Here at HELLO! HQ, there's nothing we love like a celebrity wedding, so it was with full hearts and much office excitement that we shared a photo of Jennifer Garner's supposed engagement ring earlier this week.
The Five Star Weekend actress was wearing the beautiful ring on the third finger of her right hand in a post on Instagram, but it wasn't an engagement announcement like we've come to expect from newly engaged A-listers. Instead, she was sharing comments from her fans about her latest TV show, and her ring just happened to be in shot.
© InstagramSo far, so modest, wouldn't you agree? My colleague Faye certainly thought so, when she penned a piece about Jennifer's 'modest $250K' ring, with her headline of choice ruffling feathers among our readers.
"A quarter of a million dollars engagement ring it NOT modest - it really, really isn't," one wrote. Another added: "$250,000 is modest? LOL," while a third commented: "You're seriously claiming $250,000 is somehow 'modest' for an engagement ring? In what normal world? Many people's homes cost less than that."
© InstagramBut I'm with Faye on this one. Hear me out. I'm not totally out of touch with the world; I know that is a hugely expensive piece of jewellery. But it isn't to Jennifer's betrothed, businessman John Miller, who clearly has plenty of cash to spend on his love. Plus, compared to other A-list engagement rings, it's not a completely insane amount of money...
Besides, while the price might be eye-watering for us mere mortals, Faye was calling Jen's ring modest in comparison to the whopper she wore when she was engaged to Ben Affleck.
© FilmMagicBen proposed in 2005 with a 4.5-carat cushion-cut diamond, flanked by baguette side stones. It was reportedly worth around $500,000 – making $250,000 seem relatively modest, wouldn't you say? And that's before we get on to the ring Ben proposed to his other Jennifer – Lopez, that is – in 2022, getting down on one knee with a green diamond valued between $5 million and $5.6 million. Maybe inflation was what made it so much more money…
© InstagramWhat's modest about Jennifer Garner's engagement ring?
It's not just the price point that's modest about Jennifer's new engagement ring (the third one she's had, lucky lady), though.
The ring itself is understated too. In a world of outlandish celebrity engagement rings (Taylor Swift, I'm looking at you and your ring, valued at between $1million to $5 million. I suppose when the ring is above a million, what's the difference between one and five?), Jennifer's is modest, with the simple setting creating a refined ring.
© InstagramModest doesn't have to mean small or humble. In this instance, the ring is understated. It's a piece of jewellery Jennifer can wear every day, even when she's working on her 20-acre farm in Oklahoma, which she often shares on Instagram.
© Getty Images for Once Upon A FarModest doesn't mean small or cheap
The readers who are up in arms about Faye's use of the word modest are clearly taking the term as derogatory, but really, she was simply saying it's a classic, understated ring, which perfectly suit Jennifer's unshowy, down-to-earth lifestyle.
If she'd said it was a 'budget-friendly' ring, I think there would be cause for complaint, but everything from Jen's inadvertent sharing of the news, to the remarkably wearable ring given to her by her partner all scream 'modest' – and isn't her lowkey way of living what people love about Jen Garner the most?
Her Instagram posts are always awash with praise for how down-to-earth she is. "Thank you for being you!" and "Beautiful inside and out," fans coo, and a flashier ring would have been at odds with this.
In summary. Yes, Jen's ring is modest; money doesn't come into it. It's an elegant, timeless ring, just like the wearer herself.
