Diamond Size and Ring Size

[FB.]

I know that this is a subjective question, but what are people''s opinions on the ideal size of diamond when set as a solitaire, but in different finger-size rings.
I''ve seen big stones on small fingers that looked very wrong. Likewise, small stones on big fingers can also look very wrong.

For example, what is your favourite size of diamond, for the best overall look, for setting into the following ring sizes (a list which covers the vast majority of finger sizes):

Size G (UK) 3.25 (US) - 14.3mm inner diameter
Size I (UK) 4.25 (US) - 15.0mm inner diameter
Size K (UK) 5.25 (US) - 15.9mm inner diameter
Size M (UK) 6.25 (US) - 16.7mm inner diameter
Size O (UK) 7.25 (US) - 17.5mm inner diameter
Size Q (UK) 8.25 (US) - 18.3mm inner diameter
Size S (UK) 9.25 (US) - 19.1mm inner diameter
Size U (UK) 10.25 (US) - 20.0mm inner diameter
Size W (UK) 11.25 (US) - 20.8mm inner diameter

Just curious.
Thanks,
FB

 

[atroop711]

my ring size is 7.5 and a small solitaire diamond looks lost on my fat fingers. If I had a solitaire it would have to be 2.5 or 3ct round to look great on my finger but I like finger coverage.

 

[Amethyste]

it also depends on the shape of the diamond too and how it is set...
my ring size is a 5.5 and I have a 5CT on my finger, it is still huge to my eyes and the shrinkage effect has not settled in even after 1 month of owning it. so I guess it''s just right fo me

 

[Lula]

My ring size is 7.5-7.75 and my .53 solitaire felt way to small on my hand. I''m upgrading to 1 carat, but if I choose a solitaire setting for the new stone, I will probably look for a bezel.

Many people with fingers my size have long fingers and tapered hands; smaller solitaires look just great on them.
I have a square-shaped hand with stubby fingers (I garden for a hobby and it shows!). So I think hand and finger shape makes a difference, too, not just finger size.

 

[atroop711]

Date: 7/21/2009 8:12:34 AM
Author: Amethyste
it also depends on the shape of the diamond too and how it is set...

my ring size is a 5.5 and I have a 5CT on my finger, it is still huge to my eyes and the shrinkage effect has not settled in even after 1 month of owning it. so I guess it''s just right fo me

5 cts

would be right for me too

 

[Lula]

Ditto atroop! I''d be all over a well-cut 5-carat Emerald-cut diamond if I won the lottery!

 

[ficklefaye]

haha, you ladies are too funny

i''m a size 4.75 and i wear a 1.25ct rb, it''s pretty sizeable for my taste

 

[D&T]

I''m inbetween 3.75 and just under 4 with a RB 1.21 ct and I think its perfect for me, but I wouldn''t ever decline if DH wants to upgrade again

 

[MrsChil]

I wear a size 6.75 and have a 1.72 carat cushion. If I were to wear it as a solitair I would probably go to a 2 or 2.5 carat cushion. I currently wear it with a halo setting and it''s perfect!

 

[ImpatientOne]

I have a 1.73 RB on a size 6. I wouldn''t mind having a 2.5 ct, though!!!

 

[Diva0413]

I wear a 5.5 size ring and my 1.5ct cushion offers some good finger coverage. But I wouldn''t complain if I got an upgrade and got more coverage.

 

[HopeDream]

Whoa Nelly! We need some math here! (Objective measurements to go with objective sizes)

I think the easiest way to discuss this is ratios - I expect diffent folks the look of different ratios.

Important ratios include diamond width to finger width, and diamond height/width to ring band width.

From a pure esthetic point of view find a set you think looks realy good, and give the diamond to finger ratio and diamond to band ratio, then you can scale that up or down for different ring sizes

I expect different ratios look good for different styles of settings so be sure to note solitaire vs 3 stone vs halo etc [halo might want to also include the diamond to halo width to finger width ratio].

When looking at ratios, it''s probably best to look at the diamond in the context of whole hand (wrist to fingertips) as that''s the real life context folks will be viewing the ring.

I think finger length and plam length/width play a bigger role than most would aknowledge. A close up view of the ring on a tiny section of the finger doesn''t tell us much at all.

I wonder if the fibonacci spiral can be brought in to this....(geek!)

(Tiffany''s has been known to shift ring dimentions to suit the size of the diamond... I wonder what their formula is !)

Be very aware of size bias!!!! This is a diamond forum and the general feeling (not everyone''s veiw, but a common one) is that bigger is better. Try to step away from this and think pure esthetics (If you can).

