Smaller Engagement Rings Are One Good Thing About Bad Economy

One good thing about these scary economic times is that people seem to prioritize where to spend their money better. This is now even extending into engagement rings. No longer is the "three-month" rule applying to rings, which I think is a very good thing, indeed.

When my husband and I got engaged almost 10 years ago, I thought a lot about the ring I wanted. Truth be told, I was engaged before and I had been eyeing rings for years. I knew exactly what I wanted down to the clarity, cut, and carat size.

Of course, then came the reality of joining finances and creating a household and the "three-month salary" rule seemed a bit insane. He spent less than three months' salary on my ring, and I was (and am) very pleased with the result. We didn't go into debt and I have a ring I love. True, it's a bit smaller than the one I wanted (1.5 carats total between 3 diamonds as opposed to 2), but it's the one WE could afford.


I've never understood women who want their man to go into debt to provide them with a ring. I had a friend back when I got engaged who insisted that her underpaid boyfriend buy her a rather expensive antique ring he had to put on his credit card.

Why would she want to start their relationship with debt? Just to keep up appearances? In general, a big ring can seem garish. It can even hurt you in a job interview. If he can afford a $2 million ring like Kim Kardashian's, then fine. But most men can't. So why not be happy with the ring he can afford?

Or maybe (gasp!) forgo the ring and take a really great honeymoon to somewhere super exotic and different. See, there are so many ideas beyond the typical. An engagement ring is lovely, but it's a luxury and something that shouldn't be regulated or expected. The "three-month" rule was made up by De Beers to sell diamonds. It isn't a real "rule" and, if he spends less, that just means more to save later.

Do you care how much your ring costs?

Image via Maggiejumps/Flickr

Read More >