• Go to page :
  • 1 2 3
  • Text Only
the more important question is, what do you do when she wants an upgrade but you don't want to upgrade?

kvs25 said:   the more important question is, what do you do when she wants an upgrade but you don't want to upgrade?

Easy. Don't make an argument based on finances or practicality, WHATEVER you do.

Instead, say, baby, the ring I asked you to marry me with is so special to me, I didn't realize it wasn't so special to you. If you're sure you want to change it, let's take a look at other rings. *sad face* *wait 6-8 hours*

DoctorDeals said:   mungbai said:   Speaking of which, can someone recommend insurance for engagement/wedding rings? Thanks.

Jeweler's Mutual is who I have been using for years. I had them strongly recommended by numerous insurance agents who could have simply selfishly added riders to the policies they sold me. However, the coverage is supposed to be significantly better than a traditional rider (especially for "mysterious disappearance"), and they very strongly encouraged me to go that route.


Thanks. Premiums are pretty healthy, but I guess that makes sense.

I would never want to have my rings upgraded. They mean the world to me. However, I'd be open to a nice anniversary band complimenting them one day, if our situation allows it.

DesiVibe said:   RedCelicaGT said:   Dividend payout > interest rate on car note.
Penfed 1.49% loans can easily be made relatively risk free

If you've got a RCA paying more after taxes than your auto loan, that's relatively risk free. Buying a good, blue-chip dividend paying stock with a 5% yield and hoping that covers your interest costs, well, it didn't work so well for BP.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=BP&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=bnd&ql=1

xerty said:   DesiVibe said:   RedCelicaGT said:   Dividend payout > interest rate on car note.
Penfed 1.49% loans can easily be made relatively risk free

If you've got a RCA paying more after taxes than your auto loan, that's relatively risk free. Buying a good, blue-chip dividend paying stock with a 5% yield and hoping that covers your interest costs, well, it didn't work so well for BP.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=BP&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=bnd&ql=1


There's risk in every choice you can make. You cherry-picked one stock which dropped recently, and let's not forget, which had a HUGE disaster over that time. P&G stayed even, give or take, over the last five years. Lowe's appreciated significantly, albeit at a lower payment rate.

I'm not getting into a pissing contest on the internet with some faceless stranger. My point was that speaking in over-generalizations (i.e. by implying that taking a car loan is something smart FWers don't do, period) is silly, and I stand by that point.

About ten years ago my mother lost her stone after about 45 years of marriage, it fell off the ring at some point. The new one is nicer.

mimi6789 said:   Happily married for 23 years. I don't wear a ring, neither my husband.

Why not? Just don't feel the "need" of the ring to demonstrate (to others) our commitment to each other.
We're in the same school of thought -- 32 years together (20 of those married), we neither wear or ever purchased engagement or wedding rings. Never really understood the purpose other than to "show off".

RedCelicaGT said:   djtitati said:   "that could be... a year's car payments"
FWF members make payments on cars?


at 1.9% interest.... heck yeah.

same as others. I was super poor when we got married I got her a very plain diamond ring. i couldnt even afford the band. anyways after a little while later we just upgraded the setting. the way i see it is that if i do it now i wont have to do it later.

Seems most of the posts are about the woman side of things. Her ring and band were platinum but we saved money and went white gold with mine. The white gold (rhodium) rubbed off and was then kind of an ugly yellow and white color. We decided to get a new platinum wedding band for an anniversary present for me.

Also, "comfort fit" is anything but comfortable. I think it is a way for them to sell more metal.

DoctorDeals said:   Very interesting. I've been contemplating a similar (but opposite) thread for a while now.

My wife and I have been married for over 10 years and are very happy. But both of us are growing increasingly weary of paying $100+ a year just to insure a ring that, if the diamond reserves were ever opened up, would be near worthless. It just doesn't seem to make financial sense. As such, we have had numerous serious conversations about selling it, but I'm not sure either of us knows the best way to go about that to get maximum return. Plus we aren't overly eager because of the sentimental value. With that said, I am curious as to what percentage of appraisal value would be realistic to fetch.

We would not be looking to upgrade because her ring is a good one. However, I certainly can understand the thought process if someone simply got what they could. I happened to have received a large gift and used the funds to buy a ring that would have been impossible for me to afford otherwise. It was just very fortunate timing.


If you are worried about the insurance cost, and you likely would not replace the ring, have you considered just dropping the insurance?

