shape
carat
color
clarity

What size diamond is considered "big" for a solitaire engagement ring?

What size diamond is considered "big" for a solitaire engagement ring?


  • Total voters
    273

skypie

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Messages
503
Assume a round cut solitaire engagement ring...feel free to specify where you are posting from if not the US. Also feel free to state your age range or any other factors that might influence what you consider "big"
 
Depends entirely on where you live and what your general socio-economic status is. I think spending 3 months income is considered very generous, and in terms of size, in my affluent area, probably 2 carat +
 
I’m 58 and Chicago area. 3 ct would be big to me.
 
I'm in the Boston area and I'd say 3+ carats would be considered a larger than the norm.
 
In my area...anything over a carat is on the bigger side but not "big". Big would probably be a 1.5 - 2 carat.
 
Over 1ct where I am (Australia). But realistically, also depends on your SO’s finger size as well. My wife has a tiny finger size of 4.5-5 (depending on how a ring is done) and her BG Blue (96 points) looks huge on her hand. She’d love something say around 1.5ct or larger but she recognises that it would look proportionally over the top on her hand and finger.
 
Yes, depends entirely on your social group. In most social circles 1 carat plus would be considered large. In Hollywood, less than 10 carats is embarrassing!!!!
Also age (improved financial situation and less financial responsibilities equals more $$$$ for Jewels) and finger size. In my 20s 1 carat was my dream, on my slim long size 5 fingers. Now in my 50s with meaty size 8 fingers, I’m rocking over 4 carats.
Most people would go “wow” at 2 carat.
 
Washington DC area, so diamonds in the 2-3 carat range (center stone, not total carat weight) aren't uncommon but aren't the norm either. I'd say anything over 2 carats (or ~8mm) would get a second glance.
 
As someone said earlier, the size question has to do with her social circle and family. See what size diamonds her close friends and sisters have and that's your average. Big would be any amount larger.

I live in the southeast, and a 1 ct diamond is considered above average for a young couple in their 20s. 2 cts and above is large and not often seen as a first e-ring unless the couple is older.

Really hard to vote in your poll. If you live in a small town in the midwest, 1 ct might be large. In NYC, 3 cts and up might be considered large.
 
When I was younger and had I never been on PS, I would have thought 2 carats was enormous.

Now that I am on PS, in my 40s and happen to be in LA (the land of big bling), I now consider 3 carats big
 
I live in the southeast US. I’m in my late 30s. When I got engaged at 23, my 1.5 carat diamond was on the larger side. Now, lots of my friends have upgraded so I’d say mine is average where we live in our social circle. I do seem to notice anything 2 carats and up. But I know a couple of ladies with 3 carat + rings. In my 20s I wouldn’t have had the confidence to wear a ring that large. But now, I’d wear it proudly!
 
I live in NE US-PA to be exact. I live in an affluent suburb, South of a major city. My job allows me to see hundreds of people a week (most of them are women). The majority of the center diamonds I see are under 1ct, but there are those who rock 2-8ct stones on their fingers! That’s a wide range, which makes it difficult to gauge “big”, but I know my 1+ct EC gets a lot of attention (most people think it’s bigger than it is), and the average is well below 1ct, so I’d say anything 2+ct would be considered “big” around here.
I agree: location, social circles and finger size all play a role in average diamond size, and how “big” it looks.
 
I think setting has a lot to do with it. Halos, for instance, blur the size of a center stone pretty comprehensively. I tend to go for three-stone rings because I love the overall shape, but also because of how luxe they look to me - as if to say "I bought a gorgeous center stone - but - what the hey! - I bought two more to put either side!" So a 2 ct stone would get a second glance, but a 2 ct with 2 x 1ct sides would get a STARE. :) :shock: One of the most eye catching rings I ever saw was on a staggeringly beautiful Indian woman where I used to live in Westchester County in NY. It had, roughly, a 3-4 ct center, with what looked to be 1.5ct sides. I remember thinking "Just give me one of those sides and I'll be happy!!"

But times have changed.... :bigsmile:
 
To each their own.

Generally 2Ct and above will garner comments. 1 to 1.5Ct tends to attract admiration in those who notice it (e.g. those recently engaged or planning to be will look at all other rings they see). But would be reasonably well proportioned.

Engaged in our 30's ... anything over 1.x would be considered more than acceptable (as that's what the rest of the family has). Larger than 2Ct implies a more affluent or older couple. Over 2.5Ct and I assume money is no longer an object of concern for the lady in waiting!
 
