"Av. E ring size" vs reality?

[GettingDesperate905]

Hey guys, I have been MIA since my engagement in January. We moved, and have been craazy hectic, but I''m back now and shall shortly post a thread of e ring pics finally.
I do have a concern at the moment though. So, I''ve been reading all those fabulous wedding planning books and stumbled upon a stat that i was thoroughly surprised by: the average size of engagement ring is .75 ct. and it seems like here on pricescope that av size is doubled!
Im at that stage in my life where it seems like all of my friends are getting engaged. I am in a friends wedding with 4 other bridesmaids, and 4 out of 5 of us have gotten engaged recently! and the largest ct size out of all of our rings is .7. my ring is bigger than both our sets of parents was and its only a .4
I dont know if this is just the circle that we run in or what. It''s not like any of us are hurting financially at all. Us, and all of our friends are rather successful, completely independant, and have the opportunity to enjoy some of the finer things, just not big diamonds i guess? lol
I was wondering, has anybody else encountered this same thing? anyone with baby diamonds out there? or am i all alone? personally, i love my smaller ring. obviously i also see the merit in a 3 carat "take someones eye out, use it to help ground planes" beauty, but i think that maybe the "average" size isnt really an accurate representation of reality. anyways, im ranting now.
thoughts on the subject?

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 3/14/2010 2:47:10 PM
Author:GettingDesperate905
Hey guys, I have been MIA since my engagement in January. We moved, and have been craazy hectic, but I''m back now and shall shortly post a thread of e ring pics finally.
I do have a concern at the moment though. So, I''ve been reading all those fabulous wedding planning books and stumbled upon a stat that i was thoroughly surprised by: the average size of engagement ring is .75 ct. and it seems like here on pricescope that av size is doubled!
Im at that stage in my life where it seems like all of my friends are getting engaged. I am in a friends wedding with 4 other bridesmaids, and 4 out of 5 of us have gotten engaged recently! and the largest ct size out of all of our rings is .7. my ring is bigger than both our sets of parents was and its only a .4
I dont know if this is just the circle that we run in or what. It''s not like any of us are hurting financially at all. Us, and all of our friends are rather successful, completely independant, and have the opportunity to enjoy some of the finer things, just not big diamonds i guess? lol
I was wondering, has anybody else encountered this same thing? anyone with baby diamonds out there? or am i all alone? personally, i love my smaller ring. obviously i also see the merit in a 3 carat ''take someones eye out, use it to help ground planes'' beauty, but i think that maybe the ''average'' size isnt really an accurate representation of reality. anyways, im ranting now.
thoughts on the subject?

PS suffers from selection bias since it is filled with diamond enthusiasts. Also, the average consumer is going to a maul store and paying more money for lower quality rings. I know a couple that got a nice .75ct princess from a maul store and paid more than FI paid from my 1.01ct. So, that''s part of it. I love diamonds of all sizes, but I haven''t met many people my age with rings larger than my 1.01ct, even my doctor and lawyer friends... so maybe PS is just pulling up the average.

 

[GettingDesperate905]

i guess so. I just feel so out of place with my little diamond here

but when with friends, or even when i''ve gone dress shopping and to bridal shows and been around other brides, it seems like mine is right with the average. i dont know if maybe its economy slump leading to smaller e rings around here? (I live in a GM town, where the GM factory is being shut down, so a large per cent of our population has been laid off)

 

[cally]

I think most of the people I know have rings under 1ct, usually more around .3-.5. I''ve only known one person in real life to have a diamond bigger than 1ct, and that was somewhere around 3.5-4. It was amazing, but in real life, it just seemed... out of place? I don''t know.

I''m sure the economy is having some sort of impact, people buying smaller and planning on upgrades, things like that.

 

[4ever]

0.75 is the national average (just repeating, not sure if it is true or not) but ring size varies alot regionally also and a regional average would make alot more sence to get an idea about how yours sits in with your peers. In NYC for example there are probably alot of massive 2+ ct or 3+ ct rings hanging off peoples fingers and a 0.75ct average sized rock would be teeny tiny for many of these women because they are used to seeing the big honkers. Where as in your town/area, reciving a 3+ct e-ring is pretty unimaginable and even 0.75ct seems like a pretty big rock! If you had a regional statistic you''d probably find it much smaller, 0.3 or simmilar.

