The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: anonlawyer on September 25, 2018, 08:01:15 PM
-
This article and accompanying complaint make for a good read. It's a glimpse into the lives of a financially incompetent attorney and his puppetmaster.
Article: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/jilted-biglaw-associate-sues-ex-fiancee-over-100k-engagement-ring/
Complaint: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pQTAAok3yc3JBVxyNVh6Xz_nuXpg_KUl/view
-
Wow.
-
What a way to find your 15 minutes of fame. I think ELO wrote a song about this.
I read the complaint. Holy crap. This must have been this guy's first girlfriend or something. Whipped!
-
A friend of mine just sent this to me yesterday. He worked with the guy at the law firm they are referencing. He said the guy was an interesting dude and it was pretty much the first girlfriend he had ever had.
-
A friend of mine just sent this to me yesterday. He worked with the guy at the law firm they are referencing. He said the guy was an interesting dude and it was pretty much the first girlfriend he had ever had.
*Wince* for me anyway that particular detail takes it from a least a little funny to really painful. Poor guy.
-
Daaaayuuuum. Kudos to the guy for actually suing for the ring though.
-
Daaaayuuuum. Kudos to the guy for actually suing for the ring though.
Exactly. And even if he blows all of the ring proceeds in legal fees, it’s going to hurt the girl a lot more than it will hurt him, and he’ll have a valuable learning experience to go along with it.
He will likely never trust a female ever again though.
-
Holy shit she sounds like a piece of work. Poor guy. Good thing he didn't marry her.
-
She does sound like a piece of work. Normally my position would be that an engagement ring is a gift regardless of whether the wedding takes place. But she agreed to give it back, so she should give it back. Not to mention that he originally had a nice budget for the ring which she harangued him into tripling and then taking out a freaking loan to afford.
Hopefully the lawsuit will make other men take notice and avoid her like the plague in the future. And help him attain self-respect. And hopefully get some of his money back.
P.S. DH, who is a family lawyer, says an engagement ring is normally treated by the law as a gift (in Virginia). However, if she and her ex had an agreement that she would exchange something for the ring, then she might have to give it back. The article said the "dads" worked out a deal in which she would stay in the house for a few months and then give the ring back when she moved out. If the two parties (not their dads) had a *written* agreement that she would stay in the house and then give the ring back when she moved out, that would be a stronger position for him. A verbal deal is harder to enforce. Of course a few months' rent would be worth a lot less than $100k, but that would still have been a deal (just a lopsided one, which is totally legal here).
-
She does sound like a piece of work. Normally my position would be that an engagement ring is a gift regardless of whether the wedding takes place. But she agreed to give it back, so she should give it back. Not to mention that he originally had a nice budget for the ring which she harangued him into tripling and then taking out a freaking loan to afford.
Hopefully the lawsuit will make other men take notice and avoid her like the plague in the future. And help him attain self-respect. And hopefully get some of his money back.
P.S. DH, who is a family lawyer, says an engagement ring is normally treated by the law as a gift (in Virginia). However, if she and her ex had an agreement that she would exchange something for the ring, then she might have to give it back. The article said the "dads" worked out a deal in which she would stay in the house for a few months and then give the ring back when she moved out. If the two parties (not their dads) had a *written* agreement that she would stay in the house and then give the ring back when she moved out, that would be a stronger position for him. A verbal deal is harder to enforce. Of course a few months' rent would be worth a lot less than $100k, but that would still have been a deal (just a lopsided one, which is totally legal here).
I mean, it certainly seems like D.C. is the proper jurisdiction, rather than Virginia. D.C. case law treats is as a conditional gift.
The girlfriend sounds absolutely abusive.
-
If he doesn't get the ring back, he should think of it as the best investment he has ever made. Not marrying her probably saved him a couple million over his lifetime, not counting the emotional and mental costs. So his $100k will have a great ROI if he learns to not give in to gold diggers.
-
It's too bad he didn't have any close friends, family who he could have confided in that he budgeted 40K! but she wants a ring that will be 100K, to say dude, that is crazy and advise him that is really out of the bounds of normalcy and do a gut check.
the women I know of that have that size of ring either it was an inherited family ring, or had smaller rings initially and then got upgrades after 25+ years of marriage.
Does it say what state the proposal took place? Every state has different rules what an engagement ring is. Some it is simply a gift. Others it is a conditional gift (based on marriage) so she would have to return. Wondering how much pain this dude is going to be. And remember, he is out more than the 100K. He's been paying interest on the loan and also been paying 4+K a month rent for that huge house!!!
I still remember a person I knew who got married but it ended quickly and they agreed to let her keep the ring. It was a 15K ring and I remember thinking, holy moley how much money that was.
-
Even if he gets the ring back, it will be worth a pittance of the original sale price. He'll be lucky to see $30k back if hes able to sell it.
What an awful story. What an incredibly ugly person to take advantage of someone else that loves you too. I sincerely hope karma comes back to haunt this gold-digger.
-
Speaking from someone who was on the painful side of a broken engagement where she gave the ring back without even asking... this guy is about to find out how little diamonds are ACTUALLY worth.
-
a picture of the (formerly) happy couple:
https://modernluxury.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/city_scene_gallery_image_vertical/galleries/SarahJonesDickensRyanStrassercopy.jpg
-
She does sound like a piece of work. Normally my position would be that an engagement ring is a gift regardless of whether the wedding takes place. But she agreed to give it back, so she should give it back. Not to mention that he originally had a nice budget for the ring which she harangued him into tripling and then taking out a freaking loan to afford.
Hopefully the lawsuit will make other men take notice and avoid her like the plague in the future. And help him attain self-respect. And hopefully get some of his money back.
P.S. DH, who is a family lawyer, says an engagement ring is normally treated by the law as a gift (in Virginia). However, if she and her ex had an agreement that she would exchange something for the ring, then she might have to give it back. The article said the "dads" worked out a deal in which she would stay in the house for a few months and then give the ring back when she moved out. If the two parties (not their dads) had a *written* agreement that she would stay in the house and then give the ring back when she moved out, that would be a stronger position for him. A verbal deal is harder to enforce. Of course a few months' rent would be worth a lot less than $100k, but that would still have been a deal (just a lopsided one, which is totally legal here).
I mean, it certainly seems like D.C. is the proper jurisdiction, rather than Virginia. D.C. case law treats is as a conditional gift.
The girlfriend sounds absolutely abusive.
I didn't mean to say that Virginia law should apply. Sorry if I was unclear. I read the article but didn't notice where the guy lived, so I just gave the example from Virginia. If D.C. treats it as a conditional gift, it sounds like it's a good thing they didn't live in Virginia! I sure hope he wins.
-
Why the expensive representation in court? Wouldn't this be a very simple case to argue yourself? "Your honor, the gift is conditional. I rest my case." It doesn't seem like finding legal precedent would be too much trouble either.
-
Why the expensive representation in court? Wouldn't this be a very simple case to argue yourself? "Your honor, the gift is conditional. I rest my case." It doesn't seem like finding legal precedent would be too much trouble either.
