0.9ct on a Ring Size 6 Finger - Suggestions, suggestions...

[cryptik]

Hey All -

I''m looking at a 0.9ct CUSHION diamond for the GF.

The dimensions are: 5.77 x 5.31 x 3.71

Would this look small or would it be ok on a Size 6 finger?

If anyone has pictures of a 0.9ct diamond on size 5-6 finger, I''d appreciate that too.


Thanks.

 

[oldminer]

If the diamond is a pretty one, if the diamond is near the limit of your budget, if you like it and think she will, too, then the issue is not the size of the diamond, but what sort of person your proposal of marraige is going to. If she looks at it and it is inadequate, you may be lucky enough to find out before it is too late that you can''t afford her. If there is going to be a long term feeling between you two that what you can provide is not adequate then I''d predict eventual doom for the relationship.

Of course, a diamond that size is large enough for most people in most markets. It is what YOU can afford and offer, not what someone else can afford and offer. The diamond is your representation of your love and committment, not a purchase price.

I''m having an old man moment....................Best of luck with the process.

 

[sklingem]

Thanks Oldminer ... we should have more posts like these ... I thought I had also seen a post mentionning that the average e-ring stone size is under 0.5 cts?
Cheers!

 

[cryptik]

Oldminer, trust me when I say, if I get her a 0.3ct she''d look at it and still say its adequate. I think you looked too deep into the question. I''d like to buy her a great diamond and to me size does not factor into great. However, what I do not want to end up getting is something that looks small on a size 6 ring finger.

Its not a question of whether she''ll find it adequate or not, just a question of proportionality on how it would set on the finger.

Thats all.

Thanks for the feedback though, and I''d appreciate more if possible.

:0)

 

[sklingem]

"However, what I do not want to end up getting is something that looks small on a size 6 ring finger"

Cryptik - there is no way to get an "objective" answer to your question. It is like asking how much you should spend on an engagement ring. Some may say that only a 3ct will look big enough on their size 4 ring and others like "small" diamonds better in the first place.
How about:
(a) looking at the rings she has with stones (if any) and take that as a reference
(b) take a ring size(r) 6 and put it on one of your finger; cut out different diamond sizes that you print out on paper (http://images.amazon.com/media/i3d/01/actual-diamond-size.pdf)
and see what you think about the coverage. BUT! Depending on how you mount the stone the ring can also look bigger/smaller. F.e. getting a halo will make the center stone look bigger!
Good luck!

 

[erica k]

so much depends on the cut and liveliness of the stone, and so much depends on the hand itself.

i have shortish fingers, size 5.5-6, and my 1ct RB (faces up like .90 ct, 6.06x 6.14mm) doesn't look quite right to me for several reasons:
1. not a well-cut stone
2. wedding set is too wide for length and shape of my finger
3. i really would rather have more finger coverage (7.0-7.5mm range)

that said, i have a .50ct ideal cut RB that is super sparkly, and it's set in a wide band. when i pair it with my thin eternity band, it looks pretty close to perfect considering it's on the small size in my mind.

i also think fit is very important. if your fingers swell, it's better to have a looser fitting ring (not so loose that it falls off). just as you wouldn't buy jeans that are too tight, a ring should fit and look comfortable on the hand.

sorry for the dark photos:

[edit for typos]

 

[erica k]

this is the .50ct stone with eternity band.

it''s a matter of taste. i prefer the look of a wider e-ring and thinner band. but if i could do it again, i would have a 7.5mm solitaire paired with a thin eternity band, so that the rings don''t take up too much space on my shortish finger, and so that the stone appears to hang over the wedding band.

 

[cryptik]

Rob, you''re right. You can''t get an objective answer, but neither can you when someone posts measurements of a diamond to ask if the diamond seems decent...
Its never an objective answer, but, responses such as "oh that looks like it might be a diamond with fire" or "Its too deep, the light will not reflect internally.. hence.." you get the idea... people have opinions and opinions was what I was looking for.. not an objective straight forward answer such as, "yes its small".

I like your suggestions, but I disagree that its like asking how much money I should spend on an engagement ring.
I''m about to order a diamond with a 30 day return policy, but if I heard responses like ''oh that looks too small on my size6 or 5 finger'' I''d think twice before ordering it.

If the general consensus was, yeah I have a size 5-6 finger and my 0.9 diamond or 1ct diamond looks just great, I''d be more inclined ordering it.

Its like asking, "do these sunglasses look too big on my face" - which is a common question. It is an opinion, not objective like you said.

And thats exactly what I was looking for.

Thanks !

 

[cryptik]

Thanks Erica! Thats the kind of response I was looking for!!

You''re right, after looking at the picture, a thinner eternity band wouild make the diamond stand out more and take less space as is the case in the second picture!
Her fingers are longer, and I think a thinner band would be nice.

 

[star sparkle]

I have a size 4.75 finger and the center stone on my e-ring is .82ct. I don''t have my ring yet, but that''s the size I was trying on when I was browsing and it''s what I really liked. It''s big enough to get noticed, but at the same time it''s not flashy.

 

[sklingem]

"But neither can you when someone posts measurements of a diamond to ask if the diamond seems decent..."
Well, there are ways to get a good "objective" idea based on specs for round cuts, so I don''t think that is comes down to "simple" opinions in that case. I just wanted to suggest that you are going to get a number of answers on this question that will probably go all over the place, as they would for a question on how much to spend. Even if you get 10 answers telling you that 0.9 is too small, it still is a very small, and certainly non-representative sample of what people in general may think. If these 10 similar answers give you more confidence in your purchasing decision that is fine (maybe we can define them as expert opinions) but that does not change the fact that they are "only" a sample of opinions that are out there.