Where I live I think the average size is 0.25ct and it is rare to see a stone over 1ct except in the jewlery store window. Even in really high income areas only a very small percent of women would be sporting a e-ring bigger then 1ct. The reason for this is that daimonds are so expensive here compared to other countires and jewlery is just a low priority for most kiwis.

I would like to see some stats to back these averages up and how they collected their data. I think average diamond size stats are made up and flashed around to make people spend more money to get a bigger stone to be closer to the average by making us feel "below average" and benifit the diamond industry. Why else borther to collect this information?

I think small stones are beautiful and dainty- before PS I wanted a 0.40ct princess in a 1/2 bezel and though that was massive.The ring BF and I ended up picking out (after seeing all the big rings on PS) is alot bigger than a 0.4ct, still small for PS but BIG for New Zealand.

 

[slangofoil]

Let''s see, I have two married sisters. Both of theirs are well under a carat, probably one is around .5 and the other .25. I know two married couples and three engaged couples and I''m sure all of those are under a carat as well, probably none bigger than .75. Mine is .83, and while PS makes me want something bigger I know rationally that even this size looks pretty big on my size 3.5 finger.

I know my sisters couldn''t have afforded much more and everyone else might have been able to, but many of them are teachers, and they''re buying houses, paying off school loans, etc, so there are higher priorities. Also I think all of those rings were bought in B&M stores where they probably didn''t get as much bang for their bucks.

 

[kama_s]

Date: 3/14/2010 2:47:10 PM
Author:GettingDesperate905
Hey guys, I have been MIA since my engagement in January. We moved, and have been craazy hectic, but I'm back now and shall shortly post a thread of e ring pics finally.
I do have a concern at the moment though. So, I've been reading all those fabulous wedding planning books and stumbled upon a stat that i was thoroughly surprised by: the average size of engagement ring is .75 ct. and it seems like here on pricescope that av size is doubled!
Im at that stage in my life where it seems like all of my friends are getting engaged. I am in a friends wedding with 4 other bridesmaids, and 4 out of 5 of us have gotten engaged recently! and the largest ct size out of all of our rings is .7. my ring is bigger than both our sets of parents was and its only a .4
I dont know if this is just the circle that we run in or what. It's not like any of us are hurting financially at all. Us, and all of our friends are rather successful, completely independant, and have the opportunity to enjoy some of the finer things, just not big diamonds i guess? lol
I was wondering, has anybody else encountered this same thing? anyone with baby diamonds out there? or am i all alone? personally, i love my smaller ring. obviously i also see the merit in a 3 carat 'take someones eye out, use it to help ground planes' beauty, but i think that maybe the 'average' size isnt really an accurate representation of reality. anyways, im ranting now.
thoughts on the subject?

I'm guessing by the '905' in your name that you live around Mississauga/Hamilton? Canada in general hasn't caught up with the States in terms of diamond sizes. So in general, you'll see smaller sizes here than the US. That said, the number does vary based on which part of the country you live in. For instance, my brother-in-law lives in Hamilton and I haven't seen anything over a 0.5ct around there. Whereas the area of Toronto I live in, I frequently see 1ct+ rings.

 

[Haven]

I think it definitely has to do with where you live, what type of crowd you run with, and your age at engagement.

I live just outside a major city, my friends are mostly professionals with post graduate degrees, and most of us get married in our late twenties or early thirties. Most of my friends have rings with center stones between 1.5 and 3 cts, and most of us are from Chicago or the North Shore of Chicago, where larger stones are the norm. I currently work in a college in the far northern suburbs and most of the rings I see on my colleagues'' hands are closer to the 1 ct mark.

I know a handful of people who got engaged at a younger age (early to mid-twenties), and they all wear smaller rings, closer to the 1 ct mark.

You love your ring, and that''s all that matters, right? Of course you''re going to see many women with larger-than-average diamond rings on a DIAMOND FORUM--we''re crazy diamond people, here! There are also a lot of really beautiful rings in the under 1 ct thread in SMTR, too. Have you checked that out?