I see a couple people mentioning using rings from previous family members. Is this relatively cost effective? I have a ring that has been passed down from my grandparents. It has several smaller diamonds (would still probably need a larger one) and enough gold but it would need to be completely melted down and reformed.. Wondering if there would be a substantial cost difference compared to buying a completely new ring.

jacksodw said:   I see a couple people mentioning using rings from previous family members. Is this relatively cost effective? I have a ring that has been passed down from my grandparents. It has several smaller diamonds (would still probably need a larger one) and enough gold but it would need to be completely melted down and reformed.. Wondering if there would be a substantial cost difference compared to buying a completely new ring.
The point Is to keep the same ring and style , not melt it down !!

Some people might think that's very disrespectful

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   jacksodw said:   I see a couple people mentioning using rings from previous family members. Is this relatively cost effective? I have a ring that has been passed down from my grandparents. It has several smaller diamonds (would still probably need a larger one) and enough gold but it would need to be completely melted down and reformed.. Wondering if there would be a substantial cost difference compared to buying a completely new ring.
The point Is to keep the same ring and style , not melt it down !!

Some people might think that's very disrespectful


The ring itself hasn't necessarily been passed down but more the metal/diamonds. It's been remade two times I believe using the same gold and diamonds and was not used for an engagement ring prior to this.

I bought the wife a huge rock that I couldn't afford at the time. I think it was a great investment in what has become a highly successful marriage and business partnership.

People would see her ring and assume she married well. This was not true for a long time... but we have both "grown" into the ring... and personally I think it's been good for business as people who give me business tend to be impressed by material representations of success. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

jacksodw said:   SUCKISSTAPLES said:   jacksodw said:   I see a couple people mentioning using rings from previous family members. Is this relatively cost effective? I have a ring that has been passed down from my grandparents. It has several smaller diamonds (would still probably need a larger one) and enough gold but it would need to be completely melted down and reformed.. Wondering if there would be a substantial cost difference compared to buying a completely new ring.
The point Is to keep the same ring and style , not melt it down !!

Some people might think that's very disrespectful


The ring itself hasn't necessarily been passed down but more the metal/diamonds. It's been remade two times I believe using the same gold and diamonds and was not used for an engagement ring prior to this.
Unless the piece is a stunning work of art, I personally don't see a problem with melting it down and recasting it... its still the same physical material... but I guess this depends on the person. We have a few heirloom pieces in our family... but they're mostly art deco stuff that not only looks great today... but has collector value far in excess of the melt value.

ubermichaelthomas said:   It only makes sense to upgrade the wedding band if you upgrade the finger you're putting it on.

You wouldn't spend $10k to rebuild an engine of a 40 year old car that has chipped paint, a dented frame and a rusted undercarriage, would you?
How long are you going to keep the gay charade up?

Why do you even need a ring for marriage? Why do you even need to get married?

I am opposed to both.

I have to admit, this statement lost me at the very beginning: "In the sea of "dump the car, get a crown vic" people." I will allow that I don't know what that means. Can anyone translate?

The ford crown Vic was famously extolled by delzy , a fwf member , as one of the best used car deals due to its low price , reliability , safety etc . The crown Vic is now jokingly referred to as the answer to every thread on what car to get .

For further proof the crown Vic was the best car ever made go to YouTube and search for Bubble King

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   The ford crown Vic was famously extolled by delzy , a fwf member , as one of the best used car deals due to its low price , reliability , safety etc . The crown Vic is now jokingly referred to as the answer to every thread on what car to get .

For further proof the crown Vic was the best car ever made go to YouTube and search for Bubble King
Oh that explains it! Explains what other references have meant that I have seen for the Ford Crown Vic in other threads. From the number of them I see on the road, not counting those of law enforcement, they must be pretty good cars. Pobably easy to get body parts from a junk yard too after an accident. Thanks for translating!

suezyque said:   I personally wouldn't put out thousands of dollars for an overpriced diamond. I would prefer a real 14K gold ring with a man made diamond(s). No one can tell the difference and I can have a much larger stone(s) for a much lower price. There's also the advantage that if the stone(s) ever fell out and was lost, that I wouldn't be frantic and feel like I lost 3K+I wholeheartedly respect and support every person's decision on this intensely individual topic and don't think that anyone out there should have to defend or justify his/her decision to others.

Having said that though, if you are thinking about purchasing a man made diamond for financial reasons, you won't really save any money. Colorless and near colorless man made diamonds are actually quite close to the prices of natural diamonds. Here's a brief article that Neil Beaty recently posted on Pricescope regarding this exact topic: link

Quick anecdote -

A friend of mine bought his girlfriend an engagement ring while they were still students and deep in student loan debt. Small diamond & not expensive. Several years later, he is bringing in big bucks and says to his wife, "I'll buy you any ring you want."