 

[cryptik]

...and thats perfectly fine,

thats why people come to forums.. to get opnions, even if they are only - "only" a sample of opinions

lol.

 

[sklingem]

BTW - I think that a well-cut .9 ct cushion on a size 5-6 finger would look very good.
Not too big not too small ... BUT if you think it will look too small (based on OTHER people''s opinions, LOL) getting a halo would be my choice to make it look better without ruining yourself (assuming that a halo is a look that you would like).
Of course all IMHO!!
Take care and have fun!

 

[cryptik]

haha thanks.

That was like pulling teeth out of you, for an answer.

No serious, thanks for the feedback.

 

[sklingem]

Why do you think I wear a helmet? Having no teeth left is not too attractive ... lol

 

[pixley]

You might want to have a look at Neatfreak''s thread. It''s a .81 carat stone on a similar sized ring finger. Her setting is really delicate and allows the stone to really pop. It''s also a rectangular cushion (1.15 L/W ratio) which gives you a little more vertical coverage relative to the shank. Her beautiful cushion was sourced by Mark Turnowski at Engagement Rings Direct.

 

[sklingem]

That one ( Neatfreak''s thread) would look a bit small to ME ... if I am honest. A thicker band, and/or halo and/or bezel setting would make the stone/ring look bigger.

 

[Fly Girl]

The other thing to think about is how she will wear the ring. I wore my 0.18 ct solitaire e-ring 24/7 for years. Rarely removed it. Yes, it was pretty small. My 1.5 ct ring is too big to wear for many activities, so I don''t wear it to the gym, gardening, cooking, washing, cleaning, flying planes, etc. etc.

At this point my preference would be a sparkly diamond between 0.7 and 0.9 ct as the best compromise between wearability and size. So, I think that your thought of a 0.9 ct e-ring is absolutely perfect.

 

[honey22]

Date: 4/10/2008 5:14:03 PM
Author: Fly Girl
The other thing to think about is how she will wear the ring. I wore my 0.18 ct solitaire e-ring 24/7 for years. Rarely removed it. Yes, it was pretty small. My 1.5 ct ring is too big to wear for many activities, so I don''t wear it to the gym, gardening, cooking, washing, cleaning, flying planes, etc. etc.

At this point my preference would be a sparkly diamond between 0.7 and 0.9 ct as the best compromise between wearability and size. So, I think that your thought of a 0.9 ct e-ring is absolutely perfect.

Fly Girl - I had to have a chuckle at your post, it''s so cute

You just threw in the whole flying planes with all the other normal stuff, you are obviously a pilot and it''s something you do regularly, but I did do a double take when I saw it there listed with all the other menial chores we do every day! I love it

 

[honey22]

Sorry! Double post, silly computer

 

[Fly Girl]

Date: 4/10/2008 5:19:27 PM
Author: honey22

Date: 4/10/2008 5:14:03 PM
Author: Fly Girl
The other thing to think about is how she will wear the ring. I wore my 0.18 ct solitaire e-ring 24/7 for years. Rarely removed it. Yes, it was pretty small. My 1.5 ct ring is too big to wear for many activities, so I don''t wear it to the gym, gardening, cooking, washing, cleaning, flying planes, etc. etc.

At this point my preference would be a sparkly diamond between 0.7 and 0.9 ct as the best compromise between wearability and size. So, I think that your thought of a 0.9 ct e-ring is absolutely perfect.

Fly Girl - I had to have a chuckle at your post, it''s so cute

You just threw in the whole flying planes with all the other normal stuff, you are obviously a pilot and it''s something you do regularly, but I did do a double take when I saw it there listed with all the other menial chores we do every day! I love it

I suppose I could have said looking under the hood of your car.

I tried wearing my ring flying, but discovered that fine diamonds and flying do not mix. As part of the preflight you need to check the oil (oil loves diamonds

), and run your hands along the wings and various surfaces. It''s all rather tactile. Once you are in the cockpit, rings are fine, but I hate earrings with my headset. What can I say? I have two expensive hobbies that don''t mix well.

 

[ringster]

it may be alot to go through and there is a mix of different shapes and sizes but you may find something in this thread

also depends on the length of her fingers how a 0.9 would look

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I just skimmed the thread, but I did not see if anyone pointed out to you that the cushion you listed is going to appear smaller than a round stone of the same weight. Ideal cut rounds will have a diameter of about 6.2 mm or so as opposed to that stone at 5.7 x 5.3mm. So you''ll get more finger coverage with a round, or else you could go up in size in a cushion to get the size of a .9 round.

 

[E B]

cryptik,

It's a great size. If it's beautiful and sparkly, I'd say go for it! Just don't let her find this site, as the "average" diamond size here is much larger than the average size in the real world.

 

[marcy]

I think it would be a great size. I wear a size 6 ring and my wrings (see avatar) has a .53 RB and I think it''s a perfect size on my fingers.

 

[tberube]

I wear a .90 carat emerald cut on my size 6.5 finger, and it looks great. I will say that it does help that I have a halo style setting. But .9 is so close to a carat, and a carat is a pretty good size no matter how you cut it.

 

[NeverEndingUpgrade]

You could always halo-set it. That makes a diamond look larger on the hand, or gives it more presence, I should say. Here is a Leon Mege that is around .60 ct. or so, but he set it with 3 rows of halos to make the diamond seem larger.

http://www.artofplatinum.com/4images/details.php?image_id=381

Just an idea. I feel that a .90 ct. diamond is a nice size on anybody. I think that falls into the 1 ct. category which can be set just about any way and look great. You could also do a nice 3-stone design with side diamonds or sapphires, for example. This would work well with a .90 ct. diamond.