I was lucky enough that I got set up with a jeweler that was a friend of the family, someone who wasn't going to take me for a ride. I was able to get a nice diamond for my wife without mortgaging our financial future.

I do think it's funny when people go on and on about the size of rings. Just because a diamond is big doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good diamond - there are a bunch of other factors involved.

That, and if you're that obsessed with the type of ring you want, there may be other underlying issues...

[quote=KSigkid;1741271]I was lucky enough that I got set up with a jeweler that was a friend of the family, someone who wasn't going to take me for a ride. I was able to get a nice diamond for my wife without mortgaging our financial future.
quote]

Knowing someone is always a good thing. My husband bought my diamond off of a guy that gave a good deal to one of his fraternity brothers. He was a dozen or so brothers and their cousins away from the original connection. That guy sure did make a smart business decision! He custom designed a ring for me. My ring is a 1.16 carats in an emerald cut. My husband had it set low for me. My only request for a ring was that it wouldn't catch on nylons.

My cousin Chip got married in England in September. He asked his then fiancee what she would like for her ring. Apparently the concept is rather different in the UK. She told him that if he gave a diamond it could be no larger than half a carat. If he gave a sapphire it could be a bit larger and ringed with very small diamonds but still not too large. Seems that sapphires are very popular as engagement rings over there. Large stones for engagement rings are seen as gaudy, vulgar, and theatrical. She told him that later on he could give her an impressive dinner ring if he really wanted to, but she would not wear something like a Joan Collins exercise in tackyness. Girls with gaudy rings are definitely infra-dig and non-u. Anybody (preferably female) familiar with this UK attitude? (As a reference point she is Cheltenham and Sommerville from a Debretts family).
Also, it is apparently considered to be in really bad taste to keep the ring if the engagement is broken off.

Uh uh uh! That depends a lot of on the age of the couple. Sure, if you're 22-24 or so, your career is just starting up, and you really shouldn't spend that kind of money on something that's really about showing off when you haven't been working long enough to build up real savings.

But, most of the couples I know who are getting married now are in their late 20s-early 30s, their careers are thriving, some even own apartments, and they've got the stocks and bonds. The rings I see in that group are big, and I doubt any of the men overspent.

Right, and I think these couples more likely fall into the "more power to him" category.

I think I was more speaking of couples who are in the 20-24 age range, are either still in college, recent grads, or just starting out their first professional jobs. Very few of them have the means to spend on huge rings, but get them anyway.

Now the couples I know who are late 20s/early 30s are much like you described. They're established financially and investing in a 3 ctw ring is not a huge deal because it's well with their means. That's not the case with the younger crowd.