I think a nice look for a solitaire is Irishman''s ring finger 20mm: stone 8mm: bandwidth 3mm (just measuring on screen, not real life), the ratio isn''t perfect though, -the stone might be a little small proportionaly.

(I come from an area where .25-.75 ct rings are common)

(Irishmann your ring is very lovely!! I think it''s beautiful on your (her?) hand!)

I don''t have time to go through the SMTR tread looking for full hand shots to measure ratios, but maybe later....

Cheers,

HD

 

[Black Jade]

i don''t think finger size says that much. the same size finger can look quite different on a different hand, or on a different sized woman and the size tells you nothing as to how the finger is shaped (large or small knuckles, space between knuckles, etc). Also different people can have very different ideas of what looks ''right'' depending on the area they live and what they see around them and also, to tell the truth, how much they are subjected to advertising. A girl with a size 6 finger in certain districts in California (and in Manhattan) and a girl with a size 6 finger in England are NOT going to have the same idea about what size solitaire they ''need'' to look right.

In my case, I have a size 6.25 finger and I find that wearing a .33 solitaire (my original e-ring from 1982) looks just fine on my left hand and when I got an anniversary ring, I went to a .65 solitaire (which I wear on right hand). All other issues aside, I have little space between my lower knuckle and my hand and just cannot put a lot of stuff there and look right at all. (I am a petite person in height and build, which aggravates this issue). I have tried on larger solitaire rings, or rings that have a lot of ''stuff''--elaborate pave or sidestones, as well as eternity rings of various kinds and often they just do not fit, in terms of cluttering my finger right up to my knuckle and above, and they certainly don''t look good at all. It''s not only me who thinks so. I was in a jewelry store last week and even the sales assistant, who had an incentive to lie (and try to convince me to buy something) kept saying that the rings with larger stones looked really, really bad on my fingers. A 1-carat solitaire would be the absolute maximum for me, except if I went with a shape like a marquise or oval, where the narrowness and length seems to help somehow. On the other hand, earrings on the larger side suit my ears. I happily went with 2 ctw diamond stud earrings. My ears are not large, but have a kind of hollow in them where smaller earrings (and any earring in the martini style) just disappears and is not visible. So I''m the opposite of the so-called ''rules'' and like to wear larger earrings and a smaller ring and feel I look best that way.

I have a friend, she''s very slender but somewhat taller than I am. she has very long, thin fingers with a lot of space between the knuckles. Her finger looks better with an elaborate ring, or a large solitaire. She''s the person who COULD wear the 3-stone 6 ctw emerald cut I tried on in the store that looked horrible on me. She isn''t going spend the $$$ on that, so she has a .50 solitaire in an elaborate setting--lots of marquise diamonds radiating around it, very impressive (and for her, not too much). She wouldn''t wish to get another ring--she and her husband have a large income which they prefer to spend on their home and on foreign travel.

So we look better in different things, she looks good in big and I look good in small (though she has a size 4 finger and I have a 6.25. But I guess I wouldn''t say that either of us NEEDS certain things because of this. I don''t think anyone NEEDS any jewelry. Unlike my friend, I love jewelry and it happens that my husband and I can now afford certain things so I can have them, but this does not equal a NEED. Plenty of women with all sizes and shapes of fingers have beautiful hands with no rings on them at all (or maybe just a plain thin gold band and beautiful ears with no earrings in them at all and beautiful necks with no pendants on them.

I often read people on this forum talking about their ''big fingers'' and ''man hands'' and mentioning some minimum size of solitaire that is necessary to accomodate this, and I always think, why not just say, I ''want'' this kind of ring or I''d ''prefer'' this size. It''s fine to want things. However, the question is,a re you in a position to get them without doing unreasonable things (i.e., credit card debt, insulting SO and saying the ring he chose isn''t enough?) If you''re not in the position to get them, figure out how to be happy without them, because none of us is entitled to anything we can''t afford.

 

[DiamanteBlu]

I agree with the comments already made . The particular stone and ring need to be viewed in the context of the whole hand [and maybe even the whole person].

I like large stones and large rings. My finger is a size 4 and my EC is 6.39 carats and my RB is 6.89. This may sound like it is too much stone for such a skinny finger but my knuckle is a 5.75, my fingers are quite long and my hands are not small [my span is just shy of 9"]. I am also average height [5''6"], a size 4, and like wearing killer high heels. With this combination I think the stone size is not disproportionate [even though DSS has set in big time! LOL!].

