And I certainly hope that she loves the purportedly eight-carat diamond ring she’s been sporting in honor of the engagement.
Now, with that out of the way, I clearly need to send a copy of Miss Manners to writer Chris Chase for penning this ‘whimsical’ piece on how Mr. Vujacic has cheaped out on the ring by not spending Chase’s estimate of Vujacic’s two-month salary. Chase estimates that two months worth of Vujacic’s salary comes out to $912,000.00, making the mere $250,000.00 he’s reported to have spent a pittance.*
We’ve been over and over and over this point here at Manolo for the Brides. Two months’ salary for an engagement ring is not etiquette. It was an advertising slogan for DeBeers. You know, the people who sell diamonds. Etiquette considers it painfully rude to even enquire as to the price of someone’s jewelry, let alone a piece so imbued with symbolism. Etiquette would also be appalled at estimating someone’s salary, even when it’s a matter of public record, for the purpose of shaming them into spending more of it. Seriously, these are things over which etiquette has a painful attack of the vapors.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: when choosing an engagement ring, the gentleman should consider the taste of his lady and the state of his bank account (and credit rating). The lady, given the choice, should be thoughtful of his wallet. Everyone else in the universe should just butt out. Er… with the possible exception of the jeweler who is sort of required if the ring is being bought new or adapted from a not-so-new source.
Besides, if Mr. Twistie had followed the two months salary ‘rule’ I would never have gotten the engagement ring I wanted. It didn’t cost nearly that much.
*(I know the article is meant to be humorous, but it’s still based on a crass assumption that needs to be deflated at every possible opportunity. Way too many people think that ‘rule’ is a real one, so I continue to tilt at this particular windmill.)