|
Meow Cadet posted:Got married on a whim the other day (after being together almost 20 years). Cost about $150 (license, ceremony, parking) at the county clerk's office. We saved $28 by meeting another couple in the waiting room and offering to be each others witnesses. It was quick, easy, no-fuss, and perfect! Aaaaand I just found out I have a middle name I was unaware of. So now I have to spend $700 for a legal name change to match what is on my marriage license. 
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2010 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 18:53 |
|
|
yawnie posted:Did anybody else really loving regret the decision to ever have bridesmaids? Teacher mode time  They're not getting consequences for not getting their poo poo done on time. I'd frankly tell them that if they don't at least respond your emails, that you'll be dropping them from the bridal party. And then DO IT. And if they get all remorseful/mad, find some other spot for them - cake cutter, toast-person, whatever else happens at weddings. If you don't let people walk all over you you can't ever become a bridezilla 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 00:59
|
|
|
yawnie posted:Did anybody else really loving regret the decision to ever have bridesmaids? Do you not have a best friend/ Maid of Honor out of the bunch that can take over the phone tree for you and whip everybody in to shape? I think one phone call to the girl you're closest to, complaining about the rest, should do it. Give her their numbers and have her guilt them into emailing you back confirming they all have the dress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 01:29
|
|
|
yawnie posted:Did anybody else really loving regret the decision to ever have bridesmaids? I had a similar problem where my fiance has more potential groomsmen than I would have bridesmaids and it somehow spiraled into the craziest poo poo. Apparently, the bridesmaids order is a ranking on how much you love and value their friendship.  In addition to that clusterfuck, somehow the word spread I needed more bridesmaids and random relatives would call and essentially try to bribe/beg their way into the wedding party.Thankfully, I asked my fiance if we could cut it to just having a best man/maid of honor and he agreed. My sister basically became my no bridesmaids scapegoat because who is going to try and usurp her? In addition to being cheaper, it's so much easier dealing with one person acting like a bitch instead of 5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 02:12
|
|
|
I've got the same problem, too many groomsmen and not enough bridesmaids. I only got engaged a month ago and I'm starting to worry about this already. My fiance has a brother and half brother and several friends he wants as groomsmen, and I have a brother and only a few girlfriends who I'd want to be bridesmaids. My best friend from high school and university who I originally wanted as MOH is going to med school in Australia now so I don't even know if she will be able to make it to the wedding at all. We sort of planned to be each other's MOH a long time ago but now we're still friends but we obviously don't see each other and don't talk as much and she won't actually be in the country when I'm planning my wedding. There is someone else I'd like to ask but I feel obligated to my old friend. Right now I really wish I had a sister. Would it be weird if I had a few bridesmaids and one bridesman? I'd really like my brother to be in the wedding party but my fiance is already having a hard time narrowing down his groomsmen without adding my brother in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 17:05
|
|
|
Caramaline posted:Would it be weird if I had a few bridesmaids and one bridesman? We had the same problem on the opposite side and ended up having my sister with the groomsmen. We got a few funny looks and my mother-in-law was weird about it at first, but I think it turned out well and she was really happy to be included in the wedding party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
When my aunt and uncle got married, my new aunt had her brother as a bridesman, and it was fine. I thought it was sweet, and not weird at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 19:41
|
|
|
uberwekkness posted:When my aunt and uncle got married, my new aunt had her brother as a bridesman, and it was fine. I thought it was sweet, and not weird at all. My fiance and I both have a good friend of the opposite sex that we are going to have in the wedding party. Mine will stand on my side as a "groomsmen" and hers on her side as a "brides maid". My question is, how did you address them in the program? Did you refer to them as normal "groomsmen" and "brides maids" or did you give a certain title or explanation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
AzCoug posted:My fiance and I both have a good friend of the opposite sex that we are going to have in the wedding party. Mine will stand on my side as a "groomsmen" and hers on her side as a "brides maid". Couldn't you just list them under a generic "Wedding Party" heading?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 22:04
|
|
|
