[///M Power-Belgium]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

Not yoga pants but I will help

15/10 !

[davis449]

Except for buying that 1er

Says the poster with an AWD BMW...

My 1er doesn't demand $20K diamond rings and neither does my girl.

My 1er doesn't wake me up at 3 AM screaming it's head off.

When my 1er gives me too many problems, I can get rid of it with no guilt.

Not a bad decision so far.

[BayMoWe335]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

First of all if you want to justifying paying up for clarity, then that's your choice. No one is fucking buying costume jewelry here, so you're point is absurdly extreme. I'm talking about when you go to Tiffany's and you ultimately are down to two choice, one has better color or size but less clarity, and one has smaller size and downgraded color but better clarity, I would choose the bigger whiter diamond over clarity every single time.

My point is still valid. When other people oogle your wife's ring, they ain't putting the magnifier on to check for clarity here. They see the cut, size and maybe just maybe they can discern the better color. The cut, size and color makes that shit shine, not microscopic specs in the diamond.




this

You might choose it, but you're still missing the point of a diamond. The "you can't tell" defense still doesn't mean the diamond isn't shit. And I understand shit is a relative term, but there are objective facts when it comes to diamonds. SI1 and SI2 are much more "Dime a dozen" than VVS1 or VVS2 diamonds. Same with G, H, I color diamonds.

You'd need to be a trained jeweler to even see the difference or compare it to another diamond of better quality. That's really not the point. The point is, buying for "value" is kind of defeating the purpose of a colorless, flawless, perfectly cut stone - the entire point of a diamond.

All the imperfections just marginalize the essence of what a diamond should be and knowing you bought something a little bigger and less quality is still a detriment for me.

My point is supported by the price of diamonds. There is a reason an ideal cut, 1 carat, flawless, D color diamond is $100,000 and a 2 carat H color, SI2 with a good cut is more like $10,000.

Both are still "beautiful" stones to the naked eye, but knowing you have a 2 carat "shitty" diamond doesn't make it better than the $100k perfect stone because it's bigger.

Again, you've fallen for the marketing of "you can't tell" and that's fine for you. I just think it defeats the purpose of buying a diamond.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

You might choose it, but you're still missing the point of a diamond. The "you can't tell" defense still doesn't mean the diamond isn't shit. And I understand shit is a relative term, but there are objective facts when it comes to diamonds. SI1 and SI2 are much more "Dime a dozen" than VVS1 or VVS2 diamonds. Same with G, H, I color diamonds.

You'd need to be a trained jeweler to even see the difference or compare it to another diamond of better quality. That's really not the point. The point is, buying for "value" is kind of defeating the purpose of a colorless, flawless, perfectly cut stone - the entire point of a diamond.

All the imperfections just marginalize the essence of what a diamond should be and knowing you bought something a little bigger and less quality is still a detriment for me.

My point is supported by the price of diamonds. There is a reason an ideal cut, 1 carat, flawless, D color diamond is $100,000 and a 2 carat H color, SI2 with a good cut is more like $10,000.

Both are still "beautiful" stones to the naked eye, but knowing you have a 2 carat "shitty" diamond doesn't make it better than the $100k perfect stone because it's bigger.

Again, you've fallen for the marketing of "you can't tell" and that's fine for you. I just think it defeats the purpose of buying a diamond.

...and you've fallen for the marketing of "must be flawless". The purpose of a diamond is to look beautiful. Two stones of similar size, color, and cut sitting next to each other on a felt pad with differing inclusions (again, not talking about a cloudy stone vs clear) will be indistinguishable. There is no difference at all to the person observing the stone. Why the hell would you pay double or triple or more for a stone with VVS inclusions versus one with SI?

Each person gets to choose which attributes they value most. That's the reason such variety exists. You buy the stone that fits the attributes you value the most. It's a bit like a BMW individual color - you paid $5k for something that only a BMW expert will notice... and that's a loose example because there are many more BMW enthusiasts than there are jewelers with loops stopping your wife to check out her flawless stone.

