Thrify engagement ring, or cheap fiancé?

I was on the Swarovski website looking for inspiration, and found some lovely rings. Swarovski crystal is la crème de la crème of crystals, and the price reflects its quality and design. It has stunning crystals, most often set in gold or white gold (also known as rhodium plated gold). Its workmanship certainly matches that of gemstone jewellery.

I was drooling over some cocktail rings, when I saw these three rings, two of which look like engagement rings, and one like a wedding band.

(A traditional looking engagement ring.)

(A very large ring ... one that is probably too large for most people's tastes.)

(A popular style of wedding band.)

Think of the pros of crystal:

• Avoid diamonds, which avoids all the potential social issues surrounding diamonds (though I did this post a while back to address socially responsible diamonds, crystals are another way to ensure you are avoiding "conflict diamonds")
• Actually be able to afford the ring (particularly a bonus for couples on a restricted budget)
• Have something a little different without skimping on quality

The biggest con? It isn't a diamond. Or even any precious gemstone. And that is a big deal to lots of people. The diamond on our fingers is, to many of us (if not most of us) a social symbol, a status of what our fiancé can afford, the equivalent to a man's muscle car or model train collection or whatever other expensive collection or trinkets some other people (often, though not always, men) use to show off status.

So I ask ...
Do you think a crystal engagement ring would be thrifty and creative in these times, or just plain cheap?