All Articles Tagged "engagement ring"
Louis Billittier, 55, who lives in upstate New York ended his 14-month engagement with his future bride through a text. A text! According to the site Gothamist, the break up was motivated by his ex-fiancee’s refusal to sign a prenuptial agreement.
When ex-fiancee, Christa Clark, 38, replied to him stating: “You’re doing this through a text????” Billittier conveniently told Clark, “Plus you get a $50,000 parting ring. Enough for a down payment on a house.” Now to Billittier’s dismay, he wishes he were not quite so “generous.”
His response to Clark was used against him when New York State Supreme Court Judge Buscaglia ruled the ring was not a part of the couple’s marriage deal. Buffalo News writes:
“The state’s established law normally sides with would-be grooms. They have a legal right to claim the ring back if there is no marriage, even if the groom calls off the wedding… Buscaglia called Billittier’s description of the ring as a ‘parting ring’ an indication the ring had become a gift that no longer involved a contract for marriage.”
Although Billittier demanded the engagement ring back after claiming Clark slander his name, Judge Buscaglia stated that by the time Billittier changed his mind, it was too late for his “giver’s remorse.” The judge noted:
“Many gifts are given for reasons that sour with the passage of time… Once a gift is given, it is irrevocable.”
Clark’s 2.97 engagement ring is worth $53,000. So good on her. But where’s the love? This idea that you can break off an engagement — or even a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship or a friendship — with a terse text message is just wrong. Doesn’t the person you once cared about and (hopefully) still respect deserve a little more explanation than that?
Last night’s episode of “Being Mary Jane” opened up a can of relationship worms — as expected — but one issue that stuck out to me more than the others was a small aspect of the tell-all discussion the ladies were having during their in-house bachelorette party. As the drinks were flowing and people got to telling secrets (as usually happens when women and alcohol come together), the bride-to-be burst into tears and proclaimed that she was scared she’d already ruined her marriage before it even got a start. Why? Because when her fiance proposed she decided the ring he bought for her wasn’t good enough and so she bought her own and now fears that she emasculated him and started her union off on the wrong foot.
Is she right?
I posed this question to the office and the general consensus was that buying your own engagement ring — after being presented with one of so-called lesser quality — isn’t necessarily emasculating, it’s just rude as hell. In this day and age of wearing every last dime you have on your sleeve, we’ve come to see the size of a woman’s engagement ring as directly congruent with the health of her relationship and the man’s affinity for her, as opposed to ring’s original purpose which was to be a token of one’s love and affection. Now we’re more interested in showing off a rock than celebrating a union of two people. That’s not emasculating, but it surely says a lot about one’s priorities and motives for getting married.
But from a man’s perspective, it would certainly be some ish for the woman you love and want to spend the rest of your life with to decide that the symbol of that pledge that you personally chose wasn’t good enough and she could get good enough — in the form of a better ring — on her own. That certainly screams emasculation and potentially sets a precedent for your pending marriage that says you, my husband, can’t satisfy my needs and wants and so I have to do so myself. And if that’s the feeling you have about your future spouse, the natural response is why even bothered getting married?
One truth that holds true about men since the beginning of time is that they need to feel needed in a relationship. Even if a man isn’t vital to your survival on a basic Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs level, he at least needs to feel he is, and I can imagine buying your own engagement ring after he’s already given you one doesn’t quite send that message. It’s one thing to agree to go half on a ring from jump or to unleash all holy hell if he presents you with a cubic zirconia and asks “is you gone marry a ni**a,” but to essentially swap out a symbol of love your man worked hard to earn for you like you exchange a pair of shoes at the store because you want the Manolos that came out this week and not last…well, let’s just say that doesn’t exactly say I promise to love, honor, and cherish you all the days of our lives — let alone respect you.
What do you think? Is buying your own engagement ring emasculating?
As MN reported before, Kris Humphries planned to get rid of his ex-wife’s engagement ring in a New York auction. Estimates claimed that Kim Kardashian’s old trinket would not surpass $500,000 among bidders. Pricing experts were nearly $250,000 off target!