Her reply, "The ring I have is the only ring I ever want."

geo123 said:   Having said that though, if you are thinking about purchasing a man made diamond for financial reasons, you won't really save any money. Colorless and near colorless man made diamonds are actually quite close to the prices of natural diamonds. Here's a brief article that Neil Beaty recently posted on Pricescope regarding this exact topic: linkThat article is for lab-created diamonds though, and not cubic zirconia. I often hear people refer to CZ's as "man-made diamonds." While CZ's are very different from a genuine diamond created in a lab, they are still used by some people that want to save thousands but get the same look, with the fire similar to a real or lab-created diamond. Doing that will indeed save someone thousands of dollars for a large solitaire or large cluster setting.

Here's an example of the classic ladie's 1.25 ct. solitaire engagement ring, in 14k white gold on Amazon for $198.00 -

Ladie's CZ solitaire ring

lantenon said:   xerty said:   DesiVibe said:   RedCelicaGT said:   Dividend payout > interest rate on car note.
Penfed 1.49% loans can easily be made relatively risk free

If you've got a RCA paying more after taxes than your auto loan, that's relatively risk free. Buying a good, blue-chip dividend paying stock with a 5% yield and hoping that covers your interest costs, well, it didn't work so well for BP.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=BP&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=bnd&ql=1


There's risk in every choice you can make. You cherry-picked one stock which dropped recently, and let's not forget, which had a HUGE disaster over that time. P&G stayed even, give or take, over the last five years. Lowe's appreciated significantly, albeit at a lower payment rate.

I'm not getting into a pissing contest on the internet with some faceless stranger. My point was that speaking in over-generalizations (i.e. by implying that taking a car loan is something smart FWers don't do, period) is silly, and I stand by that point.

If I buy a car, which I'm considering, I'll finance it too. I agree that paying 1-2% and investing in stocks is likely to put you ahead, I just wouldn't characterize it as "relatively risk free". That was my point, and BP was an example of the risk, not the expected outcome.

Sonofspam said:   That article is for lab-created diamonds though, and not cubic zirconia.Right, she referred to "man made diamonds," not CZ. Most people who know anything about the subject do not refer to CZ as "man made diamonds."

While CZ's are very different from a genuine diamond created in a lab, they are still used by some people that want to save thousands but get the same look, with the fire similar to a real or lab-created diamond. Doing that will indeed save someone thousands of dollars for a large solitaire or large cluster setting.I am not trying to start a fight here. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, I wholeheartedly agree that when it comes to this very personal topic, people ought to be entitled to make whatever decision works for them.

I would, however, encourage people who are considering "diamond-like" stones (CZ, moissanite, etc...) to consider it very carefully. If you will proudly tell others who may look at the ring that it's a CZ or a moissanite, that you saved money on it and absolutely love the look, then there's no issue. If, however, if you are buying it thinking that you'll just tell people that it's a diamond and they won't notice the difference, you are most likely setting yourself up for a pretty big embarassment. The optical properties of those stones are different and while many people won't know the difference, it doesn't take an expert to almost immediately notice that it's not a diamond.

Again, I am in no way trying to suggest that there is or ought to be something wrong with wearing something other than a natural diamond. I am just cautioning some people out there who may be thinking of buying them and telling others that it's a diamond against this idea.

Specifically, with CZ's, they have way less brilliance (white light) and more fire (colored light), so a CZ usually becomes immediately apparent when you see it reflecting lots of rainbow colors. Their refractive properties are actually quite different. They are also cut differently from diamonds. Here is a decent article on this topic: link

This is not even to mention the fact that CZ's scratch pretty easily. So, plenty of people complain that they lose their shine and luster after a few years.

DoctorDeals said:   mungbai said:   Speaking of which, can someone recommend insurance for engagement/wedding rings? Thanks.

Jeweler's Mutual is who I have been using for years. I had them strongly recommended by numerous insurance agents who could have simply selfishly added riders to the policies they sold me. However, the coverage is supposed to be significantly better than a traditional rider (especially for "mysterious disappearance"), and they very strongly encouraged me to go that route.
For those of you who have added jewelry and engagements rings to your homeowner's policies, please note that with the exception of Chubb, all other insurance companies that I am aware of will only provide replacement coverage for your diamond but will base their insurance rates on the appraised value. This means that an inflated appraisal will cause higher insurance premiums but, when it comes time to make the claim, the insurance company will only pay for the fair market value of the diamond. What this means is that if your diamond can be replaced for $1,000, that's all the insurance company is required to spend in that case, a higher appraisal value notwithstanding.