Everyone has their own personal preferences, and you say you love a smaller ring, so I''m surprised you have a concern about this, as you said in your post. My grandmother used to say "You can always look up, but you can always look down, too" whenever one of us kids started to worry about what other people had. There will always be women with larger stones than yours, just as their will always be women with smaller stones, or no stones at all. As long as you love *your* stone, what does it matter?

 

[Bella_mezzo]

I live in NYC and most of my friends are here, Boston, and Chicago.

The majority of my friends have rings in the .4-.7 range, but a few have really big rings in the 2ct range.

I have a .9 sapphire set with small half moons on each side.

One of the big exceptions in my friend group is several Korean friends of mine in Boston. One of their parents is a jeweler, and size is very important to most of those friends, so they all got discounts from my friend''s parents, and got rings in the 1-2 ct range.

I love my ring, and it''s perfect for me and my life. I did just get a blingy 1.25 ctw 5 stone for my RHR when I want more sparkle

If you like your ring, I wouldn''t worry too much about what''s average.

and PS pricescope totally skews your perception of reality

 

[PumpkinPie]

Date: 3/14/2010 6:28:48 PM
Author: Haven

My grandmother used to say ''You can always look up, but you can always look down, too'' whenever one of us kids started to worry about what other people had.

what a clever way to put this idea! I think I will use this phrase - good job grandma!

 

[HopeDream]

Hi GettingDesparate905, Don't get DSS already!

Your sparkly is lovely and larger than many engagement diamonds that I've seen (Including my best friend's 1/3 ct stone).

PS is really it's own little world when it comes to diamond size. People with large rocks post vocaly and often, with lots of pictures. Folks with smaller rocks don't post as much as I think they should.

Gwen did some stats back in 2008 on PS diamond size Gwen's stats the most common size was actiualy between 1.01-1.09ct

This article from 2008 puts the US national average at .38ct, so your ring is above average! (article originaly sourced by moderatelypoorstudent)

Keep in mind many of the large rocks on this site are actualy upgrades (sometimes multiple times over) and the original rock size is often less than 1ct. Some of the big rocks are also inherited family stones (either way, not purchased on the budget of someone just starting out).

Some people are willing to make sacrifices in color and clarity for size -
a .53 I SI2 costs $830,
a .50 D IF costs $3344 (4x more!)

So a bigger diamond doesn't always mean a higher quality diamond - It all depends on taste and your compromise sweet spot.

Thats my 2 cents.

 

[Treasure43]

Has anyone read "I do but I don''t?" It''s got a fabulous section on the significance of the engagement ring, diamond size, and the diamond industry.

 

[ms.halo]

I live in LA and no one I know (who lives here at least) has less than 1ct. Most of my friends have between 1.5 and 2 cts. So that''s probably what boosts the national average.

 

[RaiKai]

Date: 3/15/2010 11:35:18 AM
Author: Treasure43
Has anyone read 'I do but I don't?' It's got a fabulous section on the significance of the engagement ring, diamond size, and the diamond industry.

I read it years ago when I was single. Only because I am a big fan of any sort of social history/anthropology. I read it again recently AFTER being married (as my library card gets a LOT of use and I sometimes like to read things again years later). I did not like it so much this time around (mainly as I find the author kind of whiny and contradictory - she railed against being passive and "waiting" for an engagement, yet was passive and "waited" for an engagement with some dramatic fits thrown in now and then, she complained about the diamond industry, yet wanted a diamond (and got a very large one too!).