Why the 40k budget in the first place? Lots of money being tossed around here, might as well be consistent.
Speaking from someone who was on the painful side of a broken engagement where she gave the ring back without even asking... this guy is about to find out how little diamonds are ACTUALLY worth.
You're not supposed to ever sell them, remember? Otherwise the scam is revealed for what it is.
-
Well yeah, it was pretty stupid to spend 100k on a rock and would have been just as dumb at 40k. It seems like he was so head over heels in love that he didn't see the multiple red flags in this situation, but even so, I think she should have to give the ring back and pay him for damages. He was an idiot, but she's a thief (at least according to the facts he presented).
-
I concur with everyone in that even if he loses the case and the ring he still likely got off very cheaply.
-
That's pretty special right there. Maybe he'll start a blog about relationships and call this moment his BFM. Everyone's got a BFM. :-)
Also, I'm glad to see that my native Ontario has explicit laws about returning such gifts.
http://www.christiecummings.com/blog/2013/09/22/who-gets-the-engagement-ring-if-the-wedding-is-called-off- (http://www.christiecummings.com/blog/2013/09/22/who-gets-the-engagement-ring-if-the-wedding-is-called-off-)
That's wise.
Toque.
-
There have been multiple strains of legal thought about whether engagement rings could be kept by the proposed to or not. Early on, it may have been a conditional gift, but the condition was the woman accepting the engagement. And if the man then broke off the engagement, the woman could keep the ring. The presumption being that women would not engage in sexual relations until engaged/married and if the man then broke it off the ring was kind of a consolation prize given that she was now used merchandise.
For me, I still think that if a man gives a gift (ring) but then breaks the engagement, even if the law is on the man's side, the decent thing is to let the woman keep it, unless she lied or did something that caused the engagement break up. Just my opinion. Otherwise a guy can go around proposing to women, giving them a ring, break it off, use the same ring to propose to someone else, etc etc.
As others have stated, the resale value of diamond rings are low (25-50% range, Zales type rings even less). Add to fact that it is a conditional gift means that no one should be spending a lot of engagement rings.
At least it wasn't a 10-13 million diamond ring, sold for 2 million.
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/mariah-carey-sold-engagement-ring-from-ex-fiance-james-packer/
-
There have been multiple strains of legal thought about whether engagement rings could be kept by the proposed to or not. Early on, it may have been a conditional gift, but the condition was the woman accepting the engagement. And if the man then broke off the engagement, the woman could keep the ring. The presumption being that women would not engage in sexual relations until engaged/married and if the man then broke it off the ring was kind of a consolation prize given that she was now used merchandise.
What? What time period was this the thought? (Specifically- that sexual relations would start upon engagement?) I have never heard that reasoning.
As, despite it being totally untrue, it seems most people still seem to pretend that it is necessary to not have sex until marriage. You know, because religion.
-
For me, I still think that if a man gives a gift (ring) but then breaks the engagement, even if the law is on the man's side, the decent thing is to let the woman keep it, unless she lied or did something that caused the engagement break up. Just my opinion. Otherwise a guy can go around proposing to women, giving them a ring, break it off, use the same ring to propose to someone else, etc etc.
So a guy should give up a valuable ring that he may legally have the rights to because otherwise he would be able to keep using the same ring to propose to women? Do you know many people that go around proposing to women? That seems to be a strange leap you are making in this case.
-
For me, I still think that if a man gives a gift (ring) but then breaks the engagement, even if the law is on the man's side, the decent thing is to let the woman keep it, unless she lied or did something that caused the engagement break up. Just my opinion. Otherwise a guy can go around proposing to women, giving them a ring, break it off, use the same ring to propose to someone else, etc etc.
Maybe? That complaint makes her sounds like such an awful person. Add that she lived in his rented house rent free, wouldn't give his stuff back, said she'd give the ring back because it would give her more leverage to stay in the house etc. etc.
Of course, he should have just said no to everything early on and saved himself a lot of trouble.
I know the law is supposed to be blind to awful people too, but I wonder how much sympathy the judge will have for her?
-
For me, I still think that if a man gives a gift (ring) but then breaks the engagement, even if the law is on the man's side, the decent thing is to let the woman keep it, unless she lied or did something that caused the engagement break up. Just my opinion. Otherwise a guy can go around proposing to women, giving them a ring, break it off, use the same ring to propose to someone else, etc etc.
So a guy should give up a valuable ring that he may legally have the rights to because otherwise he would be able to keep using the same ring to propose to women? Do you know many people that go around proposing to women? That seems to be a strange leap you are making in this case.
No, def not related to this case! And there's no indication that's what happened in this case.
Regarding who gets the ring if the guy proposes and then breaks it off, that's just my personal opinion, and it would depend on the circumstances.
There is also the situation, that the bride and or bride's family often contributes more to the wedding; if the engagement is broken off very close to actual wedding the woman, woman's family may lose significant amount in deposits, etc. Much more than the worth of an typical engagement ring. But I guess that's a lawsuit for another day.
This is from the internetz
For the legal deal on rings, we turned to Caroline Krauss-Browne, an attorney in the matrimonial department at Tenzer Greenblatt LLP, in New York City. Note however, that laws differ state to state. "In accepting the ring, the bride-to-be promises her hand in marriage. So long as she is willing to fulfill her promise, she has given consideration for contract. So if he breaks it off, she can keep the ring," Caroline explains. "But if she breaks off the engagement, she signifies that she is no longer willing to keep the promise, and in this case, she should not retain benefit from the agreement (the ring)." If the ring cost less than $2,000, Caroline says that a small-claims court is a fine forum to air your grievance. (Check small-claims limits in your locale.) But, Caroline maintains, "If the ring were an heirloom of extraordinary value, the laws of equity would probably override in a situation like that." But for the legal specifics of your state, consult with a local attorney.
-
Ethically, why should a woman ever WANT to keep the engagement ring?
-
Ethically, why should a woman ever WANT to keep the engagement ring?
Ethically, it was a gift given to her?
Rationally, it is of value and to sell it?
Irrationally, because eff him.
-
Yeah this is more close to what I was taught as a child. Whoever backs out of the engagement the other person keeps the ring. Sort of like earnest money with a house purchase offer. But perhaps it is unwise to explore that analogy too deeply.
-
For me, I still think that if a man gives a gift (ring) but then breaks the engagement, even if the law is on the man's side, the decent thing is to let the woman keep it, unless she lied or did something that caused the engagement break up. Just my opinion. Otherwise a guy can go around proposing to women, giving them a ring, break it off, use the same ring to propose to someone else, etc etc.
So a guy should give up a valuable ring that he may legally have the rights to because otherwise he would be able to keep using the same ring to propose to women? Do you know many people that go around proposing to women? That seems to be a strange leap you are making in this case.
It happened to my sister. She was proposed to by her boyfriend with a ring, that he bought and had from a previous broken engagement. Sometimes recycling can go too far.
