Are PS diamonds skewed in size?

[Kissmark]

I just read through some of the recent posts and seems that most of the diamonds mentioned here are quite big. By big I mean bigger than 1.5ct, and many are over 2. I''ve lived in large US and international cities (except for NYC and LA) and I dont think any of my friends have over 2ct, some around 1.5, but most are btw 1.2 to 1.5. Just wondering if it''s because my friends are modest w/ their jewelry, or PS posts are skewed toward larger diamonds.

 

[monarch64]

Just a for example: My engagement ring (1.5 RB set in a solitaire plat setting) was purchased a couple years before I even found PS. Maybe you want to set up a poll to help you with your question? I don''t know if PSr''s diamonds are necessarily "skewed" within the spectrum of diamond carat weight for center stones for e-rings, I do think that we see the best of the best here, but i don''t think they''re totally off base within the realm of typical diamond center stone size. Or maybe I''m just crazy, lol.

 

[LadyAmythyst69]

Don''t know about other people but speaking for myself - by the time I was diamond savvy enough to find Pricescope I was not in the "first phase" of my jewelry buying life. I had already bought a smaller (.62 cts) diamond which was the only one I had for years. My ering is an aquamarine center stone at least partly because we couldn''t afford a diamond when my Hubby and I married. So the diamonds I have now are bigger for a few reasons: I know how to shop around and get a good deal thus making my money go farther, I am older and farther along in life and have a bit more disposable income, and I have been with my husband for long enough to have been lucky enough to be given jewelry on several of life''s occasions.

I think I might come off looking like I have more $$ than I do simply because I don''t waste my money & I "shop smart". I think that''s probably the case with alot of people here.

But also I don''t think I agree that most of the diamonds posted here are bigger than a carat. I feel like I constantly read about couples buying an ering with a "smaller" center stone. And I always think - good for them because no matter what size the diamond is, they got one that they love because they did their homework, shopped around and made their money go as far as they could.

 

[denverappraiser]

I think you may be seeing a skew because of who chooses to post rather than what people are buying. The ‘typical’ young couple has a fairly restrictive budget and usually the purchaser is the man. Few young men choose to hang out in diamond forums. They seem to prefer to do a quick Google search to find a stone, find whatever it is that they want and then move on without ever leaving a public post in their trail. I can’t imagine that the dealers would be willing to share the demographics and budget details of their businesses but the ‘average’ diamond in the US is well under a carat and I’m sure that’s generally true of the PS vendors as well.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[strmrdr]

yes very much so compared too my area.
Most first ER are .25ct to .5 ct and most upgrades are 1ct.

 

[mrssalvo]

yes in my area too. Here we see gals upgrading all the time. I only know one person who as upgraded in real life and it was for a 20th anniversary. I rarely see rings with stone''s larger than 1.5.

 

[lyra]

I''d say yes, definitely skewed. The most common size of engagement rings I see are .75 to 1.00ct max. I have never seen anyone here with anything other than the most common cuts as well: RB, princess, marquise. I also don''t see the beautiful settings either. Just mostly solitaires. Very unscientific, but I''m always on the lookout. And I also agree that the larger stones I do see are always upgrades on older women.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

I was thinking about this recently, too, but it seems that e-rings are getting larger.

I only say that because I started taking inventory of my normal, very down-to-earth friends. We are all in our mid to late twenties with average jobs and of my friends who''ve been engaged within the past year, these are the rings. (BTW, none of them are price scopers, nor was I when I got engaged). I also think it''s important to note that my husband, as well as the first three friends (don''t know about the fourth) didn''t spend the typical two months salary--they spent less--so for all of our husbands the rings seemed very reasonable.

Mine is a 1.5 carat asscher with about a half carat of side stones.
Good friend #1 has a 1.5 carat RB with 2 half-carat pears on either side (east coast)
Good friend #2 has a 1.5 carat princess in a solitaire setting (midwest)
Good friend #3 has a 1.35 carat cushion in a 3-sided pave setting (west coast)
Good friend #4 has a 1.4 carat RB Tiffany solitaire (east coast)

I also spoke with the first three about their parents rings and NONE of our parents had diamonds at all. All of our parents had simple gold bands (which I love) and no engagement ring. In fact two of us have simple bands that we wear in lieu of our e-rings and wedding bands. I wonder how much of it is generational.

 

[Fly Girl]

I think PS posts are skewed towards larger sizes. I live in the Midwest, and most young ladies getting engaged have around 0.5 ct or so. 1 ct is a substantial size. It kind of depends on the age of the bride, I think. People are getting married at older ages, and they have more money for a nice diamond ring.