Caramaline posted:Would it be weird if I had a few bridesmaids and one bridesman? I had two bridesmaids and a bridesman. I decided I'd rather have a close male friend stand up with me than a female acquaintance. No one thought it was weird except for one of the groomsmen who kept making embarrassingly terrible jokes about it. The bridesman wore the same tux as the groomsmen and didn't carry a bouquet or anything. He was very cool about it and got lots of attention from ladies at the reception who thought it was sweet of him. To whoever asked about invitations: whatever you do, don't go through Hallmark. We ordered our invites from them way in advance and thank goodness we did because they hosed them up twice. The first time they came out great except they said we were getting married in 2017 instead of 2007. The second time the date was corrected but the ink was so faint you could barely read it. The third printing finally got it right and they gave us a significant discount for our trouble, but with all the stress of planning a wedding I would have rather it been done right the first time. If we had waited any longer to order them they would have gone out way too close to the wedding date.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2010 22:11
|
|
|
So a question about rings. I am helping a jewelry-challenged buddy of mine shop for an engagement ring. He wants a nice, simple ring with a synthetic emerald or green tourmaline that costs under 500 dollars - she's a simple gal (and a good friend of mine also) and would care more about the thought he put into it and the actual appearance than the price tag or having a huge diamond. Unfortunately it seems like any time you tack "engagement" onto the description of a ring, the price doubles for no discernible reason. So my question: is it some kind of faux pas to buy a regular ol' ring and present it as an engagement ring? Is there some kind of "tell" I haven't picked up on or is this just kind of a scam ala DeBeers? Also, can anyone suggest a good site for shopping for something like this? I checked the ones in the OP, but most of them are pretty damned expensive or don't have anything he's looking for. So far the best one I've found is ice.com, but he'd like more options before settling on anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 11:08
|
|
|
Someone mentioned Wedding Paper Divas and I would have to second them for online invitations. They're kinda pricey but the quality was very good. We used Vistaprint twice for other, less major things and one of those orders was completely hosed up (gibberish instead of text.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 15:51
|
|
|
Reene posted:Unfortunately it seems like any time you tack "engagement" onto the description of a ring, the price doubles for no discernible reason. So my question: is it some kind of faux pas to buy a regular ol' ring and present it as an engagement ring? Is there some kind of "tell" I haven't picked up on or is this just kind of a scam ala DeBeers? I think whatever faux pas you'd be worrying about pulling would already have been tripped by not going with a diamond. If she's cool with another stone, she'll be cool with a ring that doesn't have a little tag that says "FOR ENGAGEMENT" on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 15:51
|
|
|
About the invites: I did some serious shopping around before we actually settled on the one we did. Wedding Paper Divas and pretty much all the other major invite places were twice or three times what we actually spent on our invitations. Literally. I went to a brick & mortar party store, and we went through the books there. Sure, it's a daunting task, for sure. But it was a lot cheaper. And on top of them being cheaper across the board anyway, we did some shopping around to see when and where we could get the best discount on top of it all. We picked a Birchcraft design (btw, you can pull up Birchcraft on a lot of different websites to get an idea of what they look like, too.) and went shopping around to find a store that carried our invite. In the end, I got in contact with an old friend from college who gave us a 20% discount, plus hooked us up with a couple other little things. Our budget was something like $600-800, and we wound up paying something like $350, including all our thank yous, and with inner envelopes with liners that matched the ink color and blah blah blah. They're very traditional, though, so keep that in mind. But yeah, it pays to go b&m, because even without the discount, they still would have been well under the $600 mark, when most of the sites we were looking at online actually put our numbers well over $1000. efb: Brick & mortar stores are worth checking into because you can definitely get good deals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 19:03
|
|
|