The reason I have a problem answering this question is not only that it depends largely on the area but it depends a lot on what shape the diamond is too. In addition, the setting and how spready the stone is weigh in as well. Big is largely visual not only dependent on weight.
 
As others have pointed out it varies and it depends on many factors. For me I look solely at size of fingers/hands, setting and what looks to my eye to be a beautiful size. I don't care about what the "norm" is where I live and what other women wear in my social circles. I wear what I want to wear. I don't judge others on what they choose to wear and I don't care if I am being judged based on something as superficial as what I am wearing.

So for me based on my hand and finger size and the setting I prefer (simple solitaire) I would say anything 12 mm and up is large on me. I am wearing a 10.5mm diamond and that seems just right. Not to say I wouldn't go bigger because for the right diamond not only would I go bigger I would be happy to. :bigsmile: But I like it big. :halo:
 
I live in the nether region of Texas and the average is probably around 1ct.

I'm in my 50's and most of my social set are on their second marriages so rings tend to be bigger than they were with the first marriage but many friends have gone to diamond bands. My e-ring is 1.5 ct (7.5mm) and it's usually one of the bigger rocks in the room.

PS has definitely changed my view of what is big! 10 years ago, >1 ct was big. Now 3 ct is big.
 
I’m in the UK, and a lot of my friends have small diamonds. Upgrading isn’t really a ‘thing’ here, a lot of women stick with their original ER.

For me personally, I wouldn’t be comfortable wearing anything bigger than 3cts say about 9mm as I have small hands but large fingers. Unfortunately anything smaller than that looks really small on me. My friend has tiny fingers and half a carat looks a really good size on her.
 
I'm 32, from Long Island (but the normal part, not the wealthy part), most of my friends are professionals but not super high earners (teachers, PA's, accountants) and I would say in a round that 2 carats and up would be "big".
 
From the San Francisco Bay Area. 2cts seems to be the norm in my neighborhood of professionals and business owners, so I would say that 3 cts would be big. But size isn't everything, I put my 3.01 F-SI1 pear away and have been wearing my 2.79 F-VS1 CBI because it far out performs my pear (and costs much more too).
 
I'm in the UK and I also don't see many large diamonds. I think 1 carat is an "adequate" size and 2 carats is big.
 
I, and I think most men, don't pay too much attention to ladies' rings. However having observed with interest over the years the interactions of my wife, her sisters, and their friends, I believe the answer very much depends on the particular circle of female friends the lady hangs with. If her ring is the largest in the group, they will all consider it big. And yes, with advancing age and increasing disposable income, "big" gets bigger and bigger. :tongue:
 
I think it also depends on who you associate with. In my area, I'd say at least 1 - 2 ct is the minimum. However, in my profession, you don't see a lot of women with rings over 1 ct with their center stone.
 
I said 1.5ct. To me, 1ct is the minimum that ANY long-suffering woman my age who has put up with years of being the choregirl for small town family life really ought to wearing. She should be rewarded / gifted nothing less than 1 ct. And a superideal cut one at that! 1.25ct used to be about a 10% premium above the cost of a 1ct, not an unreasonable amount, so I don't consider a 7mm RB "big," either. It's a nice showy size, larger than the norm, but still not too big to wear to work every day. A 1.5ct is very highly sought as an upgrade but I see very few of those. 1.5ct and up is what I'd call "big." At least in my town.

Newly engaged, the small town gals here used to get a .25c or .33ct back in the '80s. The Millennials insist on larger, maybe more like .5ct to .7 or .8ct RB.

My elderly father never upgraded my mother's original .25ct e-ring. He thinks my 1ct RB diamond is obscenely huge. LOL
 
I agree with cflutist that size is just one of the factors when looking at a solitaire.
I’m from Sydney, Australia and got married at 24. My 1.55ct white diamond was viewed as “big” by my circle at the time, but the truth is it was chosen because it was the right proportion for the size of my fingers and hand. We flanked it with two pale yellow diamond pears and a halo of pale pink diamonds for some added interest.
 
Another Aussie, I think here around 1 carat to 1.50 carats is normal, around 2 carats is "big" and anything larger than that is really big. I wear a 5.34 carat Antique stone most of the time (and am a size 5) but mostly the only people that notice it are shop assistants, hairdressers etc. I dress so casually most of the time everyone who doesn't know me assumes its fake and anyone who does know me doesn't really think about it.
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top