BTW, I upgraded to a 1.5 ct F VS2 custom diamond ring for my 25th wedding anniversary about 8 years ago. When I was visiting in Beverly Hills last month, I wasn''t embarassed about the size at all. 1.5 ct is a very nice sized ring. Even after spending 10 months on PS, I don''t feel the need for a larger diamond. I can enjoy the big rings on-line, but I just don''t see them in my social circles.

 

[Deelight]

Hrmmm I think on PS there is as many petite as there are larger stones and all the ones in between

of all my friends engaged most have under 1/2 carats with one having a 1.2carat stone :/ but I think it comes to their taste and finger sizes

me personally I have decided a 1.5carat will suit me I love chunkier pieces substantial (Yet dainty)pieces of jewelery for rings and to me a 1.5ct RB will look like a substantially decent sized rock on my finger in saying that though if BF gets me a larger stone I won''t complain

and as a final thought on PS you tend to get more diamond for your money compared to most local stores (at least from what I see around me is the case)

 

[risingsun]

I think that PS is skewed to larger sizes, but also skewed to finding the best diamond for the individual. I could have gotten a larger stone for the money spent on my upgrade, but I purchased a 1.234 ct ACA G VS2. I really wanted the best cut, color and clarity that I could afford; therefore, I sacrificed in size

Well, it wasn't too much of a sacrifice to me

 

[aljdewey]

I think it''s definitely skewed.

Here, you have people who are VERY into jewelry and diamonds, so of course that skews the norm.

I do agree that baseline rings among the average population are indeed getting larger than they used to be, but I think that''s more influenced by people getting married later in life, hence more financially established and more $$ to spend on a ring.

 

[belle]

skewed in size AND cut. i''m just getting over being flabbergasted by what to say when people gush over my diamonds. there is just so much to say in so little time!!

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 10/22/2007 12:05:35 PM
Author: risingsun
I think that PS is skewed to larger sizes, but also skewed to finding the best diamond for the individual. I could have gotten a larger stone for the money spent on my upgrade, but I purchased a 1.234 ct ACA G VS2. I really wanted the best cut, color and clarity that I could afford; therefore, I sacrificed in size

Well, it wasn't too much of a sacrifice to me

Yep, I agree that the perpective regarding color is skewed. I find myself influenced in looking at lower colors that I know in "real life" that I probably wouldn't want. For the pendant I am considering, I'd rather have a more colorless diamond that is smaller, yet if I even ask about a few diamonds that have caught my eye, most likely the responses will be along the lines of recommending a slightly larger, lower color stone for the same dollar. (which is great advice for many!)

As far as size goes, I mostly see smaller diamonds in the area I usually hang out it. NONE of my husband's family have substantial diamonds (most do not wear any at all!). I get odd looks over my earrings and have become exceptionally subconscious to the point of not wearing more than my ring and a tiffany & co. necklace at family events. It really sucks, but it's reality, NOT Pricescope!

 

[Lynn B]

In my real life

my 2.36 RB is the biggest (and most beautiful!

) diamond of anyone in my circle of family or friends. But when I come here to PS, it doesn''t seem so very big at all! (Darn thing shrinks every time I log on! haha!) That''s definitely some serious "skewing", IMVHO.

I think PS''ers are definitely some of the most educated diamond consumers out there. While we all have different "priorities"... some of us love colorless stones, some of us prefer high clarity, and some of us just swoon over *SIZE!*... but pretty much ALL of us insist on killer cut, beautiful diamonds.

 

[risingsun]

Date: 10/22/2007 12:23:02 PM
Author: MC


As far as size goes, I mostly see smaller diamonds in the area I usually hang out it. NONE of my husband''s family have substantial diamonds (most do not wear any at all!). I get odd looks over my earrings and have become exceptionally subconscious to the point of not wearing more than my ring and a tiffany & co. necklace at family events. It really sucks, but it''s reality, NOT Pricescope!

Oh, MC...your earrings are beautiful and such a nice size. I so hope you will start feeling comfortable wearing them. I have a pair of .80 ctw and think they are very appropriate for every day wear

 

[Lv2shopp]

Interesting post. I was just thinking so many psers have such huge stones. But irl this is not the case. Most of my friends have stones that are less then 1 carat. Only myself and one other friend have over 1.5, no more then 2.0. The only reason we have larger then the other friends, we upgraded. When I got married I had a .90. When going to reset it about 10 years ago I found out it had chipped at the tip (a pear). Got a new marquise (love it). One of my neices recently got engaged she has a gorgeous 3 carat oval. She is also in her early 30''s, hence getting married later in life, means more $ saved, more to spend. When I got engaged I was 21, big difference.