[csu87]

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

You might choose it, but you're still missing the point of a diamond. The "you can't tell" defense still doesn't mean the diamond isn't shit. And I understand shit is a relative term, but there are objective facts when it comes to diamonds. SI1 and SI2 are much more "Dime a dozen" than VVS1 or VVS2 diamonds. Same with G, H, I color diamonds.

You'd need to be a trained jeweler to even see the difference or compare it to another diamond of better quality. That's really not the point. The point is, buying for "value" is kind of defeating the purpose of a colorless, flawless, perfectly cut stone - the entire point of a diamond.

All the imperfections just marginalize the essence of what a diamond should be and knowing you bought something a little bigger and less quality is still a detriment for me.

My point is supported by the price of diamonds. There is a reason an ideal cut, 1 carat, flawless, D color diamond is $100,000 and a 2 carat H color, SI2 with a good cut is more like $10,000.

Both are still "beautiful" stones to the naked eye, but knowing you have a 2 carat "shitty" diamond doesn't make it better than the $100k perfect stone because it's bigger.

Again, you've fallen for the marketing of "you can't tell" and that's fine for you. I just think it defeats the purpose of buying a diamond.

My wife has a set of 3tcw diamond stud earings (1.5 each ear) that are "lower" quality diamonds than her engagement ring (1 carat center stone but a very high quality diamond). More people say "goddam those a big" about her earrings than people say "goddam thats a high quality diamond." You cant tell the difference between the diamonds without a loop, but the prices were very different. I know i got great value and she knows she has big diamonds.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to what others will think and notice anyway. If it didnt matter what other people thought, no one would buy diamonds.

[Nihilation]

Glad my wife isn't materialistic and could give two shits less about diamonds with no function. When she goes out jewelry shopping she chooses what looks good versus what's "real". Makes buying her stuff stress free! I've seen other women comment on her accessories thinking they're real expensive and we just laugh.

[se15679875]

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

You're not wrong, but the average savings account in America is probably lower than $4k. We don't like comparing ourselves to a meaningless average.

Let's say $20k is nothing when you are a college educated professional making more than $100,000/yr.

I don't agree with this at all, but I'll admit it's arbitrary. I'm with jtodd_fl.

Maybe we grew up in different circumstances, but $100,000/year is considered the lower end of upper middle class (assuming you're not in SF/Palo Alto/Manhattan/NY in which case it's squarely middle class). $200,000/year in a reasonable cost of living environment is sort of squarely upper middle class.

$20k is "nothing" to someone making $500k-$600k+/year in a non-SF/Manhattan/CT environment (which is sort of the lower end of "lower upper class," unless you live in SF/Manhattan/CT in which case it's the upper end of upper middle. I choose this number because it's roughly the entry point for top 0.8%-1% income in the US at large).

Your "floor" number is way, way too low (again IMO). If you think you can afford a $20k ring making anywhere near $100k, you've lost your damn mind. I mean go for it, no one's stopping you. You technically have the financial leverage to do it, but the people who do that almost invariably end up as under-accumulators of wealth. These are the people who get a raise to $175k/year and suddenly think they can afford a lease on an $85k M4. You'd be judged hard within our circles over-extending yourself like that (you might be wondering "how the hell would anyone know my financial business?" Trust me, most people can get a pretty good idea +/- 30% based on your job/rank/years of experience alone )

All of my classifications are assuming a household of 4 (1 or 2 breadwinners and 2 children). Needless to say if you have more or less children, the categories slide accordingly, but most people end of having children at some point in their lives and 2 is around the average. Assets not including primary residence matter and factor in as realized or unrealized capital gains. The $500k-$600k/year figure being the entry level for top 1% includes realized/unrealized capital gains for people in this class. Of that, $380k-$400k/year (for "barely" top 1%-ers) is typically income earned solely through one's job. The point is if you're retired and have an income of $0 but have $10 million in liquid assets sitting in the stock market, you're reasonably making around $400k-$500k/year in capital gains which puts you in lower upper class territory.