So, I guess I can''t give you a "rule of thumb" but can only say that you need to take the stone in the context of the whole package.

 

[Lula]

Black Jade, I am one of those women with large hands -- 7.5 to 7.75 ring size -- who not only has man hands, but also -- ahem -- older hands. I think you judge us a little harshly, because it's been my experience that finding suitable ring designs for bigger female hands is pretty tough, especially with the current fashion for dainty, dainty settings.

I posted on RT about getting a a new wedding band or just going up in carat size. I got some great advice. I also thought about having my stone reset in a more tailored bezel setting (James Meyer's style 1227). In the end it just seemed more cost-effective to go up in carat size, even though I'll have to wait a bit to afford a new setting.

I bought my diamond from an internet vendor and found that a size I thought would be huge on my hand -- .53 carat -- actually felt a bit silly on my hand -- to me. I wasn't looking for an excuse to go up in carat size -- I just didn't know what a half-carat would look like on my hand until I wore it for awhile. People's taste change as they age and their finger sizes do, too. No one is advocating (that I've seen on PS anyway) that people go into debt for jewelry. If I could not have afforded a bigger size diamond, I would have just returned the diamond and exchanged it for a beautiful, larger-carat-size colored gem. And then waited until I could afford to get a larger diamond.

 

[elle_chris]

I prefer a 2ct-2.75ct stone on my larger hands. I don't like elaborate settings (on me), nor do I like the way smaller stones look on my short, stubby, size 7 finger. My only saving grace is my nails. Great shape, and they grow nicely so it gives my fingers the illusion of being longer and thinner.

If I wasn't able to get a stone in the 2 carat range, I would have just done a large eternity band.

But, not all fingers looks the same regardless of size. I have a friend who's a little larger than me and has her 1ct set in a split shank with pave. The ring is gorgeous on her, just stunning on her hand. When i tried it on, it looked like costumer jewelry.
Goes to show you never know. Best to try on various shapes, sizes and settings.

 

[kittybean]

I wear a size 2.5 and I have a 2.12 ct EC--I think it looks amazing

.

I don''t think you''re going to get any sort of consensus on the "best overall look" here. People have such divergent styles and tastes, and on PS, you generally (not always!) will get an opinion favoring larger stones. I''d just as happily wear a 5 ct or a 1 ct as my e-ring because the most wonderful man in the world would have given it to me.

 

[Shopaholic]

Date: 7/21/2009 8:01:11 AM
Author:FB.
I know that this is a subjective question, but what are people''s opinions on the ideal size of diamond when set as a solitaire, but in different finger-size rings.
I''ve seen big stones on small fingers that looked very wrong. Likewise, small stones on big fingers can also look very wrong.

For example, what is your favourite size of diamond, for the best overall look, for setting into the following ring sizes (a list which covers the vast majority of finger sizes):

Size G (UK) 3.25 (US) - 14.3mm inner diameter
Size I (UK) 4.25 (US) - 15.0mm inner diameter
Size K (UK) 5.25 (US) - 15.9mm inner diameter
Size M (UK) 6.25 (US) - 16.7mm inner diameter
Size O (UK) 7.25 (US) - 17.5mm inner diameter
Size Q (UK) 8.25 (US) - 18.3mm inner diameter
Size S (UK) 9.25 (US) - 19.1mm inner diameter
Size U (UK) 10.25 (US) - 20.0mm inner diameter
Size W (UK) 11.25 (US) - 20.8mm inner diameter

Just curious.
Thanks,
FB

You are very correct with this statement, therefore I don''t think you will be able to get the concrete answer that you seek.

It is very true that people have different views of what looks ''ideal'' per ring size. I wear size 6.25 and have short fingers, I have diamonds that range from 2.21 to 2.52 cts. When DH was going to propose, he was looking at 3+cts, and when I tried them on - they looked so gaudy to me, too much diamond and not enough finger showing. However, some people like the greatest finger coverage possible, my friends always joke that I must be the only one to turn down larger diamonds, but they did not give me joy, I did not like the look.....I know 2.5 ct is not very different from 3cts or so, but it was just that little bit of mm that made me look at the ring as "oh beautiful!" instead as "oh, that doesn''t look right on me", so to me, the ''ideal'' size is when that instance happens and you look at your finger and say "ah, now that is just right!"

 

[Black Jade]

Date: 7/21/2009 3:44:53 PM
Author: sarap333
Black Jade, I am one of those women with large hands -- 7.5 to 7.75 ring size -- who not only has man hands, but also -- ahem -- older hands. I think you judge us a little harshly, because it''s been my experience that finding suitable ring designs for bigger female hands is pretty tough, especially with the current fashion for dainty, dainty settings.

