Women Only! Poll: Perfect Size for an Engagement Ring?

[TimeTraveller]

WOW. I''m dumbfounded by the replies here. Simply flabbergasted.

I went seriously looking around for engagement rings these past 3 weeks and when I saw .75ct rings, I thought they were plenty big. Seeing a 1ct ring, I thought it was more than ample for most gals. Anything larger and I definitely feel it''s getting tacky and gaudy.

Having said that, I think this poll would be much more revealing if age was also asked. It is my belief that age directly correlates to the size of the diamond. In GENERAL, the older the female, the larger the diamond size they desire. Again, I repeat IN GENERAL. I''m sure there''ll be exeptions--and especially on here--but I strongly suspect a younger lady will not find huge carat diamonds to be so attractive on their fingers.

I still can''t believe you have people on here talking about 2-3 ct diamonds. That''s just crazy. On a size 6 finger, I think 1ct--at most 1.25 ct--is the largest stone one should wear. Anything more and it simply doesn''t look attractive. It just looks gaudy.

(And let me disclose that I drive a BMW 5 series, not a KIA. So I''m not saying a smaller size diamond is better because I don''t have funds to afford a bigger diamond. I simply think large diamonds don''t look attractive on fingers. I''d much rather get a 1.0ct D/Flawess AGS000 rather than a 2.0ct J/SI2 AGS3, even if the 1.0ct cost more in absolute dollars than the 2.0ct.)

I''m not here to offend or start a war with anyone. If you like larger rocks, by all means. I simply wanted to state that not everyone thinks a larger rock looks best. It all has to do with balance and proportions. Just as many, many men say they prefer women with large breasts, I doubt most would prefer 38DDD on a gal with a 4''5" frame. It''s all about proportions.

 

[cinnabar]

Date: 8/5/2005 5:34:58 PM
Author: TimeTraveller
WOW. I''m dumbfounded by the replies here. Simply flabbergasted.


I went seriously looking around for engagement rings these past 3 weeks and when I saw .75ct rings, I thought they were plenty big. Seeing a 1ct ring, I thought it was more than ample for most gals. Anything larger and I definitely feel it''s getting tacky and gaudy.

Hehe! My husband thought exactly the same thing when we first started discussing what I wanted. I said "nothing too big, I don''t want gaudy" and we soon discovered we had a large difference in what we considered "too big". He thought .5 was "plenty big", while I was aiming at around .9ct.

Just like TimeTraveller, it wasn''t about money; I had an undefined budget but the general implication was "get whatever makes you happy, darling". He had no idea how much a half carat diamond ring actually cost and wasn''t concerned when I picked out my .94 dream stone and ring for around $5K.

Size wasn''t as important as color and clarity for us. I''d much rather have a 1 carat diamond that''s absolutely colorless, than a 3 carat honker that shows a tint if you squint at it sideways.

That''s just for engagement rings though. If the poll had been about stones for pendants, I could go lower in color and higher in size: my 2.5ct Asscher CZ necklace looks "plenty big", but then Asschers don''t face up like RBs in size for carat weight.

 

[madrock]

I guess anyone could figure out where I voted

 

[churchwedding]

I am a guy and I just bought a 1.54 F/VS2 e-ring for my fiance'' and I''m telling you that Mara''s diamond shrinkage thing is the worst! This stone gets smaller everyday and although my fiance'' would not ever say it, I''m sure she feels the same way. Sometimes I look at it and I think someone must have swapped it for a 1CT.

Therefore, I''m not suprised at the weights women want and I bet, over time, it''s going to go higher. That said, it much like money, cars and homes...no matter what you have, you always can want something better...it''s never enough.

 

[day_lily_me]

Okay, in the first place, I''m old. lol So a one ct won''t do it for me. Been there and done that. In fact, not even a 2 ct. Another factor for me to consider is that I do not like rounds - it''s a personal preference and while I think they are beautiful, I''ve always been in love with the step cuts - probably an EC or an assher. That being said, by the sizing charts, I would need at least a 3 carat to look like a 1.5 carat or larger. Currently I have a 3.01 princess cut and it was purchased 14 years ago for our 25th anniversary and long before I discovered PS. It''s still beautiful to me and at the time, I thought I just wanted something big and sparklie - which it is. But I''m sure it''s not the finest quality althoug I still love it. That''s my .02. Fun poll!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 8/5/2005 5:34:58 PM
Author: TimeTraveller

I still can''t believe you have people on here talking about 2-3 ct diamonds. That''s just crazy. On a size 6 finger, I think 1ct--at most 1.25 ct--is the largest stone one should wear. Anything more and it simply doesn''t look attractive. It just looks gaudy.


