what is the Carat Weight Sweet Spot?

[mintve]

What is the most common or popular carat weight? is it 1 carat? Bigger? smaller?

 

[neatfreak]

It totally depends on where you live, your social circle, etc.

I want to say that I have heard it''s about .30 on average in the US. But that could be wrong. But I do know most women in the US have waaaaaaay under a carat. But if you''re only talking big cities, then the average changes of course, but I still don''t know what that would be. I''d still guess under a carat if you take out the "outliers" (i.e., women who have 10 carat rocks, celebs, etc.)

 

[mintve]

i was looking at 1 carat, then I tried on several rings and of course they were bigger (as in 2 carats) and looked really nice, so I was looking a about 1.25, but now I am thinking it is too much money, so I may be going back down closer to the 1 carat range. I am afraid it will start to shrink, but I think that is if is really sparkly and well cut, I will never grow tired of it. Plus, I am looking at a solitaire, so i can add bling w/ stackable bands

just wanted to see what is most common. what size do you have?

 

[vslover]

I have a 1.77...I read recently that the average carat weight in the US for an engagement ring is up to .75 now.

 

[neatfreak]

Mine is a .81. But I live in the Midwest and with the exception of Chicago, mine is considered pretty big, so it really depends on where you live. Most people around town here have smaller than .50 and I live in a pretty affluent area (Madison). When I go to NY for example in some areas I see much much bigger rings, but even there (at least if you are off 5th ave!) the rings tend to be smaller than 1 c....

 

[lyra]

The younger women around me getting engaged this year all got around .50 ct to .75 ct. So 1 ct. would be considered a bonus around here. It is the most common size I see out and about, I just think some of the younger couples can''t afford it right off. My first was .26, and my upgrade at 24 years (!) is 1.77. I rarely see anything at all over 1.5ct where I live in an affluent community.

 

[Deelight]

My friends that are engaged have .25ct and less so 1ct would be HUGE I want somewhere in the region of 1.40-1.70cts though I would not say no to bigger

(4cts personally looks surperb on my finger

).

Personally I think it is whatever you feel happy with really your the one that has to wear the sparkly monster

, budget is also a big influence as well. Have you tried on rings from 1ct upwards in one sitting to see what size your most happy with for everyday wear? that could help

My personal goal for my ering is to have a substantial looking diamond in proportion to my finger

.

 

[Diamond*Dana]

Mine is a .62 pear and it is considered a very nice size where I live. I think that it just depends on the person...I have worn my ring for the past 12 years and I am more than happy with it and have no intention of changing it

.

 

[Itgirl76]

I have heard it is anwhere between .37-.38...I live in Chicago and the last time my center stone was a hair over 2 ct.
It depends on where you live and your financial situation...as long as the ring was presented in love it shouldn''tmatter

 

[milton333]

If you can assume that supply correlates to demand, Garry set out a chart (scroll down a bit on that thread) that shows average retail supply availability in the various carat weights. There are spikes at .5 .75, and tons at 1 ct, with dramatically less over 1.5, suggesting that demand is definitely greatest at 1 ct and under. I''d say, though, that what is common depends upon where you live, your social circle, and your profession. I see a lot of professional women in their 30''s getting engaged with rings at about the 1 ct mark. When I got engaged (at 19!) my .5 was huge. I''d say that "average" for people in their 20s seems to be .5-.75 in my geographic area, with the uptick to 1 carat being more common with age (30+) and/or with social status. I don''t see many professional women much over 1 ct, and I tend to think that I would not be comfortable wearing much over 1 ct myself to work for various reasons.

I only see anything over 2 ct in real life infrequently. I don''t personally know anyone at that size who bought the ring outright (there are some inherited diamonds that get there). Most women I''ve seen with 2+ ct are 50+. I tend to think that a large diamond is not a favored indulgence for people in their 30s and 40s, but it does depend on your means and what you''ve been conditioned to expect is normal. There are definitely a lot of things to buy with your money that might be prioritized over diamonds, and I suggest getting just enough diamond to be satisfied and then "sleeping on it" for a few years to be sure you really want to upgrade to a larger size rather than take a vacation or fix up the house.