I posted on RT about getting a a new wedding band or just going up in carat size. I got some great advice. I also thought about having my stone reset in a more tailored bezel setting (James Meyer''s style 1227). In the end it just seemed more cost-effective to go up in carat size, even though I''ll have to wait a bit to afford a new setting.

I bought my diamond from an internet vendor and found that a size I thought would be huge on my hand -- .53 carat -- actually felt a bit silly on my hand -- to me. I wasn''t looking for an excuse to go up in carat size -- I just didn''t know what a half-carat would look like on my hand until I wore it for awhile. People''s taste change as they age and their finger sizes do, too. No one is advocating (that I''ve seen on PS anyway) that people go into debt for jewelry. If I could not have afforded a bigger size diamond, I would have just returned the diamond and exchanged it for a beautiful, larger-carat-size colored gem. And then waited until I could afford to get a larger diamond.

Dear SaraP,
Just came back to this thread and saw your remarks.
Didn''t mean to ''judge harshly'' and I''m sorry if I offended. I''m not young either, I''m 52. In my case, my taste has changed very little over the years--I preferred delicate and dainty rings as a girl and I still think they look best on my hands. That''s MY preference--which I am not ashamed of. All I was trying to say (and I''m sorry I put it badly) was that if YOUR preference was a larger sized ring, I see no reason for you to apologize for that, or to be self-critical about your hands to explain this. It''s your money and you''re not going into debt (that was the reason for my reference to debt, not any implication that anyone on PS recommends debt) so why not?

I think if you have a size 4 finger and you like a large ring, that''s fine and if you have a size 7 finger and you like a large ring, that''s still fine. I do have to say though, I have trouble thinking of size 7 or 7.5 as a ''man-hand.'' I think that''s actually average. My mom has, like size 9 fingers--everything about her is large-scale, she''s a tall and statuesque woman--and she doesn''t have man-hands, though they are large, they are graceful and feminine and very adept and skillful. Many on PS seem to have unusually small fingers, I have noticed from posts, but those of who have bigger fingers than size 3.5 or 4 (mine are 6.25 and 6.75) don''t have a reason to feel inferior.


My point was mainly that the size of your fingers doesn''t dictate what rings look good--the shape of your fingers has more to do with it, I think, and I still stand by that point.

 

[Sam82]

I just want to chime in that a size 7 is not large, but average. Most people who I know wear a size seven and their hands don''t look manly. Sometimes it comes off as insulting when a size 7,8,9 are referred to as man hands. I have a large ring size and I don''t look in the least bit manly. A woman doesn''t have to be petite to be "womanly".

 

[marcy]

I would say it is a personal preference. I wear a size 6 and I like .5 to .75 solitaires. I think anything a person is comfortable with is fine.

 

[Lula]

Date: 7/25/2009 7:08:15 PM
Author: Black Jade

Date: 7/21/2009 3:44:53 PM

Author: sarap333

Black Jade, I am one of those women with large hands -- 7.5 to 7.75 ring size -- who not only has man hands, but also -- ahem -- older hands. I think you judge us a little harshly, because it''s been my experience that finding suitable ring designs for bigger female hands is pretty tough, especially with the current fashion for dainty, dainty settings.


I posted on RT about getting a a new wedding band or just going up in carat size. I got some great advice. I also thought about having my stone reset in a more tailored bezel setting (James Meyer''s style 1227). In the end it just seemed more cost-effective to go up in carat size, even though I''ll have to wait a bit to afford a new setting.


I bought my diamond from an internet vendor and found that a size I thought would be huge on my hand -- .53 carat -- actually felt a bit silly on my hand -- to me. I wasn''t looking for an excuse to go up in carat size -- I just didn''t know what a half-carat would look like on my hand until I wore it for awhile. People''s taste change as they age and their finger sizes do, too. No one is advocating (that I''ve seen on PS anyway) that people go into debt for jewelry. If I could not have afforded a bigger size diamond, I would have just returned the diamond and exchanged it for a beautiful, larger-carat-size colored gem. And then waited until I could afford to get a larger diamond.

Dear SaraP,

Just came back to this thread and saw your remarks.

