Service with a Sneer (from the Main Blog) Question

[VltGrantham]

The idea that a man should spend a significant fraction of his annual income for an engagement ring originated de novo from De Beers marketing materials in the early 20th century, in an effort to increase the sale of diamonds.[1] In the 1930s, they suggested that a man should spend the equivalent of one month's income in the engagement ring; later they suggested that he should spend two months' income on it.[1] In 2007, the average cost of an engagement ring in USA as reported by the industry was US$2,100.[11]

Yeah it was a marketing ploy, which I knew, I just didn't know who started it.  Flog De Beers!

[Barb3000]

It just doesn't make sense to me.  Everyone knows, particularly in the jewelry industry, that a diamond's value is falsely inflated because of the control put on them by the privately held corporations that control most of them.  The mark-up is ridiculous and whoever started that whole "two months" rule should be flogged.

Actually that "rule" was started out of practicality in a time when processing paperwork was much slower.  The theory was it could take up to 2 months to process life insurance, pension or death benefit paperwork, so the Husband bought a ring worth 2 months of salary so his Wife would have money to live on while the paperwork processed should he meet an un-timely death

I also find this hard to believe. Your DH dies and you run right out and sell your diamond so you can have money to live on? I can't picture anyone doing that. Plus, they would be unlikely to get close to what the price was when it was bought (difference between retail and re-sale).

I vote for marketing ploy by DeBeers, they probably put a lot of research into just how high they could get that figure before men started rebelling.

[violinp]

The idea that a man should spend a significant fraction of his annual income for an engagement ring originated de novo from De Beers marketing materials in the early 20th century, in an effort to increase the sale of diamonds.[1] In the 1930s, they suggested that a man should spend the equivalent of one month's income in the engagement ring; later they suggested that he should spend two months' income on it.[1] In 2007, the average cost of an engagement ring in USA as reported by the industry was US$2,100.[11]

Yeah it was a marketing ploy, which I knew, I just didn't know who started it.  Flog De Beers!

Exactly. I feel sick at the idea of my potential fiance spending even 1 grand on my ring. Unless it's the only ring you could ever ever imagine on your finger, 2 grand for an engagement ring is ridiculous.

[CLE_Girl]

It just doesn't make sense to me.  Everyone knows, particularly in the jewelry industry, that a diamond's value is falsely inflated because of the control put on them by the privately held corporations that control most of them.  The mark-up is ridiculous and whoever started that whole "two months" rule should be flogged.

Actually that "rule" was started out of practicality in a time when processing paperwork was much slower.  The theory was it could take up to 2 months to process life insurance, pension or death benefit paperwork, so the Husband bought a ring worth 2 months of salary so his Wife would have money to live on while the paperwork processed should he meet an un-timely death

Do you have a source for that. It sounds to me like an ad hoc justification.

Sorry Art I don't have a source.  I read it somewhere and it seemed plausable so it stuck in my head.  It does make more sense for the 2 month salary thing to be a marketing ploy...

[Sootikin]

The idea that a man should spend a significant fraction of his annual income for an engagement ring originated de novo from De Beers marketing materials in the early 20th century, in an effort to increase the sale of diamonds.[1] In the 1930s, they suggested that a man should spend the equivalent of one month's income in the engagement ring; later they suggested that he should spend two months' income on it.[1] In 2007, the average cost of an engagement ring in USA as reported by the industry was US$2,100.[11]

Yeah it was a marketing ploy, which I knew, I just didn't know who started it.  Flog De Beers!

Exactly. I feel sick at the idea of my potential fiance spending even 1 grand on my ring. Unless it's the only ring you could ever ever imagine on your finger, 2 grand for an engagement ring is ridiculous.

You realise you've just called any number of members on this board ridiculous don't you?

[thedudeabides]

The idea that a man should spend a significant fraction of his annual income for an engagement ring originated de novo from De Beers marketing materials in the early 20th century, in an effort to increase the sale of diamonds.[1] In the 1930s, they suggested that a man should spend the equivalent of one month's income in the engagement ring; later they suggested that he should spend two months' income on it.[1] In 2007, the average cost of an engagement ring in USA as reported by the industry was US$2,100.[11]

Yeah it was a marketing ploy, which I knew, I just didn't know who started it.  Flog De Beers!

Exactly. I feel sick at the idea of my potential fiance spending even 1 grand on my ring. Unless it's the only ring you could ever ever imagine on your finger, 2 grand for an engagement ring is ridiculous.

You know, this is just as snobbish a statement as someone saying that they couldn't imagine their fiance spending less than $2000 on a ring.  Not cool.

[violinp]

The idea that a man should spend a significant fraction of his annual income for an engagement ring originated de novo from De Beers marketing materials in the early 20th century, in an effort to increase the sale of diamonds.[1] In the 1930s, they suggested that a man should spend the equivalent of one month's income in the engagement ring; later they suggested that he should spend two months' income on it.[1] In 2007, the average cost of an engagement ring in USA as reported by the industry was US$2,100.[11]

Yeah it was a marketing ploy, which I knew, I just didn't know who started it.  Flog De Beers!