-
An engagement ring used to be a green light for sexual relations. If the guy broke it off after he got what he wanted, the woman would keep the ring as compensation for taking her virginity and tarnishing her reputation.
These considerations are obviously not important any longer. Most couples are sexually active prior to engagement, most women are not virgins prior to their engagement, and there are very few negative reputational consequences for female dalliances these days. In today’s world, the guy should always get the ring back if there’s no marriage.
Calling the ring a gift is being willfully obtuse. The ring was in exchange for marriage, and in exchange for her not sleeping with anyone else. Once those don’t occur, the deal is off and the ring should be returned. An engagement ring is as much a “gift” as my salary is a “gift” from my employer.
-
It happened to my sister. She was proposed to by her boyfriend with a ring, that he bought and had from a previous broken engagement. Sometimes recycling can go too far.
This feeds into the materialistic consumer sentiment and props up a disgusting diamond industry though.
Are diamonds now use once? Debeers is undoubtedly frothing at the mouth about the public possibly believing diamonds being single use!
I would think a mustachian person would only ever want a recycled diamond...if they even wanted a diamond at all.
The whole diamond giving thing seems extremely sexist to me anyway. Why do we hang on to something like this while making progress towards equal rights elsewhere?
A commitment from both towards a shared better future should always be the 'gift'.
-
Man, am I the only person who grew up firmly entrenched in the "no sex before marriage" culture (even though everyone ignored it?)
I've never heard ANYONE say it's OK to have sex once you get a ring. And I was very much in the "ring by spring" culture in my university- there was no point in graduating if you weren't getting married.
-
I don't think diamonds need to be one use only. Nobody goes around proposing over and over for the hell of it. I think an engagement is almost a trial period, to decide if you for sure want to go through with the marriage. Best to end it if it's not working out rather than get divorced later. And for me it has nothing to do with sex, that ship has long sailed. Plenty of couples get engaged after living together, and I'm sure they don't have separate bedrooms.
But I do think the reason for the breakup is relevant to who keeps the ring. If one partner cheated, the other should get the ring. If it's mutual, the one who bought the ring should keep it. If there's abuse, I think the abused person would be justified in keeping it. Relationships aren't black and white, so I can imagine that in certain situations the ownership of the ring could be in question. In the case presented I think the guy should get the ring back, plus damages.
-
If he doesn't get the ring back, he should think of it as the best investment he has ever made. Not marrying her probably saved him a couple million over his lifetime, not counting the emotional and mental costs. So his $100k will have a great ROI if he learns to not give in to gold diggers.
This is where I am. $100K to not be trapped in a marriage with the kind of woman who'll leave rotten meat in a closed, turned-off refrigerator for 2 months? Cheap at twice the price.
He should go to a DC MMM Meetup - he'll find women that don't particularly care about big rings.
-
If he doesn't get the ring back, he should think of it as the best investment he has ever made.
I can think of a better investment. "Nah, honey, I think $2,000 is plenty. We could save the rest for retirement!" You can find out whether you should part ways with the person for free rather than dropping six figures to find out if they're a bad fit.
-
Man, am I the only person who grew up firmly entrenched in the "no sex before marriage" culture (even though everyone ignored it?)
I've never heard ANYONE say it's OK to have sex once you get a ring. And I was very much in the "ring by spring" culture in my university- there was no point in graduating if you weren't getting married.
Yes, this idea is completely need to me as well. I've heard no sex before marriage. I've heard sex completely independent of marriage. Until this thread I'd never heard "no sex before engagement."
-
Man, am I the only person who grew up firmly entrenched in the "no sex before marriage" culture (even though everyone ignored it?)
I've never heard ANYONE say it's OK to have sex once you get a ring. And I was very much in the "ring by spring" culture in my university- there was no point in graduating if you weren't getting married.
I grew up in that culture, too, and in fact still live in it. Some people abide by the principle, some don't. But definitely no-one ever said or says that getting engaged is the bright line.
-
It happened to my sister. She was proposed to by her boyfriend with a ring, that he bought and had from a previous broken engagement. Sometimes recycling can go too far.
This feeds into the materialistic consumer sentiment and props up a disgusting diamond industry though.
Are diamonds now use once? Debeers is undoubtedly frothing at the mouth about the public possibly believing diamonds being single use!
I would think a mustachian person would only ever want a recycled diamond...if they even wanted a diamond at all.
The whole diamond giving thing seems extremely sexist to me anyway. Why do we hang on to something like this while making progress towards equal rights elsewhere?
A commitment from both towards a shared better future should always be the 'gift'.
I would think the "recycling goes too far" means more about the emotion and sentiment behind buying the ring, not the actual rock itself.
I assume that a ring has an emotional meaning behind it. An attachment. Chosen just for her, or something she chose for herself. The weird thing is not reusing the diamond (my parents divorced when I was a teen, my mom's diamond became a necklace for me) - the weird thing is the emotions attached.
I have a diamond but if I could roll it back to re-do it all, I wouldn't have bothered.
-
Had this guy went for lab created diamond rather than natural, he couldve met the girls specifications (since article didnt mention it had to be a natural stone) and kept it under his initial 40k budget. For fun searched and saw this sample stone meeting all the parameters on brilliant earth for about 30k:
https://www.brilliantearth.com/lab-diamonds-search/view_detail/6087998/
-
I have recycled a diamond. I was engaged and when she cheated on me with her future ex husband I asked for the ring back and thankfully she returned it to me. When I was planning on asking my now wife to get married I had my cousin, a retired jeweler, reset the stone on a new ring. My wife knows it was the same diamond and has told me that she would have thought it a waste to not us the diamond for her ring. She doesn't wear it often as we both prefer the cheap $5 silicon rings that can be lost or broken and easily replaced. Her wedding ring lives in our fireproof safe.
-
In my sister's case it was a precious gemstone in the original setting. (They didn't get engaged). I have no problem re ycling gemstones (my mother's diamond in her engagement ring was a family stone). I just think some thought needs to be put into it.
-
A friend of mine just sent this to me yesterday. He worked with the guy at the law firm they are referencing. He said the guy was an interesting dude and it was pretty much the first girlfriend he had ever had.
You know, that's exactly what I thought when I saw the picture that accompanied the article. Well, if "interesting" means socially awkward looking. And that hair. Might be the second worst hair in America.
As, despite it being totally untrue, it seems most people still seem to pretend that it is necessary to not have sex until marriage. You know, because religion.
Well, in addition to religion, if everyone waited until marriage, the numbers of STD cases and children born out of wedlock would plummet. Those things would benefit society.
Ethically, why should a woman ever WANT to keep the engagement ring?
Exactly! How could the ring ever be anything except a bad memory?
Are diamonds now use once? Debeers is undoubtedly frothing at the mouth about the public possibly believing diamonds being single use!