After bids bounced around four buyers, the reality TV star’s 16-carat diamond ring sold for a whopping $749,000, Today reports. However, sources say that NBA player Humphries doesn’t plan on keeping all of the fortune. He plans to donate a portion to charity. “The rep adds that Humphries hasn’t decided on which charity to donate the proceeds to, but that it’s a “top priority” for the 28-year-old basketballer,” Today said.
In defense of those who question whether Humphries had the right to sell the ring, a Humphries rep said. “The ring is indeed Kris’ property that he received through his marriage dissolution. He has long-since moved on and is very much looking forward […] to returning to the court this upcoming NBA season as a Boston Celtic.”
Kardashian and Humphries got engaged in May of 2011 and wedded on Aug. 20 of the same year. After the marriage lasted only 72 days, the divorce was finalized in June of 2013.
Perhaps it was part of a court order, but if it wasn’t, would you have given the ring back if you were Kim?
You know you’re in love and you know you want to spend your life with your partner — but does getting married help your finances, or leave them worse off? Before you walk down the aisle and commit to each other “for richer or for poorer,” make sure you understand the financial ramifications of your nuptials. That knowledge will help you set out on a “for richer” journey together.
The Financial Pros of Getting Married
In addition to commitment and a beautiful ceremony, marriage carries economic incentives as well. Major benefits of marriage include:
- Joint health insurance: If one of you has a great health insurance policy through an employer and the other doesn’t, getting married might be the easiest way to ensure both of you are covered. Not all employers allow adding a domestic partner to your health insurance policy.
- A bigger home: Assuming both you and your future spouse are employed, applying for a mortgage together will increase your chance of getting approved for a larger amount (and, consequently, enable you to buy a bigger home). Of course, bigger won’t necessarily be better if you overextend yourselves. The same applies to renting a home: your landlord will take both incomes into consideration, but make sure you’re not spending more than you can afford.
- Death benefits: The IRS generally does not tax spousal inheritance, except in the case of the very wealthy. Further, you might receive benefits such as Social Security and pension, which are generally not available to unmarried couples.
The Financial Cons of Getting Married
Some potentially serious financial problems arise when you walk down the aisle. Considering the ramifications before you get married is essential for planning the best financial future for you and your spouse.
- Money management: If partner has trouble managing money wisely, trouble can ensue for both.
- The marriage penalty: Simply put, because one spouse’s income will be tacked on top of the other for tax purposes, their whole income will fall within higher tax brackets compared with each of you filing single. However, higher deduction limits largely offset the marriage penalty, so it shouldn’t be a major concern. If in doubt, you can always discuss the details with an accountant or run joint vs single filing scenarios through your tax preparation software.
- Liability: Financial judgments on joint accounts affect both spouses. If your partner goes bankrupt or doesn’t pay bills on joint accounts, you can be held financially liable.
Read more at YourTango.com
Last week, we were introduced to the New York Post’s Senior Reporter, Stephanie Smith, who made a deal with her boyfriend to make 300 sandwiches in order to receive an engagement ring from him. What seemed to be an inside joke and fun challenge between partners, the public deemed as a desperate attempt to be a Mrs., and went as far as to call her boyfriend Eric Shulte, chauvinistic.
Well, American society better get used to the changes romantic relationships are enduring these days. New York Magazine reports via The Knot’s Facebook page that more heterosexual couples are splitting the cost of an engagement ring. The Knot’s survey stated that the women who have helped out on paying for the ring either paid the deposit on it, or paid for half of its total cost. Women who have done so stated their partner was less financially stable than them, or made less.
The Today Show asked their online viewers how they felt about this topic. Those who were traditionalists (56%) stated that struggling finances were not a good enough reason for a woman to pay for her own engagement ring. Although this modern twist on engagements is being frowned upon, there are a growing number of American women who are the breadwinners in their relationships and don’t mind helping out.