I think the smartest way to go is to buy an engagement ring that is well within your budget starting off (which, for most young newlyweds, is going to be low - probably less than $10k). Once (or if) you've risen through the ranks and make significantly more money and have significantly more assets, you can splurge on something nicer for your SO. In the meantime that $10k-$12k you saved 30 years ago by purchasing a cheaper $7k-$8k engagement/wedding ring has grown to $40k in the stock market and it's entirely funded your ring upgrade and then some.

But I'll bet a lot of SO's would be happy with their $7k-$8k ring knowing that their bank and stock market accounts are flush with several million from years of diligent saving and not buying stupidly wasteful and expensive shit too early. It's the thought that they could buy something more expensive if they wanted to that feeds their satisfaction, and they'll end up splurging (guilt free) on something actually fun like a Porsche 911 GT3 instead of a stupid rock that 99.9% of people don't pay attention to on a daily basis (You have good style @[F87LUV])(contact:22459)

[se15679875]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

Here's a little test - the price differential between these two stones is $17,000. Keep in mind this is closer than ANY human eye could ever see these stones. Both are just over 1.5 carat of the same color, cut, and clarity.

Attachment 1474272

Attachment 1474273

I agree with you, but just FYI those two pictures are actually the same picture

One of them is just slightly elongated versus the other.

[mojobmw_e90]

I think this diamond thread is about how much people make. Those who make 100k + will not be buying a 2k ring 90% of the time. I bought a 2k ring and that was plenty for me.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by csu87

My wife has a set of 3tcw diamond stud earings (1.5 each ear) that are "lower" quality diamonds than her engagement ring (1 carat center stone but a very high quality diamond). More people say "goddam those a big" about her earrings than people say "goddam thats a high quality diamond." You cant tell the difference between the diamonds without a loop, but the prices were very different. I know i got great value and she knows she has big diamonds.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to what others will think and notice anyway. If it didnt matter what other people thought, no one would buy diamonds.

This. Size is much more important than quality. Looking back I would have went over a ct on her ring but I feel for the quality BS(kind of I didn't get the best but it was up there).

Also, spending 20k on a ring is fucking stupid imo. I make a very good living but could never justify that cost.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by se15679875

I agree with you, but just FYI those two pictures are actually the same picture

One of them is just slightly elongated versus the other.

son of a gun, you're right!

[BayMoWe335]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

...and you've fallen for the marketing of "must be flawless". The purpose of a diamond is to look beautiful. Two stones of similar size, color, and cut sitting next to each other on a felt pad with differing inclusions (again, not talking about a cloudy stone vs clear) will be indistinguishable. There is no difference at all to the person observing the stone. Why the hell would you pay double or triple or more for a stone with VVS inclusions versus one with SI?

Each person gets to choose which attributes they value most. That's the reason such variety exists. You buy the stone that fits the attributes you value the most. It's a bit like a BMW individual color - you paid $5k for something that only a BMW expert will notice... and that's a loose example because there are many more BMW enthusiasts than there are jewelers with loops stopping your wife to check out her flawless stone.

The reason you'd pay double or triple (and many do) is because the stone is exceedingly more rare than an SI1 or SI2. The purpose of a diamond is rarity, first and foremost. A lot of things look beautiful, but few things are as exceedingly rare in nature as a near perfect diamond. Hence, the cost.

The variety exists because there aren't enough near flawless stones to go around, which is precisely why they cost more. 90% of the diamonds sold are shit and they polish those turds so people can still afford a diamond for the engagement ring most people buy in the US.

You pay a lot more per carat to get an extremely rare diamond.

You want bling, just get a fake one. My friend used to wear a huge fake diamond and people oggled over how it sparkled. She told everyone it was real and it was made of glass. Literally no one could tell. It was simply a deterrent for men hitting on her.