I''m not here to offend or start a war with anyone. If you like larger rocks, by all means. I simply wanted to state that not everyone thinks a larger rock looks best. It all has to do with balance and proportions. Just as many, many men say they prefer women with large breasts, I doubt most would prefer 38DDD on a gal with a 4''5'' frame. It''s all about proportions.

TT welcome to PS

you''re new here

just give it a little more time. hee,hee

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 8/5/2005 6:20:41 PM
Author: churchwedding
I am a guy and I just bought a 1.54 F/VS2 e-ring for my fiance'' and I''m telling you that Mara''s diamond shrinkage thing is the worst! This stone gets smaller everyday and although my fiance'' would not ever say it, I''m sure she feels the same way. Sometimes I look at it and I think someone must have swapped it for a 1CT.

LOL....pretty soon the diamond will grow to 2ct,2.5ct and then 3.5ct.....

 

[Kaleigh]

My center stone is 2.36 and suprisingly no shrinkage has set in yet!!!!

 

[UCLABelle]

I put a 2-2.5 range but, I think it depends on the cut of the center stone...

I have a 1.98 center Asscher cut (or, square emerald cut) and find it is a really perfect size, but a similar size in a round would appear too big on my small hands...

This is a fun poll!

 

[Mara]

HEEE this was an old poll but a fun one!! It's basically what you feel looks good on your hand and what you'd buy if you had the $$$ and no other priorities. Like a dream size.

I was in the store today and finally tried on a 2.38c round stone. That's SO my next upgrade!

It's been decided.

I also tried on a Daniel K stunning halo'd asscher which was I think a 4c stone. Amazingly beautiful and huge on my hand BUT just didn't seem 'right' on my hand for whatever reason. Oh no what does that mean?!

Also tried on a few RHR's that were kind of fun. I had 20 min to kill while Williams Sonoma wrapped Greggy's birthday gifts!

 

[fatafelice]

Well, I think 3+ carats would be swell!!!

But I also think it depends on shape. I''d love 2 - 2.5 RB but if money were no object, a bigger (think BIG) asscher or emerald would be my dream...though maybe not for everyday wear.

UCLA Belle: I don''t believe we have seen pictures of that asscher! Feel free to post them any time...

 

[sapphic]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As a guy, the concensus seems to fall at the 1.0 - 1.5c range. So those of you that are asking for 2-4 carats...good thing you''re not in the majority!

 

[hlmr]

Date: 8/5/2005 10:56:48 PM
Author: sapphic
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As a guy, the concensus seems to fall at the 1.0 - 1.5c range. So those of you that are asking for 2-4 carats...good thing you''re not in the majority!

Well, I must point out that you guys are not the ones wearing them, so your votes are a bit skewed in the smaller/less expensive direction.

Heather

 

[sxn675]

I don''t know why a 2 carat ring wout be so shocking. I could see like a 7 carat ring or something being shocking though! For a RB, I wouldn''t want anything above 3 carats. Or, I could get something a bit smaller but with a halo. But, I''d love a larger step-cut ring. Since they''re less blingy and cover less of the finger for the same carat weight, I bet I could even go go five carats or so.

I''m 30, and got married at 27. Before then, I always thought my e-ring would be 2 carats. I don''t know why I thought that, I just did. My ring isn''t that (H is a surgery resident and I didn''t want him to go into debt for my ring) but there is plenty of time .

 

[maxspinel]

I agree that somehow as you get older, you are used to bigger and bigger stones and they don''t look gaudy anymore. Here is the history:

first yr of marriage: .3 carat
15 yr: 1 carat
17 yr: 1.8 carat
22 yr: 2.6 carat
24 yr: 3.2 carat

I tried a 5 ct not too long ago and it does not look bad on my size 4.25 finger

. I must be getting old. Anyway, I voted for 2 to 2.5 rb.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/5/2005 5:34:58 PM
Author: TimeTraveller
WOW. I''m dumbfounded by the replies here. Simply flabbergasted.

I went seriously looking around for engagement rings these past 3 weeks and when I saw .75ct rings, I thought they were plenty big. Seeing a 1ct ring, I thought it was more than ample for most gals. Anything larger and I definitely feel it''s getting tacky and gaudy.