Reene posted:Unfortunately it seems like any time you tack "engagement" onto the description of a ring, the price doubles for no discernible reason. So my question: is it some kind of faux pas to buy a regular ol' ring and present it as an engagement ring? Is there some kind of "tell" I haven't picked up on or is this just kind of a scam ala DeBeers? In the land of fine jewelry $500 doesn't buy much. It's sad but true. There is no engagement scam - It's just very difficult to make a beautiful ring in good quality that can sell for $500. Gold is expensive now, labor is costly, etc. I'd suggest that he go see his local retail jeweler - They may have some pieces in stock that they wouldn't mind selling for little profit just to move them out the door.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 19:47
|
|
|
On ring insurance: I just received a ring from JamesAllen.com and I'm going to have it insured through Jeweler's Mutual Insurance. I note that I need a ring appraisal to pick up the insurance, and how handy, JA included an appraisal with the ring, which is pretty convenient. However, I'm wondering if I should get a second opinion - did anyone else with experience buying from JA get a second appraisal, and if so, how did it compare to the one James Allen provided? I note that the appraisal they gave is actually a good bit more than what I paid for the ring.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 20:07
|
|
|
JA writes the appraisals based on what the price would be at a retail store. Brick and Mortar operations have higher costs so they tend to be more expensive than online sellers. ...and most jewelers inflate their appraisals to make customers feel good. That said, you won't need a second appraisal. Jewelers Mutual will accept the JA appraisal for insurance coverage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
Reene posted:So a question about rings. I am helping a jewelry-challenged buddy of mine shop for an engagement ring. He wants a nice, simple ring with a synthetic emerald or green tourmaline that costs under 500 dollars - she's a simple gal (and a good friend of mine also) and would care more about the thought he put into it and the actual appearance than the price tag or having a huge diamond. I would imagine that would be up to the person receiving the ring. There aren't any jewelry police that are going to cart your friend off for getting engaged with a regular ring. If she's already the type that isn't worried about price tags/having a huge rock, I doubt she'll care about that either (you know her better than I do though).My parents were broke when they got engaged, so my dad ended up buying a (relatively affordable) promise ring and proposed with that. They've been married 30 years so far and my mom still wears it everyday.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 23:03
|
|
|
Meefy Bread posted:On ring insurance: I just received a ring from JamesAllen.com and I'm going to have it insured through Jeweler's Mutual Insurance. I note that I need a ring appraisal to pick up the insurance, and how handy, JA included an appraisal with the ring, which is pretty convenient. However, I'm wondering if I should get a second opinion - did anyone else with experience buying from JA get a second appraisal, and if so, how did it compare to the one James Allen provided? I note that the appraisal they gave is actually a good bit more than what I paid for the ring. James Allen appraises for about 50% above the retail value, give or take.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 04:10
|
|
|
I guess I can start posting here because as of last week I'm officially engaged Here's my pretty, pretty ring (it's an aquamarine):  And yeah, it's only been a week but I'm already sick of the "WHEN IS THE WEDDING" questions. Seriously, lay off, people. yawnie posted:Did anybody else really loving regret the decision to ever have bridesmaids? You're not being a bridezilla. This sort of crap is why I don't think I'll be having bridesmaids, but I think it's going to be one of the biggest sources of stress for me (apart from my mum continually harping on about how big my fiance's family is and how are we all going to fit in one place). Ideally if I was having bridesmaids, I'd want two max, but I'd like to have Friend 1 (who is super super enthusiastic), Friend 2, my sister and one of my fiance's sisters who I'm close to. Unfortunately my fiance has two other sisters, and they're a really close family so I don't think I can just exclude them (and I don't want 6 people). And I can't just have my sister without having all of his three there...and I can't just have friends and not my sister...so I guess I'll have none 
Jumpsuit fucked around with this message at 09:17 on Nov 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 09:15
|
|
|
I had my sister as my maid of honor and not my husband's. It's totally doable. The bridal party is traditionally people you are close to and related to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 14:40
|
|
|
Jumpsuit posted:I guess I can start posting here because as of last week I'm officially engaged Your ring is lovely I'm in a somewhat similar situation with the bridesmaids. I would love to stick to one attendant for each of us, and I only have one sister and could probably get away with that, but my fiance has 4 brothers, which seriously complicates things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 15:54
|
|
|