[BayMoWe335]

Originally Posted by csu87

My wife has a set of 3tcw diamond stud earings (1.5 each ear) that are "lower" quality diamonds than her engagement ring (1 carat center stone but a very high quality diamond). More people say "goddam those a big" about her earrings than people say "goddam thats a high quality diamond." You cant tell the difference between the diamonds without a loop, but the prices were very different. I know i got great value and she knows she has big diamonds.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to what others will think and notice anyway. If it didnt matter what other people thought, no one would buy diamonds.

That's not true. I bought a diamond primarily based on the rarity and couldn't care less what people think.

Anyone who knows anything knows those big earring studs are shit diamonds and probably cost $5k/each at most. Big deal.

It's kind of like a nice watch. The average moron doesn't know a nice watch from a Fossil. If you want to get noticed, the people who know something will notice.

Diamonds are similar. Average people just look at size and think "that's awesome because it's big." People know nothing about diamonds which is why you shouldn't try to impress other people.

[BayMoWe335]

Originally Posted by se15679875

I don't agree with this at all, but I'll admit it's arbitrary. I'm with jtodd_fl.

Maybe we grew up in different circumstances, but $100,000/year is considered the lower end of upper middle class (assuming you're not in SF/Palo Alto/Manhattan/NY in which case it's squarely middle class). $200,000/year in a reasonable cost of living environment is sort of squarely upper middle class.

$20k is "nothing" to someone making $500k-$600k+/year in a non-SF/Manhattan/CT environment (which is sort of the lower end of "lower upper class," unless you live in SF/Manhattan/CT in which case it's the upper end of upper middle. I choose this number because it's roughly the entry point for top 0.8%-1% income in the US at large).

Your "floor" number is way, way too low (again IMO). If you think you can afford a $20k ring making anywhere near $100k, you've lost your damn mind. I mean go for it, no one's stopping you. You technically have the financial leverage to do it, but the people who do that almost invariably end up as under-accumulators of wealth. These are the people who get a raise to $175k/year and suddenly think they can afford a lease on an $85k M4. You'd be judged hard within our circles over-extending yourself like that (you might be wondering "how the hell would anyone know my financial business?" Trust me, most people can get a pretty good idea +/- 30% based on your job/rank/years of experience alone )

All of my classifications are assuming a household of 4 (1 or 2 breadwinners and 2 children). Needless to say if you have more or less children, the categories slide accordingly, but most people end of having children at some point in their lives and 2 is around the average. Assets not including primary residence matter and factor in as realized or unrealized capital gains. The $500k-$600k/year figure being the entry level for top 1% includes realized/unrealized capital gains for people in this class. Of that, $380k-$400k/year (for "barely" top 1%-ers) is typically income earned solely through one's job. The point is if you're retired and have an income of $0 but have $10 million in liquid assets sitting in the stock market, you're reasonably making around $400k-$500k/year in capital gains which puts you in lower upper class territory.

I think the smartest way to go is to buy an engagement ring that is well within your budget starting off (which, for most young newlyweds, is going to be low - probably less than $10k). Once (or if) you've risen through the ranks and make significantly more money and have significantly more assets, you can splurge on something nicer for your SO. In the meantime that $10k-$12k you saved 30 years ago by purchasing a cheaper $7k-$8k engagement/wedding ring has grown to $40k in the stock market and it's entirely funded your ring upgrade and then some.

But I'll bet a lot of SO's would be happy with their $7k-$8k ring knowing that their bank and stock market accounts are flush with several million from years of diligent saving and not buying stupidly wasteful and expensive shit too early. It's the thought that they could buy something more expensive if they wanted to that feeds their satisfaction, and they'll end up splurging (guilt free) on something actually fun like a Porsche 911 GT3 instead of a stupid rock that 99.9% of people don't pay attention to on a daily basis (You have good style @[F87LUV])(contact:22459)

It's really not about the salary though. It's how you manage your finances and your life.

I said more than $100k, so it's not necessarily right at $100k and I never mentioned city.

You're right, where you live matters. There are reasonably priced cities big not in California or NY where $100k is a lot more anyway. However, similar jobs pay more in more expensive areas in general.