Personally, I''m aiming for 1.2-1.3 for my "final destination" size. Beyond that, I might possibly do side stones (I''ve had a long internal debate about a halo vs. pear sides, and whether I should do them on my mini-upgrade - possibly obviating the need to get to the "ultimate destination" carat weight - or just hold off on any sides until I''ve got the destination center diamond). Currently, I have a .818, and it''s a good size, I''m liking it. I always think about halos or side stones, but really like the look of the solitaire. A diamond band does add some bling, though.

 

[Haven]

Date: 12/28/2007 9:11:47 AM
Author: neatfreak
It totally depends on where you live, your social circle, etc.

I want to say that I have heard it''s about .30 on average in the US. But that could be wrong. But I do know most women in the US have waaaaaaay under a carat. But if you''re only talking big cities, then the average changes of course, but I still don''t know what that would be. I''d still guess under a carat if you take out the ''outliers'' (i.e., women who have 10 carat rocks, celebs, etc.)

Neatfreak is absolutely right, as always!

My cushion cut e-ring is 2.01 carats, I live in Chicago, and 2 carats is pretty much average in my circle of friends. My FI did buy my ring outright, it wasn''t inherited, but I do have a few friends who have inherited stones.

What shape are you looking for? Remember that carat is an indicator of weight, not size. When we started looking for my stone we first figured out our ideal face-up size, which was 7 x 8 mm, and went from there. Since I have a cushion we looked at stones from 1.7 to 2.4 carats, and it just happened that we loved the 2.01 carat. SO, the weight didn''t matter to us as much as the spread.

Seriously, though, I wouldn''t pay any mind to averages or norms, get what you love (finances permitting) and definitely don''t allow the exaggerated sizes on PS to sway you.

 

[marcy]

Just looking around town I see more 1/4 to 1/3 ct. than anything. I live in a town of about 50,000 in the west. A few people have the larger than 1 carat stones. I think they are all pretty. Mine is a 1/2 ct. and I doubt I''d ever want anything larger than about a 3/4 ct if I ever wanted an upgrade. I am very content with my 1/2 ct though - it was my size of choice not based on how much I wanted to spend. My original ering had a .15 solitaire with diamond accents and I never even wanted an upgrade until the summer of 06 - after 16 years of marriage. If you can afford the size you want; I''d say you may as well start with that size. If you think you might want to upgrade someday you might want to purchase your ring from a place that will do upgrades on your diamond.

 

[wen104]

I remember a post about this before but I cannot find it. Anways I believe that the 1 ct or .75 was the most desired size for cutters and buyers. Someone had asked before why cutters didn''t cut bigger quantity of larger ct diamonds and a graph was posted with this info. I thought it was Oldminer but I couldn''t find it in all of his post Maybe he will read this and reply. I know that I sought out .75 both rings I purchased and feel like that is really my desired size but everyone has there own opinion. I know people who prefer .25 and would never think of anything bigger. That being said it really is a personal decision but for me if I was a jeweler here I would try to carry .75, 1 ct, and 1.5ct because that seems to be the desired sizes here where I live.

 

[wen104]

Milton I should have read your post carefully before I went searching for that graph by Gary. Hmm now wonder I could not find it I was looking under the wrong poster!

Ow well at least I wasn''t going crazy I knew it was out there!

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 12/28/2007 1:29:15 PM
Author: Haven

Date: 12/28/2007 9:11:47 AM

Author: neatfreak

It totally depends on where you live, your social circle, etc.


I want to say that I have heard it's about .30 on average in the US. But that could be wrong. But I do know most women in the US have waaaaaaay under a carat. But if you're only talking big cities, then the average changes of course, but I still don't know what that would be. I'd still guess under a carat if you take out the 'outliers' (i.e., women who have 10 carat rocks, celebs, etc.)

Neatfreak is absolutely right, as always!

My cushion cut e-ring is 2.01 carats, I live in Chicago, and 2 carats is pretty much average in my circle of friends. My FI did buy my ring outright, it wasn't inherited, but I do have a few friends who have inherited stones.

