I'm confused since she isn't spending the $20k the guy is so utility doesn't really factor in the way you are thinking. It is not like the girl has the option to choose $10k ring + $20k in cash vs $30k ring.

I can kind of get where you are trying to go if we envision a scenario where post-marriage that $20k will now be a joint asset so in fact it is partly hers or at least the couples to use but most people keep separate finances these days so I'm not sure if that matters. Also if that is the argument then I'm sure she could point to plenty of purchases the guy made which have even less utility value to the combined couple once you factor in her.

The problem is people who can't afford $20-30k for a ring feeling pressured to spend that kind of money. I do believe there is a floor below which if spending $X causes concern then maybe getting the financial picture in place first and then getting married might be a good option but that number is way below $20k. For people who can afford it this type of utility consideration very rarely materializes. The utility of money changes drastically when you have more than you need so that items that cost 300-500% more but only offer 25% better item makes sense. We all die and having a **** load of money at end game has no utility.

So if you woke up today and had $10M in cash and an annuity that paid $1M a year in perpetuity what would you do with the money?

Assuming you are not religious I doubt giving it away to help others while continuing to live in suburbia hell and drive a Windstar would be the outcome.

He's a fool for even considering getting married with that kind of life situation.

Of course. My jeweler's cc price is less than bluenile. The cash price is that much better.

What you are talking about certainly happens. Go to any jeweler in the mall and everything is always at least 60% off. It's like the "going out of business store" in Zohan.

The money can go to other things on her, though. Or things together. If a $20k difference in ring only gives her marginally more happiness, it's a stupid purchase. I'd be willing to bet most chicks, if given the choice between a $10k ring and a $20k shopping spree to go wild with, and a $30k ring, the choice would be incredibly obvious for them. In a sense I am looking at it as a joint asset, though.

While someone who is incredibly rich, your concerns about not being able to spend the money might be true, for someone making $200k, there are enough people with incomes at or above those levels in plenty of debt, so I doubt it's really true for most cases. For someone with $10M+ net worth, you may have a point (but even plenty of people with those levels spend it all and end up broke). If you are at a point where you have $20k and the thing you'd want to spend it on most happens to be a shiny rock, then maybe it's a good idea. However, most people with scarce funds could find any number of things to spend the money on that they would enjoy it more. And those who are in pissing contests with their friends to see who can have the biggest prize on their finger are usually not the types of chicks that are worth marrying anyway.

I'm not saying you should abstain from any luxuries, or that you should give it all to charity. Buying a nice car is reasonable, and maintaining legal control of your portfolio is perfectly acceptable.

Just that there's a line of 'excess' where the amount of pleasure you get from something that is extremely resource/labour intensive is unjustifiably small relative to the amount of good it would do for other people.

People who don't have that line are basically amoral.
And I'd imagine that, for those reasons, a girl who expects/demands a 30k ring is likely to be especially self absorbed and not someone you'd want to marry.

I'm not saying this as if I'm exempt from judgement. I'm not exceptionally generous , and I wouldn't consider myself a particularly 'good' person. Im just a regular person who happens to not give a **** about luxury cars, or fancy jewelery.

People value different things. You can certainly buy a $20k - $30k that is just as functional, if not moreso, than a $50k+ car. But some people want to pay for a luxury car. A ring is no different. A $10k ring or less will fulfill the vast majority of people, but others want a $30k ring. Other people want a huge house, other wants an awesome computer or home theater system.

My wife would be 100% ok with a 30 inch tube tv, but wanted a huge rock. I, of course, want a huge tv and don't really care about my ring. We have a huge tv, she has a monster ring, and I have a nice-looking, but inexpensive ring. it's all relative.

Okay, how many of the ring-bashing ******s here would drive a 4-cyl Camry if they made 200K a year? (ppl who live in good public transit cities like SF/NYC/etc don't count obv).

FYP

With regard to the parts in bold

1. I don't think it's true that most married couples keep separate finances. In the United States the percentage of couples that do this is nowhere near 50%. I wouldn't have guessed that about Canada. But if that's truly the case in Canada, that's pretty weird.