Diamonds aren't "one use", but I wouldn't want a ring my husband had purchased for another girl. He'd have purchased that ring with intentions and plans of spending his life with another woman. Even if the girl rejected him, he would have bought that ring with the intention of putting it on her hand. I wouldn't want that recycled item -- it'd be too personal. This isn't a perfect analogy, but it'd be a little bit like wearing her underwear -- too personal. Rational? Maybe not, but I stand by the answer.
He could sell it and use the money towards a different ring.
I'd be fine with a ring purchased used /previously worn by a stranger.
I've never heard ANYONE say it's OK to have sex once you get a ring. And I was very much in the "ring by spring" culture in my university- there was no point in graduating if you weren't getting married.
I've never heard that either. I'm not saying it wasn't happening, just that it wasn't something people talked about.
-
Man, am I the only person who grew up firmly entrenched in the "no sex before marriage" culture (even though everyone ignored it?)
I've never heard ANYONE say it's OK to have sex once you get a ring. And I was very much in the "ring by spring" culture in my university- there was no point in graduating if you weren't getting married.
Yes, this idea is completely need to me as well. I've heard no sex before marriage. I've heard sex completely independent of marriage. Until this thread I'd never heard "no sex before engagement."
I also never heard of "sex now that we're engaged", and I'm about 80% sure I'm a red panda and I went to the same university (so no, you're not alone! :) )
Ditto in the "I have a diamond now, but would have done differently in the past" camp. Probably would have gone with ok-ing a synthetic diamond. Hubs didn't spend much and got a good deal on what he did buy, and I'm really happy with what he got anyway.
-
The assumption in my family has always been that it's none of a woman's business what her engagement ring looks like or how much it cost. It's assumed to be a family ring of some kind. But, since it's family property on the groom's side, it's in poor taste to keep it if the engagement doesn't work out. So far as I know we never adhered to the "broken engagement person as damaged good" concept but then again we're Slavic so the traditions are different.
-
So I just ran into an old friend and remembered that he left his girlfriend/fiance over the cost of a wedding ring. He proposed to her and she accepted it but wanted a more expensive ring. He went shopping with her and took a look at them but the rings she wanted were all really expensive, way beyond what he could afford to spend. Apparently she made a comment about how he didn't love her enough and his response was to say, "You're right maybe I don't" and broke up with her.
From what I remember (this happened a year or so ago and I didn't want to bring it it up as it might be a painful memory) it wasn't so much about the ring cost, though that was a factor, but how it seemed like everything had to be the nicest (re; expensive) and it really made him question how much she actually cared about him.
I believe he's a lot happier being single than he was when he was with her.
-
So I just ran into an old friend and remembered that he left his girlfriend/fiance over the cost of a wedding ring. He proposed to her and she accepted it but wanted a more expensive ring. He went shopping with her and took a look at them but the rings she wanted were all really expensive, way beyond what he could afford to spend. Apparently she made a comment about how he didn't love her enough and his response was to say, "You're right maybe I don't" and broke up with her.
From what I remember (this happened a year or so ago and I didn't want to bring it it up as it might be a painful memory) it wasn't so much about the ring cost, though that was a factor, but how it seemed like everything had to be the nicest (re; expensive) and it really made him question how much she actually cared about him.
I believe he's a lot happier being single than he was when he was with her.
wow, sounds like your friend really dodged a bullet there.
-
Had this guy went for lab created diamond rather than natural, he couldve met the girls specifications (since article didnt mention it had to be a natural stone) and kept it under his initial 40k budget. For fun searched and saw this sample stone meeting all the parameters on brilliant earth for about 30k:
https://www.brilliantearth.com/lab-diamonds-search/view_detail/6087998/
Close but not the same. She specified an old european cut, not a modern brillant. OEC of the size she wanted in the color- in particular- and clarity rating she wanted are exceedingly rare since they have not be made since the 1920s.
Presuming he gets it back, maybe 30-40% at auction and 50-60% at consignment. Poor guy. At least things fell apart before they got married or he would have been on the hook for alimony as well.
-
So I just ran into an old friend and remembered that he left his girlfriend/fiance over the cost of a wedding ring. He proposed to her and she accepted it but wanted a more expensive ring. He went shopping with her and took a look at them but the rings she wanted were all really expensive, way beyond what he could afford to spend. Apparently she made a comment about how he didn't love her enough and his response was to say, "You're right maybe I don't" and broke up with her.
From what I remember (this happened a year or so ago and I didn't want to bring it it up as it might be a painful memory) it wasn't so much about the ring cost, though that was a factor, but how it seemed like everything had to be the nicest (re; expensive) and it really made him question how much she actually cared about him.
I believe he's a lot happier being single than he was when he was with her.
wow, sounds like your friend really dodged a bullet there.
I believe that was my comment to him when I first heard what happened (after telling him how sorry I was for the breakup). And yeah I believe he agrees.
It is sad but there are some people out there that are blind to the fact that their partner is largely interested in them due to their economic status.
-
The assumption in my family has always been that it's none of a woman's business what her engagement ring looks like or how much it cost.
I had no input on my engagement ring /expected to have no input on my engagement ring. FYI: It's exactly what I would've chosen for myself.
From what I remember (this happened a year or so ago and I didn't want to bring it it up as it might be a painful memory) it wasn't so much about the ring cost, though that was a factor, but how it seemed like everything had to be the nicest (re; expensive) and it really made him question how much she actually cared about him.
What I hear you saying is that the ring was the tipping point. The ring was the moment he recognized the pattern and saw the light.
-
If I ever get married again, I will ask for my car to be paid off over a nice ring : )
I don't really get the camp that says a woman should have no input on her engagement ring. It's like telling a guy you are buying him a car, but he gets no input on what kind of car it is. Maybe it made sense way back when when the man was supposed to take a lead and propose. But nowadays I am assuming that the couple talked about many important things, including whether they want to get married, before the actual proposal. So asking her what kind of ring she likes is not ruining the surprise. Rather it should be the first in many mutual decisions and compromises they will need to discuss and work through, financial personal, etc.
-
If I ever get married again, I will ask for my car to be paid off over a nice ring : )
I don't really get the camp that says a woman should have no input on her engagement ring. It's like telling a guy you are buying him a car, but he gets no input on what kind of car it is. Maybe it made sense way back when when the man was supposed to take a lead and propose. But nowadays I am assuming that the couple talked about many important things, including whether they want to get married, before the actual proposal. So asking her what kind of ring she likes is not ruining the surprise. Rather it should be the first in many mutual decisions and compromises they will need to discuss and work through, financial personal, etc.
I don't really get the whole engagement ring thing to begin with in today's world. Why an expensive gift for half of a couple?!?
Seems an odd start to forming a team.
-
If I ever get married again, I will ask for my car to be paid off over a nice ring : )
I don't really get the camp that says a woman should have no input on her engagement ring. It's like telling a guy you are buying him a car, but he gets no input on what kind of car it is. Maybe it made sense way back when when the man was supposed to take a lead and propose. But nowadays I am assuming that the couple talked about many important things, including whether they want to get married, before the actual proposal. So asking her what kind of ring she likes is not ruining the surprise. Rather it should be the first in many mutual decisions and compromises they will need to discuss and work through, financial personal, etc.
