Whats the smallest in diamond size you could go?

[Autumnovember]

Larger stone flack largely consists of jealous comments. It's easy to turn that back on the commentator and make them look idiotic and envious.

Smaller stone flack pretty much insults the fiances earning capacity. Terms like sweet, dainty, easy to maintain, doesnt get caught on clothes etc are bandied about. Most are thinly veiled insults. Not saying that's what you mean autumn! Just saying that I've heard plenty of girls making b*tchy comments about other girls' rings. I think these comments are more hurtful, in my opinion. Others may disagree.

Totally understand. I'm sure it all depends on the person too and obviously how they take it. As I said before in my previous posts I talked about two comments that were made to me about mine---I was hurt at the time and it wasn't all because the comments felt like jealousy comments, it felt like a lot more than that.

I'm gonna love the crap outta my dainty WB

 

[Autumnovember]

RE: Larger stones getting more flack

I wore a 2 ct cushion for over three years, and now I wear a 2.3 ct antique cushion that looks significantly larger than my last stone. In all that time I don't think I *ever* received a negative comment about the size of the stone IRL.

In my circle of friends, I've been the one to get crap...not my friends with smaller stones. Guess it just depends on experiences.

 

[february2003bride]

The diamond size I have right now, a .80 carat round, is the smallest I would want. If I went smaller, I'd want to halo it to make it look bigger

 

[Lula]

I think that most people make unfavorable judgments on guys for smaller diamonds and on girls for larger diamonds.

Dingdingdingdingding! A keen observation.

Yup.

 

[Lula]

Obviously it goes both ways, thats exactly what I was pointing out. *MY* point is that people with larger stones hear a lot more flack about large stones than people with small ones. What was the point of the thread that asked what the largest size diamond they would comfortable wearing?

Same thing, reverse question.

Hmmmm, people with larger stones hear ALOT more flack? Really? I cant speak from experience bc my 1.61ct is neither large nor small but that statement almost seems comical to me. We are on a forum that uses "DSS" and "upgrade" as often as we use the words "blingy". Come on now!

When and if my stone ever grows to be a honker, I will gladly take those jabs

Yep, and I'll stand by that. It's a lot easier to bash a large stone than it is a small stone. Search earlier threads...its an obvious observation. So if it sounds 'comical' to you, so be it. We'll agree to disagree.

AN, a larger stone may inspire more outright, forthwith opinions, but smaller stones get WAY more flack. Often in a more subversive way. In fact, in the post just above the one you made here, you describe a smaller stone ring as "sweet." Which implies "awwww, isn't that just darling, cute, kiddie like."

A woman who is wearing that ring my not think it's "sweet", but elegant, classy, etc.

I, too, think "sweet" can be a pejorative term when used to compliment a smaller e-ring. I agree with T-Gal that the wearer may think she made an elegant and classy choice, or, in the case of the rings on this blog, a non-traditional choice.http://venaamoris.blogspot.com/

 

[merilenda]

I haven't read responses just yet and I will when I'm done eating...but I just wanted to say:

Hypothetically it would be this kind of situation:

-FI asks what is the smallest in diamond size you'd be comfortable wearing
-Money is unlimited
-It IS for an engagement ring
-It would be a round brilliant

Yes, I think that most of us agree that if it was something passed down to us that has sentimental value, of course it doesn't matter what size. Again, I think most of us agree that if "X" is the only carat we could afford than of course, we would wear whatever "X" is. That isn't the question though. I'll have to disagree in terms of not being able to take money out of the equation because you can...since its a hypothetical question.

In this hypothetical, I think I would say 1 ct. It's complicated though. If money were absolutely no issue, then I think my ideal stone would be 1.5-2 cts.

That said, I wear an e-ring with a 0.71 AVC, and I love it. It is what we could comfortably afford, and I plan to upgrade maybe next year when it is more financially realistic for us.

 

[KittyGolightly]

Wow, those are some pretty rings, Lula! I'm in love with the aquamarine from the March 19th post.

