> > Well, we're primarily waiting until we're able to afford a nice wedding like we want, which we can't do right now. And until we can afford a honeymoon. And especially the rings. They're expensive. Otherwise we'd probably have tied the knot already.
> >
> > ~Mina
>
> May I put forth a small suggestion about the rings?
>
> Several of my friends went all-out and ordered expensive wedding rings for themselves, which they now never wear. The ring design either turned out to be lovely but highly uncomfortable -- or the fitter misjudged the size being too loose, so they're now afraid the $$$ rings will fall off down a drain if they do wear them.
>
> Rings are significant part of your wedding day, but after all they ARE just a symbolic gesture of your new life together. I think -- if you'll be anything like me and want to wear your rings all the time after the wedding -- then you might as well marry symbol to practical substance. For example, my Dave bought me a lovely 18K gold ring for $59 at a Consumer Distributor's Super Liquidation sale. I bought him a 10K gold band for $46 at Sear's. The gold is traditional, and they look exactly like the greatly overpriced expensive ones. It turns out I misjudged Dave's ring, though... men's rings should be wider than ladies' so the band doesn't cut into the skin. So earlier this year I bought him a $17 sterling silver band with intricate little birds, salamanders, and other animals cut completely through the silver and yet the band is still rounded and comfortably smooth. He likes it.
>
> Of course, this type of approach may not work for you; and if you find my presumption insulting, then I apologize. Just wanted to suggest that money need never be the main object holding anyone back from tying the knot with the one they love.
>
> Wolf "Any other reasons for not wearing one's wedding rings that I missed?" spirit


I borrowed ten bucks from my best man to pay the preacher. Money shouldn't be a problem.
Howard