Help on Engagement Rings

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by wellsuited, May 18, 2006.

  1. mafoofan

    mafoofan THE FOO Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    20,865
    Likes Received:
    2,077
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    I dislike large engagement rings, and I agree that 3.5 carats looks huge.

    I wound up settling on 2 carats, and I thought that looked big enough. My fiancee seems more than satisfied; hopefully she'll feel the same in Manhattan.
     


  2. antirabbit

    antirabbit Senior member

    Messages:
    3,819
    Likes Received:
    95
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Location:
    North GA
    I am saying no larger....
    I live in Lake Bluff, right next to Lake Forest, home of the texas sized diamonds, on average, I see ones over 5 all the time.
     


  3. mafoofan

    mafoofan THE FOO Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    20,865
    Likes Received:
    2,077
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    I am saying no larger....
    I live in Lake Bluff, right next to Lake Forest, home of the texas sized diamonds, on average, I see ones over 5 all the time.


    In Chicago, people seem to think my fiancee's diamond is huge, but engagement rings here are less flashy than on the coasts.
     


  4. itsstillmatt

    itsstillmatt The Liberator Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    14,384
    Likes Received:
    2,048
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Location:
    The wild and the pure.
    Flashy rings are not so typical in Northern California, at least they were pretty atypical until a couple of years ago. Now you see them a little, but not like in SoCal or on the East Coast. Personally, a big diamond strikes me as simply a way to advertise how much your husband was willing to pay. I don't even say could pay, because so many people can't afford the ones they buy.

    My wife really did not want a diamond ring, and I had no interest in paying for something she didn't want. We had a diamond that we ended up having made up and it looks nice, but I don't know if she has worn it since our wedding. At most three or four times. It is a carat and three quarters, and I think it is a nice size. I think two is nice as well, but much more starts to look very showy to me.

    One thing I have noticed is that American women, by and large, do not wear jewelry well. They want to show what it is they have got without any sense of style.
     


  5. mafoofan

    mafoofan THE FOO Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    20,865
    Likes Received:
    2,077
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Agreed on the anti-flashiness standpoint. I knew a fellow summer associate at a firm I worked for in Washington D.C. that wore a SIX carat oval diamond her parents bought her because the one her fiance gave her was less than a carat. She wore each ring at the same time, on each of her ring fingers. Aside from the tastelessness of the entire situation, the ring itself was extremely obnoxious.

    I tend to think 1 to 2.5 carats is a healthy, tasteful range. Of course, it's worth keeping in mind that diamonds of the same weight may have different face-up sizes. I've seen 1.5 carat diamonds that appear larger than 2.2 carat ones. Also, round brilliants look bigger than anything else, carat for carat. A 2 carat round brilliant can look ridiculously large. In comparison, my fiancee's diamond is an asscher, so it only faces up like a 1.4-1.5 carat round brilliant.
     


  6. HomerJ

    HomerJ Senior member

    Messages:
    4,561
    Likes Received:
    53
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Agreed on the anti-flashiness standpoint.

    I tend to think 1 to 2.5 carats is a healthy, tasteful range. Of course, it's worth keeping in mind that diamonds of the same weight may have different face-up sizes. I've seen 1.5 carat diamonds that appear larger than 2.2 carat ones. Also, round brilliants look bigger than anything else, carat for carat. A 2 carat round brilliant can look obnoxiously large.


    That would be one deep 2.2 and one shallow 1.5! I see, you're talking about different cuts.

    The size of the woman's hand seems to make a big difference in apparent size.
     


  7. mafoofan

    mafoofan THE FOO Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    20,865
    Likes Received:
    2,077
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    That would be one deep 2.2 and one shallow 1.5! I see, you're talking about different cuts.

    The size of the woman's hand seems to make a big difference in apparent size.


    The diamond shape does make a big difference. A good asscher is cut deep and fat, so they face up pretty small--an unfortunate consequence for the wallet. But even same-shape diamonds can differ greatly.