Exactly. I feel sick at the idea of my potential fiance spending even 1 grand on my ring. Unless it's the only ring you could ever ever imagine on your finger, 2 grand for an engagement ring is ridiculous.

You realise you've just called any number of members on this board ridiculous don't you?

I apologize. I was thoughtless and rude.

[Sterling]

Thank you for apologizing.  My fiance and I do fairly well and yes he spent $2k on my ring.  My band belonged to my Grandmother.  I do not think people should spend money they don't have but I also do not think there is anything wrong with choosing how to spend your money the way you want.

[ladiedeathe]

I also appreciate the apology. We do well, and my engagement ring was over $2K, as was my wedding band. My right hand betrothal ring (an 8 carat square cut with a 2 carat triangular diamond on each side), a family tradition, was over $200K.

Different lifestyles do not mean one is wrong.

[gmatoy]

They lose their sparkle.  I've tried on beautiful diamond rings and they look like dull pieces of glass on my fingers.

Exactly, thank you for explaining it so well!

[Van down by the river]

My engagement ring was about 2,500$
My band was custom made to fit and was made using materials from my mothers original set. Just the labor it ran me over $800. I love my ring. It's sparkly. :-)

[Sootikin]

They lose their sparkle.  I've tried on beautiful diamond rings and they look like dull pieces of glass on my fingers.

Exactly, thank you for explaining it so well!

You're welcome, I think you are the only other person I know of who has the same effect.

[VltGrantham]

I don't care what someone's ring costs so long as they can afford it (which is not the same thing as putting it on a monthly payment plan) and they love the person who is giving it to them more than the sparkly ring.

My main issues with the jewelry and wedding industry is that they often use snobby, very high pressure sales techniques, to push people into having more than they can really afford--especially under the guise that if they do not do so, they must not really LOVE the person or each other.  Spending a huge amount of money on jewelry or what amounts to a one day party is foolish if someone is already in debt with a lot of student loans, consumer debt, or simply cannot afford to do so--especially when you consider that money and infidelity are tied for the number one cause of divorce.

My right hand betrothal ring (an 8 carat square cut with a 2 carat triangular diamond on each side), a family tradition, was over $200K.

It sounds absolutely gorgeous; but I have to admit, I'd be terrified to wear it for fear I'd lose it.  I feel the same way about my Mom and Grandmother's rings.  It's quite sad, they just sit in the jewelry box because I'm so afraid I'll either lose them in much the same way I routinely lose my keys and cell phone or someone would mug me for them or something.

[CluelessBride]

I don't care what someone's ring costs so long as they can afford it (which is not the same thing as putting it on a monthly payment plan) and they love the person who is giving it to them more than the sparkly ring.

My main issues with the jewelry and wedding industry is that they often use snobby, very high pressure sales techniques, to push people into having more than they can really afford--especially under the guise that if they do not do so, they must not really LOVE the person or each other.  Spending a huge amount of money on jewelry or what amounts to a one day party is foolish if someone is already in debt with a lot of student loans, consumer debt, or simply cannot afford to do so--especially when you consider that money and infidelity are tied for the number one cause of divorce.

Eh, just because it's on a payment plan doesn't mean they can't afford it.  I'm personally not big on expensive jewelry, so I'd probably never even consider  a piece of jewelry that would be eligible for a payment plan for myself.   But I have other non-essentials on payment plans that I can absolutely afford, but chose to put on payment because the interest rates were lower than what I make on my investments.  So I'm actually making money off of the payment plan. 


Choosing to live outside your means, whether you are spending it on a house, a ring or a one day party, is absolutely foolish and arguably rude.  But having debt doesn't necessarily mean you are living outside your means as long as you've budgeted for the debt.  That said, I agree that the sales tactics used to push personal debt can be despicable - and not just in the wedding industry.  You don't love your wife enough if you don't buy the super expensive ring.  No one will ever want to come to your house if you don't buy the 60" tv.  Everyone will gossip about you if you choose to serve only a champagne toast instead of paying for an open bar.  But as long as people fall for it, I doubt that things will change.

That's probably why there are so many stories in this thread of horrible salespeople.  While it didn't work for the individual posters, I'm sure those kinds of tactics shame certain people into spending more than they intended.  I know I have a friend who let the sales person talk him into a more expensive diamond so that people wouldn't think he was cheap.  He regretted it almost the second he walked out the door, and doesn't have particularly warm feelings about the jewelry store.  But the salesperson still got the higher commission.  And while the company may care about client retention, to the type of sales person that uses this tactic, the immediate sale is more important.

[gramma dishes]

They lose their sparkle.  I've tried on beautiful diamond rings and they look like dull pieces of glass on my fingers.

Exactly, thank you for explaining it so well!

You're welcome, I think you are the only other person I know of who has the same effect.

Yes.  That's why I asked what you meant.

I'm kind of like that too, I think.  My ring is in a white gold setting and although I know that the diamond is of very good quality it just doesn't sparkle on my hand the way I think it should. 
My daughter in law tried it on once and it looked absolutely beautiful on her hand.