What shape are you looking for? Remember that carat is an indicator of weight, not size. When we started looking for my stone we first figured out our ideal face-up size, which was 7 x 8 mm, and went from there. Since I have a cushion we looked at stones from 1.7 to 2.4 carats, and it just happened that we loved the 2.01 carat. SO, the weight didn't matter to us as much as the spread.


Seriously, though, I wouldn't pay any mind to averages or norms, get what you love (finances permitting) and definitely don't allow the exaggerated sizes on PS to sway you.

Right on!
When we selected my oval ring, I asked my jeweler to show me stones in millimeters-not carat weight. I knew I wanted the face up size to be 9ish by 7ish. Also, I picked a setting with good sized/spready side stones,
because I wanted the coverage.
What size is your ring finger? That can make a big difference as well.
I live in Los Angeles and I see all sizes--I've seen some big honkers and lovely smaller ones.

 

[tberube]

I have recently heard that the average size is about 3/4 of a carat, but that 1 carat is the most singularly popular weight.

Mine is just shy of 1ct. and it's larger than, I'd say, about 75% of the people I know. But then again most of my friends got engaged in their early twenties. I waited a little while longer, and so larger diamond size has tended to correlate with older age, in my circle. I know very few people who have anything larger than 1.25 carats, and if they do they're twenty years older than me, and are upgrades.

 

[mintve]

Hello!

THanks for the input. I am looking at RB, I wear a size 5, but have very long fingers and my hands are pretty large for a woman. I am 5''8". I know this image is blurry, but it will give you an idea. This stone is 1 carat. It looks bigger than that in person, but it may have had bad proportions. None the less, it will give you an idea of a 1 carat on my finger.

 

[coatimundi_org]

I think a one carat looks lovely on you! Size 5 is a pretty small finger. I''m tall too, with long thin fingers. Your hands don''t look large to me--they look elegant!

 

[wen104]

I am tall for a woman about the same as you and I wear a 6.75 or7 and my diamond is a .70 Rb. I think it is perfect for me! It is all in your own personal preference. Just get what makes you feel good! Good luck

 

[milton333]

Date: 12/28/2007 2:05:12 PM
Author: mintve
I wear a size 5, but have very long fingers and my hands are pretty large for a woman.

Sweetie, in addition to getting a very skewed view about what is a common or "normal" diamond size on here, the finger/hand size thing is completely out of control on this board. 10-15 years ago, every jeweler had ready-set, display rings in size 6. That was the most common size for people getting engaged, generally in their early to mid 20s. I.e., a normal, healthy young woman size was 6.

I went shopping recently, and it seems that most jewelers'' in-stock settings on display are around a size 7. Most Americans are a lot bigger these days than they were 15 years ago. But you do not have "man hands" at a size 5. Seriously. I don''t think I''ve ever seen an adult in real life with size 3 fingers. They may be oddly common here, and there''s certainly the advantage that any old diamond looks huge on them, but they are not the average for society as a whole.

 

[erica k]

if you aren''t comfortable with spending more for a larger stone, you should buy from a place with a generous upgrade policy. a 1ct certainly doesn''t look ''small'' on your hand, so i would guess that a stone that is roughly 6.20-6.5mm dia. would be fine. for me, it''s all about balanced proportions, not ''bigger is better.'' my ring size is 5.5-6, and i find that a 7.5mm spread looks best, but my 1ct is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[mintve]

Date: 12/28/2007 2:28:23 PM
Author: milton333

Date: 12/28/2007 2:05:12 PM
Author: mintve
I wear a size 5, but have very long fingers and my hands are pretty large for a woman.

Sweetie, in addition to getting a very skewed view about what is a common or ''normal'' diamond size on here, the finger/hand size thing is completely out of control on this board. 10-15 years ago, every jeweler had ready-set, display rings in size 6. That was the most common size for people getting engaged, generally in their early to mid 20s. I.e., a normal, healthy young woman size was 6.