I have a pair of diamond studs that a friend gave to me. They are beautiful, but quite small. I'm not sure of the exact size, but each one is less that a quarter carat. I'm tall-ish (5' 9"), and have a big face. I've never felt comfortable wearing those earrings. I just feel like I'm wearing little girl jewelry when I put them in. So, sadly, they sit in a box and I wear fakes instead. I'll give them to my niece when she gets bigger.

For pendants, I have a .5 ct diamond in a bezel, which makes it look a bit bigger. It's a good size for everyday, but I think anything much smaller would disappear on me.

 

[Lula]

I agree with rosetta that women make snarky comments about other women's jewelry all the time. Sometimes it's covert, such as their choice of adjectives when admiring your ring "Oh, that's adorable!" and sometimes it's overt, or disguised as a backhand compliment, such as when one of my friends said, "The diamond in your ring is real? I didn't know that -- I thought it was fake!" And she was referring to my 1 carat diamond set in a gemstone halo -- hardly large by PS standards, but ginormous by my local community's standards. At the time she said that, I had been *thinking* about changing my stone and setting (due to other reasons, not snotty comments) but that comment really hurt my feelings and helped me make the decision to drop a little in carat weight and change my setting to a very plain half-bezel. Bottom line -- if you're going to wear an unusual piece of jewelry (unusual for your social set) you need to be okay about the comments. Because there's no law against putting your foot in your mouth, and people do it all the time.

To answer AN's question, the smallest *white* diamond I'd wear in a ring would be @ 20 points, but I'd happily wear any of Kenny's FCD's in a ring in smaller carat weights! Smaller stones just need different settings to show them off properly.

 

[jaysonsmom]

Ok lets pause for a second.

My original question was about what size diamond you'd get if money was not a factor.

What I am not understanding STILL is why this question is mostly not being answered?

For me, if money were no object, the smallest that looks good on my fingers about a 3/4 carat. That is why my first e-ring (which I chose) was just a hair over that .81ct. Although my fingers are slim, about size 5.25, i have long fingers and a huge palm.

As for my biggest, it's really based on my social circle. I'd say 2 carats is probably the largest I'd feel comfortable wearing. I don't hang out with millionaires.

 

[marcy]

AGS0 E VS1 1 carat RB

 

[Amys Bling]

Larger stone flack largely consists of jealous comments. It's easy to turn that back on the commentator and make them look idiotic and envious.

Smaller stone flack pretty much insults the fiances earning capacity. Terms like sweet, dainty, easy to maintain, doesnt get caught on clothes etc are bandied about. Most are thinly veiled insults. Not saying that's what you mean autumn! Just saying that I've heard plenty of girls making b*tchy comments about other girls' rings. I think these comments are more hurtful, in my opinion. Others may disagree.

agree with this! the remarks on a big stone are based in jealousy or envy- however you want to phrase it. While a "small" stone is backhanded compliments "Oh, that size is just perfect for you!" "I love how your stone won't get all caught...blah blah blah you know where I am going with this, but the hidden remark here is that it's small, can't afford bigger, what have you.

 

[Amys Bling]

RE: Larger stones getting more flack

I wore a 2 ct cushion for over three years, and now I wear a 2.3 ct antique cushion that looks significantly larger than my last stone. In all that time I don't think I *ever* received a negative comment about the size of the stone IRL.

In my circle of friends, I've been the one to get crap...not my friends with smaller stones. Guess it just depends on experiences.

AN- I really do think those remarks are routed in envy

 

[Haven]

RE: Larger stones getting more flack
I wore a 2 ct cushion for over three years, and now I wear a 2.3 ct antique cushion that looks significantly larger than my last stone. In all that time I don't think I *ever* received a negative comment about the size of the stone IRL.

In my circle of friends, I've been the one to get crap...not my friends with smaller stones. Guess it just depends on experiences.

AN- I really do think those remarks are routed in envy

I agree!