I don't really get the whole engagement ring thing to begin with in today's world. Why an expensive gift for half of a couple?!?
Seems an odd start to forming a team.
Yes some have said it's outmoded. I have heard of a number of couples now getting matching engagement bands.
-
If I ever get married again, I will ask for my car to be paid off over a nice ring : )
I don't really get the camp that says a woman should have no input on her engagement ring. It's like telling a guy you are buying him a car, but he gets no input on what kind of car it is. Maybe it made sense way back when when the man was supposed to take a lead and propose. But nowadays I am assuming that the couple talked about many important things, including whether they want to get married, before the actual proposal. So asking her what kind of ring she likes is not ruining the surprise. Rather it should be the first in many mutual decisions and compromises they will need to discuss and work through, financial personal, etc.
The way it worked was like this. Two families were mingling their assets and investing them in the next generation-- that is to say, in the new couple. One of the first public expressions of the investment was to allow one half of the new couple to publicly put a token (but easily recognizable) portion of the family's wealth on the other. Before this happened, *lots* of conversations had to happen between the happy couple, their parents, and generally some lawyers and accountants.
I suppose it's outmoded, but old families that take old-familyness seriously are always at least 100 years behind the times.
-
I wouldn't care if DH had proposed with a "recycled" stone. I think it's a bit ridiculous to equate not wanting a ring that was the symbol of love and commitment between your partner and someone else is the same as claiming diamonds are "one use".
I have a vintage ring, purchased from an estate store, so clearly it is "used", but it was purchased for me, with me in mind, and to symbolize the relationship DH and I have. That's a world away from "the last chick said no, so hopefully you'll accept it".
If DH would have sold an old ring and used the money to buy a new one, fine. If he'd used the same diamond, fine. heck, if the gold had been melted and formed into a new ring, also fine. But one hopes that a person picking out an item that most likely will be worn nearly every day for the rest of someone's life actually does it with her in mind, especially when that item is also a symbol of their relationship. I wanted a ring that DH picked out with me and our relationship in mind. It's not some materialistic need for new or better or more expensive. In general, regifts of emotional items are not a good idea, unless it is very intentional and the previous owner or life of the item is important. (Using grandma's ring because Grandma was very special to the person and her marriage highly successful, for example.)
-
I don't really get the whole engagement ring thing to begin with in today's world. Why an expensive gift for half of a couple?!?
Seems an odd start to forming a team.
I am unaware of when the practice of engagement rings, or engagement gifts in general, started. However, the idea of a *diamond* engagement ring was largely conjured from pure air by De Beers in the 1930s as a way of propping up the price of otherwise not very valuable, common gems:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/
Interesting that this article describes impending threats to the diamond cartel nearly 40 years ago. Apparently none of them bore fruit as clearly the diamond invention is going strong today.
-
Yes some have said it's outmoded. I have heard of a number of couples now getting matching engagement bands.
DH and I exchanged inexpensive rings almost 25 years ago when we got engaged. I wasn't going to be "marked off-limits" unless he was too. :-)
-
DW and I don't even wear our wedding rings. I recycled a family stone and bought a ring for it. Its beautiful. Neither of us are much into jewelry and DW worries about losing the stone somehow. I wouldn't want to lose it either but neither of us would lose any sleep over it.
-
I don't really get the whole engagement ring thing to begin with in today's world. Why an expensive gift for half of a couple?!?
Seems an odd start to forming a team.
I am unaware of when the practice of engagement rings, or engagement gifts in general, started. However, the idea of a *diamond* engagement ring was largely conjured from pure air by De Beers in the 1930s as a way of propping up the price of otherwise not very valuable, common gems:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/
Interesting that this article describes impending threats to the diamond cartel nearly 40 years ago. Apparently none of them bore fruit as clearly the diamond invention is going strong today.
People keep repeating the claim that Debeers "invented" the idea of a diamond engagement ring. That is not true. Debeers invested a lot in promoting that the only good or "real" engagement ring was a diamond ring, and more specifically how much money the man should spend on that ring (2 months salary) to increase revenues. They also promoted the idea that a "diamond is forever" to discourage resale of diamonds. However the idea of engagement rings with gemstones goes back for centuries, and wedding rings to antiquity. My grandmother and great grandmother both received diamond engagement rings and that was in the 30's, and late 1800s. The first and probably most famous diamond engagement ring was given in 1477 (Arch Duke Maximillian of Austria). Very few people had diamond rings, but that was because the only deposits were rather small and mined out (India, Brazil). Diamonds became more abundant and affordable after the Kimberly and other deposits were discovered (along with new mining techniques).
You may not approve of the practice of engagement rings, and no one HAS to follow that particular tradition, but Debeers did not invent the idea of the diamond engagement ring.
-
When my husband proposed, we picked out a ring together that he paid for, then he asked the saleslady if they did a discount for cash. (He'd checked with me beforehand.) Her horrified facial expression was a thing to behold.
-
When my husband proposed, we picked out a ring together that he paid for, then he asked the saleslady if they did a discount for cash. (He'd checked with me beforehand.) Her horrified facial expression was a thing to behold.
I'd have paid to have seen that. It would be a good prank.
-
That woman must be getting a shit ton of hate mail. I wonder if they left her email address on the exhibits on purpose.
-
Ethically, why should a woman ever WANT to keep the engagement ring?
Ethically, it was a gift given to her?
Rationally, it is of value and to sell it?
Irrationally, because eff him.
Exactly, all of that!:) ... and ... to remind her to be more cautious - picky - smarter, in the future?
On re-cycling:)
Personally, I wouldn't want someone else's ring, unless it was a family heirloom, that I either loved as is or would have permission to have re-worked into a design I loved.
Call me greedy and non-mustachian if you like, but I don't get $25 rings unless you're in debt city or every penny counts, because you're working toward a specific goal. Even then, I would expect a really nice ring as soon as that situation is resolved.
In my opinion, the ring should be as nice as you can afford, without breaking the bank and without deliberately pushing for the cheapest option.
Seems the diamond stores push for three months of income as the price for the ring, I say one-month income is just fine. I think my only limitation would be - no payments, if you can't afford it outright - maybe you should wait until you can.
Rings are status symbols, (that's why sometimes rings are upgraded later), they don't just proclaim your marital status but reflect "your man's:)" financial standing to the world.
That woman must be getting a shit ton of hate mail. I wonder if they left her email address on the exhibits on purpose.
I was wondering how much of a spin this story had - there are always two sides to a story. He made sure she was publicly shamed and drug through the mud.
-
Rings are status symbols, (that's why sometimes rings are upgraded later), they don't just proclaim your marital status but reflect "your man's:)" financial standing to the world.
This just makes me want an engagement ring even less. If "my man" wants to brag about his financial standing he can do it with his own jewelry.