Chubb provides stated value coverage for diamonds, so that they will pay out however much you tell them the diamond is worth up front. The catch is that Chubb's rates are higher than those of other insurance companies.

As for Jewelers Mutual, it is a very good insurance company that even provides coverage for things like mysterious disappearance, which is often excluded from standard homeowners insurance policies. Their rates are higher, however, and they require periodic inspections of your item (Chubb's rates are typically even higher but the coverage is also more extensive). If you are like most people who get too busy and forget to get these inspections done, your claims can be denied if the loss can be attributed to your failure to comply with the inspection requirement.

In addition to the considerations given to you above, another extremely important point to keep in mind is that unless you are purchasing a stated value policy, having a complete independent appraisal (not the short "independent" appraisal given to you by the diamond vendor) on file is essential to protecting your interests later.

Short "independent" appraisals often provided by diamond vendors only describe the basic characteristics of the diamond, which is insufficient if you want to obtain an equal replacement -- for instance, if you have an ideal cut diamond, you need a diamond certificate that lists the sarin data and, preferrably, a "cut" rating (only AGS and new GIA certificates offer "cut" ratings, with AGS generally being the stricter of the two) and/or an appraisal that does this for you. Otherwise, the insurance company will replace your ideal cut diamond with the cheapest cut that satisfies the other C's mentioned on the appraisal. Likewise, if you have an eye-clean SI2 diamond and your appraisal doesn't mention its eye-clean characteristic and the location of the inclusion, the insurance company will most likely only pay for the cheapest SI2 they can find, which almost certainly will NOT be eye-clean.

djtitati said:   What made the thought enter my own mind was that ShaneCo has a pretty respectable trade-in policy. They'll give you the full credit of what you paid for your initial stone towards another one. So, as far as trade-ins go, you don't have to clinch your cheeks when you walk to the register.There's nothing wrong with ShaneCo, which is much, which offers much better diamond selection and prices than many other jewelers. You can do waaaaay better, however, than ShaneCo, particularly if you are looking at ideal cuts, as ShaneCo's premium on those is very high.

In general, when it comes to diamond shopping, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for a B&M diamond retailer to compete with competitively priced internet diamond retailers and particularly those who drop ship their diamonds. At any one time your selection of virtual diamonds is going to be several times larger and the prices will generally be (much) lower. Remember that if you know what you are doing, with drop-shipped diamonds you can get the markup to be as low as 3%-5%. Contrast it with many B&M jewelers, particularly mall-based ones, which, depending on the jewelry piece, have markups of 25%-300%.

I bought my wife's rings and mine for ~$800 in 2005 when I wasn't making much. She has very simple tastes and didn't care much for diamonds, but we got it as a formality and cultural/social norms (small price to pay to keep things calm in the family). Now that I make significantly more, I asked my wife repeatedly if she wanted a ring upgrade, offered a $5k budget. She gave me a WTF look and said it would be better to use that towards buying another property. She's not into stones and jewelry much, she is content with what she has (mainly wedding gifts). I didn't own any jewelry until I got married, but I never wear my band; I find it annoying to wear necklaces, rings, bracelets.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   The ford crown Vic was famously extolled by delzy , a fwf member , as one of the best used car deals due to its low price , reliability , safety etc . The crown Vic is now jokingly referred to as the answer to every thread on what car to get .

For further proof the crown Vic was the best car ever made go to YouTube and search for Bubble King


SIS, please add FWF historian to your accomplishments. Mods, please provide SIS a historian badge.

djtitati said:   In the sea of "dump the car, get a crown vic" people, I'd like to entertain a discussion which I'm sure will prove to be equal parts insightful and entertaining.

For those who are married, have you ever upgraded your significant other's wedding band hardware? If so, why? If not, why not?

Contrary to so many of the recent posts, I'm not looking to rationalize anything or combat everyone's advice. I'm just curious to see how us FWFers weigh in on something like this!


Since this is the "FWF" and not the "Deals" section, I feel safe saying that there is no financial reason to get a better wedding ring. It is an entirely personal question that depends on your and your wife's taste in jewelry, social status, income, etc. From a pure FWFer perspective, jewelry, just like cars, is not an investment, it is an expense that needs to be minimized.