Envy, and bad matters. Makes for an ugly combination.

 

[Winks_Elf]

First, I have to say that ANY of Kenny's stones would be welcomed, but that blue pear....*swoon!*

Second, money being no object, in a ring, the smallest I would wear is a half-carat round, and the largest would be 9mm in width, or a pear or marquise not longer than 14mm. For my lifestyle and location, anything larger than that is considered gaudy and impractical (the horses like to nibble shiny things).

That being said, I've had a 1.52ct modified rectangular brilliant (7.03 x6.56), and a 1.61 carat round. I have had non-diamond rings with center stones as large as 9mm. I found myself constantly taking off my rings because of the children, cleaning, firewood, horses, etc. I lost my 1.61ct almost 8 years ago, and hadn't replaced it. I learned my lessons the hard way, and this time I knew what design for a ring I wanted before picking out the perfect diamond. I've waited for several years for the right Infinity cut to come along, and it finally did. I'm getting the Ribbon ring, and wanted a stone between .6 and .8 carats because I feel that looks the best in the setting. The diamond I'm waiting on is .67 carats.

 

[Black Jade]

I think size of diamonds is very important to most people in the US as they equate (uninformed a lot of the time) the size with the price and also (from very good advertising campaigns) sometimes even equate the size with how much one's fiance 'loves' one--and hence, how valuable one is. therefore the girl with the biggest diamond is often in the position of the girl voted prettiest in high school--has to deal with jealousy of those who were not so voted and I have not only read posts but seen situations in real life where people are deliberately trying to make such a girl feel bad. But girls with diamonds that are considered 'too small' in their peer groups have to deal with a lot of cr=p also. It's jsut a very loaded issue. Better on these boards than in real life, actually a lot of the time.

It's not this way all over the world (or even all over the US). In Asian countries (I don't mean Asian Americans but in countries like Korea and Japan), the girl with the yellowest diamond is the one in trouble adn I have been on French websites where women are proudly showing off engagement rings with diamonds smaller than the ones Kenny is displaying (and they are not colored, which everyone knows is expensive in spite of size, either). The design seems to matter more and I have seen girls proudly displaying .03, .05 diamonds that really do look pretty their designer rings. Thirty years ago when I got engaged, diamond prices had really SPIKED (much more than now) and .25 was not considered a small diamond--it was a very good size. I have a .38 and that was HUGE. Many women my age (mid 50's) are happily still wearing their .10's and .15's. maybe because I came of age then, these look just fine to me if they are white and sparkly--and the smaller diamonds often ARE noticeably whiter and sparklier. I bought two diamond rings recently and one had an 11.5 x 5.5 marquise as a center stone (with 78 other points of diamonds) and the other had a single solitary .05 in a pretty little illusion center (it is a gorgeous antique ring) and I love them both and I wear them both. I wear the .05 alone quite a bit of the time and I think it looks great! I will always love my engagement ring best BECAUSE it is my engagement ring and has so many memories and so the size doesn't matter--but I can honestly say I don't think any pretty diamond is too small to wear and I think the whole thing where people make anyone feel bad about their engagement ring as too big or too small (even if it is not their personal taste) is insecure and obnoxious.

 

[Laila619]

If money were no object, I'd want minimum 1.2 carats. I honestly don't need a huge diamond, because a halo can make a stone appear so much bigger.

 

[lbbaber]

OK, so I know this is an old thread that got bumped but I can't resist the need to say:

AN, after seeing photos of you in another thread I COMPLETELY see why people bother you about your *big* diamond---They are JEALOUS!!!!! YOU ARE GORGEOUS and I am SURE that the jealousy is over MORE than just your big bling!!! Heck, I don't even know you and I am jealous Screw 'em. People that say ignorant things aren't worth the time of day!

