Diamond size

[Camellia]

I love looking at this site to see what beautiful diamonds people are buying around the world and to read about other people''s experiences and gain from their knowledge. But I have a question: does everyone in the USA own a diamond of more than 1 ct? Most of the diamonds posted are what I would call large by Australian standards. Maybe we''re unlucky here because of the currency exchange? It''s just an observation.

 

[ame]

NOt everyone. Sure it would be nice to have a carat and a half but I don't know if I can wear it without destruction.

I think some parts of the states are pretty much geared towards bigger. I know California and NYC seem to really go big compared to the midwest where about a half to a full seems to be the norm. Its not necessarily the girls who want the big. I have noticed its a guy thing to go big. They want to make sure everyone sees a big rock so they feel like they are successful

Its an ego thing.

I read somewhere that the average size of an engagement ring stone is .25ct. Yup, a quarter carat.

MInes just under a carat. Im cool with that.

 

[Dancing Fire]

----------------
On 9/23/2004 10:57:24 PM Camellia wrote:

I love looking at this site to see what beautiful diamonds people are buying around the world and to read about other people's experiences and gain from their knowledge. But I have a question: does everyone in the USA own a diamond of more than 1 ct? Most of the diamonds posted are what I would call large by Australian standards. Maybe we're unlucky here because of the currency exchange? It's just an observation.----------------

Camellia
I'll take a wild guess,for the ladies here on P.S. the average is (1.25 ct) for the center stone.

over all here in the U.S. my guess is .75ct for the center stone.

 

[quaeritur]

Nope, I have a .56 and a .79. But then again, I have European roots, so that might explain why I'm more comfortable under a carat.

I think the average e-ring size is somewhere between .25-.35 in the US these days.... But as has been mentioned, PS is probably not average!

I think someday when I'm all grown up I may go as large as 1.25ct. But that's a real stretch for me right now. I still think my .79 looks large. Then again, the part of Colorado where I live is not a big diamond kind of place...

 

[cflutist]

----------------
On 9/24/2004 2:17:42 AM vtigger86 wrote:

----------------
I'll take a wild guess,for the ladies here on P.S. the average is (1.25 ct) for the center stone.

over all here in the U.S. my guess is .75ct for the center stone.----------------

Did a google search and several websites mentioned that .75ct was the average e-ring size.

 

[Lynn B]

Interesting question.

I live in rural PA... and it does seem like A LOT of the e-rings younger girls are getting now are near a carat size. (When I was a young girl getting engaged, that was NOT the case. My friends mostly all got little "chippies" and I didn't get one at all!)

In my circle of friends today, there are only one or two with a larger stone than me (1.53). I LOVE the size of mine... but I waited 30 years to get it! (Also... I have apparently contracted the dreaded

PS Shrinkage Syndrome... I think that soooooome day, my stone will probably "grow" into a 2+ carat size. I personally think 2 to 2 1/2 carats is pretty much the "PERFECT" size!

) Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Lynn

 

[goldengirl]

I'd venture to say that PS has a very skewed perspective of what is "normal". I say this because someone coming here would think that 1-3ct is "normal" for an e-ring. Really, I don't think that's the case! It's just that someone expecting to pay $10,000-20,000 for a diamond is more likely to do some research and get the most for their money than someone who walks past a maul store, sees a cute little 1/3ct, decides it's time they popped the question, and when quoted $1800 thinks "Wow, that's less than 2 months' salary" and applies for in-store credit to finance their purchase.

If I was in the market for a car, had a budget of $800 and just needed any old clunker to putter around town for three months, I admit I'd put a whole lot less into it than if I was putting $1.3 mil into a custom Ferrari.

I think of PS as the intellectual cream-of-the-crop when it comes to diamonds. Unfortunately, it so happens that the other members tend to have a much larger budget than me. LOL!

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Hi,

The diamonds here on PS are not indicative of the average size of American ladies' diamonds. Different regions have different averages and in my neighborhood, over a carat seems pretty big too me.

My ring is .42 and when I upgrade, my bigger diamond will still be under a carat. Maybe when I'm older I'll upgrade to a huge stone, but for now, I'd be uncomfortable with anything larger than around .85-1 carat.

