How small is too small for you?

[Snicklefritz]

Keeping in mind that we all have our carat weight/measurement preferences for various reasons, and there is no right or wrong answer to this question, how small is too small for you?

The focus of this thread is your preference for an engagement ring diamond, but share for whatever jewelry you'd like. Please provide a diamond shape and carat weight and/or mm measurements since, for example, a .50ct pear will appear larger than a .50ct asscher. Please give any other contextual details you'd like.


Thanks!

 

[amc80]

This is tough. Honestly, I would have been fine with no diamond and just a band. Don't get me wrong, I love diamonds....but getting married wasn't dependent on the size of the stone.

Having said that, I prefer a 2ct round. I love emeralds and asschers but it would need to be a bigger ct to face up how I'd like it.

 

[baby monster]

1ct and below is too small for me. I like substantial rings with good finger coverage.

 

[Smith1942]

For an engagement diamond, if I had my choice and the money, the minimum size would be 1.20, but I'd be even happier with 1.50 -1.60. I think 1.70-ish would be my upper limit, taking into account my casual clothes and lifestyle.

For a finished diamond jewellery piece, I tend to find that the piece doesn't have enough presence for me if it has less than 0.50 of melee. Well-cut pave can be an exception.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Are you talking about diamonds?...

 

[SB621]

I think right now my smallest diamond is 1.18ct with my largest being 5.06ct. Most of my ones in between hover around or just above the 2ct marker. For me honestly I love 8mm. It is large but not so large that i'm award of it all the time.

Once again though it doesn't matter what size it is if the color and cut don't appeal to me.

 

[OreoRosies86]

I really can't go below a carat At a size 7, small stones look like dots on my hand.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Keeping in mind that we all have our carat weight/measurement preferences for various reasons, and there is no right or wrong answer to this question, how small is too small for you?

Thanks!

SIZE means nothing if IT doesn't perform. Most women do prefer a lively small one then a big dead looking one...

 

[Snicklefritz]

Keeping in mind that we all have our carat weight/measurement preferences for various reasons, and there is no right or wrong answer to this question, how small is too small for you?

Thanks!

SIZE means nothing if IT doesn't perform. Most women do prefer a lively small one then a big dead looking one...

In all things diamond related (for the sake of keeping on topic), you may be correct DF ... and, thanks for the visual

 

[Circe]

Honestly, it depends on the setting. I have a .20 bezel-set heart-shaped ruby ring that I adore. I put a .25 round tourmaline into a Van Craeynest setting, and I wear it often. With smaller stones, I prefer flush settings, but I'll wear them in a heartbeat so long as the setting suits. It we were talking a very plain traditional Tiffany setting with no bennies ... well, A) the stone would have to be QUITE beautiful to trump my love for intricate metalwork, and, B), size wise, I guess I'd say 2 carats or 8mm, whichever came first? My original ering at 1.5 cts is a wonderful size, but the ornate setting gives it more visual presence ... dunno if I'd want to go beneath that on my 5.5 sized finger without some other source of visual interest to support it.

 

[Indylady]

Honestly, it depends on the setting. I have a .20 bezel-set heart-shaped ruby ring that I adore. I put a .25 round tourmaline into a Van Craeynest setting, and I wear it often. With smaller stones, I prefer flush settings, but I'll wear them in a heartbeat so long as the setting suits. It we were talking a very plain traditional Tiffany setting with no bennies ... well, A) the stone would have to be QUITE beautiful to trump my love for intricate metalwork, and, B), size wise, I guess I'd say 2 carats or 8mm, whichever came first? My original ering at 1.5 cts is a wonderful size, but the ornate setting gives it more visual presence ... dunno if I'd want to go beneath that on my 5.5 sized finger without some other source of visual interest to support it.

I hunted down your VC tourm--WOW. Threadjack over.


For me--probably anything below .25 carat is too small for me. I have slim fingers, and I prefer an understated look (especially for diamonds and faceted gemstones) so I'm perfectly happy in the sub-carat range.

 

[Roxy]

Keeping in mind that we all have our carat weight/measurement preferences for various reasons, and there is no right or wrong answer to this question, how small is too small for you?

The focus of this thread is your preference for an engagement ring diamond, but share for whatever jewelry you'd like. Please provide a diamond shape and carat weight and/or mm measurements since, for example, a .50ct pear will appear larger than a .50ct asscher. Please give any other contextual details you'd like.


Thanks!

Just focusing on the center stone for my current engagement ring (since I've upgraded my original stone to something larger): I wouldn't want less than 1.5 carat in an oval shape, or less than 2 carats in a round, or less than 3 carats in a princess shape. I haven't tried on any radiants, so I don't know what my tolerance would be wrt that shape.

 

[packrat]

I have a .71 center and .48 sides. (can't remember mm's sorry) I wouldn't go any smaller. Mine are avc's.

I also have a 7.something mm round chrysoberyl in a semi bezel setting. that's a good size for me for a solitaire..I'd not go any smaller there either if I could help it..not that I could ever afford that mm size if it were a diamond.

 

[LLJsmom]

Are you talking about diamonds?...

Exactly what I first thought!

 

[LLJsmom]

At least 2 carats for a round. I think I have to buy an asscher, an emerald and an oval to determine my perfect size. . But I'm sure I will need at least a 3 in an asscher.