Having said that, I think this poll would be much more revealing if age was also asked. It is my belief that age directly correlates to the size of the diamond. In GENERAL, the older the female, the larger the diamond size they desire. Again, I repeat IN GENERAL. I''m sure there''ll be exeptions--and especially on here--but I strongly suspect a younger lady will not find huge carat diamonds to be so attractive on their fingers.

I still can''t believe you have people on here talking about 2-3 ct diamonds. That''s just crazy. On a size 6 finger, I think 1ct--at most 1.25 ct--is the largest stone one should wear. Anything more and it simply doesn''t look attractive. It just looks gaudy.

(And let me disclose that I drive a BMW 5 series, not a KIA. So I''m not saying a smaller size diamond is better because I don''t have funds to afford a bigger diamond. I simply think large diamonds don''t look attractive on fingers. I''d much rather get a 1.0ct D/Flawess AGS000 rather than a 2.0ct J/SI2 AGS3, even if the 1.0ct cost more in absolute dollars than the 2.0ct.)

I''m not here to offend or start a war with anyone. If you like larger rocks, by all means. I simply wanted to state that not everyone thinks a larger rock looks best. It all has to do with balance and proportions. Just as many, many men say they prefer women with large breasts, I doubt most would prefer 38DDD on a gal with a 4''5'' frame. It''s all about proportions.

Curious - are you a male or female?

If male, then you may want to take in the perpective of some of these women''s choices. Size can be a girl thing. It really not what *you* think is appropriate or correct proportions. She''s the one wearing it.

It may be perfect for her as well - just worthy of feeling her out.

Never mind if you are a gal. It''s clear what you like.

 

[sjz]

Date: 8/6/2005 12:47:13 AM
Author: sxn675
I don't know why a 2 carat ring wout be so shocking. I could see like a 7 carat ring or something being shocking though! For a RB, I wouldn't want anything above 3 carats. Or, I could get something a bit smaller but with a halo. But, I'd love a larger step-cut ring. Since they're less blingy and cover less of the finger for the same carat weight, I bet I could even go go five carats or so.

I'm 30, and got married at 27. Before then, I always thought my e-ring would be 2 carats. I don't know why I thought that, I just did. My ring isn't that (H is a surgery resident and I didn't want him to go into debt for my ring) but there is plenty of time .

I can tell you for a fact that a 2 carat ring would be shocking in the town that I grew up in! It would be considered gaudy and ostentatious. I grew up in a small farming community with a population of around 5000. There were wealthy people living there, don't get me wrong. Farmers in this area aren't exactly paupers. But most people where I grew up are more conservative about things like jewelry. They'd rather spend their big bucks on a nice pickup truck!

Now I live in a larger city with a university campus. I live in an affluent area of my city to boot. Most of the people who live near me are two income couples where at least one of the two make six figures. I still don't see a lot of 2 carat diamonds. While I don't think 2 carats would shock anyone I know, it will absolutely raise a few eyebrows. My husband is originally from Chicago, and a lot of the wives of his friends have diamonds close to 2 carats. A few even bigger. I'm sure most of them would be "shocked" by a ring that wasn't 2 carats! My SIL is in NYC, and reports that 2-3 carats is typical in her area. Her ring is around 3 carats.

I think that the people who live near the big metropolitan areas, particularly the ones on both coasts, are more used to the larger sized diamonds and wouldn't be shocked by anything unless it was massive (like the 7 carats you mention). I think the same holds true for many parts of the south. But when you get in the more rural areas of the country, or in the smaller communities especially in the midwest, people are impressed and "shocked" by much smaller diamonds.

 

[TimeTraveller]

Date: 8/6/2005 11:25:09 AM
Author: fire&ice
Curious - are you a male or female?


If male, then you may want to take in the perpective of some of these women''s choices. Size can be a girl thing. It really not what *you* think is appropriate or correct proportions. She''s the one wearing it.

It may be perfect for her as well - just worthy of feeling her out.


Never mind if you are a gal. It''s clear what you like.

I am male.