 

[diamondringlover]

My first e-ring was from Service Merchandise and it was a very tiny band of rubies and diamonds and I am talking probably 2 pointers each if I was generous, I loved that ring and wore it proudly. However about a year later when I was pregnant with my first son, my hubby bought me a very sparkley .18ct round diamond, I was in love with it I rocked that ring for years, I still have it but it is now set in a earring, so I have no issues with smaller diamonds, I think right around there would be the smallest I would want to go. My ideal would probably be 1.5 to 2.0 ct max, I have hugh hands, size 8.5 but my fingers are really short so something bigger would look silly on me

 

[charbie]

Given that my ering is a ~.35 old cut diamond, it probably is the smallest I could go for a solitaire.
I never thought I would want a ring smaller than 1 ct. But when my DH was gifted his grandmother's ring, nothing mattered anymore. And I'm serious when I say that. The sentiment behind it, and the pride DH had giving me his dear grandmother's ring meant so much that I was so proud to wear her ring.
Now, I'm lucky. The ring I wear is a style I've grown to adore, an illusion setting, and I will say the diamond looks bigger than it is.

I know not everyone agrees, but personally, I feel like the size doesn't matter in a circumstance like this. Everyone should have the ring they love, no mattter what the size.

 

[Autumnovember]

OK, so I know this is an old thread that got bumped but I can't resist the need to say:

AN, after seeing photos of you in another thread I COMPLETELY see why people bother you about your *big* diamond---They are JEALOUS!!!!! YOU ARE GORGEOUS and I am SURE that the jealousy is over MORE than just your big bling!!! Heck, I don't even know you and I am jealous Screw 'em. People that say ignorant things aren't worth the time of day!

Oh, wow! Thank you so much for your nice compliments! this is me right now-----> (blushing)

 

[mrswahs]

My diamond is a .74 and I love it. I think it's a great size and FI picked it because he thought it would suit me well. He was actually in the market for 1.0-1.2 and had the budget for that. He was looking for a square diamond but found that he didn't like princess cuts. They had a classica there that was a .74 and he liked the facets & sparkle so much (and the fact that it's an F color and an eye-clean SI2) that it didn't matter that it was smaller than what he was looking for. If they had a larger classica he would have probably gone with the larger diamond... but for his choice (and I'm grateful for this) he picked the prettiest diamond he found, regardless of his budget. He came in just over half of his budget with the diamond and setting. Which of course, he didn't tell the salesperson

I could have had a larger diamond, but he went with what he liked best, and from the princesses I've seen, I have to agree. No offense to those who have them.

My mom has a .25 RB and it's adorable. She's tiny and I think that size suits her. I honestly would have been fine with that for myself. I really didn't expect a diamond as big as what FI presented to me because my mom's is what I had grown up seeing.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

I thought I might have posted in this thread, but I guess not. Personally I find my "small" diamond to be perfect for me because I have two boys to tend to and they're very physical and wearing a large diamond, to me, isn't practical.

You know, this is so unlike PS mentality, but if I had a 2 ct diamond, I'd probably never wear it OR rarely wear it. Maybe if I went out to dinner or a fancy mall shopping trip I'd put it on, but I wouldn't wear it around the house or when picking my kids up at school. It would simply be too big for me. I'd rather have a smaller eng. ring, but I *would* like a larger pair of diamond earrings than the ones I currently have.

If I won the lotto, I'd rather have more smaller diamond jewelry than one or two larger pieces...but DH says we'd buy a lake-front house with dock and new boat... I'd pick a new car over a larger diamond

 

[violet3]

This is an interesting thread -- first, to answer the original question honestly - i have big fingers (i wear a 7.5). When my DH and i were thinking of getting engaged and looking at rings, I assume we could have afforded a .75 carat diamond - and for a diamond that size, i would have wanted an elaborate setting because I do believe it would have been lost on my hand.

