Weddingbee boards

Im sorry!  I do think its most important that its the sentiment that counts It was his grandmas ring and he wanted you to have it. though I understand you wanting to have a real diamond.  It sounds like he didnt even know it was not a diamond until he took it to get it cleaned.  I agree with Ottowa that you can switch the main stone and keep the others as is.

I think you should have a long discussion with your FI to hash out your feelings.  I don't think the CZ vs diamond is the real issue here.  These days, you can get engaged with a piece of string tied around your finger, or with nothing at all.  It's not the ring that is the biggest issue IMO. 

I understand being upset that he kept something from you, but don't think there's any need to be embarassed about your ring.  It's worth noting that no one - not even you - knew the stone wasn't a diamond until he spilled the beans.

If you really want something different (since the heirloom ring wasn't necessarily your ideal ring) say, "I know that the heirloom ring is important to you, but I think it's also important to start some new traditions. I'd like to pick out another ring that we can then pass down to our children." And then wear the heirloom to special family events on his side or as a "vacation ring" (i have a CZ that I pull out when we're going on a trip so I don't worry about losing it).

If what @monitajb says is correct about the CZ not becoming gem quality until 1976, then you don't have an heirloom ring - it's a fake diamond and a fake heirloom. I'm so sorry this happened to you, and it's completely understandable that you would feel humiliated after showing all your family and friends this ring. You should have a discussion with your FI, of course, and assess for yourself whether you think he is being completely honest that he had no idea the ring was a fake. If you think he's genuinely upset and feels just as scammed as you do, then just try to let it be water under the bridge and go enjoy picking out a new ring together.

PS Any ring you receive, in fact any piece of fine jewelry at all, should come to you with a signed appraisal by the jeweler. That way you know exactly what you own. This is important not just to avoid these kinds of surprises, but for insurance in the unfortunate event of theft later on. Know what you own!

I'd say a ring over thirty years old - one that had emotional significance to the wearer and to others in the family - counts as an heirloom not matter what its materials.

@teaadntoast Good point. I myself am proudly wearing an heirloom stone that was FI's mother's original engagement stone, purchased in the 1970s. What I meant was that this ring cannot possibly be his grandmother's engagement ring; it was in fact a ring that she received very late in life. There's certainly value in that, but the confusion over the origin of the ring combined with the fact that it is CZ can turn this into a very confusing situation. Of course there's no reason why an engagement ring has to have a real diamond, but CZ is a stone sold with the purpose of tricking people into thinking it is a diamond. I can understand how you would want the symbol of your engagement to be something that doesn't pretend to be something it isn't. If cost is an issue, perhaps some other beautiful stone would be appropriate!

I agree with pudding.  And while the stone might not be an heirloom, I disagree with littlestbird, that a CZ means the entire ring is a fake.  It might be as others have said that the setting is real, but the stone has been replaced for whatever reason. 

I understand frustration that he could have told you sooner.  But keep in mind that he didn't know when he gave it to you.  (Even though he found out shortly after.  Even worse, you were still gushing about it.)  I don't think you should necessarily have the stone replaced.  First, I think your FI should do some research.  Have him talk to his mom or dad about what they know about the ring.  Maybe they can vouch for it being x amount of years old.  I don't know how old qualifies for antiuqe, but I doubt 30 years does.  (So I think that if the CZ is original, or the parents can't recall this ring beyond thirty years, it wouldn't be a genuine antique.  But nevertheless it was grandma's and still sentimental to them.  So tread lightly.)  But if his parents recall this ring "ever since they can remember" type situation, now you're talking around 50+ years. 

Or take it to a jeweler to help you figure out the setting.  If the ring is original and the stone fake, then I'd consider replacing the stone.  But I'd honestly have FI talk to his family about whether or not they care.  I know it's yours now.  And if the stone is fake, I don't think they'll care.  But it might rub the family the wrong way, just to see the ring change.  (Like you just don't like it.)

Another thing you could do is just get a new ring.  And use the CZ as a good reason why you grandma's ring isn't working.  You could either wear grandma's ring on a different finger, or perhaps FI can smooth it over, such that he gives it back to his parents, if it works better for everoyne.  (Maybe mom doesn't want it tampered with and you'd prefer a real diamond.  You also said the ring wasn't your style.)

Just some thoughts to consider.

I agree with trailmix. I don't think that the original poster needs to be reminded that she should be grateful to have a good relationship or made to feel selfish, as though she's simply whining about wanting a bigger diamond or something. Being misled about the symbol of your engagement is hurtful and humiliating, and it's perfectly valid to be feeling that way. I hope that you and your FI can discuss this and come to understand the way that each other is feeling, and come out with a solution and an even stronger bond as a result of having gone through this. Good luck!

Being hurt and disappointed is totally understandable in this situation.  Perhaps people are just responding to the use of the word "real" in the OP, since it does sound a bit as though the ring is being equated with the engagement? That's not how it was meant it though, I think.