Do you have a CS weight minimum?

[Indylady]

Is there a minimum carat weight you prefer not to dip under? Is there a weight/mm size that you think is a "sweet spot"?

I generally like petite stones. I'm trying to break out of my comfort zone, and have vowed not to go under a carat for my next purchase. My ring size is a 5; I'm thinking that I'd like my next purchase to be over 1ct but under 2cts. I'm looking forward to reading your responses!

 

[chrono]

When I first started out, 1 ct was my sweet spot. About 2 years later, 2 ct seemed about right. A couple more years later, anything under 3 ct seems sort of smallish. And now, 4 to 5 carats seems about right. No one seems to talk about it, but coloured stoners also experience the gemstone shrinkage syndrome. In terms of mm measurement, anything around 10mm is just right. And this is coming from someone who wears size 4.5 rings.

 

[Kismet]

Not really. I buy and wear smaller stones as well as larger stones. My smallest is my .13 carat red beryl which will probably not be set by itself. I would probably think more about buying an expensive smaller stone than I would and expensive larger stone though.

 

[Indylady]

Tell me about it, Chrono! I'm feelin' a bit of CSSS . When I bought my Barry ruby, a half carat felt perfect. I never thought I'd want anything more! Should I just amp it up to a 3-4 carat stone so that I don't have to go through the progression of CSSS, or will that just mean that I'll want a 5ct stone soon after?

Kismet, I remember that Barry bixbite! Do you have setting plans? I've seen about a 1ct red beryl in person, and the glow was awe-inspiring.

Do you all ever get the feeling of "power" from a large-ish stone? I'm not referring to supernatual powers; rather, a feeling of: confidence, and "power" in a strictly mortal sense. When I see a large-ish, fine quality center stone, it nearly always makes me do a double take.

Fine gems, and rings, are often portrayed as bearing powers. Lord of the Rings, Stardust, etc. Maybe that symbolism has carried over, so that I get the same feeling when I see a fine ring IRL?

 

[packrat]

I'm kinda in the bigger is better camp. I like the big noticeable color. My 3 stone when it's done is going to be pretty large and I'm super excited! For a solitaire I don't think I'd want anything less than 7mm.

 

[BWise]

CCSS , now I have a diagnosis for my disease.

Don't worry about your finger size, get the biggest stone that you can afford, period.

 

[kenny]

Depends on the material.

For me a 2-carat red garnet would not pack the same wallop as a 2-carat red diamond.

 

[movie zombie]

Depends on the material.

For me a 2-carat red garnet would not pack the same wallop as a 2-carat red diamond.

carat in diamond cannot considered to carat in color stones....very different dimensions results even though both may be 2 carats. therefore, a 2 carat red garnet is going to be way smaller. carat = weight.

mz

ps and good luck finding a true red garnet w/o orange or going dark. pyrope will go dark at 2 carats or less, spess reds may go brown, etc. a true red garnet will command a premium price.... however, the real premium price will always be for a red diamond.

eta: for me bigger is better......anything under 4 carats is too small......but i have some that are.

 

[PinkTower]

For me, comfort is important. If an asscher is over 9x9, it becomes too tall to be practical. Actually, I would not want another one over 7x7 for that reason.

 

[DistinctionJewelry]

Not really - my minimum is about 3mm. I've got a set of stacking bands with 3mm stones that I like a lot. As far as bigger, it depends on the stone. Sometimes large is an asset for me, but other times a large stone starts looking like something one would see in costume jewelry. 6mm rounds are a nice sweet spot for rings.

 

[redfaerythinker]

For rings I would prefer to stay around 7 to 8mm. Anything smaller just looks shrimpy to me now. Although I do have a 5mm tsavorite that I wear a lot, but after my 8mm peridot it looks so shrimpy!

 

[Treenbean]

Hmmm... I think it depends on the stone and color and rarity and your mental state at the time. 8mm for earrings but as tiny as 3mm for projects and the like.

 

[T L]

Colored diamonds my min is 20 points. In colored gems, my min is 1 carat unless it's a super dense stone that faces up small for the weight like sapphire, then I would want at least two carats.

 

[RaiKai]

I won't go into CW, since a 1ct sapphire is after all, going to be different in size than a 1ct emerald! I'll stick to dimensions.

It rather depends on the finger I am wearing it on, but I have discovered, after trying smaller, that "overall", 8mm works just great on my hand in general and is probably my ideal sweet spot. I'd say the lowest I would go is about 7-7.5mm, now, at least. On some fingers, I might up that a bit.