Personally, I don’t think it’s a problem for women to pay for half of their engagement ring–if they want to. Also, if you are precise like me about every detail in your life, you might want to have a say in what ring you would like to wear for the rest of your life (hopefully…) and/or how it should be designed. Though some say your partner should know your style like the back of his hand, he might choose something that does not fit your style. I believe women who do offer to help pay for their own engagement ring are making a statement. They are sure about their relationship, and sure about the man they are committing to. Women who do not pay for their engagement ring can still be sure and confident about the person they’re marrying, but there is a difference when your own finances are involved in building a relationship with someone for a lifetime. Also, I imagine going dutch on an engagement ring will prepare couples for working together to secure other finances and things in their relationship, including purchasing their first home together, figuring out which bills will be paid by who, and what parenting styles will work best for their children.
Ladies, would you help pay for your engagement ring? Men, would you allow your future wife to pay, regardless of your financial standing?
What Would You Do For A Ring? NY Post Reporter On Quest To Make 300 Sandwiches To Get A Ring From Her Man
Some cook because they love to. Some cook because they need to eat. But if you’re New York Post Senior Reporter Stephanie Smith, you cook to win a most coveted prize: an engagement ring.
After about two years of dating boyfriend Eric Schulte, a computer programmer who loves to cook, Smith was wondering when the two would take the next step in their relationship. They had already moved in together in a swanky crib in Brooklyn, but as she said when sharing her story in the Post, “I wondered what it would take for him to propose.” Who knew that it might be a sandwich? After letting him cook most of the meals in their relationship, he had given many a sign that he just wanted a fresh homemade sandwich from his lady. To Smith’s surprise, after she concocted a turkey and Swiss sandwich on toasted wheat bread, he loved it so much that he told her, “Honey, you’re 300 sandwiches away from an engagement ring!”
For some reason, she took what sounded like a joke and ran with it. She thought that if she made more intricate sandwiches she could become wifey material: “Maybe I needed to show him I could cook to prove that I am wife material. If he wanted 300 sandwiches, I’d give him 300 sandwiches — and I’d blog about it.” And she did. Smith is the mind behind 300sandwiches.com, where she shares sandwich recipes and takes pictures of her mouth-watering work for the world–and for that ring. It’s a cute idea, but along with her friends and family thinking it’s a bit chauvinist and desperate, those who read about her story for the Post really didn’t think it was the cutest thing:
…people in relationships do nice things for each other, but not “for a ring”, they do it because they love each other and WANT to, putting caveats on how to “get” an engagement ring makes me want to barf, its 2013 girl, grow a pair.
This makes for an incredibly uncomfortable read. If he loved you, he’d marry you ‘sammies’ or not. End of.
So what does she say to that backlash? “First of all, he does most of the cooking in our house. And second, if he wasn’t the type of guy worth making one sandwich, I wouldn’t be making 300 sandwiches.” So she will continue making those sandwiches for her man, and she does say that since she started this quest, she’s found a new appreciation for cooking and food. She’s made almost 200 sandwiches since starting last year.
“Though I still want to get engaged and get married and live happily ever after, I’ve also put less pressure on the race to the 300th sandwich and I’m enjoying the cooking experience with Eric.”
And Eric is loving every minute of it, giving his lady–and readers–this tip:
“You women read all these magazines to get advice on how to keep a man, and it’s so easy…We’re not complex. Just do something nice for us. Like make a sandwich.”
Well, she better get that ring then. And a fat one. But if she doesn’t, I at least see a book deal on the horizon from this story alone…
I’m all for cooking because you like doing something nice for your partner, but cooking for the purpose of proving that you’re worth being a wife? That I’m not so sure of. What do you think?
In a last-ditch effort to show America he’s completely over his ex-wife, Kim Kardashian, Kris Humphries is wiping off the last residue of their failed 72-day-long marriage by auctioning off her diamond engagement ring, US Weekly reports.
The ring is going up for sale at Christie’s auction house in New York City on October 15th. The 20-carat Lorraine Schwartz engagement band is set to reel in between $300,000 and $500,000.
