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.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.
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.