 

[cayce]

I know that lurking on PS the last year or so has definitely skewed my perception of diamond sizes. My step mom, step sisters and most of my married friends have diamonds that are right around one carat, maybe a little larger or smaller but not by much.

And I certainly would not have been considering a reset of my ring the day that I got it if not for all the diamond **** I have seen here!

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 10/22/2007 1:29:52 PM
Author: cayce
I know that lurking on PS the last year or so has definitely skewed my perception of diamond sizes. My step mom, step sisters and most of my married friends have diamonds that are right around one carat, maybe a little larger or smaller but not by much.

I agree w/this post. I have a 1.5 carat and people in my hometown think it looks big. I have seen a couple of 2 carats here and one 3 carat but I think it is rare.

 

[shminbabe]

When I received my first engagement ring in 1985, I got a 1.01 ct and I recall that we girls were really wanting that "one carat" mark. My ring was gorgeous. I wish I had it still. It was supposed to be G-H color, VVS1. Thing looked flawless to me. No certification papers; we didn''t think to ask! Though I trust this jeweler who has just retired, sadly, as they had great prices. My second stone was also a carat - 1.03 - but the quality wasn''t as good. I could tell. Still, no cerification papers, but I loved the ring anyway. We paid $3,000 for these 1 ct. stones, maybe $3,200; the first was in 1985, the second in 1989.

While we do see many large stones here, I also notice many smaller, quite lovely stones too, routinely under a carat in size. I have learned that the right cut makes all the difference and can make a stone of smaller size appear much more spectacular.

I recently received my third ''engagement'' ring, as my second one was stone (and first one came from a "starter marriage") and because I''m older and have been married longer, I frankly insisted that it be a minimum of 2 carats in size I knew he''d not be buying me another ring and that this was it, and we did have the money at the time, so...

But I''d be happy with a smaller stone too for another occasion and I really do think that lots of people choose stones that are less than a carat and are quite lovely. It is NOT worth going into debt over, that is for sure. Get the best stone you can afford and you will enjoy looking at it for years to come. My little .15 pointers in my whiteflash 7-stone band are really sparkly and fun to look at all the time.

 

[surfgirl]

I''m not sure this has to do with PS so much as Hollywood celebrities. Nowadays we can easily see who''s got what ring on and the try to replicate it. I think the first time I remember seeing someone''s wedding rings where I thought "wow, that''s amazing, I want that!" was Angie Harmon''s set. And I think as our world gets smaller and smaller with the internet, celebrity stalking TV shows (I''m looking at YOU Access Hollywood!), etc. people can easily see what their favorite celebrities are wearing and they want to emulate. I think that includes wedding rings. Just my two cents...

 

[cayce]

Date: 10/22/2007 2:08:46 PM
Author: SanDiegoLady
Mine is a 1.51 rb with 2- oval 1.06 sapphires on each side. Mine is by far the largest of my friends.. (unless you count my PS friends

)

I don''t feel uncomfortable. If I were to change anything on my ring.. I''d go from my rb to an rb of very similar size that was an oec.. and have the prongs re-done.. I''ve never been completely satisfied with them.

I would love to have an OEC, too. The stone that I ended up with is gorgeous (1.39, H VS-2) but other one that I really wanted they took and had re-cut from an OEC to a RB before I had a chance to tell them that I would buy it as is. Apparently the local jeweler told them that people didn''t wear those "old fashioned" cuts anymore and they coudl get more money for a modern cut

 

[3shebabes]

My thought is that PS-ers, as a group, may have larger stones than the general population, but more than that, I think PSers tend to have generally nicer stones -- obviously due to research...and interest in having something they''ll be proud of and thrilled with --!

I will say that of my close friends (we''re all 40-ish, married with kids - we''re not 20-something recent brides) I''d say the average engagement stone is around .70 carats. I do have one friend, who lives in NYC and married a Wall Street power-dude, who sports about a 4.5 carat D color, very high clarity rock and has since the day they were engaged. That was his original proposal stone. Amazing! But among my local, see-''em -everyday kind of girlfriends, my original e-ring stone, a 1 carat E color pear, was considered large. But --I just received a 2.86 carat round G color SI1 stone from my hubby for a 10-year upgrade, and I will tell you that as much as I look forward to wearing it and admiring it on my hand every day (once I finally get it set), it will be an oddity among my friends. My hubby keeps saying it''s gonna stick out like a sore thumb among our good friends --and he''s right. But -- the novelty will wear off for them pretty quickly -- but let''s hope the novelty takes a while to wear off for me!