    And, yeah, it helps to marry a girl with dainty fingers. That's by far the cheapest solution. Presumably she'd also eat less [​IMG].
     


  8. aragon765

    aragon765 Senior member

    Messages:
    538
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    I think finger size is a large determinate of how a ring looks... a huge ring on a tiny girl looks a little too 'nichole ritchie' to me..

    There are many things that can be done with the setting and the ring pairing that makes diamond rings more intersting than a massive rock, imo...
    [​IMG]
     


  9. HomerJ

    HomerJ Senior member

    Messages:
    4,561
    Likes Received:
    53
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    The diamond shape makes a big difference, too. A good asscher is cut deep and fat, so they face up pretty small--an unfortunate consequence for the wallet.

    And, yeah, it helps to marry a girl with dainty fingers.


    I didn't catch your edit before I posted. Yes, you're right. The asscher is a neat cut, don't see them too often, [​IMG]

    I think the marquis cut probably faces up the biggest but there's a story that marriages with a marquis engagement ring have a higher rate of divorce. Maybe there's a lesson here [​IMG] (urban legend? I don't know the facts behind it)
     


  10. Beckwith

    Beckwith Senior member

    Messages:
    792
    Likes Received:
    81
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Location:
    NYC
    In NYC I think to many people fall into the quantity vs. quality trap. My wife has a friend who is all about quantity, and had a larger round stone, which hides imperfections better than most cuts. Someone once asked her in an elevator if that was a yellow diamond. It depends which circles you run in, but i would say the average ring I see or hear about is around 2 carats.
     


  11. mafoofan

    mafoofan THE FOO Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    20,865
    Likes Received:
    2,077
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    I think the marquis cut probably faces up the biggest but there's a story that marriages with a marquis engagement ring have a higher rate of divorce. Maybe there's a lesson here [​IMG] (urban legend? I don't know the facts behind it)

    I think that might have to do with the fact women seem to unilaterally hate the marquise cut. I chose my fiancee's ring on my own (she wanted to be romantic), but she admitted later on that she was happy I didn't pick a marquise. Go figure.
     


  12. mafoofan

    mafoofan THE FOO Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    20,865
    Likes Received:
    2,077
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    In NYC I think to many people fall into the quantity vs. quality trap. My wife has a friend who is all about quantity, and had a larger round stone, which hides imperfections better than most cuts. Someone once asked her in an elevator if that was a yellow diamond. It depends which circles you run in, but i would say the average ring I see or hear about is around 2 carats.

    I also think people over-estimate carat weights and under-estimate price. I'm not sure how many women are really aware of how much a decent 2 carat diamond costs.
     


  13. antirabbit

    antirabbit Senior member

    Messages:
    3,819
    Likes Received:
    95
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Location:
    North GA
    I did a 1.25 modified radiant, which at the face looks like a princess cut, but is faceted like a round.
    It is E, vs1, and the cut is perfect.

    I too learned that color is the most important, I must have looked at 200 diamonds over a 5 month period before I found this one.

    Mind you, I was a struggling violinist at the time, so I had no money really. I ended up selling a violin and a bow to pay for it.
    Now being up here where we live, her stone seems tiny by comparison, however, the setting and the execution of the rings are very unique and timeless.

    Aim for that.
     


  14. mafoofan

    mafoofan THE FOO Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    20,865
    Likes Received:
    2,077
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Now being up here where we live, her stone seems tiny by comparison, however, the setting and the execution of the rings are very unique and timeless.

    Aim for that.


    I don't think 1.25 carats is small by any measure. And you're totally right: more diamonds are ruined by ugly settings than any other factor.
     


  15. aragon765

    aragon765 Senior member

    Messages:
    538
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    ... her stone seems tiny by comparison, however, the setting and the execution of the rings are very unique and timeless.

    Aim for that.


    MPE
     


Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by