<p>It’s not necessarily that they have few to no social graces. Rather, they adhere to differing social graces based on the values which drove most of them to those political activist causes. </p>
<p>From the perspective based on those differing social graces, wearing a diamond or similar type of jewelry which even gives an appearance of perceived hypocrisy to espoused values of the activist organization/group one happens to be a part of would constitute a bona fide demonstration of complete lack of social graces…along with possibly being politically tone deaf/out of touch with what the group/organization is about.</p>
<p>As I stated in a prior post, it’s not different from the faux pas of wearing a Mao/Che T-shirt while waving banners calling for the overthrow of “bourgeois capitalist tools” at a celebratory dinner hosted by ibanking/corporate biglaw/Fortune 500 corporations for partners/senior management or wearing tye dye jeans, t-shirt, and other manifestations of hippiewear to a stuffily formal Wall Street investment firm interview or a black-tie UES party*. </p>
<ul>
<li>Unless one’s main purpose is to crash it to swipe the food/desserts/spirits/beverages and irk the host/attendees to tick off one’s bucketlist of what to do for HS/college hi-jinks. :)</li>
</ul>
<p>“political activist causes” come in all shapes and sizes. Am having trouble believing that these friends are miraculously focused on blood diamonds or what have you. Seems, rather, to be a way to slide an off topic Chinese history lesson into this discussion.</p>
<p>oldfort, what makes me uneasy about the idea of requiring the young man to pay for a certain ring for your daughter to prove he “values” your daughter is that you don’t mention what your daughter is doing to prove she “values” the young man. I suspect she does value him, and has shown him in a significant way that just hasn’t been brought up in this thread.</p>
<p>Interesting, what I gleamed from Oldfort’s posts was that this young man spends a lot on himself, yet still has school loans. Whether the ring is 1.5 or 2 k is less critical than this man’s spending habits. </p>
<p>I know I am projecting, but I too would want my son with someone who could tighten the belt to save for something important, e.g. a condo/house or a child. In the NYC world where Oldfort’s D1 lives, a 2 k diamond may be the norm. </p>
<p>I guess some of us just don’t see a ring of any carat weight “something important.” Nice to have if you can afford it, but if that is the only way a guy can adequately express his commitment to his significant other, something else might be lacking.</p>
<p>Sally, I’m the sapphire/diamond (tiny) person. I’ve inherited diamond rings, necklaces, earrings, but do not wear them. Yet I look at my young cousins and clients, and they all have fancier rings than I ever did. They wear them every day. My young cousins all seem happily married. Their husbands are very involved with their children. Maybe I’m not expressing myself well. I’m trying to put the ring into the context of OF’s D1’s peer group. I’m sure all the young people look for many ways to show commitment and feel loved.</p>
<p>I was a grad student when first engaged. We had weddings where friends pitched in and cooked. One was in the local park. It was a different time, a different generation. We didn’t want parents to “give” us a wedding. I hosted my best friend’s engagement party at home-- all appetizers & desserts. </p>
<p>I don’t understand why the posts keep going back and forth about @oldfort 's daughter and what she is requiring of her BF for an engagement. The original post was about OP’s GF not wanting a blood diamond. How about we go back to that topic? </p>
<p>I am ignorant on this. Does a diamond ring that is “acceptable” in its quality to the upper-middle class cost about 2 k (US $2000)?</p>
<p>
DS seems to get along with his current GF well - considering the fact that they have had arranged many out-of-town day trips happily together (including today’s trip to Boston, likely to see a football game.) However, I am always wondering whether coming and growing up from a different family background may make their “adjustment to each other” challenging. Both of them do not have income of any sort now and in the near future. But the girl’s family may support her financially “better” than our support to DS. (e.g., my guess is that she does not have student loans to pay back but DS has almost 6 figures grad school student loans to pay back.) Will this kind of disparity in their family’s financial status potentially cause some trouble in the future? Of course, we are very accepting about whatever decision they may make. But deep in our mind, we still have some lingering concern about this “unknown factor” (which we choose not to share with DS due to a potential misunderstanding among him, her and us.)</p>
<p>At one time, DS mentioned inpassing that in a restaurant, he seems to be more concerned about not ordering the most or more expensive entry than she does (To be sure, their development is already in the stage of sharing all the cost of outings roughly equally, I think - sometimes he pays and the other times she does.)</p>