You bring up a very interesting--almost philosphical--point, and that is when one buys a gift for a GF/fiancee/wife, whether one buys purely for her enjoyment or for the enjoyment of both parties. I have to be honest and say that whenever I have purchased anything of significance for a GF/wife, I have always choosen something that I know she would appreciate but that something also agrees with me. I can''t imagine buying something for her that I would be loathe to see her wearing or using. I realize it''s a gift for her but I''m the one whose purchasing it and I''m also the one who will also be seeing it on her often. Whether it be a purse, dress or a piece of jewelery, she may be the one wearing/using it, but I''ll certainly be seeing it often and for that reason, I will always buy something that I will also greatly appreciate. I can''t imagine buying something for her which I find tasteless or gaudy. And to be honest, I sincerely don''t think I''d be with a gal who had such differences in tastes as mine.

I actually shopped for an engagement ring with my current GF and I know she''s interested in a 1ct ring. I also know she''s highly biased towards the Tiffany setting--which I agree on very much. So our preferences are in alignment.

Thank goodness for that, as if she really wanted a 2ct ring, I don''t think I could stand to look at that huge of a rock on her relatively small fingers each and every day. It just wouldn''t sit right with me.


But again, to each his/her own. I can fully appreciate that some gals sincerely desire big rocks. More power to those gals. I just wanted to express the view that not everyone appreciates a huge rock, and not simply because of pricing concerns but because of aesthetics.

Peace.

 

[sxn675]

SJZ, that makes sense - I was responding to Time Traveler being so flabbergasted (I probably should have quoted). I''ve actually never been to one of the rural communities you talked about, but I can see what you''re saying. We are moving to Kentucky for H''s training next year, so I guess I will be in for a surprise!!!

 

[sjz]

Date: 8/6/2005 7:46:19 PM
Author: sxn675
SJZ, that makes sense - I was responding to Time Traveler being so flabbergasted (I probably should have quoted). I''ve actually never been to one of the rural communities you talked about, but I can see what you''re saying. We are moving to Kentucky for H''s training next year, so I guess I will be in for a surprise!!!

If you are going to live near Louisville, you probably will see a lot of nice bling. I''d think it depends on where you are going to live. If it''s a decent sized town, you might see some nice sized diamonds. But if you are locating to a small town, you probably won''t. And if your ring is good sized...be prepared for a lot of stares! LOL!

Maybe things will change as more people get accustomed to looking at diamonds and buying online. I have to tell you, near where I live the selection is not that great. There isn''t anywhere like Tiffany''s or any store that stocks designer settings within 200 miles. Most of the stores locally don''t stock the larger sized diamonds, either. The nearest cities that would have anything like what I see on PS on a regular basis would be Chicago, St. Louis, or Indianapolis. All of which are around 200 miles from where I live. All we have around here are the mall/chain stores like Zales, Helzberg, Kay Jewelers, or Rogers and Hollands and a handful of B&M stores that are privately owned and pretty expensive for what they are selling. Whenever my husband and I travel to the larger cities I mentioned, I''m always anxious to go window shopping in the jewlery stores. He can''t understand why, but it''s because they have jewelry and stones that I don''t normally see, except on here or in magazines.

 

[sxn675]

Hi Suzi,

Oh, my ring isn't that big (about a carat) so I don't think people will be staring at me for that. I meant adjusting to moving from the Northeast to Kentucky!!! I'm one of those stereotypical people who wears all black and such, so I'm sure they're going to think I'm a snotty Yankee . LOL.

 

[sjz]

Date: 8/6/2005 8:08:59 PM
Author: sxn675
Hi Suzi,

Oh, my ring isn''t that big (about a carat) so I don''t think people will be staring at me for that. I meant adjusting to moving from the Northeast to Kentucky!!! I''m one of those stereotypical people who wears all black and such, so I''m sure they''re going to think I''m a snotty Yankee . LOL.

My husband thought he''d entered the Twighlight Zone when he moved here from Chicago 15 years ago...lol! Even though we live only around 200 miles south of Chicago in Central Illinois, this seemed like the boonies to him! He eventually got used to it here, but I tell you, he still stands apart from the typical midwestern guys. Lucky for him, we now live in a university town, and there are a lot more diversity so that he doesn''t feel so odd. Our town if very multi-cultural because of the university, and a lot of the doctors he works with are from other cities, not born and bred in the midwest farm towns. I''m the one who feels like the odd ball now, sometimes...lol.

I think you''ll find people that you''ll fit in with, where ever you go. The world is shrinking a LOT these days.

 

[sxn675]

Suzi, it''s so funny that you say that. All of H''s fellow residents and the attendings are like "yeah, good job on getting the fellowship. IS YOUR WIFE GOING WITH YOU? HOW WILL SHE HANDLE IT?". I guess they don''t think I''m very resiliant