I'm also pretty non-traditional, so DH and I talked a lot about a sapphire three-stone ring or an eternity band as opposed to a traditional solitaire - we decided on the eternity band. I knew that based on my tastes, i would much rather have an eternity band than (smaller) solitaire any day of the week. I've worn my ring for 2 and a half years and i never regretted my choice - i just love looking at it and the only thing bigger i'd ever want is a larger eternity band

If money weren't an option, i wouldn't want to wear anything smaller than a 1 ct -- one of my good friends wears a 1 ct EC on a size 5 finger and it fits her perfectly. It would not look the same on me.

Having said that, i believe that paralleling small diamond criticism to large diamond criticism is reaching pretty far. Circe had a great post about the fact that money and status play a large part in what size your ring is. I would guess that the negative criticism about your ring AN is rooted in jealousy, rather than distaste for your FI's choice in erings. There is a much larger negative connotation to talking about smaller rings, because as many said, if the budget WERE unlimited, there are very few people who would choose a small ring over a larger one (with the exception of a family heirloom of course).

 

[asymons412]

I haven't read through this entire thread (yet! ) but I think for me, it depends on the setting/purpose of the ring!

As a non-engagement ring, I would adore an itty bitty marquise or round in a delicate, fluid setting (like this! This is an old/not recently cleaned marquise sapphire flanked by two tiny diamonds; it looks a bit larger than it actually is due to my tiny hands. ).



For my engagement ring, I find my 3/4ct princess to be the perfect size for me! I feel it is just the right amount of bling for my job/age. I do see myself however upgrading to a more mature, larger size diamond (perhaps a cushion) in maybe five or so years...

My fiance's mom told him to look into a 0.5 ct [to save money, mostly], but he thought that it would be too small for my hands-- and I agree! 3/4 ct is my happy minimum for an engagement ring (see avatar picture!).

 

[Circe]

This is an interesting thread -- first, to answer the original question honestly - i have big fingers (i wear a 7.5). When my DH and i were thinking of getting engaged and looking at rings, I assume we could have afforded a .75 carat diamond - and for a diamond that size, i would have wanted an elaborate setting because I do believe it would have been lost on my hand.

I'm also pretty non-traditional, so DH and I talked a lot about a sapphire three-stone ring or an eternity band as opposed to a traditional solitaire - we decided on the eternity band. I knew that based on my tastes, i would much rather have an eternity band than (smaller) solitaire any day of the week. I've worn my ring for 2 and a half years and i never regretted my choice - i just love looking at it and the only thing bigger i'd ever want is a larger eternity band

If money weren't an option, i wouldn't want to wear anything smaller than a 1 ct -- one of my good friends wears a 1 ct EC on a size 5 finger and it fits her perfectly. It would not look the same on me.

Having said that, i believe that paralleling small diamond criticism to large diamond criticism is reaching pretty far. Circe had a great post about the fact that money and status play a large part in what size your ring is. I would guess that the negative criticism about your ring AN is rooted in jealousy, rather than distaste for your FI's choice in erings. There is a much larger negative connotation to talking about smaller rings, because as many said, if the budget WERE unlimited, there are very few people who would choose a small ring over a larger one (with the exception of a family heirloom of course).

Heh, thanks V3! Now I'm like this -----> (blushing)

With you on the eternity band, btw: I adore how they look by themselves, and I think they're an excellent way to opt out of the rat-race. Plain bands accomplish the same purpose, of course, but ... bling! Delicious bling!

 

[nkarma]

I also agree Circe had a great post.

And AN's criticism over her large diamond is just like Circe's friend who is too skinny according to some. Some people think it is okay to outright criticize what is valued culturally, while I am sure just like comments at overweight people, the comments to people with "small" diamonds are veiled/passive aggressive insults.

I also really liked Haven's post back on page 1 about how when she approached 30, she feels more comfortable saying "this is me, deal with it." I am 28 and have definitely noticed this for myself as well. I am looking forward to the hopefully more self-confident years of my 30s.