I went shopping recently, and it seems that most jewelers'' in-stock settings on display are around a size 7. Most Americans are a lot bigger these days than they were 15 years ago. But you do not have ''man hands'' at a size 5. Seriously. I don''t think I''ve ever seen an adult in real life with size 3 fingers. They may be oddly common here, and there''s certainly the advantage that any old diamond looks huge on them, but they are not the average for society as a whole.

Milton-

You are sweet. What I mean by "i have large hands" is that they are very long. My fingers are skinny, but my palm and fingers are the same size and my BF. In fact, nearly every man I have ever dated had the same size or smaller hands than me. I have a hard time finding gloves that fit properly. My sisters are both the same as me. Tall girls w/ long skinny fingers, giving us larger than average hands for a girl.

When I started shopping for rings, i was looking at a halo w/ a center stone of under 1 carat, then the halo, so the stone looked bigger and my mom and suggested I look at larger rings because I am tall.

Now that I am looking at solitaires, I seem to find all the preset settings w/ 2+ carats and they looks stunning. I will not be getting a 2 carat, so I am trying to search out nice 1 carat settings. Maybe I will revist tiffany and try on some 1 carat solitaires there

 

[marcy]

I think the 1 ct. looks great on your hand. Also, I think it''s a matter of personal preference.

 

[Lynn B]

The title of this post made me smile. "Sweet spot"? Whose "sweet spot"?

The shop-at-the-mall-generally-clueless-about-diamonds masses'' sweet spot? Oh, I''d say probably 1 carat (or less).

MY sweet spot?! A 5+ carat H&A RB (super ideal cut, of course!) I. Am. Totally. Serious.

 

[BigDiamonds]

The 1 ct looks great! Of course, I may be biased because that is the size I have.

When we started looking, I REALLY wanted a 1.5, which we could have just afforded if I bought a simpler setting and came down a bit in color. However, I''m very happy with the size I have and I''m glad I didn''t go larger, because it''s already bigger than probably 80-90% of the other rings I see on a day to day basis. I already notice people giving it the eye

sometimes, and I would feel really uncomfortable wearing a larger ring at work. I think the average I see is around .5ct on women my age (mid to late 20s.) Maybe into the 30s I see more 1cts.

As everyone else has said, it is very much a matter of local and social circle standards. Don''t let PS fool you - this place is like a diamond cartoon. Monster rocks on itty bitt fingers all over the place!!

 

[DiamanteBlu]

I don't know how common this is but I got a 1.56 carat RB back in 1981 as an ering [I was 27]. I got divorced and bought myself the 6.39 carat EC in 1996. New DH finally coughed up the 6.89 carat RB recently. We will probably be getting a larger custom cut Eightstar in the next year or two.

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 12/28/2007 8:21:38 PM
Author: DiamanteBlu
...New DH finally coughed up the 6.89 carat RB recently. We will probably be getting a larger custom cut Eightstar in the next year or two.

I hate you.

(just kidding!

)

 

[W2W]

I think 1 carat is the sweet spot for many women. Mine is a 2.38 ct antique old mine cut and my new spot is that or bigger

 

[iheartscience]

I know exactly what you mean about your hands! My hands look very similar to yours, I wear a 5-5.25 and I am also 5''8". The palm part of my hand is also kind of big, too, and my fingers are longer than most people I know, including my fiance.

Because of this, I think that super thin bands don''t look that great on me, so I wanted something with sidestones or a halo. I think I would be okay with a solitaire if I had blingy bands on both sides, though.

I ended up with a 1.5 carat radiant in a halo with baguette sidestones. I''m attaching a picture so you can see what it looks like on me. The radiant is about 7 mm if I recall correctly, and the halo is maybe 1.3 or 1.5 mm? (It''s been a while, but I think that''s what the numbers are!) I''m very happy with my ring and how it looks on my hand, although of course I want to upgrade eventually!

 

[iheartscience]

Oops, forgot to answer your original question! I think for most of my friends and acquaintances, 1 carat is pretty much considered the norm, and anything bigger is a bonus. I''m 26 and I''m one of the first of my circle of friends and acquaintances to get engaged. Most of my friends think my ring is HUGE.