Personally, our bands were made to order by my parents from some of their old scrap jewelry. I have lost weight since they were made, the ring was loose and I have not worn it for years. My wife is a medical care professional, washes her hands many times a day, the ring became a pain and she stopped wearing it too. We personally don't care about this fact, but YMMV.

mimi6789 said:   Happily married for 23 years. I don't wear a ring, neither my husband.

Why not? Just don't feel the "need" of the ring to demonstrate (to others) our commitment to each other.


24 years here. Plain gold bands for both of us. She only wears hers for dress-up anyway as her fingers aren't suited to rings, they fall off too easily. (Anything tight enough to stay is too tight for comfort.)

raringvt said:   I would never want my wife to upgrade her rings. To me, the history and meaning behind the rings should be more important than it representing our wealth. Even if I were to seriously strike it rich during my lifetime, I would hope my wife would still want to wear the 1ct ring she has instead of something more flashy. If nothing else, it would be a reminder of how far we've come together. To me, that couldn't be replaced by something bigger/better.

That being said, I can see perhaps giving her anniversary gifts that would "enhance" the rings such as wrap rings to add some add'l bling, etc.
As I mentioned above, as long as things are done in a financially responsible manner, I don't think that there is a right or a wrong way to go about something like this. What I wanted to point out, however, is that to a lot of people it is actually the diamond (or whatever stone you ended up using) that carries sentimental value. There are a lot of people out there to whom the setting that was used in the engagement ring itself was more or less an afterthought and carries no more sentimental value than the box that it came in.

If you and your wife happen to be in this camp, one of the options that a lot of people out there have used is to get a nicer engagement ring but to keep the original diamond to use in a pendant or something along those lines. Again, I am just mentioning options here.

I don't get the point of ring insurance. It's not like it's a critical event like life insurance or car insurance. If the ring gets lost/stolen, can't you just suffer along with a piece of string for a ring until you're able to afford a new one? The insurance seemed too expensive for me.

markkundinger said:   I don't get the point of ring insurance. It's not like it's a critical event like life insurance or car insurance. If the ring gets lost/stolen, can't you just suffer along with a piece of string for a ring until you're able to afford a new one? The insurance seemed too expensive for me.

I'm debating it. Basically, 40 years of insurance = cost of the ring. My wife would be really bummed out if the ring was stolen. I'm not sure she'd be less bummed if we got the money back, but at least she wouldn't be paranoid about wearing it. So, for me, it's probably worth it--but I still hate paying the money.

I bought my wife's engagement diamond with the thought of upgrading it later on down the road by working it into another setting. I also had a pendant custom made that I gave to her on our wedding day with the thought that one day I may combine both stones with something else in a nice setting. I may purchase the third stone when our first child comes along and then have something custom made using all 3 diamonds for our 10th anniversary or something like that as each of the 3 stones carries a significant sentimental value to my wife. As geo123 said, while the settings may sometimes be an afterthought (my wife's were not as I put a lot of thought into those) many times the actual stone will hold more significance and can be carried on and used in new pieces. Honestly, it comes down to whatever works for you and your spouse.

Been married almost 30 years and wear the same ring I did at the ceremony inexpensive then.. Hubby does not because he got too fat to wear his.. Never thought to ask for a new ring. Now a new hubby maybe.

Diamonds are very abundant in nature and their price is artificially inflated by the monopoly/oligopoly that controls the supplies. From a FW perspective it is about the worst "deal" you can get. To get a perspective a Crown Vic in excellent condition would be a bad deal at, say, $100k, but that would still be less of a mark-up than your average diamond price, plus a Crown Vic in excellent condition is certainly more rare than a diamond (despite what Bubble King might tell you).
Artificial diamonds (not CZ etc) are much more scarce and almost flawless, but in the future they will also become easier to make so don't expect their high price to hold. But at least you know that right now you are actually paying for something that has real production costs and is in several ways even better than the abundant natural diamonds. And nobody was exploited mining an artificial diamond.
My wife adores her Moissanite. She things it is so much better than a diamond (more brilliant, extremely rare in nature - only traces are found in meteorites, no blood spilled over its production, the money we saved gave us much more useful things etc) and she enjoys pointing that out to whomever asks (it usually makes an impression), so there certainly won't be any upgrading!

Take that "$5,000" or "$10,000" or "$30,000" diamond ring to a jeweler and see how much you get for it.

Diamonds are a scam. If it weren't for women (GENERALLY emotionally competitive groupthink creatures (except man FWF females) and the "sex" component and the "committment" component, this ponzi scheme would have died decades ago.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014