[dbrgn]

I, as a European, cannot fathom how anyone would spend a significant amount of money on an engagement ring! The engagement rings we got ourselves cost 18$ and were made from wood. After all, they only need to last a few months, or maybe 1-2 years, until the wedding.

Regarding the wedding ring, I can understand slightly better how someone would put a bit more money into that, considering that you wear it for life. But there are so much better options than buying a shiny rock. Why not go to a goldsmith and pay 1000$ for a workshop where you forge your own rings? That will result in a lasting memory of a nice event, for a fraction of the cost, instead of throwing thousands of dollars out the window for a shiny rock that you simply buy at the store. Or maybe you don't even need gold? In my opinion, silver, titanium or maybe something like steel combined with carbon fibers looks better anyways.

[russdill]

In the US, it's common for a woman to wear both the engagement ring and wedding ring after the wedding, they are often sold as a set.

Although one tip I'd give to anyone getting married, get a pair of $18 rings for travel and what not. If one slips off while swimming in the ocean, it's ok.

[jakewins]

Or latex/rubber ones, see the recent thread on degloving injuries in /r/construction (content warning: severe hand injuries).

Perfect for construction work, travel and sports like lifting, climbing etc

[g9yuayon]

> I, as a European, cannot fathom how anyone would spend a significant amount of money on an engagement ring

It's all thanks to more than 100 years of marketing campaign and tight control of supply of diamond by De Beers. People did not buy diamond rings before De Beers' "A diamond is forever", and the supply of natural diamond is practically unlimited. I have to give it to the ingenuity of De Beers - they got Soviet Union to agreed to a supply deal after Soviet Union found huge diamond mine that could have supplied the market with dirt cheap diamonds for hundreds of years! So, I'm very happy that Chinese entrepreneurs do not give a shit about De Beers and managed to figure out how to mass produce lab-made diamonds cheaply (yes, the process was invented and greatly improved by the west, but it was China, specifically the manufacturers in Henan Province, that didn't succumb to De Beers' heinous control, and gave De Beers a huge middle finger).

It's funny that the traditional diamond industry started to argue that these lab-grown diamonds were too pure and lacked the impurities that natural diamonds have. And what is the response of the Chinese manufacturers? They laughed, as adding impurity to a lab-made diamond can be easy and precise.

Personality, I hate the kind of consumerism and irrationality driven by De Beers. I'm very happy to see De Beers destroyed.

[jimmydddd]

Agreed. My wife did not care about getting a fancy diamond ring for our wedding (US) but I ended up getting the standard expensive diamond ring out of tradition. One thing I noticed was how many of her female friends and relatives wanted to inspect and complement her ring. Even MY female relatives were saying things like, "Oh, I am glad he chose well, I was worried he was going to cheap out on the ring." So, we have a ways to go in the US. Maybe gen Z will save us.

[merelysounds]

> It's funny that the traditional diamond industry started to argue that these lab-grown diamonds were too pure and lacked the impurities that natural diamonds have.

I guess they're doing that because humans have a long history of idolising old times and old imperfections. We praise analog photo grain, or analog audio noise. Industries from clothing brands to guitar manufacturers release artificially aged products.

Then again, adding imperfections in "post production" seems to be the status quo.

[g9yuayon]

I would assume so too, except that initially De Beers was arguing that natural diamonds were more pure than the lab-made. When lab-made beat every criteria, 3C and whatnot, created by the diamond cartel, the cartel started to argue for impurity.

[throwaway287391]

> After all, [engagement rings] only need to last a few months, or maybe 1-2 years, until the wedding.

I think this is the cultural distinction you're missing -- married American women typically wear both their engagement and wedding ring their entire lives, and the engagement ring is usually the more ornate/expensive one (which might be due to the De Beers marketing throughout the 20th century this article discusses).

[AndyJames]

The thing is it's not the culture or tradition of the US. It's just a brilliant ad campaign that lasted way longer than it should.

[thih9]

Perhaps people genuinely enjoy having a lasting memory of an important happy moment.

And obviously this works without diamonds too.

[pilchard123]

At what point does something become part of a tradition or culture? Why does "it started as an ad campaign" preclude something from becoming part of culture?