Didn''t mean to ''judge harshly'' and I''m sorry if I offended. I''m not young either, I''m 52. In my case, my taste has changed very little over the years--I preferred delicate and dainty rings as a girl and I still think they look best on my hands. That''s MY preference--which I am not ashamed of. All I was trying to say (and I''m sorry I put it badly) was that if YOUR preference was a larger sized ring, I see no reason for you to apologize for that, or to be self-critical about your hands to explain this. It''s your money and you''re not going into debt (that was the reason for my reference to debt, not any implication that anyone on PS recommends debt) so why not?


I think if you have a size 4 finger and you like a large ring, that''s fine and if you have a size 7 finger and you like a large ring, that''s still fine. I do have to say though, I have trouble thinking of size 7 or 7.5 as a ''man-hand.'' I think that''s actually average. My mom has, like size 9 fingers--everything about her is large-scale, she''s a tall and statuesque woman--and she doesn''t have man-hands, though they are large, they are graceful and feminine and very adept and skillful. Many on PS seem to have unusually small fingers, I have noticed from posts, but those of who have bigger fingers than size 3.5 or 4 (mine are 6.25 and 6.75) don''t have a reason to feel inferior.



My point was mainly that the size of your fingers doesn''t dictate what rings look good--the shape of your fingers has more to do with it, I think, and I still stand by that point.

Date: 7/25/2009 7:08:15 PM
Author: Black Jade

Date: 7/21/2009 3:44:53 PM

Author: sarap333

Black Jade, I am one of those women with large hands -- 7.5 to 7.75 ring size -- who not only has man hands, but also -- ahem -- older hands. I think you judge us a little harshly, because it''s been my experience that finding suitable ring designs for bigger female hands is pretty tough, especially with the current fashion for dainty, dainty settings.


I posted on RT about getting a a new wedding band or just going up in carat size. I got some great advice. I also thought about having my stone reset in a more tailored bezel setting (James Meyer''s style 1227). In the end it just seemed more cost-effective to go up in carat size, even though I''ll have to wait a bit to afford a new setting.


I bought my diamond from an internet vendor and found that a size I thought would be huge on my hand -- .53 carat -- actually felt a bit silly on my hand -- to me. I wasn''t looking for an excuse to go up in carat size -- I just didn''t know what a half-carat would look like on my hand until I wore it for awhile. People''s taste change as they age and their finger sizes do, too. No one is advocating (that I''ve seen on PS anyway) that people go into debt for jewelry. If I could not have afforded a bigger size diamond, I would have just returned the diamond and exchanged it for a beautiful, larger-carat-size colored gem. And then waited until I could afford to get a larger diamond.

Dear SaraP,

Just came back to this thread and saw your remarks.

Didn''t mean to ''judge harshly'' and I''m sorry if I offended. I''m not young either, I''m 52. In my case, my taste has changed very little over the years--I preferred delicate and dainty rings as a girl and I still think they look best on my hands. That''s MY preference--which I am not ashamed of. All I was trying to say (and I''m sorry I put it badly) was that if YOUR preference was a larger sized ring, I see no reason for you to apologize for that, or to be self-critical about your hands to explain this. It''s your money and you''re not going into debt (that was the reason for my reference to debt, not any implication that anyone on PS recommends debt) so why not?


I think if you have a size 4 finger and you like a large ring, that''s fine and if you have a size 7 finger and you like a large ring, that''s still fine. I do have to say though, I have trouble thinking of size 7 or 7.5 as a ''man-hand.'' I think that''s actually average. My mom has, like size 9 fingers--everything about her is large-scale, she''s a tall and statuesque woman--and she doesn''t have man-hands, though they are large, they are graceful and feminine and very adept and skillful. Many on PS seem to have unusually small fingers, I have noticed from posts, but those of who have bigger fingers than size 3.5 or 4 (mine are 6.25 and 6.75) don''t have a reason to feel inferior.



My point was mainly that the size of your fingers doesn''t dictate what rings look good--the shape of your fingers has more to do with it, I think, and I still stand by that point.

Thank you, Black Jade, I appreciate your clarification. Maybe I need to change my attitude about my hands!

 

[vespergirl]

I wear a ring size 5, and the smallest size for a solitaire that I liked on my hand was 1.5 ct (7.5 mm). I had a 1 ct solitaire in a previous engagement, but it looked a little small on my hand - I am 5''9" with long fingers. The 1.5 looked great when I tried it one, and I now have a 2 ct (8.1 mm) which I really love

 

[lyra]

I''m size 7 with 1.77 RB. I think 2.25 RB would look substantial on my hand, but 2.5-3.0 would be the best coverage *without* going over the top. And....it''s not gonna happen, but I don''t mind one bit.