I'm not engaged and not soon to become so, but whenever I get there I want an equal exchange of tokens, whatever the tokens may be. I'll wear a ring when I'm married. I don't need two. And I don't need an insurance policy on my marital prospects, which (as discussed above) was the original point of an engagement ring.
Not trying to criticize you, @Rosy, just sharing another opinion.
-
Naw, don't worry @Tass - I said that from the stance of a few decades of observation. It has been my observation that this is simply the case in certain circles.
The last really cool, impressive rock I saw was about fifteen years ago, $30K+. The young lady became engaged to a basketball player. It was really too big and pretentious to wear daily, but she was so excited she did for the rest of the semester at design school.
He could well afford it.
She was as hardworking as he was. AFAIK they build a great life and business together - a glam life on the outside, but where it counted very down to earth people.
In the end, it isn't about the ring, but it says a lot about a man how he approaches giving his chosen lady her first ring. Some men do not consult, they simply surprise and present. Others want to give their fiance the moon even if they cannot afford it and there are plenty of men and women who have their own widely varied concepts of what they want and expect.
We just did white gold wedding bands and a few years later I got a beautiful Art Deco diamond ring when his mom passed away. I'm not a diamond girl, but that one was special. It was lost in a fire. Sniff.
-
For me, I still think that if a man gives a gift (ring) but then breaks the engagement, even if the law is on the man's side, the decent thing is to let the woman keep it, unless she lied or did something that caused the engagement break up. Just my opinion. Otherwise a guy can go around proposing to women, giving them a ring, break it off, use the same ring to propose to someone else, etc etc.
So a guy should give up a valuable ring that he may legally have the rights to because otherwise he would be able to keep using the same ring to propose to women? Do you know many people that go around proposing to women? That seems to be a strange leap you are making in this case.
It happened to my sister. She was proposed to by her boyfriend with a ring, that he bought and had from a previous broken engagement. Sometimes recycling can go too far.
So reusing a ring once is too far??? Should your sister's boyfriend have tossed the ring in the ocean instead of re-using it? Should your sister's boyfriend's ex-fiance kept the ring after the failed engagement?
None of this sounds very Mustachian.
-
Yeah people are weird about rings. When you move in with your beau there's a good chance the bedroom has had other women sweating and moaning in it before you came into the picture, yet nobody asks for the bed and sheets to be thrown away. But for some reason a ring is single use?
-
Yeah people are weird about rings. When you move in with your beau there's a good chance the bedroom has had other women sweating and moaning in it before you came into the picture, yet nobody asks for the bed and sheets to be thrown away. But for some reason a ring is single use?
Do be fair, I'm pretty sure if you mentioned this, it would probably result in the sheets and mattress having to go. So maybe the problem is a question of semi-plausible deniability when it comes to engagement rings? They're relatively single purpose.
-
Rings are status symbols, (that's why sometimes rings are upgraded later), they don't just proclaim your marital status but reflect "your man's:)" financial standing to the world.
Anyone who judges my husband based on the ring on my finger can go pound sand.
And rings can definitely be status symbols, but think long and hard about who you're trying to impress with them. I try to impress people who behave admirably, and judging people based on the cost of jewelry isn't admirable.
-
I hate the concept of "upgrading" an engagement ring. That seems to take the whole meaning out of it. To me, it's not a status symbol, but a symbol of commitment. The size or cost of it is irrelevant to me (as long as it's not too expensive), but I'd want it to represent my style and be something I can wear every day. Anyone who says they would say no to a proposal if the ring wasn't big enough probably shouldn't be getting married to that person.
-
Anyone who judges my husband based on the ring on my finger can go pound sand.
I got a smallish split shank solitaire ring when I got engaged and many years later, I still love it. I didn't care about the size, in fact I got many compliments on it, but I gave no s**ts about people who thought it was too small and therefore some reflection on my husband that he didn't give me something bigger. I didn't want my husband to spend beyond his means, in fact, I told him I was OK without one or even just a gemstone ring but he really wanted to get me a diamond.
My so-called "upgrade" was ten years later when I got an anniversary ring that was still small and cost less than the engagement ring. I got it after I temporarily lost the diamond at work and found it....in my wastebasket. After that I was so paranoid about losing the stone again, that I have it in the safety deposit box and I wear the anniversary ring.
-
From what I remember (this happened a year or so ago and I didn't want to bring it it up as it might be a painful memory) it wasn't so much about the ring cost, though that was a factor, but how it seemed like everything had to be the nicest (re; expensive) and it really made him question how much she actually cared about him.
What I hear you saying is that the ring was the tipping point. The ring was the moment he recognized the pattern and saw the light.
Yes exactly!
-
Anyone who judges my husband based on the ring on my finger can go pound sand.
I got a smallish split shank solitaire ring when I got engaged and many years later, I still love it. I didn't care about the size, in fact I got many compliments on it, but I gave no s**ts about people who thought it was too small and therefore some reflection on my husband that he didn't give me something bigger. I didn't want my husband to spend beyond his means, in fact, I told him I was OK without one or even just a gemstone ring but he really wanted to get me a diamond.
My so-called "upgrade" was ten years later when I got an anniversary ring that was still small and cost less than the engagement ring. I got it after I temporarily lost the diamond at work and found it....in my wastebasket. After that I was so paranoid about losing the stone again, that I have it in the safety deposit box and I wear the anniversary ring.
Kinda hoping that happens for us - wife's replacement ring showed up a week or so ago. Maybe when we move it will find its way out of whatever corner it is hiding in.
-
For me, I still think that if a man gives a gift (ring) but then breaks the engagement, even if the law is on the man's side, the decent thing is to let the woman keep it, unless she lied or did something that caused the engagement break up. Just my opinion. Otherwise a guy can go around proposing to women, giving them a ring, break it off, use the same ring to propose to someone else, etc etc.
So a guy should give up a valuable ring that he may legally have the rights to because otherwise he would be able to keep using the same ring to propose to women? Do you know many people that go around proposing to women? That seems to be a strange leap you are making in this case.
It happened to my sister. She was proposed to by her boyfriend with a ring, that he bought and had from a previous broken engagement. Sometimes recycling can go too far.
So reusing a ring once is too far??? Should your sister's boyfriend have tossed the ring in the ocean instead of re-using it? Should your sister's boyfriend's ex-fiance kept the ring after the failed engagement?
None of this sounds very Mustachian.
I wouldn't want a recycled ring from a fiance, who most likely specifically picked it out for another woman - because he thought she'd like it. Or he was thinking of her when he bought it. Or she picked it out. It's icky.
I wouldn't mind a recycled STONE, however. Assuming the stone was an average size and generic (not massive, not a weird shape or anything, I'm not picky) - just put it in a different setting.
-
Who would want to hire a lawyer that got himself into this mess? Plenty of signs that he should have never bought a ring early on. Hard to feel bad for anyone involved.
-
I would totally return the ring, (and have). The only time I may not is if I had paid a fortune in wedding costs that were unrecoverable. Maybe her family had bought the wedding dress, paid deposit for venue etc and it balanced out?