I don't know, I guess when I read it again it just no longer fit my own my experience with more mature relationships and she came across as really...whiny and dramatic. My husband was just as excited to get married to me as I was to him, and there was just none of that drama. I found her annoying this time around

However, while I did not feel fond about the author, or some of the contradictions, I do still agree with her sentiments on the diamond industry, and the wedding industry, and so on. I have never really bought into the diamond thing (personally, I prefer colored stones) and had a pretty good understanding of the "real" history behind them. I think the pressure on couples today - not just the fault of the diamond marketers but also the wedding industry as a whole - to not only catch up but surpass the hypothetical Jones' is astronomical and ridiculous. I find it really quite sad when I see young men on very tight budgets feeling they need to spend 3-months salary on a ring even if they don't even have 3-months of emergency savings (or being driven by ego to spend as much as they can without considering what their future wife may want to wear), or young women who feel insecure about their own ring because it is smaller than they "think" is normal. Sometimes the idea that a diamond is the ONLY way to prove your love (as sickening as needing to give a ring of any kind to prove your love seems to me) means couples don't even look outside the box or even get what they might REALLY like. And even worse, sometimes if a couple does choose something other than a diamond or to skip the e-ring altogether, they hear about it from family and (not so great) friends!

You are just as engaged whether you have a 5 ct diamond or a .10 ct diamond. A bigger diamond does not mean there is more "love" or a "better relationship" or any such thing! It has nothing to do with the ring! Even worse than someone else judging you and you accepting their judgments as truth, is when you start judging YOURSELF. Don't go that route!

I chose not to have an engagement ring when my husband and I got engaged. There were many reasons for this at the time. Now that we are married, I am going to get a wedding set (a created sapphire "e-ring" and band) custom made as I just don't find my current wedding band (natural sapphire and diamond) all that comfortable to wear (though it is very pretty!). My husband is totally supportive (even more so as I am using my own tax refund on it..ha!). Even then, I am not going over the top with my stone. As I said, I am actually getting a CREATED sapphire for various reasons (maybe I will replace it with a natural one down the road - I have a natural one in my current ring...or maybe not!). And, due to great pricing could of gone HUGE but am sticking to a 7mm round. I have small hands and I just don't like large stones on my finger. I prefer something more easygoing and less flashy I guess.

All this to say, seriously, you are not alone. Despite what you may find on PS, most women in my experience do NOT have massive 2-3ct D, VS diamonds! I usually see much smaller diamonds (i.e. around 0.5 ct) and I work in a generally high-paying profession. I know a few women with 1 - 1.5 ct rings, but they are often a lower color like a J-M in an antique setting. I know women with 2-3ct rings who never even wear them - they are in a safety deposit box as they took them off when they had kids, or something. Even the author of that book mentioned above removed her 2ct emerald cut ring after three years and put it away into her safety deposit box and only wears it on occasion. Or, they bought them or upgraded them YEARS into their marriage when their profession(s) really took off. I have seen women with emeralds, pearls, rubies, garnets, moissanite, lab-created gems, or even without any stones at all.

There are a lot of things my husband and I would rather spend money on then a very expensive diamond - such as a vacation together or kayaks...ha.

ETA: Sorry for length. Cliff's Notes - don't worry about it. Not everyone has a massive diamond. That's perfectly cool, and some even prefer it that way.

 

[vetrogrl]

I think it depends on each person''s situation. There may be an "average" size but in reality its a personal choice... Of my friends/ family members who have gotten engaged as well as myself...I have a seen a variety of sizes. I live in a suburb of Chicago, of my friends who have gotten engaged the smallest I have seen is 1.5 ct and the largest 2.5 ct. We''re in our mid-twenties. I have a 1.7 ct so that puts me right about in the middle. But my cousin who proposed to his gf has a diamond under a carat and its beautiful. All diamonds shapes and sizes are beauties in my opinion...I think the average is just a number built up by the diamond industry as well...

 

[Mrs.SE]

I''m not engaged yet, but I know my boyfriend has a ring in the making. I chose a .52 center diamond - he asked if I was sure that was big enough for me, he didn''t want me to see it and be disapointed and wish for something larger later. I''m extremely sentimental, it''s not about the size of it, but really that he has taken the time and effort into making me a custom e-ring. I''m not a woman into upgrades, or different sets. What he slips on my finger is what will stay there because it is what will hold the memories of years to come. So I chose a smaller diamond by choice - even though I have larger finger size 8 - I still didn''t want something chunky that I can bang up. I have a general idea of what ring is being made and I know there will be a halo & pave so I don''t know the TDW. It is a matter of personal preference, I like smaller diamonds (under one ct) and warmer colors G, H, I - to each their own. I did however see on a different site a woman absolutely in distress over the ring her fiance'' gave her because it wasn''t large enough. It saddened me that she didn''t take it as a token of love and affection, but rather how embarassed she was to show anyone when they asked to see it (and it was around .75 center) and very pretty.