Humphries was not specifically named as the seller, but according to a source in US Weekly, “The ring in question is identical to the one Kardashian wore during her brief engagement and marriage to the athlete.”
The magazine also has details about the ring. “A rep for Christie’s confirmed to the site that the bauble up for auction is a Lorraine Schwartz creation with a 16.21-carat center diamond and two 1.80-carat side diamonds — the exact dimensions of Kardashian’s ring. The auction house could not disclose the seller’s name but said it was ‘a gentleman,'” it says.
Due to client confidentiality, Kris Humphries could not be named, but a close friend of the Kardashians tells US Weekly that the auctioned gem is 100 percent the same ring. “Kim has been waiting for the day he would auction it. Everyone always asked what Kim did with the ring — she silently gave it back over a year ago! And Kris waited until the divorce was final to sell it.”
Although the auction house plans to sell the ring for a half a million dollars, US Weekly says that the ring is worth $2 million.
Yeah, so while you were working, this happened.
Producer DJ Khaled, aka, Khaled bin Abdul Khaled, known for saying “WE THE BEST! WHO? WEEEEEE N***A!” (still don’t like that), went to MTV news, ring in tow, heavy chain on, to propose to Nicki Minaj. That doesn’t make very much sense considering we’ve never seen them together aside from in music videos, and she was suspected to have been dating her sidekick Safaree, aka, SB. But after watching the video, and shuddering a few times, he does seem DEAD serious. Here’s what he said:
“Nicki Minaj, I’m at MTV. I love you. I like you. I want you. I want you to be mine. I’m here at MTV because it’s a worldwide network. Only reason I’m not telling you this face to face is because I understand that you’re busy. I’ma be honest with you, I wanna marry you.
I’m here today at MTV. Nicki Minaj, will you marry me? We got the same symptoms, we both suffer from success. You out their touring, you’re out their hustling, you’re out there making music and you’re out their winning. And I understand. That’s why I feel like you need a man like me in your life that’s gon’ take care of you and respect you. If you have to take your time and think about it, I overstand. But I know I have to be here today to let you know how serious I am and how serious this is to me. I want to let your fans know, my fans know, my family, your family, that I want to marry you. I been working hard for this ring. I would have proposed to you last year at “Take It To The Head” video. I wanted to tell you, but you know, things got better for me. I prepared for this day, so I went and got this ring. Nicki Minaj, will you marry me?”
Whoa. But this could of course be a publicity stunt. His new album, Suffering From Success drops September 24, so he could be trying to connect himself with Nicki to put attention on his new album. But if he’s serious, he might have to deal with Scaff-Breezy first. No response yet from Nicki, but we’d be hella surprised if she said yes…
Check out the video clip below:
What do you do when a guy says he doesn’t want to buy you any kind of ring for fear of what your friends and family will think of the value? So therefore he’s saving an undisclosed amount of money in order to buy one. We’ve been together for 3 and a half years and he says I’m his wife and I was sent and meant for him. He loves me, respects me and inspires me. We are in love…it’s just that everyone else is getting married and we’re 38 years old. Time is of the essence.
Dear Anxiously Waiting,
Rarely do I have a question here where both sides of the situation have an understandable and—most importantly—rational stance. You want to spend the rest of your life with this man, and want to get married sooner rather than later. I don’t go around quoting Jagged Edge that often, but you’re also right in that y’all ain’t getting no younger.
Your boyfriend seems to share your feelings. And—giving him the benefit of the doubt that the hesitation is due to the ring issue and not him just not wanting to get married to you—while his insistence on wanting to be able to give you a “show-off-able” ring may seem stupid and even shallow, I do see his point. Right or wrong, a woman’s ring is seen by many as a reflection of both her husband’s income level and his commitment to her. And, if you do have the type of family and friends that would side eye a small ring, his concerns are legitimate.
The answer here is obvious—you need to convince him that being married matters more to you than any expensive ring does—but it’s not going to be easy to convince him of that. So, here are three things you could incorporate in your argument.