If anyone is thinking of having like a super chill and fun wedding, try doing it without having a dinner as part of the reception, etc. We did that with my wedding (went straight from the ceremony to mingling and drinks with desserts and snacks served and then to dancing) and people loved it and commented on how fun everything was. Obviously not everyone will want to do the same or feel comfortable with that, but it worked out really well and we had no complaints, and lots of people telling us how fun it was the best wedding they've been to. But yeah gently caress it, do whatever YOU want to do. Want to have 1 bridesmaid and 4 groomsmen? Do it and don't worry about what people think! Or if you're not comfortable, don't do it, whatever. There's always a bunch of outside pressure to do things a certain way, and to conform to a general template of how stuff goes in weddings...and if you like that, then awesome! If you don't, then do whatever YOU like and don't worry about it I'm just happy to be out from under the wedding planning cloud, and we had a fairly untraditional setup and execution of ours, including wedding party, but it worked great even though at times we worried about the pressure about this or that from people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
Levitate posted:If anyone is thinking of having like a super chill and fun wedding, try doing it without having a dinner as part of the reception, etc. We did that with my wedding (went straight from the ceremony to mingling and drinks with desserts and snacks served and then to dancing) and people loved it and commented on how fun everything was. I honestly didn't even consider not having food as an option until just now. I like the way you think!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 20:04
|
|
|
Levitate posted:If anyone is thinking of having like a super chill and fun wedding, try doing it without having a dinner as part of the reception, etc. This is what we're planning on doing; we're having a ton of appetizers, dessert, and drinks. Our families don't really know each other since they live on different sides of the country, and I know my end of the family will sit in their dinner chairs and never get up unless forced to. We're providing some seating, obviously, but trying to keep people moving around with our layout. There's a little resistance from the 'traditional-only' contingent, but I think it will make for a more engaging party, which is what we want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 21:46
|
|
|
^^^ Yeah, this exactly (though we didn't really have much pushback, if any). We wanted people to mingle and have fun and dance and just have a partydopaMEAN posted:I honestly didn't even consider not having food as an option until just now. I like the way you think! I mean, we still had some stuff. Desserts from a really good restaurant we love, and they provided snacks like cheese and crackers and popcorn, etc. But without the sit down dinner, it seemed to give everything a more relaxed atmosphere. The desserts were at a table and the restaurant had people restocking and bringing different stuff out at different times, etc. It also helped that our space wasn't really quite big enough to do a sit down for everyone, but we had pretty much decided not to do that anyways, before we settled on a location Levitate fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Nov 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 21:48
|
|
|
BadSamaritan posted:There's a little resistance from the 'traditional-only' contingent, but I think it will make for a more engaging party, which is what we want. If you really want to own these people just tell them that the sit-down dinner reception is a relatively recent American invention and that a cake and punch/cocktail reception is more "traditional." This has the added benefit of being true!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 22:30
|
|
|
Why does OP poo-poo diamond simulants? I never understood the appeal of diamonds. It's the female version of a penis wag. Convince me otherwise. If you have a good CZ (like from one of the places you said to stay away from) set in a QUALITY made ring, the only way you can tell a difference is with a test instrument - which kind of negates the fact that the rings SOLE purpose - look pretty. Unless you plan on doing some drilling with it? Resale? Really want to go there with me? Answer me this... why do jewelery stores ALWAYS sell their diamonds for less than what they're appraised at? My bride proudly wears a 3Ct simulant and even jewelers cannot visually tell a difference. We both make good money and could have afforded the 'real thing', but there are so many other things we would rather spend that $30,000 on. (like I dunno.. 10% down on a house?). Diamonds are artificially inflated in price, destroy the earth being mined, finance human slavery/genocide in Africa, and are visually identical to a piece of glass. The only reason they are considered so 'beautiful' is because they're so (artificially) expensive. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them OP. Convince me otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 23:02
|
|
|