[dbrgn]

Ah, thanks, that is indeed an aspect I was not aware of. From my point of view, it doesn't change much about the cost-value-ratio though.

[iteratethis]

Yes, and culture is made up and therefore not above criticism.

It's not even culture that somehow organically came from the needs or habits of people. It's literally just a marketing scheme.

[mrweasel]

So the "girl-math" is a $10,000 ring, is actually only 50 cent per day, if you wear it every day for 50 years, hence it's practically free?

[smikhanov]

But surely doing whatever works for you is OK? Some people love "creating memories", some people love to have more "social status", some love $4 wooden rings, some love $40K diamond rings; everyone is different, let all the flowers bloom.

(De Beers are still the big baddies though)

[mhardcastle]

Social status is positional and follows arms race dynamics. Everyone would have more money and nobody would suffer worse ring-positional-status if everyone spent proportionately less.

Also, there is a deep body of economics and psychology literature describing how individual spending decisions are sometimes suboptimal in predictable ways, particularly that we under-value experiential purchases.

It doesn't contradict general "live and let live" principles to think that cultural emphasis on positional goods is bad, nor that individuals might be better off if they made different consumption choices.

[dbrgn]

If you have lots of money and like fancy rings, sure, go for it!

If you just finished your college, sit on a big pile of student loans, work in your first job and then spend several months of income on a shiny rock, then that is a bad financial decision, no matter whether you love diamond rings or not. (And from what I hear, this situation happens a lot, due to social pressure and "desired social status".)

[smikhanov]

I personally would never even think of denying a poor graduate from trying, however clumsily, to impress the girl he fancies with some unaffordable ring. Bad financial decision? Maybe. Story of beautiful romance? Absolutely.

[closewith]

> Story of beautiful romance? Absolutely.

Going into unaffordable debt for a trinket is a story of beautiful romance to you? That's just profoundly sad.

[paulryanrogers]

"Aww, you risked bankruptcy unnecessarily because you think I'm vain. And now you want me to be financially bound to you for life. How sweet."

[ahoka]

Do you seriously think that healthy relationships can be bought with money?

[kajaktum]

> But surely doing whatever works for you is OK?

Externality exists. The 40K$ diamond ring goes to some of the worse people in our society.

[davidhalter]

Same here. I still cherish my 5$ wooden wedding ring. There's such beautiful wooden jewelry out there.

[lowmagnet]

As someone who bought a pair of matching silver rings for us, I agree with on the inexpensive option. I never wear mine because I'm getting old and my knuckles don't like to maintain a constant size.

[prmoustache]

You don't even have to wear rings.

[artyom]

Agreed but it's still perceived as a property tag.

Anyone trying to hook up will look for a ring as part of the non-verbal social clues.

Rings being expensive or not is a different matter.

[yencabulator]

If you need to be marked as owned to not cheat, the marriage is probably not going to work anyway...

[gwbas1c]

When women hit on me, I hold my hand in a way where my ring is very, very prominent.

If they don't "get the message" I start casually discussing my children.

That being said: I love the tradition of engagement and wedding rings. It's not just about preventing cheating. I bought my wife a moissanite engagement ring because we both wanted to follow the tradition, and we both understood that diamonds are a marketing gimmick to convince suckers to part with large sums of money.

I spent a sum of money that we were both comfortable spending, and we're both very happy with our purchase. My wedding band is made out of precious metal, and I love it. Other people I know wear cheap bands from Amazon and are happy with them.

If you want to be in a lifelong relationship with someone, it's important that you're both on the same page about these kinds of traditions. You don't have to follow them, but if your partner wants to, or values them, it might be worth it to play along to keep them happy. (As long as you're spending money that you're both comfortable spending.)

[93po]

It's not about stopping someone from cheating, it's about a social display of a big part of your life. For the same reason people get married - it's just a social display. For women it can have the added bonus of stopping men from approaching them so much

[prmoustache]

I don't think anyone is pulling the brake at the sight of a ring.

[93po]

Lots of people do, including myself.

[artyom]

Definitely wrong. Or you're completely surrounded by psychopaths.

[fardinahsan]

Because "creating memories" can't be exchanged for social status.

[SwiftyBug]

Just a friendly reminder: if you decide to combine carbon fiber with any of those metals, avoid diving at extreme depths. This could be catastrophic.