1. Stress that the marriage is the important thing here. Not the ring, and not even the wedding. You just want to be his wife.
2. Remind him that anyone who’d be judgmental would actually be doing them a favor by showing their true colors. Plus, you’ll be saving money when you take them off the wedding invitation list (or, still invite them to the wedding, but give them sardines at the reception when everyone else gets salmon.)
3. Also remind him that, if it’s still a problem for him, he could always buy you a bigger, more expensive ring a couple years down the road when he can better afford it.
Basically, he needs to get over himself—That male pride thing is a Itchbay, isn’t it?—but he needs your help. Think of it as an investment on something more valuable than your ring: your future.
If he loves it, maybe he shouldn’t put a ring on it. Perhaps he should instead find a worthy way to show that he is committed to you–like investing in the relationship and/or marriage itself.
Now before you ladies string me up in front of the nearest Kay Jewelers, check out this article in the Business Insider, which says that the symbol of you and your man’s undying love is actually pretty worthless and more a result of careful price fixing and marketing than actual value. More specifically:
“We like diamonds because Gerold M. Lauck told us to. Until the mid 20th century, diamond engagement rings were a small and dying industry in America. Nor had the concept really taken hold in Europe. Moreover, with Europe on the verge of war, it didn’t seem like a promising place to invest.
Not surprisingly, the American market for diamond engagement rings began to shrink during the Great Depression. Sales volume declined and the buyers that remained purchased increasingly smaller stones. But the US market for engagement rings was still 75% of De Beers’ sales. If De Beers was going to grow, it had to reverse the trend. And so, in 1938, De Beers turned to Madison Avenue for help. They hired Gerold Lauck and the N. W. Ayer advertising agency, who commissioned a study with some astute observations. Men were the key to the market”
The article goes on to describe a plan hatched by the advertising agency to market a De Beers diamond as the ultimate mark of one’s high socio-economic status in society. This changed the entire social construct at the time as such men began to look to diamonds as an extension of their manhood – and the bigger the better. And because of wildly circulated marketing material, men were compelled to spend a comparable one month’s salary on a diamond ring. According to the Business Insider, “It worked so well that De Beers arbitrarily decided to increase the suggestion to two months salary.”
Diamonds haven’t been rare since before 1870s when the only people rocking the bling were actual African and European royalty. However, the discovery of huge diamond deposits in South Africa followed by a monopolization of the mines by the De Beers corporation helped to bring about the inflated price of the so-called “precious” stone on the global market. Now when you buy a diamond, you purchase it at an almost 200 percent markup, and when you try to resell it, you’ll would be lucky if you get even half of that back.
“We covet diamonds in America for a simple reason: the company that stands to profit from diamond sales decided that we should. De Beers’ marketing campaign single handedly made diamond rings the measure of one’s success in America. Despite its complete lack of inherent value, the company manufactured an image of diamonds as a status symbol. And to keep the price of diamonds high, despite the abundance of new diamond finds, De Beers executed the most effective monopoly of the 20th century. Okay, we get it De Beers, you guys are really good at business!”
Personally, I find the diamond engagement ring to be rather passe – even without the history lesson. I mean, if a dude is hell-bent on showing his intent to marry by his financial procurement, I would rather set my own bride price and give him a list of what I really want. Top of that list would be the payoff amount of my student loans. And it is my hope that my husband-to-be and I would be more creative in our branding of one another – perhaps even an actual brand (ie. matching tattoo). After all, marriage is supposed to be forever. And if I do get around to getting married, it will be forever or I’m not doing it at all.
Matter of fact, I haven’t worn, or even desired, any part of that stone since the day I learned the meaning behind the term conflict diamond. More specifically, despite the assurances from the diamond industry by way of the Kimberly Process, it is nearly impossible to determine which diamonds were and were not conflict-free. Suddenly, the egregious human rights abuses of mostly Africans for the sake of shiny little rocks didn’t seem all that appealing. Definitely not romantic – and no, I don’t care if he went to Jared…