Ring depth, 1.3, 1.5, 2.0, 2.3 questions/ comments

[Imdanny]

Hi everyone, I'd like your comments about how thick you think a ring should be.

I'd also like to know if you think that 1.5 is "thin".


(I took these sizes from e-weddingbands. They say that 1.3 is "light".)

Thanks!

 

[neatfreak]

It''s totally subjective but a 1.3 or 1.5 ring reaaally needs to be babied, as it is very thin and likely to bend. But really, you just need to try them on in person to see what works for you.

 

[tiffanySmith8585]

I think 1.3 is very thin, the mininum to me is 3 even 4 will be better, however the best is what you choose and what you like more.

Congratulations and good luck

 

[Harriet]

Hi,
As NF pointed out, it is subjective. I wear a 1.5 and have no problem. I also wear a 1.2, which needs a little babying.

 

[kjt]

I think it also depends on if you''re wearing it with other rings.
My wedding band is 4.5mm and it''s substantial enough to wear on it''s own. But with my engagement ring (and spacer, making it 3 rings), I find it''s a little too overwhelming for my taste.
So I have a 2mm micro-pave eternity ring that I wear with my e-ring. But the 2mm alone, I find it''s too thin.

It''s all a matter of personal taste (and how big or small your fingers are too!)

 

[Imdanny]

I''m talking about the ring''s depth, not whether it''s a 2,3,4,5,6 mm ring.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/24/2008 3:03:18 AM
Author: Imdanny

I'm talking about the ring's depth, not whether it's a 2,3,4,5,6 mm ring.

You are talking about depth alone out of context of width? I am not sure that that makes sense. I have a very, very thin band that is very deep. Since it is so deep, it can be very thin. I think you have to factor the two things together.

Deborah

 

[AGBF]

This is a photograph of my solitaire. As you can see, the band is not very wide, but it is deep. Because it is so deep, it is very strong and durable.


Deborah

 

[Imdanny]

Hi,
As NF pointed out, it is subjective. I wear a 1.5 and have no problem. I also wear a 1.2, which needs a little babying.

Hi Harriet, thanks.

Thanks, everyone.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

If it is to be worn with another ring, it needs to be the same height off the finger. For example, I told Leon that I would be wearing my e-ring with a Tiffany Legacy band, and he made the ring tall enough to sit perfectly next to the band. This is why people have problems when they don''t take this into consideration, such as when a low e-ring is paired with a shared prong w-band that sits higher off the finger and the diamonds in the band rub the prongs on the e-ring.

 

[Imdanny]

diamondseeker, just out of curiosity, do you happen to remember the depth of your Tiffany and Leon rings? I''ve seen many pictures of that Tiffany ring but I''ve never heard a measurement for its depth. Thanks.

 

[~*Snow*~]

Imdanny: My Ering is 1.1m thin... so very thin! and as much as i love it the first thing people say when why see my ring is "Oh the band is so thin!" They totally bypass the gorgeous stone!! So just rememeber if you go really thin, it''s the first thing people pick up on...

 

[musey]

Date: 11/26/2008 1:07:25 PM
Author: ~*Snow*~
Imdanny: My Ering is 1.1m thin... so very thin! and as much as i love it the first thing people say when why see my ring is ''Oh the band is so thin!'' They totally bypass the gorgeous stone!! So just rememeber if you go really thin, it''s the first thing people pick up on...

Snow, danny is asking about depth/height, not width.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 11/26/2008 12:46:31 AM
Author: Imdanny
diamondseeker, just out of curiosity, do you happen to remember the depth of your Tiffany and Leon rings? I''ve seen many pictures of that Tiffany ring but I''ve never heard a measurement for its depth. Thanks.

They appear to be almost exactly 2mm.

 

[~*Snow*~]

Date: 11/26/2008 1:29:03 PM
Author: musey

Date: 11/26/2008 1:07:25 PM
Author: ~*Snow*~
Imdanny: My Ering is 1.1m thin... so very thin! and as much as i love it the first thing people say when why see my ring is ''Oh the band is so thin!'' They totally bypass the gorgeous stone!! So just rememeber if you go really thin, it''s the first thing people pick up on...

Snow, danny is asking about depth/height, not width.

Opps! Shouldhave read all the way down first...

 

[Imdanny]

Snow, the fault is all mine! I should have been more clear in the title of my thread.

diamondseeker, thanks so much! That is actually as much information as I need to know. I hope others will get something out of this topic even though I didn't word it very well.

 

[Imdanny]

Posted by Deborah:

You are talking about depth alone out of context of width? I am not sure that that makes sense. I have a very, very thin band that is very deep. Since it is so deep, it can be very thin. I think you have to factor the two things together.

Point taken. Thanks!

 

[Imdanny]

Thank you to the moderators for fixing my thread title!!!

 

[Imdanny]

Date: 11/26/2008 7:30:00 PM
Author: Imdanny

diamondseeker, ... That is actually as much information as I need to know.

I have to take this back. I'm so dumb. You said the Legacy. I was thinking about the Lucida. Anyway, I'm thinking 2.0 is probably a good depth for me (and if it's not it can always be exchanged). My brother had a gold wedding ring with two or three little diamonds (I forget). I saw almost the same ring on e-weddingbands and it was 2.0 (or 1.7; I can't remember). I tried his ring on and I didn't want to take it off (I liked it a lot, although really just the gold, not the low quality diamonds, not that I would ever tell him that). He lost his ring and his wife bought him a plain gold band to repace it.

My ring is going to be platinum and I don't want to have to worry about it getting bent.