Michelle

 

[Dancing Fire]

----------------
On 9/24/2004 12:28:56 PM cflutist wrote:

----------------
On 9/24/2004 2:17:42 AM vtigger86 wrote:

----------------
I'll take a wild guess,for the ladies here on P.S. the average is (1.25 ct) for the center stone.

over all here in the U.S. my guess is .75ct for the center stone.----------------

Did a google search and several websites mentioned that .75ct was the average e-ring size.----------------

cflutist
Wow..that was a lucky guess ,now i wish i can guess the calif lottery #'s

 

[Todd07]

Leonid,


You can't track what PS visitors buy but you can tell us what size gets the most link hits or what search range is the most common?




Will you share this with us

 

[Camellia]

Thanks for the comments. I would guess from my unscientific sample of the people at work that most Australians would probably have about 0.25 - 0.3 ct for their engagement rings. I decided on a 3 stone ring so that it would 'look' larger on the finger (14 years ago now). I personally don't like the the look of a 0.3 ct solitaire. I wouldn't trade in my ring for anything - I still love the design and looking at it reminds me of the excitement we felt when buying it. I know my ring is probably a bit more than the average at work (mine is EC 0.49 ct G,VS set east-west with 2 x 0.13 ct RB side stones, bezel set inplatinum, yellow gold band), so I consider myself lucky. But one day I'll get the biggest I can afford at the time for my right hand.

 

[ahmuse]

I was told today by a jewler that a "half carat" is considered to be a "range" by GIA and EGL... it can be from .55 to .45.
Is this true? Please tell me.

If you're given a half carat don't you think that it should be as close to .5 as possible?

 

[Kamuelamom]

----------------
On 10/9/2004 12:24:04 AM ahmuse wrote:

If you're given a half carat don't you think that it should be as close to .5 as possible?----------------

I'm not sure what in context you mean this, but as far as receiving a diamond from anyone, I basically feel that one should accept what they're given, regardless of the size. I too have heard that "half carat" has a range all its own. Just like a "one carat" has a range too. It's hard to get the exact .50 or 1.00 thing when you are talking about each stone being so individual and unique.

There are many people who frequent this site who own smaller and very beautiful stones. There is no rule on the size thing as it is a matter of preference and what they can afford. Location and age also sometimes play into the decisions on size. I think in America there is more freedom with the size thing. I've read that in many foreign countries, larger stones are not the thing. Again, size does not equal beauty.

 

[ahmuse]

hi,

i'm not asking for personal perference. i'm actually saying that legally, if you tell someone you're giving them a half carat it should most definitely be as close to a half carat as possible. say it's .43, isn't that misrepresentation? that there is a "range" that GIA accepts as a half carat seems like some blabber I've never heard of. Please inform gemologists!!!

i'm not trying to attack small honest jewlers. this isn't about them at all. it's about shady others.

 

[Mara]

Blue Nile has a tool on their site which is something like 'view the most recent purchased diamonds', which is very interesting if you have a few minutes to see what people are buying. The stones run the gamut! Small, large, rounds, princesses, etc. D color, J color, VVS1, SI2, etc etc. Lots of options. Of course there are probably things like earrings and stones for pendants in there too but I'd wager most of them are for e-rings or similar!

Seems like most of them today have been smaller....oh and this reminded me of something I had noticed in the past, there are alot of Ideal and Very Good cut purchases. The last few times I looked at this while surfing around their site, I saw very few 'poor' or 'good' cut stones. So it seems that cut is making a difference to people. However, I don't always agree with the way BN categorizes their stones, I've seen a few in there that I would not consider Ideal etc.




http://www.bluenile.com/diamond_recentpurchase.asp?track=56

 

[Kamuelamom]

----------------
On 10/9/2004 12:58:14 AM ahmuse wrote:

hi,

i'm actually saying that legally, if you tell someone you're giving them a half carat it should most definitely be as close to a half carat as possible. say it's .43, isn't that misrepresentation? that there is a 'range' that GIA accepts as a half carat seems like some blabber I've never heard of. Please inform gemologists!!!
----------------

Aaah, now I get your point. I believe there is a "range" but can't tell you exactly what it is. I agree, .43 does seem a little far away from what I'd officially accept as "half a carat" from a jeweler. I know I've read that somewhere either here or on DT long ago. I hope that someone with an answer will chime in. Basically I think that it comes down to working with someone you trust who will not try to sell you short on anything, and being an educated buyer to begin with. That's what this site is all about. Diamond Education 101. They even have some real advanced courses here.

