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.
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.
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.
Milton-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.
I hate you.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.