Anyone else prefer smaller diamonds?

[Sam82]

Date: 10/21/2009 2:40:12 AM
Author: hihowareyou
I find this subject really interesting.


Size is relative.


Relative to financial position.

Relative to where you live.

Relative to age.

Relative to social status.


Compared to lots of the rings I see on these boards mine is small but in the context of where I live and the people I associate with 0.63ct is actually quite large.


I tried on larger stones and wasn''t comfortable with wearing them everyday. Partly due to carrying something worth that much around, partly due to the attention it would attract and partly due to guilt knowing that money could have been used on our home deposit.


I love the classic look to a small solitaire and my ring is perfect for me. I can see myself more willing to wear larger/more expensive stones in the future when I''ve graduated school (for the second time), can more easily afford it and belong to a social group that is more financially mature but I don''t think I''ll ever ''upgrade'' my e-ring.


In Australia small is more common too mostly I think due to inflated prices. I tried on a few 1ct rings in stores here and most were priced 20k+


Rings are so personal I say go with what you like and can afford, it doesn''t really matter what other people think.

I agree to an extent. I have had a couple of family members with a nice amount of money with small(er) rings (around .5 a carat). I also know someone with quite a bit of money who refuses to wear a diamond ring at all. She wears a plain gold band that was about $100 at the time of purchase. Her husband has offered to buy her diamond rings numerous times. She refuses. I would not assume much from the size of the ring.

On the flip side, there are young girls out there with large rings. Unfortunately, their fiances bought the ring on a credit card and will be paying for it for years to come. This is certainly not a sign of social status or money.

Thanks for bringing up your comments. When I started the thread, I was thinking about smaller stones from a purely aesthetic view.

 

[clgwli]

I think everyone has peronal tastes and obvious size differences. There are some people I have seen with a smaller ring size than I am wearing large stones that don''t overwhelm the finger. I know I''ve tried on large stones and they quickly overwhelm my shorter and thinner fingers. I have a lot of ''meat'' on the back of my hands so my fingers are even more narrow than the average size 4 out there. When you only have about 10mm to work with it is easy to run out of space.

I think it also depends on where you live. Even this part of the US anything above 1 carat is seen as huge. 1/2 carat is about average among all of my friends. There simply are just not a huge selection of over 1 carat rings in my area.

Same goes for earrings.

So it is a bunch of things IMO that makes someone pick a stone they like. I personally like smaller stones but at the same time I consider myself lucky. On my finger smaller stones look like they are much bigger than they are. That just means we can use money for other things. It does make it harder sometimes with finding good settings for a smaller stone, butin the end I love all that I have.

 

[lilyfoot]

Yes! I love "smaller" diamonds. For my personal wear, (size 6 finger), I wouldn''t want anything over 1 carat. Even being at 1 carat is pushing it.

However, it''s all relevant to the size of the finger, IMO. I don''t like trying to achieve full finger coverage with a center stone.

And I agree that it''s all about how you wear it! Someone with confidence can pull of anything (even that huge diamond bracelet someone posted on page 1)

 

[luv2sparkle]

My 2.57 looks smaller and smaller to me every day as well. My daughters 1.ct looks so very beautiful on her tiny fingers. Wish I had smaller fingers instead of a smaller diamond.

 

[mimesis22s]

I think that the social context does go far in informing one''s sensibility. Being someone on the cusp of marrying and being a bit older, it seems that the stone for my ostensible peer group would be nicer. The interesting thing is that while I have become a cut adherent (on the way to fanatic- I will only need to view the stone I have bought to ''flip''), many of the discussions I have viewed here on PS raise this question of size as the primary determining factor in the way we apprehend the stones that we wear or that we espy on the hands of other people.

Do we notice the size of the stone first or do we notice it because it sparkles so brilliantly? What is the balance between light performance and carat with respect to a stone being subtle or obvious? I know that as the guy buying for his girl, I have pondered this. I would want a significant but not too substantial size, one that wears well and has a supreme cut. I also think the size depends on how you set your first criteria. For me, it goes: D, clarity no lower than VS1, size range. Then I wean out the stones that were not well cut or possessed ideal or excellent polish and symmetry. So while size interjects itself sooner as a range, cut acts as the next important filter that leaves me with a handful or stones in the range, say 1.10 - 1.39. In my case, color is not a variable so it is most restrictive. For others color may be a range while size is a constant or close to it. Or someone might say, what is the biggest stone I can get for $2500, filter at eye-clean, and then balance color against cut and fluorescence.

This being said, for diamond owners, it appears that the only syndrome that affects the 4 Cs that warrant its own name is DSS. Should there be a DCS?

 

[lucyandroger]

I certainly prefer smaller diamonds. It''s not a cost thing. I''d rather have multiple smaller diamonds than one large if given the choice. I just don''t like the look of a huge stone on the finger. I was actually surprised because I always thought I would want a 2 carat stone but after trying one on I thought it just looked ridiculous on me.

 

[kenny]

Date: 10/21/2009 2:07:47 PM
Author: mimesis22s

Do we notice the size of the stone first or do we notice it because it sparkles so brilliantly?

What we notice is light.
A better cut diamond returns more light out the crown than a poorly cut one.
If both cut the same a larger diamond returns more light out the crown than a smaller one.

My opinion is cut is most important.
Large or small I'd only buy a well-cut diamond.

I would much rather have a well cut small one than a poorly cut big one.

 

[Dreamer1116]

Date: 10/20/2009 5:31:44 PM
Author: kenny
I agree.
Huge stones are gaudy.
Mine''s only 2.26.
I''d feel pretentious wearing anything much larger.

Hahaha! Most people would think 2.26 is pretty substantial. Gaudy?...absolutely not!!! Small???...not really...

 

[kenny]

Actually my post was meant to be tongue in cheek and to exemplify how it's all relative.

I wish I was wealthy enough that it seemed small to me.

In reality it was a major major splurge.

 

[Dreamer1116]

My engagement ring is 1.58 carats, but I am currently in the market for a .50-.60 H&A RB...So I love both, 1+ and those under 1 carat...cut is most important. I love diamonds!

 

[Dreamer1116]

Date: 10/21/2009 8:37:22 PM
Author: kenny
Actually my post was meant to be tongue in cheek and to exemplify how it''s all relative.

I wish I was wealthy enough that it seemed small to me.

In reality it was a major splurge.

Yeah...I got your humor...thought it was funny and cute!