2. Perhaps money at the endgame has no utility for you, but for many people that money will go to support wives and children who will have perhaps lost their primary income earner. There's a lot of utility in that.

I have a friend whose grandfather lived a very humble existence, but set up trust funds for all 12 of his grandchildren's higher education. He surely could have had a nicer house, car, etc., but the post-death utility of his money was greater to him.

Aside from those things, your point is valid.

Dude, why would you want to invest your money so your loved ones can have higher education, when you can throw thousands of dollars at 18 year old sluts so they'll sleep with you, like Henry?

It would be no where near 50% but that is because of a lot of older couples. I think if we looked at 35 and under it would be much more common. The only stats I could find didn't break it down by age but had 64% as joint, 18% as separate with a joint account that they both contribute to, and 14% as completely separate. That was a SmartMoney survey from 2004. Of the married people I know who are my age or younger almost all of them have separate or the hybrid option while people my parent's age are all joint.

The 3 months things doesn't really work. It is far harder for someone making $8 an hour to spend 3 months on a ring than it is someone making 100k a year. Spend what you can afford..and then maybe a little more. If your mature and truthful with yourself that she is worth, then she is, go for it, screw the haters.

I am broke right now...just got a job finally. I still need to buy my wife an engagement ring. I'll do whatever I can to get the one she wants which is around 14k (and it's not a diamond!). That's probably the equivalent of the OP spending 50k on a ring.

I just started a career in the jewelry industry...give me a few months and I'll be a wealth if information on this. Hopefully I can find that ring I need to purchase for cheaper too!

Read Henry17's posts. He is 113.5% correct.

This is my favorite setting by far. It allows for a matching mens ring too if you are so inclined.

fold preflop

rush, henry,

why not 50-60k? she will be much happier and her friends that much more jealous

if you are going to marry a woman who is ******ed wrt diamonds, why be so cheap about it?

Engagement rings are not really something I've spent much time considering and I am basically just extrapolating from experience with necklaces, earrings, and such. Personally I would have no issue with going higher. Realistically when I eventually do get married I expect the ring to be in the $70-80k range. Based on my past behaviour I still think that is low for a dollar amount but I also think anything too much larger than 2ct will likely look gaudy. I could be wrong I have never shopped for a ring.

It depends on the setting (actual ring that holds the rock). 2ct is not very big, at least in physical terms.

I can't figure out if you just like using that word or if you don't know any synonyms for it.

I recently purchased an engagement ring as well and, being overly cautious about it, spent a great deal of time researching and looking at stones to see what kind of a difference there was for my price range.

What I can add to your discussion is this, the difference between a good quality stone and a poor quality stone is very noticeable. If your budget is 30k, I'd highly recommend buying the your stone with the following factors as your priorities, in order:

Cut
Clarity
Color
Carat weight

I did my final shopping at bluenile and found that their prices, quality and customer service were far far superior to anything that I could find locally. FWIW, I went with a round diamond in a pave setting with the center diamond stats: IF, Color G(strong blue flourescence makes it appear very very white), and Ideal cut and it looks absolutely fantastic.

One final note, I see nothing wrong with spending 30k on a ring. If your budget affords it and you don't have issues spending it, more power to you. Do whatever you can to wow her because it's a moment she'll never forget.

bump

may be pulling the trigger this year. anyone have recommendations for a trustworthy jewler in or near nyc?

Grunching: If you are worried about price, you can get away with a pretty cheap one if you spin some claptrap about it being a family heirloom or something. My wife's ring is basically crafted out of aluminum foil and a marble that I found under the sofa cushion. She thinks my Grandma hid it from the Nazis in her vagina.

omfg the irony is unbearable. take your own advice

I'm in the process of getting my girl's engagement ring custom made. Spending 4k on it.

Depending on the metal in the setting, you can go as low as an H in color, and it won't make a difference. Also, clarity you can get good eye clean SI-1's, have them look just as good as flawless to the naked eye and save a buttload of money in the process.

The most important C in the 4Cs is cut. The diamond HAS to be excellent - ideal or no go.