I do have one long-distance pal, who knows about my upgrade rock, who was very complimentary about everything I told her about it, but she lives in the Chicago area and she finds that many, many women she knows wear rocks in the 2 - 3 carat range.It isn''t amazing to anyone. In her social circle, a 3 carat-ish stone is more the norm than an eye-catching, show-stopping attention-getting kind of diamond it might be elsewhere.

Anyway, I do think PS stones are slightly skewed from reality --but it does depend where you live.

 

[diamondringlover]

I think it is skewed, I have the biggest diamond among my friends, family and co-workers (except my Mom, hers is a beautiful 1.97 vvs) and mine is only 1.01 and I just got this 4 years ago for my 20th anniversary. I know many people that have recently gotten married and none have anything larger then a .50 center stone, you ask most of them the specs on a the diamond and they give you a blank stare.

 

[musey]

I think, like the other posters have mentioned, it's more of a difference between those who are interested/educated in diamonds (PSers included in this group) and those who aren't as much. At least in my own experience.

Of the people I know who have recently gotten engaged (4), the largest center stone is a .9ct RB. The others fall in the .3-.6ct range. None of them would live up to PS standards for cut and clarity, from what I've seen of them. Mine is a 2ct asscher, which faces up similar to a 1.25ish RB.

Part of the difference, I'm sure, is that I live in LA where my stone is average to small in size (compared to others in the area), where those friends live in a smallish midwestern town, where their stones are in a very average range.

Also, none of them had any input on their rings. Not that that necessarily has anything to do with the size, but it might.

 

[surfgirl]

musey, I was also going to say, in terms of the celebrity influence theory I have, that the SoCal area is indeed skewed towards larger stones, particularly in LA and Orange County. Here in SD my ring is on the larger side at about 2.5cts center stone, but I dont get alot of stares from it either. I dont think people really care all that much around here. But this weekend we were at Fashion Island in Newport Beach, and South Coast Plaza and man, my stone looked positively puny compared to the rockage I was seeing all day. Mind you, rockage does not equal nice stones or nice settings, just big stones. Lots and lots of big, badly set stones. It was mind boggling. I think generally I see quite a few huge rings whenever I'm in Orange County at those two shopping malls, but I also wouldn't say the rocks I see are great quality so it's a conundrum...If only those ladies and/or their menfolk would take a gander at PS, maybe they'd have nicer stones.

I think Leon should set up a shop there to do "while you wait" re setting of these big ugly rings!

 

[musey]

Surfgirl, you know, it's interesting. I've been making an effort to "take note" of the sizes I've seen lately. I was surprised that the stones I've seen around LA, on average, really do look to be just about a carat, maybe a little over. But still, like you said, a 2.5carater won't draw stares. My stone has only gotten one compliment from a stranger since I started wearing it. However, my friends "back home" who have seen it say they've never seen one so big. Go figure.

I'm beginning to think that the majority of stones aren't bigger than what most would think of as "normal" (.8-1.1ct ish maybe?), but if you're gonna find BIG rocks anywhere... they'll be here!!


ETA: Also, I'm starting to think there are a LOT of "fake" diamonds floating around this city. I was at Ralph's the other day, checking out, and the cashier had a bigger stone than I. I started watching for it, and have noticed a LOT of people whom I wouldn't think able to afford a 2+ carat stone, wearing that or more. So either they know some secret for budgeting that I'm not privvy to, or they're sporting fakes (for whatever reason, and I'm sure there are many completely valid reasons for doing so). Anyway, I thought it was interesting...

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I live in the southeast, and I think outside the big cities most e-rings for young women will be under a carat. When I got engaged long ago, I got a 1 ct. diamond and that was about the 2nd largest of the girls I knew at college (which was a private all-girls school). I was satisfied with it for many years, until I decided I wanted a better cut stone with higher clarity. I came on PS really wanting a 1.4 ct. stone, but somehow I got carried away

and got a 1.6 ct. stone due to the fact that 1.6 isn''t all that big by PS standards! Because it is the largest of all my close friends and family, I still consider trading it in for a smaller but higher color stone. I am still self-conscious about it at times.

So is it skewed here? You bet!!!

 

[precious jemz]

Living in the Bay Area, 3 carats on your hand and 2 carats in each ear is the norm...

I see follks in the gym wearing all of this bling or at the market. Fun stuff to see and all with gorgeous settings to boot, not to mention bracelets and pendants!

 

[Ellen]

I''ll say they''re skewed in size. Imagine my shock and horror when I received my ring and found out the diamond wasn''t really 2-4 inches wide like in all these pics people posted.