You've probably heard it before: an engagement ring should cost around two or three months of your salary. It sounds like an old tradition, the kind of rule that's just always existed. Except it hasn't, and it's worth knowing where it actually came from before you let it shape your budget.
Where the rule actually came from?
This wasn't handed down through generations; it was a marketing slogan. De Beers ran advertising campaigns through the twentieth century specifically designed to set a spending benchmark for engagement rings, and the salary rule was a core part of that messaging. It worked brilliantly, and decades later, plenty of people still repeat it as though it's an unwritten rule rather than a line dreamed up in an advertising meeting.
Why it doesn't actually make sense
Salaries vary wildly depending on where you live, what industry you're in, and what stage of your career you're at. A rule built around income rather than genuine budget or the actual couple involved was never really designed with any individual in mind; it was designed to sell more diamonds, and it worked exactly as intended.
What should actually guide your budget instead?
The honest answer is simply what you can comfortably afford, without financial strain, and what genuinely feels right for you and your relationship. Some people prioritise a larger stone; others prefer a smaller diamond and a more elaborate setting; and plenty choose to put their money elsewhere entirely and buy a simpler ring instead. None of these choices is wrong.
What actually matters more than the price tag
A ring chosen because it means something to the two of you will always mean more than one bought purely to hit an arbitrary spending target—quality, craftsmanship and how a piece is sourced matter far more than matching a decades-old advertising slogan.
If you're ready to shop with a real budget in mind, not a marketing myth, visit Azzallure. We'll help you find something that actually fits your life, not a rule someone else invented to sell more diamonds.