 

[LadyJane83]

Interesting. I think this "national average" is likely inflated by people living in the LA and NYC areas. I''m a young attorney in the DC/Baltimore metro area and I very rarely see rings over 1.5 carats. Most of the rings seem to be between .5 and 1.25 carats. Anything over a carat around here is pretty flashy (not necessarily in a bad way... it just turns heads).

Don''t ge me wrong, personally, I would love to have a 2 carat ring, but it would not be practical for everyday wear in my profession and geographical area. I think it is also a matter of what people choose to spend money on. Some people take luxurious vacations, some buy luxury cars, some save for their dream home, others spend lots on clothes, or hobbies, etc.

 

[KittyGolightly]

I live in LA, and in some parts of town, I do see some huge, beautiful engagement rings. However, I''ll also point out that there are lots of places here to get inexpensive diamonds that, while large, would probably not appeal to many of the ladies on PS. For instance, take this ring:

2.03 carat diamond ring for $3250

That survey seems pretty meaningless to me. Luckily for you, your FI bought you an absolutely beautiful ring.

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 3/17/2010 8:32:28 PM
Author: LadyJane83
Interesting. I think this ''national average'' is likely inflated by people living in the LA and NYC areas. I''m a young attorney in the DC/Baltimore metro area and I very rarely see rings over 1.5 carats. Most of the rings seem to be between .5 and 1.25 carats. Anything over a carat around here is pretty flashy (not necessarily in a bad way... it just turns heads).

Don''t ge me wrong, personally, I would love to have a 2 carat ring, but it would not be practical for everyday wear in my profession and geographical area. I think it is also a matter of what people choose to spend money on. Some people take luxurious vacations, some buy luxury cars, some save for their dream home, others spend lots on clothes, or hobbies, etc.

ITA. I really don''t think it''s as popular here to have really large diamonds. After spending time on PS, I expected to see tons of big diamonds, and for my stone to be pretty middling. I was immediately self-conscious about the size after getting it, and it took a while to not feel like my ring was a bit OTT. I do love it, but I was a little unnerved at first with feeling like it was conspicuous. Mine is a 1ct center, and about 1.5 tcw...

 

[MayFlowers]

I definitely say it depends on your age and where you live. I am 21 and most of the girls my age getting engaged have been getting three stone rings. The biggest three stone I have seen on someone my age was a 1 ctw, with about a 1/3 carat center stone. I suppose they like three stones for the extra bling and finger coverage. However, I work at a daycare and most of the mothers (who are mostly in their 30''s) have solitaires that are about 1/2 carat. I have only seen one mother''s ring that was bigger than a carat. My sister''s ring is about 1/2 carat and my mother''s is 1/3 carat...both solitaires. Even in the "wealthier" neighborhoods near me, I don''t think I have ever seen someone with a ring that was bigger than a 1.5 carat.

On the other hand, while vacationing in Florida last summer, I saw several 1.5+ carat rings.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

My neighborhood has many affluent individuals and the majority purchased their homes when the market was in it's prime and paid $500-700K for their homes. Many of the families are able to live on one income and most women are SAHMs. That said, the majority of diamonds are under 1 ct (mostly 25-.50ish). The size isn't what stands out to me as much as the cut. Most aren't sparkily. One friend's husband works for a large corporation here, makes a ton of money, etc., and she recently (and the only one out of my friends) who has upgraded and her diamond is very dull. Even in the sunlight, it doesn't have any fire to it. My much smaller .42 diamond outshines hers. My ACAs are blinding compared to everyone elses earrings.