My ring fingers are about a 5.5, but I wear a 6.25 on them (I like them a bit loose) and the fingers beside them are more like 7+'s. If I go to say, a 6.5mm or a 7mm, I always sort of feel something is "not quite right" and it is not as flattering on my hand (i.e. a small round stone will make my hand look more "round", yet a larger one will accentuate that my fingers are really reasonably long and my hands are actually rather thin (skeletal like even!), etc).

I think, after some trial and error, that the emphasis on the colour, in coloured stones, often demands a slightly larger stone (for me anyway) than I might otherwise go if I was relying on, say, the optics produced by a diamond. Even though CS have their own optics, it just seems I need to go bigger in a CS than I might in a diamond (not that I have any diamond rings to really compare).

I don't like stones that are too big though either, for comfort and lifestyle reasons - at least if I am talking daily wear.

 

[MakingTheGrade]

I used to think my 5mm padparadscha sapphire was a great size. Now....well..I think 7mm is closer to my sweet spot.

 

[T L]

If a stone is very saturated in color, even a small stone will be noticable. Likewise, if a stone is very unsaturated, even a large one won't be noticable.

 

[Cind11]

My Richard Homer sapphire is 6.8 mm and I really think it is too small. The smallest stone I would really be comfortable with would probably be 7.5 mm but I preferr 8 mm or larger. I really like my tsavorite from Gene which is 10 mm. That is a great size!

 

[FrekeChild]

1ct. Or 6.5mm. It just depends on what it is though. My newest stone is 6.4mm. My newest item of jewelry's center stone is 6.2mm. So yeah. I don't think I could do bigger than 9mm on my hand unless it's a cocktail/fancy occasion ring. I'm just not that cool.

 

[Arcadian]

I don't really have a minimum size. I mean, I wouldn't want microscopic but I think I would also stay under say.... 10cts for ring?


I actually have quite large fingers, though I'm told they don't really look it. 5mm is the smallest I've got.

-A

 

[VapidLapid]

It depends on type of stone, cut, how it is mounted where it is worn (ring, necklace, ear, brooch,...) and over all design. In general I like 2.25 - 3 carats. center stones in necklaces can go 30mm if the stone and the setting are right. then too a necklace of 54 one carat stones can be just fine!

 

[LaurenThePartier]

I tend to gravitate toward the middle of the road sizes - 7mm is usually what I gravitate toward in gemstones.

I have some larger stones 9mm+ and I find I just don't wear them as often because it's just so impractical.

 

[chictomato]

That' an interesting thread! OMG I think I had caught the csss virus too anyway, I have tiny fingers, approx 3.5. I am more concern about face up size, will try not go below 7 mm, not too concern about carat weight, but 2 carats and above will be my ideal.

 

[jstarfireb]

I prefer smaller stones and don't really have a minimum, but most of my stones run in the 3-5mm range.

 

[Lovinggems]

I think I'm in the bigger the better group. Depends on the ring design though, solitaires I would like the stone to be above 7mm.

 

[Indylady]

Wow, so many 7mm lovers!

Maybe that's a size I'll have to go after next. Doesn't the height of a larger stone bother anyone?

 

[chrono]

Initially, I was also concerned about the height, so I choose lower set designs or a more protective design (halo, or modified halo, double prongs, etc). I also tell my jeweller to set the stone as low as possible in the setting so there’s very little air space between the culet and basket of the ring.

 

[RaiKai]

Wow, so many 7mm lovers!

Maybe that's a size I'll have to go after next. Doesn't the height of a larger stone bother anyone?

I think you will find the 7mm will not be that high after all, if you are used to much smaller stones it may at first be a bit different but it will not be overwhelming. I had a 7mm first as I was worried that my rough and tumble self (and not one to take special precautions with jewelery - I hardly even wear it) would even find that too big to get used to. Well, turned out it was not quite big enough (I never felt it was too big!) and I went to an 8mm...and then I really got the noticeable difference and impact I was looking for (especially compared to the 7mm)....though I still got used to it very quickly it looks great on my hand and am satisfied sticking with this size for my ering at least! I still do like mine set "as low" as possible and I would not want to wear some of the rings I see where there is a lot of space between the culet and the shank with the larger 7mm+ stones (both my 7mm and 8mm had the culets down low so they were almost touching the shank and to my naked eye there is no visible air space - both have been in the BGD Truth head, only 4 prongs but the way the head wraps the stone it feels very secure - my 8mm is about 8mm from inside shank to top of stone...not sure what my 7mm was).

I love the larger stones as depending on how it is mounted, you get to see more colour from the side, and I think it makes more of a visual impact, etc....but I do not think I would be comfortable going much higher than 9mm though due to the greater depth, and size, for lifestyle and personal activity reasons.