ring and the ring''s the only thing holding them back from getting engaged, she should contribute.
 
Date: 8/14/2006 6:20:36 PM
Author: TravelingGal
Date: 8/14/2006 5:50:10 PM

Author: aljdewey

Absolutely #2.


If someone answered #1, I''d really have to wonder if it was more about the ring than the man.
Click to expand...

Ditto. It''s kind of a no brainer when it comes to commentary about the relationship if you reallly truly preferred #1. Probably a bit judgmental on my part, but as aljdewey said, you gotta wonder.
20.gif
Click to expand...

I don''t see it this way at all. I didn''t even think about #1 seeming shallow when posting the question. You can be with someone without a ring and without marriage. Neither a ring or marriage is actually necessary to continue a relationship with the person you love.

We got engaged without rings. I wanted to get married without rings (but that didn''t happen, he liked his ring too much). And we don''t believe in upgrades so option 2 doesn''t leave me the ability to go with a great ring now and a dream ring later.

I guess I''d probably pick #1 and save for a ring if I wanted a dream ring. We could still be together, and otherwise have a happy relationship without being engaged or married...then again, my answer as far as 1 or 2 would probably change on a daily basis
1.gif
 
Yeah, I have to say I think you guys are all being a bit hard on potential #1 people! It doesn''t mean that they want to get engaged any less or love their guys any less. To a certain extent, if you both KNOW you''re going to get engaged and married at some point, isn''t it your own choice when you choose to actually get engaged? There''s no rule that getting engaged NOW is always better than getting engaged in six months or a year, and there are a million entirely legitimate reasons why a couple might choose to wait a bit. For sentimental no-upgrade-ever people, I don''t see why wanting to wait until you can have a ring you''ll be happy with for life is any more materialistic than all the I''d-get-engaged-now-with-a-ring-I-don''t-love-because-I-can-always-upgrade-later people. Both of those people care about the ring AND the engagement, it''s just that the no-upgrade people want the proposal to be more sentimental and "forever" than the let''s get engaged now people, who might just want something - anything - now, without thinking ahead. I think that 100% of people in HEALTHY relationships care more about the man than the ring, but I don''t think that the people who decide to wait to get their forever ring before getting engaged are IN ANY WAY more materialistic than the people who intend to upgrade later. It''s entirely your personal preference. And if you KNOW you''re going to get engaged and married later anyway, shouldn''t YOU be able to decide if it''s worth it to you to wait a little longer so you don''t get stuck with a ring you would want to upgrade but you''re too sentimental to?
 
Jenstone,

Honestly, I really don''t think there''s anything wrong with being materialistic. Someone said that about the people on PS once. And I said "SO?" Yes I am and I can afford to be. I don''t think that materialistic= shallow, vapid etc. You can like nice things and not be either of those things. The only time I have a problem with it is when people run around pretending to be totally NON-Materialistic, when they really are. I think an honest answer is: Yes, a lot of girls would be disppointed with a piece of string if there was no plans for a more tangible symbol (regardless of price). I would NOT be happy with a piece of string, and my conservative parents would be mortified.

I think if the conotation in the statement "wait for a better ring" to me any ways, is if my boyfriend had saved for X number of years, and this is something he feels comfortable spending, and then I didn''t think it was*enough* for me. I wouldn''t say "well save up some more" What would be really silly is if a girl said "I''m not marrying you until you buy me a ring that is XYZ carats" That is a more serious problem.

But I remember that you had cut your budget because there''s a lot of money involved in starting a life together and Asian wedding preperations and decided the money could be better used elsewhere. If both of you agree that you want to wait because you are young etc. AND he isn''t happy with what he can afford, and you aren''t happy with it either, then I don''t think there''s nothing wrong with that.

BUT if he wants to get married now, and so do you, and he can afford this ring, is comfortable with this ring, but you aren''t willing because the ring isn''t good enough, well that''s more of an issue. I don''t think that was your case.
1.gif


..........Incidently I had a conversation with my friend about this. His friend''s grilfriend said "NO" TWICE because the ring wasn''t good enough.
20.gif
She told him that she would say "Yes" when it was. And I say...just get a man that makes more money if that''s what is really important to you
32.gif
.........
 
Date: 8/15/2006 11:19:11 AM
Author: Larissa

You can be with someone without a ring and without marriage. Neither a ring or marriage is actually necessary to continue a relationship with the person you love.

We got engaged without rings. I wanted to get married without rings (but that didn't happen, he liked his ring too much). And we don't believe in upgrades so option 2 doesn't leave me the ability to go with a great ring now and a dream ring later.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can be with someone without being engaged or married.....but it's not the same. Just isn't.....in my personal opinion, no matter how ya slice it.

If there weren't a difference between being "in a relationship" and being "engaged/married", no one would bother marrying because it would be the same thing, right? It's not the same thing.....and while the relationship may be great, it's not the same as being engaged/married (to me).

I actually agree with your choice.....to become engaged without the ring. Engaged means promise of marriage....the ring symbolizes it, but it's not a requirement.

I can understand the rationale that says "we're sentimental and won't want to upgrade", so let's wait on the ring.

However, neither of the choices given presented that option. It was either "don't get engaged until dream ring" or "get engaged with less than dream ring".

I'd rather see "get engaged with no ring and save for dream ring" for those folks....instead of delaying the commitment of one's life to another over a piece of jewelry.
 
Date: 8/15/2006 1:15:54 PM
Author: aljdewey
Date: 8/15/2006 11:19:11 AM

Author: Larissa


You can be with someone without a ring and without marriage. Neither a ring or marriage is actually necessary to continue a relationship with the person you love.


We got engaged without rings. I wanted to get married without rings (but that didn''t happen, he liked his ring too much). And we don''t believe in upgrades so option 2 doesn''t leave me the ability to go with a great ring now and a dream ring later.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can be with someone without being engaged or married.....but it''s not the same. Just isn''t.....in my personal opinion, no matter how ya slice it.


If there weren''t a difference between being ''in a relationship'' and being ''engaged/married'', no one would bother marrying because it would be the same thing, right? It''s not the same thing.....and while the relationship may be great, it''s not the same as being engaged/married (to me).


I actually agree with your choice.....to become engaged without the ring. Engaged means promise of marriage....the ring symbolizes it, but it''s not a requirement.


I can understand the rationale that says ''we''re sentimental and won''t want to upgrade'', so let''s wait on the ring.


However, neither of the choices given presented that option. It was either ''don''t get engaged until dream ring'' or ''get engaged with less than dream ring''.


I''d rather see ''get engaged with no ring and save for dream ring'' for those folks....instead of delaying the commitment of one''s life to another over a piece of jewelry.
Click to expand...

I left the question open for interpretation, just like I didn''t clarify on 2 on whether or not an upgrade was possible.

I guess this is simply where I differ from you, a relationship is a relationship no matter what title you put on it. No one is any more or less important than the other. And being married feels no different to me than being it did dating or being engaged. I didn''t realise, until now, of course, that my views on marriage just being a government issued piece of paper would so strongly effect how I felt about this question...*shrug* learn something new everyday.

I think it''s really cool that so many people chose 2 (even if it was determined that 1 was materalistic
2.gif
). It seems like a lot of guys hold out to get the perfect ring when all the woman wants to get engaged *NOW*.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top