It's a huge warning sign she was so into the value. I remember saying I just wanted a nice looking ring. I didn't even care if was real, or huge, just something pretty. The meaning was worth more to me and should be to the girl you ask. If she's concerned about cost, run!!
-
I would totally return the ring, (and have). The only time I may not is if I had paid a fortune in wedding costs that were unrecoverable. Maybe her family had bought the wedding dress, paid deposit for venue etc and it balanced out?
It's a huge warning sign she was so into the value. I remember saying I just wanted a nice looking ring. I didn't even care if was real, or huge, just something pretty. The meaning was worth more to me and should be to the girl you ask. If she's concerned about cost, run!!
When I broke things off with ex-fiance, I returned the ring. Only right thing to do IMHO.
When DH and I got engaged, I told him I didn't have to have a ring. We were both a year out of college, in our first post-college jobs so there wasn't a lot of money. He insisted on getting me something, so I told him "just don't go overboard financially on this".
-
S8nce this thread has been revived, does anyone know if there has bern any resolution?
-
S8nce this thread has been revived, does anyone know if there has bern any resolution?
It looks like Defendant Dickens did not respond to the complaint, so Strasser has been ordered to move for entry of default judgment. Here's my attempt at providing the 12/28/2018 order of the court: https://www.law360.com/dockets/download/5c2e47e9b0223c7f337f583c?doc_url=https%3A%2F%2Fecf.dcd.uscourts.gov%2Fdoc1%2F04516935651&label=Case+Filing
I'm a long time lurker, but first time poster. So apologies if the link doesn't work.
-
If the ring cost $100K alone then imagine how much she would have wanted to spend on the wedding. He dodged a cannon ball for only $100K.
Also he said he'll be stuck paying off the ring only until 2020. If he got her preggers then he would've been stuck with her forever.
-
S8nce this thread has been revived, does anyone know if there has bern any resolution?
It looks like Defendant Dickens did not respond to the complaint, so Strasser has been ordered to move for entry of default judgment. Here's my attempt at providing the 12/28/2018 order of the court: https://www.law360.com/dockets/download/5c2e47e9b0223c7f337f583c?doc_url=https%3A%2F%2Fecf.dcd.uscourts.gov%2Fdoc1%2F04516935651&label=Case+Filing
I'm a long time lurker, but first time poster. So apologies if the link doesn't work.
Paywall. Bummer, but thanks for the update!
-
I just have to chuckle at many of comments about using a ring that was given to another.
I got engaged way too early (19). Got a nice ring and gave it to her. Well after a few months she broke off the engagement and returned the ring.
A few years later I proposed to my wife. She accepted. I told her I would sell the old ring and buy her one. She asked to see it, so I showed it to her. She LOVED it and said that is exactly the style and type of ring she wanted. It was even the correct ring size. So we used that ring.
Now over 25 years later I know I married the right woman for me.
-
I just have to chuckle at many of comments about using a ring that was given to another.
I got engaged way too early (19). Got a nice ring and gave it to her. Well after a few months she broke off the engagement and returned the ring.
A few years later I proposed to my wife. She accepted. I told her I would sell the old ring and buy her one. She asked to see it, so I showed it to her. She LOVED it and said that is exactly the style and type of ring she wanted. It was even the correct ring size. So we used that ring.
Now over 25 years later I know I married the right woman for me.
She's a keeper! I also had a broken engagement and got the ring back... I just could not do it. I didn't even re-use the diamond. It would have been something I could never get off my mind...
-
It's funny, I read this whole thread and until someone else mentioned it having happened to them, I forgot I had received an engagement ring, too, and subsequently, my then-bf an I broke up. I don't even remember for sure what happened to the ring! I think I gave it back. But it's so distant now that I'm not even sure. And I was so heart-broken at the time. I didn't think I actually wanted to spend my whole life with that person but I also found the break up so painful.
-
Rings are status symbols, (that's why sometimes rings are upgraded later), they don't just proclaim your marital status but reflect "your man's:)" financial standing to the world.
Anyone who judges my husband based on the ring on my finger can go pound sand.
And rings can definitely be status symbols, but think long and hard about who you're trying to impress with them. I try to impress people who behave admirably, and judging people based on the cost of jewelry isn't admirable.
This deserves to be in the "best thing I've read today" thread.
I remember years ago talking with a friend (from a wealthy family) about house design and I mentioned that I could never understand people that have 2 dining rooms, like a regular one as well as a "formal" one. He said he disagreed and would want that in a potential home because he wouldn't want to offend guests that would expect that kind of thing. I told him I wouldn't want that kind of person in my home, but the way you put it sums it up better
-
Rings are status symbols, (that's why sometimes rings are upgraded later), they don't just proclaim your marital status but reflect "your man's:)" financial standing to the world.
Anyone who judges my husband based on the ring on my finger can go pound sand.
And rings can definitely be status symbols, but think long and hard about who you're trying to impress with them. I try to impress people who behave admirably, and judging people based on the cost of jewelry isn't admirable.
This deserves to be in the "best thing I've read today" thread.
I remember years ago talking with a friend (from a wealthy family) about house design and I mentioned that I could never understand people that have 2 dining rooms, like a regular one as well as a "formal" one. He said he disagreed and would want that in a potential home because he wouldn't want to offend guests that would expect that kind of thing. I told him I wouldn't want that kind of person in my home, but the way you put it sums it up better
what, what? I guess i'm not running around in rarerified enough social circles to realize only 1 dining room is a social faux pas
-
I remember years ago talking with a friend (from a wealthy family) about house design and I mentioned that I could never understand people that have 2 dining rooms, like a regular one as well as a "formal" one. He said he disagreed and would want that in a potential home because he wouldn't want to offend guests that would expect that kind of thing. I told him I wouldn't want that kind of person in my home, but the way you put it sums it up better
what, what? I guess i'm not running around in rarerified enough social circles to realize only 1 dining room is a social faux pas
Pretty sure this is referring to the presence of a casual eating area and a more formal dining room within the same home. Could be a breakfast nook, for example. The modern equivalent is island seating. Not such a big deal, IMO. But then, we love to feed people. Our (recycled wood, consignment store purchased) table seats 12. We almost never sit at the breakfast bar. Funny, the house is a greatroom design and they're right next to each other.
-
I remember years ago talking with a friend (from a wealthy family) about house design and I mentioned that I could never understand people that have 2 dining rooms, like a regular one as well as a "formal" one. He said he disagreed and would want that in a potential home because he wouldn't want to offend guests that would expect that kind of thing. I told him I wouldn't want that kind of person in my home, but the way you put it sums it up better
what, what? I guess i'm not running around in rarerified enough social circles to realize only 1 dining room is a social faux pas
Pretty sure this is referring to the presence of a casual eating area and a more formal dining room within the same home. Could be a breakfast nook, for example. The modern equivalent is island seating. Not such a big deal, IMO. But then, we love to feed people. Our (recycled wood, consignment store purchased) table seats 12. We almost never sit at the breakfast bar. Funny, the house is a greatroom design and they're right next to each other.