Maybe you should read the OP closer? It doesn't dismiss simulants, it dismisses simulants that are advertised as diamond or synthetic diamond. In short, it's dismissing people who are trying to bullshit you into spending more money. There's lots of people in this thread who have synthetics, simulants and alternative stones that are very happy with their purchases. Don't come in and crucify people without knowing all of the facts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 23:08
|
|
|
phlick posted:Why does OP poo-poo diamond simulants? OP "controversy" aside. I agree!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 23:32
|
|
|
Rootbeer Baron pretty much said it. There are man-made (lab created) diamonds out there, but they are rare and rarely white. A few of the websites I listed lead you to believe that they are man-made diamonds and not fancy CZ or another alternate. I think it's dishonest and you pay way more than you should for a simulant. If you notice, I also list places where you can get good simulants at good prices. I have a simulant, as do many people who have posted. I would venture to say that a good half or more of the people who have posted are proud of owners simulants, other precious gems, and bands rather than the traditional diamond engagement ring. I know I need to update the OP, maybe start a new thread to organize links a bit better but I don't disagree with you AzCoug.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 23:51
|
|
|
Reading closer: STAY AWAY FROMhttp://www.diamondnexuslabs.com or http://www.betterthandiamond.com - These are diamond simulants, meaning you pay way too much for fancy glass. Wow, sounds like a dismissal to me. I don't see anything above regarding the sites advertising their merch as diamonds or synth diamonds. (That's another discussion I'd be happy to have though). Maybe you should read my question closer and stop trying to crucify me for asking a pretty simple question. I'm just wondering why the OP specifically steers people away from these sites - and as I read it - from simulants. Granted I haven't read the past 100 pages of the thread, and maybe it's been discussed already. The only people I've run into in my diamond shopping experience who were trying to bullshit me into spending more money were the jewelers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2010 23:55
|
|
|
Thanks Gravitee- You replied before I did, so please disregard my previous. I've done a LOT of research in synthetics. diamondnexuslabs was (successfully) sued by betterthandiamonds because they (DNL) were advertising their stones as something other than CZ, when they weren't. Betterthandiamonds (BTD) was shown to be different than a CZ. In a court of law. It's silly that it's come to this - I mean we're talking about ROCKS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 00:02
|
|
|
As a diamond seller I've heard both sides of this argument a hundred times. Both of those products were marketed as CZ's with an amorphous synthetic diamond (or sapphire) coating likely applied with a vapor deposition process. Only one was - DNL's product was shown to be common CZ's. So someone was obviously lying. But what about the BTD coating? Consumers are told that the coating improves the stone and adds features not found with the host CZ material. But here's the rub... many labs disagree on the benefits, if any, that the coatings provide to the CZ on which they're applied. Some gemological labs with Raman Spectroscopy machines are unable to detect a synthetic diamond coating at all. You have to be looking for it to find it. From the gem labs I have dealt with (several) the consensus is that the coatings provide no benefit. Zero. And remember that in some cases it is undetectable. That is directly contrary to the claims that BTD makes. From their website: "The ADT of Asha offers additional hardness, toughness and scratch resistance." In my personal opinion that is a lie for the sole goal of selling an inferior product as a superior one. phlick, it doesn't bother me that your girlfriend/fiance/wife was happy with a BTD CZ. CZ's are pretty synthetics, and they don't cost much. When your CZ has gotten roughed up you will have plenty of money to buy a new one. But some people prefer to buy items with permanence. They spend more money for an item that will stand the test of time. I recently handled a diamond engagement ring made in the 1920's. Worn every day for 80 years and it looked like it had just been made. You won't get that permanence with a CZ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 00:58
|
|
|
I find it hard to believe that an 80 year old ring that was worn every day looks as good as the day it was made. Especially coming from a jeweler. I personally know how well Gold wears. (not very). Now if you're talking solely about the diamond, that's another story I suppose, but from what I understand CZ is just as hard (8.0-8.5 on the Mohs scale) as an emerald or aquamarine... do these stones also need to be replaced every few years? Is that what you're saying?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 01:42
|
|
|