 

[Cinna]

Date: 3/18/2010 1:09:04 PM
Author: trillionaire

Date: 3/17/2010 8:32:28 PM
Author: LadyJane83
Interesting. I think this ''national average'' is likely inflated by people living in the LA and NYC areas. I''m a young attorney in the DC/Baltimore metro area and I very rarely see rings over 1.5 carats. Most of the rings seem to be between .5 and 1.25 carats. Anything over a carat around here is pretty flashy (not necessarily in a bad way... it just turns heads).

Don''t ge me wrong, personally, I would love to have a 2 carat ring, but it would not be practical for everyday wear in my profession and geographical area. I think it is also a matter of what people choose to spend money on. Some people take luxurious vacations, some buy luxury cars, some save for their dream home, others spend lots on clothes, or hobbies, etc.

ITA. I really don''t think it''s as popular here to have really large diamonds. After spending time on PS, I expected to see tons of big diamonds, and for my stone to be pretty middling. I was immediately self-conscious about the size after getting it, and it took a while to not feel like my ring was a bit OTT. I do love it, but I was a little unnerved at first with feeling like it was conspicuous. Mine is a 1ct center, and about 1.5 tcw...

My ring is a little over 1.5 and it hasn''t been mounted yet. It''s in the process right now and as a loose stone it looked a decent size, or even that I could go bigger. I also work in DC and have been paying attention to wedding rings in the past few weeks of strangers on my commute. They seem to be mostly in the .5-a little over a carat range. Maybe it''s just coincidence but I find that younger people seem to have larger diamonds. All my friends have a little over a 1 carat so I will at the moment have the "biggest" ring. I definitely think Pricescope made me want a blingier ring at least for my setting. It changed my perspective on a perfect ring by opening up so many options and being able to see so many types of ring styles I never knew existed.

I''m very excited and quite frankly will probably be very surprised if my ring looks like it could be classified as a big diamond and looks OTT.

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 3/18/2010 1:43:53 PM
Author: Cinna

Date: 3/18/2010 1:09:04 PM
Author: trillionaire

Date: 3/17/2010 8:32:28 PM
Author: LadyJane83
Interesting. I think this ''national average'' is likely inflated by people living in the LA and NYC areas. I''m a young attorney in the DC/Baltimore metro area and I very rarely see rings over 1.5 carats. Most of the rings seem to be between .5 and 1.25 carats. Anything over a carat around here is pretty flashy (not necessarily in a bad way... it just turns heads).

Don''t ge me wrong, personally, I would love to have a 2 carat ring, but it would not be practical for everyday wear in my profession and geographical area. I think it is also a matter of what people choose to spend money on. Some people take luxurious vacations, some buy luxury cars, some save for their dream home, others spend lots on clothes, or hobbies, etc.

ITA. I really don''t think it''s as popular here to have really large diamonds. After spending time on PS, I expected to see tons of big diamonds, and for my stone to be pretty middling. I was immediately self-conscious about the size after getting it, and it took a while to not feel like my ring was a bit OTT. I do love it, but I was a little unnerved at first with feeling like it was conspicuous. Mine is a 1ct center, and about 1.5 tcw...

My ring is a little over 1.5 and it hasn''t been mounted yet. It''s in the process right now and as a loose stone it looked a decent size, or even that I could go bigger. I also work in DC and have been paying attention to wedding rings in the past few weeks of strangers on my commute. They seem to be mostly in the .5-a little over a carat range. Maybe it''s just coincidence but I find that younger people seem to have larger diamonds. All my friends have a little over a 1 carat so I will at the moment have the ''biggest'' ring. I definitely think Pricescope made me want a blingier ring at least for my setting. It changed my perspective on a perfect ring by opening up so many options and being able to see so many types of ring styles I never knew existed.

I''m very excited and quite frankly will probably be very surprised if my ring looks like it could be classified as a big diamond and looks OTT.

I agree with your sentiment that PS opens up the world of possibilities! I think that because of this, it seemed totally normal to want an elaborate setting, but IRL, it''s very rare that you see them, and it DOES make your ring stand out. My ring is a split shank with pave and surprise diamonds... there is a LOT of bling, and in the sun yesterday, on a park bench with a friend, all she could talk about was my fire show!

So yeah... it''s nice to be with friends who are happy for you, but even in the dog park, I''m a flashy girl these days!

