The Bride who Broke it off over a "Cheap" Engagement Ring
December 17, 20
How much should you spend on an engagement ring?
It's an important question for the millions of happy couples juggling their desire for a sparkling symbol of their undying love . . . with the stark reality of a pay check.
And it makes a huge difference to the jewelry retailers whose livelihoods depend on what they spend.
And so to the story that's been grabbing a few headlines this week - of a groom-to-be who had his $3,000 ring thrown back in his face because he didn't spend enough.
He posted his tale of woe on a Reddit online forum. It sparked a lively debate with 2,800 comments, and was subsequently picked up by Fox News.
His bride-to-be (or not) is no longer speaking to him. She says he treated her like "cheap trash" for breaking the "rule" that a groom should spend 10 per cent of his annual income on a ring.
The unfortunate gentleman, who has opted for anonymity, says he has "quite a good job" and could have spent up to $15,000 if he'd followed the 10 per cent rule.
But he'd been financially helping his Covid-hit family, supporting his unemployed sister and worries about possible lay-offs at work.
"So long story short I spent about 3k on a nice little white gold ring with diamonds and a sapphire (her birthstone)," he writes.
"Initially she was very happy with it until her mother (a jeweler) called it cheap. She has since given it back to me and accused me of undervaluing her and what she does for me (she's a SAHM to our 18-month-old, and does the majority of the cooking/cleaning because I work long hours)."
One of the many online comments cuts to the chase: "Dude, cut your losses, take the child and find someone new."
Another writes: "A bit of advice for the prospective groom. Bail, run away from that woman as fast as you can. Don't even look back. Being married to a woman like that won't end well."
A third says: "I had a fiance who did exactly the same thing. Key word is HAD," but it's hard to find many other messages of support for the bride among an avalanche of criticism.
Anonymous groom may have the popular vote but I have bad news for him. The 10 per cent rule is history. The current figure is two, or maybe even three months' salary, which is as much as 25 per cent. So he may be even cheaper than he thought. He can thank, or maybe blame De Beers for coming up with the genius idea of a "how much to spend rule" for prospective grooms, almost a century ago. They needed a way to prop up disastrous gem sales during the Great Depression of the1930s, and they hit on a month's salary as a handy rule of thumb. It gave the groom a realistic benchmark, and it gave everyone else, the bride and her mother included, a way to judge his wealth and generosity.
De Beers turned the diamond engagement ring into an indispensable prelude to marriage. In the 1940s only one in 10 brides had one but by the end of the 20th century that figure was 80 per cent. De Beers went one better by telling the prospective groom how much he should spend.
Then in the1980s it updated the "rule" - by doubling it. A new, sustained and exceptionally successful campaign persuaded grooms they now needed to spend TWO months' salary on a ring - that's almost 17 per cent. Their ads didn't even need to carry the company name. It was enough to show a shiny ring and pose the question: "How can you make two months' salary last forever?" Answer: "The diamond engagement ring".
De Beers marketing machine was unstoppable. In 1960 it turned its attention on the untapped Japanese market, which had no tradition of diamond rings. Within a couple of decades it had created a billion-dollar industry and 60 per cent of the country's brides wore a diamond ring.
Numerous unverified internet sources go on to suggest that De Beers later followed up on its two months' rule by inflating it to three. That's a big spend, unless you fancy your chances with the lesser-known rule that says the carat weight of the diamond should match the bride's age - 3.2 carats for a 32-year-old for example.
Just as a little postscript, it's interesting to note that De Beers current worldwide advertising spend is relatively modest. The latest available figure, 2018, was $170m. That compares with Tiffany's $379m and Signet's $388m (2019 figures). LVMH, the luxury goods conglomerate, spent about $7.7bn.
Have a fabulous weekend. And if you're patching things up over a cheap ring, best of luck!