Help on Engagement Rings

Originally Posted by iammatt

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Originally Posted by antirabbit

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

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.

Originally Posted by HomerJ

Click to expand...

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 .

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...

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

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,

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 (urban legend? I don't know the facts behind it)

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.

Originally Posted by HomerJ

Click to expand...

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

(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.

Originally Posted by Beckwith

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Originally Posted by antirabbit

Click to expand...

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.

Originally Posted by antirabbit

Click to expand...

... her stone seems tiny by comparison, however, the setting and the execution of the rings are very unique and timeless.

Aim for that.

MPE