<p>My wife has the wisdom of this: It is likely that their (future) income may be better than ours. So why do they have to lead the same frugal life we have had? (After all, when we were a few years older than they are now, we essentially did not have any money and just started to make a living by driving a clunker to work and lived in a one-bedroom apartment without much furniture. We had had many years of such a very frugal life before DS was born.)</p>
<p>My main concern is that how much we may need to shell out for their future marriage (if it happens) - maybe I really think too much too early. (But it all goes well, there may be certain expectation that they should have this done by a certain age at least on her family’s side I think - e.g., within 2 or at most 3 years.)</p>
<p>I believe that the “k” referred to carats. It least that’s what I thought. </p>
<p>I recall that in 1985, a 1-carat diamond of a quality that H thought was sufficient in a simple Tiffany setting cost $5,000+. No way were we going to spend that much. :)</p>
<p>Diamonds vary tremendously in price, depending on quality. Back in 1980s when I was engaged, a nice quality 1 carat diamond ring could easily cost at least $3,000. Since then, I believe prices have risen, but then there is Costco, if one buys their ring there. They also sell diamond rings and many others at various prices.</p>
<p>I think the couple has to figure out what they value and how they will handle finances to have a happy marriage. It can be pretty rocky if they have wildly different views of how to spend and save.</p>
<p>MichiganGeorgia- It’s the internet! Threads wander. Get used to it.</p>
<p>LOL on the $2000. (not laughing AT you, laughing in wishful thinking…) </p>
<p>A few of my friends have significantly upgraded their rings in their 50s, with the husbands certainly on board. Maybe they prefer that to taking their housekeeper with them on vacations! I accept the different priorities that others have. </p>
<p>I’m unsure what’s been said and this discussion may be very off-topic from the OP now, but a birthstone is always a good chose for a ring! Unless GF was born in April…</p>
<p>I learn something new today: 2k diamond could cost more than $2000. (Like I said, I am very ignorant about this. Even for some less expensive item: I first heard of “North Face” jacket when my child attended a college and needed a heavy coat. However, this did not prevent the “pricy” private college from charging us full freight for two years.)</p>
<p>I’m not sure what’s funny about a less-than-$2000 diamond ring (or was it in relation to a 2 carat ring costing that little?) </p>
<p>It is certainly possible. I haven’t the slightest clue how big my diamond(s) are but my ring was certainly less than $2k with a decent sized blue diamond and a few dozen teeny-tiny clear diamonds (everything man-made). </p>
<p>ETA: Just looked up how big a 2 karat diamond ring is. Eesh… definitely not for me. I’d say mine is around 1/2 karat (aka perfect size for me ) </p>
<p>As a man, I really do not understand why some women like diamond. It is just a “stone” and does not do anything for people. (A smartphone at least could give me the pleasure of browsing the Internet without being in front of the computer.)</p>
<p>This reminds me of what a like-minded colleague of mine once said to me. He said his wife likes to buy or upgrade expensive furniture while he has a huge appetite of buying any new electronic gadget in the market. He said the expensive furniture just sits there and “does not do anything”, while his gadget actually does something for him (but not for her.) After he plays with his gadget for a month or two, his wife will likely put his gadget in the garage because it does not match her nice looking furniture.</p>
<p>Since they are “dual income no kid” family, they have a lot of income and little expenses (I think they do not have much time to spend their money - he is kind of workaholic.) So he keeps buying his expensive gadgets and she keeps upgrading her beloved furniture and they live peacefully with each other as long as both of them are not bothered by what the other person likes to do with their money. (They have plenty so they do not mind.)</p>
<p>Reality check. A good quality (F or G color VS2) 2 carat diamond with pave or side stones runs about $40K at Tiffany. A top quality (D or E color VVS1) well cut 4 carat diamond with pave or side stones runs about $250 K. High quality large diamonds are rare, so the price climb is steep. Most of the large… “gaudy” stones are low quality…“I” or “J” color with many inclusions. Couture jewelers won’t set poor quality stones, so local jewelers do the work…that’s why the abundance of large, but poorly designed rings. Whenever I hear that someone “designed their own ring” and had it made at a local jeweler, I assume that it’s a poorly crafted piece with inferior stones. </p>
<p>A ring from a Bulgari, Cartier, Van Cleef et al is exquisite, but rare.</p>
</p>
</p>