phlick posted:I find it hard to believe that an 80 year old ring that was worn every day looks as good as the day it was made. Especially coming from a jeweler. I personally know how well Gold wears. (not very). Now if you're talking solely about the diamond, that's another story I suppose, but from what I understand CZ is just as hard (8.0-8.5 on the Mohs scale) as an emerald or aquamarine... do these stones also need to be replaced every few years? Is that what you're saying? I still have my grandmother's wedding bands (also made of gold, 18K) and they look beautiful still. She wore them for 60 years. They're not scratched, dirty, etc. Gold rings are usually an alloy, of course, and they're not 24K because they'd damage like crazy. As for the diamond. JohnnyRnR would probably be better to answer that question. However you do know that CZs are coated with a varnish (I'm no diamond dealer so I have no clue what exactly it is). Sure the CZ is hard enough to not break in most cases, but give the thing 5 - 10 years and it'll look dull, and there's really no way to fix it except buy a new one. Also, I don't think you should be so quick to 'poo-poo' diamonds, either. I've got a (Canadian, FWIW) diamond and the big thing for me wasn't the size. It was the quality. We're both students and I know my fiancé definitely spent less than 5K on my ring. I couldn't be happier with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 01:55
|
|
|
phlick posted:I find it hard to believe that an 80 year old ring that was worn every day looks as good as the day it was made. Especially coming from a jeweler. I personally know how well Gold wears. (not very). Now if you're talking solely about the diamond, that's another story I suppose, but from what I understand CZ is just as hard (8.0-8.5 on the Mohs scale) as an emerald or aquamarine... do these stones also need to be replaced every few years? Is that what you're saying? They're all around 8. Do they need to be replaced every few years? Depends. Aquamarine and emeralds are both prone to scratching and shattering on impact. Most people don't wear them on a regular basis, though. Ask the above poster with an aquamarine engagement ring in a few years, I suppose, and you'll find an answer. A sapphire might be a better choice if you are so inclined, but then a sapphire is a sapphire. Otherwise there isn't much of a purpose in arguing these points. There's no reason that anyone must have a diamond - it just depends on if you want one. I agree with JohnnyRnR that a diamond will last longer and has certain visual qualities that make it unique - and yes, even distinguishable from a CZ. But whether those subtle qualities make any difference to you is another matter entirely, as you can always buy another CZ in 2, 5 or 20 years. Low Carb Bread fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Nov 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 02:10
|
|
|
phlick posted:I find it hard to believe that an 80 year old ring that was worn every day looks as good as the day it was made. Especially coming from a jeweler. I personally know how well Gold wears. (not very). That is an insulting stereotype. From this and your previous post it seems you have the opinion that all jewelers will lie to steal your money. It's obvious that you have little experience in fine jewelry and have likely never dealt with a jeweler of quality. For durability; I can say that the wedding band I wear daily was made c. 1720 and has aged gracefully. It is still in exceptional condition. Quality construction is worth a significant premium to those people who care about such things. Emeralds are soft enough that we discourage customers to wear important emeralds on their fingers. An occasional wear is fine, but an emerald ring worn daily will typically not last long. They are very fragile due to the softness of the material and the jardin structure may negatively contribute to durability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 02:59
|
|
|
Levitate posted:If anyone is thinking of having like a super chill and fun wedding, try doing it without having a dinner as part of the reception, etc. We did that with my wedding (went straight from the ceremony to mingling and drinks with desserts and snacks served and then to dancing) and people loved it and commented on how fun everything was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 18:53 |
|
|
Oh my god, I'm posting in this thread. So freaking excited. Anyway, my boyfriend asked tonight if I'd mind getting engaged sooner and went on to say that he knows we wanted to live together first but he wants me to have a ring. And since we have plans to move in together in March, this has made it a lot more concrete. Holy god. I've known this was going to happen since our first date. But anyway, I've talked to some of my friends who 'get' my fashion style about going to some stores and seeing what I like and what I hate, and then have them go along with Chris to help him pick out the ring, and they're both more than happy to. But I know from the bits of info he's spilled out when he was incredibly drunk that he wants to get me something I can brag about. I responded that I'll be bragging anyway because it'll be a ring from him and that's more than enough, but I still think he's going to pay more than he should. How does one go about delicately getting a budget?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2010 05:39
|
|