Salary means very little. Once you're making a decent salary, it's more about how much money you keep. I have many friends in NYC making $500k/yr and have little savings because they are living it up.

I know other people in Dallas, Chicago, and Florida suburbs making good money, but not $500k who are millionaires because they live within their means.

[zx10guy]

It is really about salary. Because the people you reference who are millionaires with decent pay got there by saving and not spending on a lot of wants. To me $20k is an absurd amount of money to spend on a piece of jewelry. Unless you're a aficionado of diamonds or a collector, no one would care how perfect the stone is. And the premise that spending $5k is just sh!t money, I have no words. I make a decent living and hell I get mad if I lose $20. The analogy you've provided is akin to saying if you don't buy a BMW and end up with a Honda Accord, you might as well walk to the bus.

[csu87]

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

That's not true. I bought a diamond primarily based on the rarity and couldn't care less what people think.

Anyone who knows anything knows those big earring studs are shit diamonds and probably cost $5k/each at most. Big deal.

It's kind of like a nice watch. The average moron doesn't know a nice watch from a Fossil. If you want to get noticed, the people who know something will notice.

Diamonds are similar. Average people just look at size and think "that's awesome because it's big." People know nothing about diamonds which is why you shouldn't try to impress other people.

I guess you just have a different mindset than the majority.

Kind of like a nice watch, you can buy the 50k white gold Rolex or the 10k ss Rolex and at the end of the day, you will have to explain to people why your gold Rolex is way better than the SS that looks very similar.

Also if you don't care about what other people think, why would you be wasting 20k on a piece of jewelry?

[BayMoWe335]

Originally Posted by csu87

I guess you just have a different mindset than the majority.

Kind of like a nice watch, you can buy the 50k white gold Rolex or the 10k ss Rolex and at the end of the day, you will have to explain to people why your gold Rolex is way better than the SS that looks very similar.

Also if you don't care about what other people think, why would you be wasting 20k on a piece of jewelry?

It's between my wife and I...not a waste for us.

[Reborn_]

I can understand baymo's POV, though I don't agree with it. But assuming you aren't a baller (500k/year income), scoffing at 20k (or even 5k) is a bit silly.

[se15679875]

Originally Posted by BayMoWe335

It's between my wife and I...not a waste for us.

Yeah I mean obviously you spend your money as you see fit.

For me personally here's the way I view it in terms of two plausible options.

Option 1: Get married at age 25. Say you make $70k/year at this age (honestly it doesn't really matter, but the point is most college educated people aren't making hundreds of thousands right out of the gate in their 20s). Buy S.O. a $15k diamond ring. 30 years later, your S.O. is wearing a $15k diamond ring and you're driving a 335i.

Option 2: Get married at age 25. Buy S.O. a $4k diamond ring. Invest $11k which, 30 years later, turns into $50,000 at a 6% ROI and 20% long term capital gains tax. Your S.O. is wearing a $4k diamond ring and you're driving an M4 (335i money + $30k). Sell the $4k ring and spend $11k to upgrade your SO's ring to a $15k ring. Now you're driving an M4, your SO is wearing a $15k ring (which is more like a $10k ring from 30 years earlier thanks to inflation, but whatever), and you have $10k to continue working for you in the stock market that you can use to fund whatever the hell you want.

What's the point of this stupid hypothetical scenario? That large sums of money (anything > $5k) at very early ages in life (20s) can balloon to enormous sums later on thanks to compounding interest.

Too many young people casually piss away hundreds of thousands in potential future net worth by making extravagant purchases too soon, and I can think of no purchase more extravagant than the up-charge associated with buying a slightly rarer, slightly larger, slightly clearer piece of carbon.

[ASBSECU E93]

Thread is worthless without pics....

[kprocivic]

Originally Posted by ASBSECU E93

Thread is worthless without pics....

[jtodd_fl]

Originally Posted by kprocivic

O<}

Awesome! Congrats. Since she loves you, she'll love it.
Otherwise...