bigger diamonds with age?

[ladykemma]

in 2005 max spinel posted

"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"

my history:
first year of marriage 0.25 carat
11th year of marriage 1.24 carat (addition, not upgrade)

any older ladies want to post their diamond age/addition/upgrades?

 

[blodthecat]

No, the bigger diamonds don''t look gaudy, it''s just that you can''t afford them when you''re young and thinking about setting up a home. All the money is saved for the essential items you need.

When you are older, you have a little bit more cash to endulge yourself! (whether it''s on holidays, new cars etc...) On Planet Pricescope it''s diamonds!

But, I have never seen a well cut diamond that is too big or gaudy. There''s no such thing!

Blod

 

[asscherisme]

When I got married my husband proposed with a .81 round solitaire. It looked HUGE on my size 5 hands. I mean HUGE. It was an OK cut diamond, nothing great. But I knew nothing about cut and was thrilled with my HUGE rock.

Last week my new 1.63 ct AGS ideal "triple zero" diamond came set in a platinum band with a single baguette on each side (like the tiffany style) each baguette is .25 so .50 cts for baguettes.

The ring is AMAZING!! And whlie it looks big on my size 5 finger, it does not look HUGE.

Had I gotten this ring at age 25 I think I would have been afraid to wear it. But now at age 36, I feel very comfortable with it.

And my husband does not like to call it an upgrade. It was a gift The old ring will be made into a pendant. Just have not decided on what and who will do it.

Actually the gift was originally an asscher 3 stone ring (see my avatar) but I decided I missed the sparkle of round. And my husband did not mind I exchanged it becuase it was not my engagment ring but a gift.

 

[sarita]

Yes, please!

 

[Mara]

Date: 6/11/2006 10:44:35 AM
Author:ladykemma
15 yr: 1 carat
17 yr: 1.8 carat
22 yr: 2.6 carat
24 yr: 3.2 carat'

is this years of age?

in all seriousness, i don't really think those rules tend to apply as much anymore esp to these generations...because many times people are getting married older. to me that timeline is more for my parents era, when you get married at 22 or something.

but if you get married, first marriage at like 40, then do you start with a .3? not typically most likely.

i think that the small diamond thing has to do with what someone else already said, in the 'old days' people didn't have much money when getting married, esp in early 20s or similar, and now as couples tend to be more settled in their lives with things like houses or cars or whatever when they meet their future mate, and so a bigger ering to start with isn't such a big deal because it is in more inline with lifestyle.

i do think that something like a 3c does look a little 'overdone' on a 22 year old...but i think 35 or more would be fine. i think part of it is your own mental hangups (not YOURS but just in general, everyone is going to have their own threshhold for what works vs doesn't)...i don't know that i'd feel 'right' wearing a 3c right now, but in 5 years, maybe so. part of it is definitely mental.

 

[Diam100]

Ummmm those rules do not apply in Manhattan (lol). I think my friends & myself have broken those rules with our first original engagement ring or before the 3rd year of marriage.

 

[isaku5]

According to the estimates, I''ve been married 17 years when in actual fact, it''s 43 years. I was 20 (almost 21 - engaged since 19th birthday) DH was 24 and my diamond was a .62 rb with baguettes on either side. I loved it!!!!!

THEN came PS, where bigger is better, and I was tempted by a 1.77 princess flanked by trillions and we went for it. I blame it all on PS because after I had seen the larger stones here, the tempation begain.... See, it''s never my fault!!

 

[Lorelei]

Engaged at 23 = 10 points or so. We couldn't afford much when we were first starting off - so I think as you get older usually the finances improve so you can indulge yourself!

 

[Snooper]

Date: 6/11/2006 1:47:52 PM
Author: Diam100
Ummmm those rules do not apply in Manhattan (lol). I think my friends & myself have broken those rules with our first original engagement ring or before the 3rd year of marriage.

I think that''s a good observation. Location is a factor as well. I always hear of women in NYC sportin'' some nice rocks, same with CA. Where I live, in No. VA, a lot of women sport 2+ carats on average, but a lot of the younger gals, like myself (ack, 28 isn''t as young as I thought...) I have seen wearing some HUGE rings...

But I like my mother''s philosophy:
"They [diamonds] have to be larger as we get older, as our eye sight gets worse"

That works for me! Although I don''t see myself getting an upgrade.... ::bet you''re thinking, yeah right!::

 

[ladykemma]

Date: 6/11/2006 1:38:44 PM
Author: Mara

Date: 6/11/2006 10:44:35 AM
Author:ladykemma
15 yr: 1 carat
17 yr: 1.8 carat
22 yr: 2.6 carat
24 yr: 3.2 carat''

is this years of age?

in all seriousness, i don''t really think those rules tend to apply as much anymore esp to these generations...because many times people are getting married older. to me that timeline is more for my parents era, when you get married at 22 or something.

but if you get married, first marriage at like 40, then do you start with a .3? not typically most likely.

i think that the small diamond thing has to do with what someone else already said, in the ''old days'' people didn''t have much money when getting married, esp in early 20s or similar, and now as couples tend to be more settled in their lives with things like houses or cars or whatever when they meet their future mate, and so a bigger ering to start with isn''t such a big deal because it is in more inline with lifestyle.

i do think that something like a 3c does look a little ''overdone'' on a 22 year old...but i think 35 or more would be fine. i think part of it is your own mental hangups (not YOURS but just in general, everyone is going to have their own threshhold for what works vs doesn''t)...i don''t know that i''d feel ''right'' wearing a 3c right now, but in 5 years, maybe so. part of it is definitely mental.

marraige. when I''m 60 I want to be one of the gray haired ladies in texas where you have to lift my hand with a crane.