Nope, I actually was referring to a full-sized normal dining room as well as a larger fancier formal dining room, which is totally a thing among people with more money than brains
-
I remember years ago talking with a friend (from a wealthy family) about house design and I mentioned that I could never understand people that have 2 dining rooms, like a regular one as well as a "formal" one. He said he disagreed and would want that in a potential home because he wouldn't want to offend guests that would expect that kind of thing. I told him I wouldn't want that kind of person in my home, but the way you put it sums it up better
what, what? I guess i'm not running around in rarerified enough social circles to realize only 1 dining room is a social faux pas
Pretty sure this is referring to the presence of a casual eating area and a more formal dining room within the same home. Could be a breakfast nook, for example. The modern equivalent is island seating. Not such a big deal, IMO. But then, we love to feed people. Our (recycled wood, consignment store purchased) table seats 12. We almost never sit at the breakfast bar. Funny, the house is a greatroom design and they're right next to each other.
Nope, I actually was referring to a full-sized normal dining room as well as a larger fancier formal dining room, which is totally a thing among people with more money than brains
If someone who owned such a house entertained me in the lesser dining room, I'd be pissed off.
At myself.
For making friends with someone with more money than brains.
-
A lot of old houses in Norway have a “nice living/dining room” that is only used at special occasions. It is not so much a sign of wealth, but more a need to limit the space you heat. You can even find these arrangements in small cottages of <100m2 where you sleep in the loft. It was always fun as a child to sneak into these rooms, since that was where the grandparents kept the fragile treasures safe from children, like carved items, porcelain cups, embroidered pillows etc. But I can still feel the icy coldness of a room not heated for years.
Being received in the nice room wasn’t necessarily a good sign. It could be a way to signal that you were not part of the family, or someone considered a (potential) friend.
-
I remember years ago talking with a friend (from a wealthy family) about house design and I mentioned that I could never understand people that have 2 dining rooms, like a regular one as well as a "formal" one. He said he disagreed and would want that in a potential home because he wouldn't want to offend guests that would expect that kind of thing. I told him I wouldn't want that kind of person in my home, but the way you put it sums it up better
what, what? I guess i'm not running around in rarerified enough social circles to realize only 1 dining room is a social faux pas
Pretty sure this is referring to the presence of a casual eating area and a more formal dining room within the same home. Could be a breakfast nook, for example. The modern equivalent is island seating. Not such a big deal, IMO. But then, we love to feed people. Our (recycled wood, consignment store purchased) table seats 12. We almost never sit at the breakfast bar. Funny, the house is a greatroom design and they're right next to each other.
Nope, I actually was referring to a full-sized normal dining room as well as a larger fancier formal dining room, which is totally a thing among people with more money than brains
Wow! DH and I have looked at thousands of houses (really) and never seen such a thing. However, we tend to look only at things we can afford. We particularly eschew behemoth McMansions, which is easier to do because there simply aren't as many in our HCOLA. Oh, wait! I can think of one we've been to. It's on the Central Coast. Was owned by some newspaper mogul...a guy named Hearst. Oh yes, that's it: Hearst Castle. Not expecting an invitation there any time soon. And then there's Filoli over on the Peninsula and hmmm, The Huntington Library in San Marino. Yeah, not on any of those guest lists. However, I believe all three of those guys had plenty of money and brains. Still way outta my league.
-
I remember years ago talking with a friend (from a wealthy family) about house design and I mentioned that I could never understand people that have 2 dining rooms, like a regular one as well as a "formal" one. He said he disagreed and would want that in a potential home because he wouldn't want to offend guests that would expect that kind of thing. I told him I wouldn't want that kind of person in my home, but the way you put it sums it up better
what, what? I guess i'm not running around in rarerified enough social circles to realize only 1 dining room is a social faux pas
Pretty sure this is referring to the presence of a casual eating area and a more formal dining room within the same home. Could be a breakfast nook, for example. The modern equivalent is island seating. Not such a big deal, IMO. But then, we love to feed people. Our (recycled wood, consignment store purchased) table seats 12. We almost never sit at the breakfast bar. Funny, the house is a greatroom design and they're right next to each other.
Nope, I actually was referring to a full-sized normal dining room as well as a larger fancier formal dining room, which is totally a thing among people with more money than brains
If someone who owned such a house entertained me in the lesser dining room, I'd be pissed off.
At myself.
For making friends with someone with more money than brains.
Lol, same. I haven't spent any time with that friend for ages, but he seems way more down to earth now, and nobody I know actually owns a place like that. I wouldn't want to hang out with anyone who thought they needed to spend waste that kind of money on something so useless just to impress rich people.
-
I think even the Biltmore estate, if you do not include the servants eating area, only has one dining room (Great Banquet Hall). Therefore I declare more than one dining room gauche (though it's OK to have dining room and also breakfast, eating nook in kitchen)
;)
mmm-good enough for the Biltmores, good enough for me-partgypsy
-
All it would take is to go to one of the big real estate listing websites and look at the most expensive houses for sale in your area. Do a personal website look-see that lasts until you don't care anymore...
The fanciest house for sale here ($1.3M and 6K sq ft) has in kitchen eating along the kitchen island, a "casual" dining area along the wall in the kitchen and then a formal dining room separate from the kitchen. Yep, I just lost interest. ;)
Edited b/c I temporarily forgot how to write in English.
-
I remember years ago talking with a friend (from a wealthy family) about house design and I mentioned that I could never understand people that have 2 dining rooms, like a regular one as well as a "formal" one. He said he disagreed and would want that in a potential home because he wouldn't want to offend guests that would expect that kind of thing. I told him I wouldn't want that kind of person in my home, but the way you put it sums it up better
what, what? I guess i'm not running around in rarerified enough social circles to realize only 1 dining room is a social faux pas
Pretty sure this is referring to the presence of a casual eating area and a more formal dining room within the same home. Could be a breakfast nook, for example. The modern equivalent is island seating. Not such a big deal, IMO. But then, we love to feed people. Our (recycled wood, consignment store purchased) table seats 12. We almost never sit at the breakfast bar. Funny, the house is a greatroom design and they're right next to each other.
Nope, I actually was referring to a full-sized normal dining room as well as a larger fancier formal dining room, which is totally a thing among people with more money than brains
If someone who owned such a house entertained me in the lesser dining room, I'd be pissed off.
At myself.
For making friends with someone with more money than brains.
Lol, same. I haven't spent any time with that friend for ages, but he seems way more down to earth now, and nobody I know actually owns a place like that. I wouldn't want to hang out with anyone who thought they needed to spend waste that kind of money on something so useless just to impress rich people.
Grew up in a home that had a separate living room and a formal dining table room and both were hardly ever used. My parents did entertain at least once a month and that was it, beyond that it was mostly a place for me to go to do homework as there wasn't a TV in that room but even then I preferred to do my work either in the basement, my bedroom, or in the study (which had a computer). Absolute waste of money imho.