 

[daintyG]

Well, it is either small diamonds or no diamonds for me at this point in my life. My ER is a .48 marquise, which looks fine on my hand. It does not bother me as being small. I joined PS a few months into marriage and it made me want to get different shapes and settings more than it made me want something bigger. I wanted an emerald cut so badly and my bling budget kept getting used for more important things since my husband and I were in grad school. I finally decided that I'd rather have an itty bitty 15-20 pointer than nothing at all. Then I found an M color 41 pointer and I got it. When I look at it, I know it's small, yet it's big compared to what I thought I would end up with and it's much more enjoyable than nothing at all!
Also, I live in an area where people do not really wear big diamonds or make a big deal out of them.

So, almost nothing is too small for me if it's a shape that I really want. FCD people, can you relate?

 

[Gypsy]

Depends on the piece.

For an engagement diamond. My own is as small as I'd like. 5.8 square or equivalent.

 

[Laila619]

You can do a lot with a small diamond as long as you have a substantial halo. So for me, .50 or bigger is fine.

 

[jaysonsmom]

When we were first ring shopping, my minimum requirement was 3/4 carat rb. I think that a smidge under would have be okay, but under .66 ct would be a little small, since I'm 5'7 with large hands.

 

[armywife13]

I prefer to hit the 8mm, but can see being very happy with 7mm if it is a pretty amazing diamond.

 

[momhappy]

Assuming all things are equal (in terms of the quality of the stone), anything under a carat would likely seem to small for me.

 

[Snicklefritz]

Are you talking about diamonds?...

Exactly what I first thought!

Admittedly, I walked right into that one

 

[Upgradable]

"Too small" is completely different that preferred size.

My husband proposed with his great-aunt's .6 transitional cut ring from the 1920's. It was (and still is) one of the most beautiful diamonds I've ever seen! I never understood why it was so much beautiful that all of my other friends' rings. Now I so. Cut really IS king!

I just wish he would have let me keep it in its original filigree mounting. He wanted it to be "my" ring.

So, to answer the question the OP asked, it really depends on the stone. I think a vivid colored diamond, <.20 would be too small. In a colorless/near, it would be .50.

 

[stargurl78]

I think the smallest I would want to go would be 0.50ct but I would have been happy with anything DH proposed with. I was definitely over-joyed with the 0.79ct stone he proposed with, especially because he did his research and the stone is icy white (which I prefer) and it is an excellent performer. I know my e-ring is small by PS standards but oh well... Maybe one day I'll save up enough for a big ol' honker!

 

[yssie]

Honestly, it depends on the setting. I have a .20 bezel-set heart-shaped ruby ring that I adore. I put a .25 round tourmaline into a Van Craeynest setting, and I wear it often. With smaller stones, I prefer flush settings, but I'll wear them in a heartbeat so long as the setting suits. It we were talking a very plain traditional Tiffany setting with no bennies ... well, A) the stone would have to be QUITE beautiful to trump my love for intricate metalwork, and, B), size wise, I guess I'd say 2 carats or 8mm, whichever came first? My original ering at 1.5 cts is a wonderful size, but the ornate setting gives it more visual presence ... dunno if I'd want to go beneath that on my 5.5 sized finger without some other source of visual interest to support it.

My Ering stones have all been MRBs, and larger and smaller stones of given proportions and faceting play with light differently and I happen to prefer the former...

Mostly though it's as Circe said - the setting makes or breaks it for me! I personally always fall for settings with detailed profiles that look simple from the top, and there's more space to work with in the gallery under a larger stone.

 

[Snicklefritz]

Previously having owned a 2.70ct RB, which seemed to shrink, I thought going below the 2ct mark (was more focused on weight than mms at the time) would be too small for me. Having done some serious exploring in the world of antique cuts and fancy cuts over the last few years, my views and preferences have changed a lot. I think I'm comfortable in the +1.75ct range for marquises, pears, and ovals, with 1.25ct probably being the smallest I'd go, budget permitting of course. The smallest I'd go in a round is probably 1.5ct, unless it was a three stone, in which case, maybe 1.25ct

And, I agree with those of you that said that their minimum carat weight/mm was somewhat dependent on the setting. A halo, beautiful engraving/scroll work, blingy band, or sidestones can add a lot of presence to a center stone.

 

[chrono]

My first e-ring was a diamond chip the size of a tiny melee so no diamond is too small for me. In such sizes, rounds look best. Most sub half caraters, if set in the right setting, can look very elegant, timeless and at the same time, have presence on the hand.

 

[dragonfly411]

I'd say .50 ct. And the ONLY reason I will say this is because my promise ring is .25, and if he could do that for a promise I'd expect him to save and put thought and effort into at least a slightly larger stone for the engagement.

P.S. My engagement stone is .71

 

[soxfan]

1ct and below is too small for me. I like substantial rings with good finger coverage.

+1

 

[dk168]

It depends on the setting.

Due to my chubby short fingers, I cannot wear delicate settings, as they would disappear on my hands.

One of my day to day rings is a 0.48ct EC set east-west in a 5mm platinum band, and the width of the band provides good finger coverage.

Therefore, the stones can be quite small providing the setting is chunky enough.

My 1.19ct EC set simply in a bezel setting on a 2mm band was a good size for my middle finger when I bought it in 2004.

However, my finger has gone up from a 9.5 to a 10.5 in accordance to my weight gain, and the ring looks kind of small on that finger. It no longer fits, and I have to wear it on my ring finger instead, which looks ok.

Hence my plan to re-set the large EC in a more substantial setting with diamonds so that it will provide more finger coverage, and the band would need to be at least 2.5mm.

One of the reasons I like the tension set rings by Boone is that small stones (5-6mm) can be set into affordable chunky settings for daily wear.

DK