And finally, if money were no object, the smallest diamond I would get is 1.5+ and the largest would be 2.5. My e-ring is 1.37 carats and I have no plans to upgrade it for the indefinite future. I have about 10 other major financial priorities that would precede an upgrade.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I don't think large diamond get more flack than small. I think that some *people* like to give more flack because they are rude and insecure, and and some people seem to attrack flack from their so-called friends or supposedly loving family because they are sensitive and perhaps a little insecure. And somehow those two types of people end up in relationships with one another, more often than not. In those relationships, if the insults were not about diamond size, then they would be about body shape or hair or WHATEVER. Some relationships just involve a lot of crap slinging. And sometimes diamond size gets pulled into that fray.

Case and point -- lots of ladies have commented that they have comparatively large diamonds for their social spheres and have *never* received any rude comments on their diamond size. I wager those same women rarely are on the receiving end of negative comments about their bodies or clothing or what have you, either, either because they don't choose to associate with rude and insulting people, or because they have a confidence that does not invite such rudeness. Alternatively, those women might not pay attention to so-called diamond (or other) insults because they don't care what othrs think. But any ways you slice it, it is not about diamonds. If someone wants to take you down a peg for some reason, they will latch onto whatever obvious thing they can critique that they think will hurt you.

 

[Gypsy]

My stone is 5.87 by 5.86 I think it is as small as I'd like to go in a center stone for an engagement ring. Smaller than this, I would prefer a nice half eternity band for the same funds.

 

[slg47]

My stone is 5.87 by 5.86 I think it is as small as I'd like to go in a center stone for an engagement ring. Smaller than this, I would prefer a nice half eternity band for the same funds.

I think that is a great size mine is 5.82 x 5.81

 

[CherryBlossom]

[
I too, go to school/clinicals in a very poor area so at times I am not as comfortable. However, I thought about it and wondered how I would feel if my stone was smaller and I STILL don't think I'd be comfortable wearing it there. A friend and I were walking down one of the streets in a poor neighborhood and I twisted my ring around so the diamond was facing my palm...her diamond is smaller than mine and I was just as nervous for her as I was for myself.

Okay, I need to say this because I think there are many times we read/hear things and don't speak up and on this matter I have to say something even if it ruffles some feathers. I had a VERY difficult taking a lot of the things that you were saying seriously due to the comments you made about poor people and being in a poor area. The fact you mentioned turning your ring around in your palm or being afraid to walk in a "poor area" Are you seriously afraid of the people you work with and the area you work in? are you afraid of all poor people? I am doing my residency in a hospital in Los Angeles and I have go to Compton, East Los Angeles, etc. on a regular basis. It's "poor" area but frankly I have never felt afraid of the poor people that I work with, nor have I ever put myself in a position where I feel unsafe in the location where I am working/walking around in. I would never talk about it the way you described. I just don't understand those comments one bit and was actually offended by them.

I wouldn't wear my ring in the hospital because it would snag on gloves. I would just war a simple band. But that would not have ANYTHING to do w/ poor people being around. I don't understand why them being "poor" and you feeling "safe" had to keep getting brought up

Anyway, besides that. Sure, making comments about either ppl w/ a small ring or a large ring is insulting. BUT there is a difference. Someone who has a large rock could most likely afford a smaller stone but someone with a smaller stone may simply not be able to do the same. For us to act that personal identity value isn't placed on larger stones ignores simple socio-economic issues.

Furthermore, I feel like nobody can make you feel judged unless you actually think that they have a right to judge you. If you felt like someone was being rude to you, it's your job to set your boundaries w/ people and address them the correct way. People can't insult you unless you let them. This convo seems like the a skinny pretty girl saying "why is it rude to make fun of people who are overweight, but okay to make fun of me just because I'm skinny and pretty." People have teased me about my center stone, people tease me about all types of stuff, but it's okay cuz I tease them for being obsessed about other things. I don't get offended by it because I understand why they are doing it. You can't become insulted by something that you're proud of, no matter who makes fun of it and you shouldn't surround yourself w/ people who take jabs at you. That's toxic. I don't aim to please or appease anyone, only those who truly matter to me... and they are not many.