E-rings: big versus proportional?

[bangooroar]

Wanted to ask the age old question about e-ring carat sizes:

Are you on the school of bigger the carat size, the better OR

Proportional solitaire size that "fits" with your finger/hand/lifestyle?

 

[Contessa]

Your question is not so simple!

If I'm shown 2 diamonds and one is larger than the other, I'm apt to fall for the larger stone!

BUT!!!!!!

ONLY if the QUALITY is there.

Call me greedy, but I prefer a nice-sized stone of superior quality as opposed to a massive one of lesser quality.

Bigger is not always better........

 

[bangooroar]

Good point. I'll clarify and say that let's assume the stones are exactly the same quality.

 

[ame]

I have tried rings on all the way up to 8ct center stones--which looked like a joke ring. The largest that looked good was 3ct in a solitaire, and even then good was not really the right word. Odd but not atrocious. I don't know how big I would go if given the greenlight and the funds to do so, but the quality would have to be there. I won't settle on cut quality, clarity and color (in that order) just to have a monster diamond.

 

[Contessa]

Good point. I'll clarify and say that let's assume the stones are exactly the same quality.

Bigger stone of course!

But again.......as much as I'd love say a 5-ct diamond, I don't think it's realistic for my lifestyle. And truthfully, I'd feel a tad uncomfortable wearing it. Like Ame, I prefer a "believeable" ring...not something someone will stare at and say, "oh....it's got to be a FAKE!"

How about this: I love a stone that's blingy w/o being over-the-top....noticeable....w/o needing a telescope to see it.......but not overly large that I need a bodyguard!!!

Is that clear as mud for you???!!!!!

I will say this..........when recently upgrading my stone, my jeweller presented me with 2 GORGEOUS, superior quality cushion-cut diamonds. One was 1.01 cts (stunner), and the other was 1.25 cts (super-stunner!). Both were comparable in quality.......and the size totally wearable! So of course, I chose the larger one!

 

[AntiqueShopper]

I think the ring has to look good on your hand. My mom has a 3 1/2 carat pear-shaped diamond. She has size 7 1/2-8 1/2/ fingers, so the ring looks great on her hand. When I try it on, it looks huge on my 5 1/2-6 1/2 fingers. It looks so strange on my hand that it is almost an eye sore. So, to me, proportion means a lot!

 

[Stophle]

I would definitely default to whatever looks the best on my hand. I have seen quite a few women who have enormous engagement rings and the outlandish size of the ring just looks wrong. Not only does it tend to look fake (because most people can't afford single stones of that large size) but it can look ostentatious and even garish.

I was the same way about searching for my engagement ring with my fiance. There was no possible way I was going to get a very large stone with our budget (ended up spending just under $3k, which was actually double what my fiance wanted to spend, but he saw I was having trouble finding a ring that I loved in the lower price range and he started to feel bad watching me tirelessly scour pawn shops for one, so he upped the budget. *LOL* It was so sweet.), but I was concerned with not getting a stone that looked too small on my fingers. We ended up getting me a .99 ct. center stone in a halo style setting to make the presence of the ring larger on my finger. (I wear around a size 8 1/2 ring so didn't want to have that whole sausage finger look. *LOL*)

So really, I think proportion is the best factor to go by, with all stone specs being equal.

 

[lily25]

I like symmetry and right proportion, I have a major in arts and that makes me super critical with aesthetics so I definitely believe one should buy what looks good. Plus it is human nature to crave larger and better in everything, if you were presented with a small ice cream and large ice cream I bet most would prefer the large ice cream because bigger is better according to our human nature.

 

[AntiqueShopper]

I was thinking about this topic today, and I was wondering how much culture has to play in this question. In America, it is encouraged to want bigger: bigger houses, excessive food, etc. However, other countries do not feel this way. Just a thought!

 

[ChiChi143]

I went with what looked better on my hand.

 

[Contessa]

I was thinking about this topic today, and I was wondering how much culture has to play in this question. In America, it is encouraged to want bigger: bigger houses, excessive food, etc. However, other countries do not feel this way. Just a thought!

While I would be inclined to agree with you, let me toss this question into the thread.......

With respect to wanting bigger and better, is it because YOU like/want it?

Or........

Are you trying to impress others?

(and by "YOU", I mean narratively speaking)

 

[HauteMama]

I guess I never really thought about things with a dichotomy like that. While this may be evading the question, I like what I like. Sometimes that includes really big diamonds, but really big diamonds in other settings or on other rings I don't like. So I cannot really classify things as big v. proportional - some big stones look more proportional by virtue of their setting, while others look overdone or ostentatious. I have found myself in love with rings with 1/4 ct stones or with 3 ct stones. So I guess I would vote proportional.

 

[Purseluvnmama]

I'm not sure how I'd answer this question, as my dh picked out my ring all by himself and I did not choose (which was fine by me--and he got an excellent quality stone, particularly for someone who was a grad student at the time)--but I can say that my ring's solitaire is .5 carat and it looks larger than that because I have scrawny fingers--my ring is a size 3.5. It also looks perfect for my finger and I wouldn't choose a larger stone!

 

[black jade]

Proportional, for an e-ring.

I wouldn't mind owning a showy ring (as big as possible) for a cocktail ring that is fun and obviously cost $$$$, but to me, that's not the purpose of my engagement, which is about the love and what a young husband can manage in the budget. the bigger rings are for later, and show success and all that and are fun to pull out in the evenings for 'occasions' but for me, not for every day. For the opera or a big fancy formal party, go as big as you want, wear a four or six or even sixteen carat diamond if you can afford it (though if it's sixteen carats, you probably want an emerald cut, not a round). But an engagement ring is worn every day and after a certain point, it looks odd.

i guess I'm old school.

 

[Swanky]

My ring isn't small, but my fingers are very and I'm petite.
I see people write that a 2-3+ carat would just look weird on their hands, so I wonder how "weird" I must look to people?
I think everyone just gets used to what their's is and that becomes their own person norm.
Mine looks proportionate to me I get a gasp every now and then and jewelers always seem to appreciate it, but it doesn't look weird to me.