 

[diamondfan]

I got engaged at 24 with a 1.5 carat round, not a great stone. It really upset me that the stone was not great. I made it into a pendant.

I got my first upgrade at 35 around my 10th anniversary. It was a three stone emerald cut, a three carat center stone and one carat on each side, very nice stones, from Tiffany''s. It was lovely...BUT

I turned 40, and had my 15th and decided I really wanted something to make my jaw drop, while I still had nice looking hands (I did not want to look like a dowager) so we traded at Tiffany''s...I stayed with emerald because I love it, and we went to the 9.22 carat with approx 1 carat of baguettes, about .50 on each side...I love it and I am glad I have it now and I can appreciate it!

 

[eleguin]

I am 24 and engaged with a 2.03 carat RB on a 0.57 carat half eternity band. While I think it looks big on my finger, I don''t think I stand out from those around me. Like someone mentioned earlier, it all depends on where you''re from. I''m from NYC, where 2+ carat rings are fairly normal. Also I work in a big law firm, so just amongst my own peers, 1.5 to 3 carat is not uncommon. For sentimental reasons, I don''t want to ever upgrade the center stone, so I''m happy to have a size that I feel like I would still love 20 or more years from now.

 

[dbgaap]

When I was young, I looked at jewelry and diamonds and I really wanted to have me some!

But I went towards a more creative (starving artist) lifestyle. When I married my first (who was a musician) husband, the 35 pt diamond ring he gave me was a huge extravagance for him.

I secretly craved a full carat and consoled myself that we were young and had to enjoy "the best things in life [which] are free". We stayed married for 10 years and I had my dear daughter, which remains the best thing I''ve accomplished so far in this crazy life.
I raised her by myself, from kindergarten thru HS graduation. I was so broke for so long that I forgot about jewelry. But that is just a memory, now, too, as my career has blossomed beyond my expectations.

When my current darling DH started talking marriage I suggested matching wedding bands (cuz I KNEW I could easily get a nice big honker AFTER we were married and I got him figured out!

) Being romanitic, he insisted on an e-ring (I got my carat)....

Now I have a very nice quality 1.2, which is very satisfying (for now

)

I DO think that big rocks look way good on us ladies as we get older (and better.....)

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/11/2006 12:38:04 PM
Author: asscherisme
And my husband does not like to call it an upgrade. It was a gift

The use of the term, "upgrade" has bothered me for a very long time. It conjures up (for me) the vision of someone trading in an old car for a new one. Since (to me) an engagement ring is symbolic of being about to marry a certain man, the term, "upgrade" implies that the beginning wasn''t good enough. I don''t feel that way about my engagement ring. It has great value to me emotionally. As I have said before, my engagement ring is an oval of gold with two one-point diamonds within it. The gold is 18K and we picked out the ring, together, in Italy (then the country of my husband''s citizenship).

I have acquired other diamonds, but none of the others could ever be my engagement ring. I call a diamond set in gold and or platinum a "solitaire". It is something I bought for fun, not because I was about to be married. The engagement ring is unique and matters more to me than the other rings.

 

[ephemery1]

I do see why "gift" sounds nicer than "upgrade"... but at the same time, I really don''t mind the concept of upgrading at all. An e-ring''s size is typically based on what you and your FI can - and choose - to afford, either on his own or together, at the time of engagement. But circumstances change (again, maybe based on his salary, or yours, or combined) ... as do your tastes ... and if (together) you decide that you want a larger ring to represent your commitment to each other... why the heck not? Personally I can imagine having some attachment to my original e-ring, so if we got to the point of upgrading, maybe I''d choose to make it into a pendant or RHR... but who knows?

Think of it like this... for anyone opposed to the word "upgrade"... the primary dictionary.com definition is "to raise to a higher quality or standard". If you consider your e-ring to be representative of your marriage, i actually LIKE the idea of my marriage being raised to a higher quality or standard!

Not that there was anything wrong with it in the first place, but continuously growing and changing and improving can be a healthy thing! Just one way to look at it...

 

[lizz]

Good point, ephemery!

 

[Allisonfaye]

I got engaged at 38 with a 1.5 carat. I really wanted 2 carats but my DH had a certain budget in mind. Then, after I got married, I received a small inheritance and happened to be looking at the GOG website and realized I loved the regent more than my lucere. It was 1.85 and I thought the size and the cut were closer to my ideal.

I never in a million years thought I would upgrade again but when we went to Kaufmann de Suisse this year, I could tell by the way my DH was talking that he would let me get one if we could afford it (which we probably will be able to) in 2010. I will be 47. I think it will be around 3 -5 carats, depending on what cut I decide on. I think this will be my last upgrade...or it might be a rhr.

 

[kaylagee]

i have my own nutty ideas abt this(based on woman''s age, not length of marriage):

a 20 to 30yr old woman wears 2cts.
30 to 40- 3cts.
40 to 50- 4cts
50 to 60- 5cts.
and so on....


Exceeding the size for one''s age range is of course, permitted and encouraged. Also, depending on finances, the caratage may be in a single center stone or, in a pinch, distributed in a lovely eternity band.


either way, at 35, i''m already behind schedule. lol!

{removes the nitrous oxide-oxygen mask from her face}LOL

it''s really up to the woman but, to me, important pieces look amazing on older women.

''Jewelry takes people''s minds off your wrinkles.'' ~Sonja Henie

 

[blueroses]

Date: 6/14/2006 12:56:24 AM
Author: kaylagee

it''s really up to the woman but, to me, important pieces look amazing on older women.

''Jewelry takes people''s minds off your wrinkles.'' ~Sonja Henie

Totally agree with this--did you see Liz Taylor on Larry King?? Her bling is INSANE and works so well for her!