 

[LadyJane83]

Both of your rings sound beautiful! I wouldn''t be worried at all about being over the top. If you are happy with it, who says you have to blend in or get the "average" size?

 

[LAG2010]

i''m more of a lurker than a poster, so i hope you don''t mind me jumping in. i live in NYC and am in my late 20''s with a bunch of friends who are recently engaged or married. i definitely have never (nor would ever) ask friends about their center diamond sizes, but from looking i''d say they range from 1.5 - 2.5 carats. i do have a friend with a 5 carat ring, but that''s a total anamoly - it''s a family stone. so, i''d have to say that NYC probably does bump up the average.

 

[dinamit]

This type of thread always encourages lots of discussion and replies, as it''s so interesting and almost impossible to pinpoint the ''reality'' when it comes to carat size.

As OPs have mentioned, it really is a regional thing. I am in London, UK, and have replied in other threads saying that 1ct is considered quite desirable here, but we recently moved to more affluent N London with a large Jewish community, and I''ve seen a few women with 1ct+, probably around 1.5ct. Still, I wouldn''t say that''s the norm.

I think the majority of people in Western Europe are more reserved with displaying their wealth and don''t sport big, flashy rocks. I have a few friends who don''t have e-rings at all. So whilst you can see bigger diamonds in shop windows, London definitely isn''t like NY where you see many women wearing 1.5ct+. Most of the rings I see are under 1ct, or around 1ct. Life here is way too expensive to leave much disposable income for luxuries. To be honest, I never saw so many 1ct+ rings until I joined Pricescope and realised that women in other countries seem to enjoy bigger diamonds.

On a personal level, I once tried on a setting I liked which happened to have a 2ct diamond in it for display, and I didn''t feel comfortable seeing it on my hand, despite having a size 6 finger. I felt that it would definitely be OTT for everyday life here. Maybe if I lived in LA or NY I would feel different, as it wouldn''t be out of the norm and my eyes would be used to seeing that much finger coverage.

I say, just wear whatever you feel comfortable with and can afford.

 

[Dancing Fire]

the avg PSer's center stone is 1.32ct.

avg in the U.S.... .90 ct
avg NYC....2.60 ct
avg No.Ca & So.Ca.......2.25 ct
avg in the mid west... .60 ct

 

[Sizzle]

Date: 3/21/2010 3:44:08 AM
Author: Dancing Fire
the avg PSer''s center stone is 1.32ct.

avg in the U.S.... .90 ct

avg NYC....2.60 ct

avg No.Ca & So.Ca.......2.25 ct

avg in the mid west... .60 ct

I

I Always wonder where thee numbers come from. I live in the midwest and work for the government there are about 50 women at work in ther mid twenties to early thirties that got engagaed in the past 4 years I''d say 80% are more than a carat with hf at more that 1.5. Maybe 5 are at 2 carats. I never understood why people say the midwest goes for small bling. I live in IL but not near Chicago. Boardering with IA. I see logs of 1 carat rings. And some 3ct+ here and there. I notice the smaller rings on older women. They migt change settings
but aren''t into upgrades much

 

[AGBF]

Hi, GettingDesperate905-

I don't usually hang out here because I'm old and have been married for a long time. I may be your parents' age. I don't think that affects what I have to say, however. When I was young my best friend was very interested in diamonds and her fiancé bought her an enormous diamond ring as well as other diamond jewelry. I had none and didn't care about it. When I got engaged, my husband (then fiancé) bought me an 18K gold ring with a small oval inside of which nested two 1-point diamonds. He had finished school (with two masters degrees) and was working, although I was still in graduate school. I really didn't need a large diamond ring then. I would have considered a 1/4 carat (.25 carat) or 1/3 carat (.33 cart) a big ring since those were the size stones that women in my family usually wore. My mother had never received an engagement ring at all, and even got married with a borrowed ring! Her marriage lasted 66 years, though.

Deb/AGBF

 

[AGBF]

I thought that it might be hard to picture what I described, so I am posting a picture of my engagement ring. I have always loved it although when I got interested in diamonds I did add some to my collection!


Deb/AGBF