 

[cflutist]

§ 23.17 Misrepresentation of weight and ‘‘total weight.’’ (From FTC Guidelines for the Jewelry Industry May 30, 1996)

(a) It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent the weight of a diamond.

(b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word ‘‘point’’ or any abbreviation in any representation, advertising, marking, or labeling to describe the weight of a diamond, unless the weight is also stated as decimal parts of a carat (e.g., 25 points or .25 carat).
NOTE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b): A carat is a standard unit of weight for a diamond and is equivalent to 200 milligrams (1⁄5 gram). A point is one one hundredth (1⁄100) of a carat.

(c) If diamond weight is stated as decimal parts of a carat (e.g., .47 carat), the stated figure should be accurate to the last decimal place. If diamond weight is stated to only one decimal place (e.g., .5 carat), the stated figure should be accurate to the second decimal place (e.g., ‘‘.5 carat’’ could represent a diamond weight between .495–.504).

(d) If diamond weight is stated as fractional parts of a carat, a conspicuous disclosure of the fact that the diamond weight is not exact should be made in close proximity to the fractional representation and a disclosure of a reasonable range of weight for each fraction (or the weight tolerance being used) should also be made.

Note to paragraph (d): When fractional representations of diamond weight are made, as described in paragraph d of this section, in catalogs or other printed materials, the disclosure of the fact that the actual diamond weight is within a specified range should be made conspicuously on every page where a fractional representation is made. Such disclosure may refer to a chart or other detailed explanation of the actual ranges used. For example, ``Diamond weights are not exact; see chart on p.X for ranges.'

From the GIA Jeweler's Manual and GIA Diamonds Course materials:

In plain English what this means is that in the US, weight must legally be measured to a thousandth of a carat (0.001) and rounded to the nearest hundredth (0.01). It also means that a diamond weighing 0.995 carat can legally be described and sold as a one carat diamond in the US.

HOWEVER, in many major diamond-trading countries and international industry organizations, a diamond's weight can only be rounded up to the next higher hundredth from nine thousands of a carat. Following this convention, a stone that weighs 1.768 cts would be rounded to 1.76 cts, but one that weighs 1.769 cts would be rounded to 1.77 cts. Since many of the Quality Analysis Reports prepared by GIA's Gem Trade Laboratory are used internationally, the labs follow international practice.

 

[Kamuelamom]

Interesting read, thanks cflutist.

 

[ahmuse]

THANK YOU!!!!!


the item was sold to me as "1/2 carat ctw RD diamond". while my appraisal says the stone is "approximately .50" it was certified in a mounting! i say bull---- if you're gonna sell me what you claim to then do a shotty job on weighing it. i mean EVERYTHING comes into account, each element of the 4 C's (to me) seems exactly proportional to the total value. and so it should be.

with your information,
game on.

thanks for that.
what's that from? GIA book? I would love to have the reference to that code. It's most excellent. I also think it's a nice addition to your buyer beware because remember that there are significant price jumps once you hit certain decimal marks. So a stone that's rounded to the nearest hundredth that's say .4455 is not really a "1/2 carat" and so it's very deceptive merchandising. capice? i'm a newbie but i may be crossing the bounds to a regular... it's my place of respite after my long hours of being a student. love this place!

 

[cflutist]

----------------
On 10/9/2004 4:29:27 AM ahmuse wrote:


thanks for that.
what's that from? GIA book? I would love to have the reference to that code. It's most excellent. -------------

I editted my post to include the fact that the code came from the FTC Guidelines for the Jewelry Industry (just do a Google search on "FTC Diamond Weight" and there are several sites which cite that code).

The last two paragraphs came from the GIA Jeweler's Manual of which I have a copy of. It is also stated in the GIA Diamonds Course class materials.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 9/24/2004 12:28:56 PM cflutist wrote:

----------------
On 9/24/2004 2:17:42 AM vtigger86 wrote:

----------------
I'll take a wild guess,for the ladies here on P.S. the average is (1.25 ct) for the center stone.

over all here in the U.S. my guess is .75ct for the center stone.----------------

Did a google search and several websites mentioned that .75ct was the average e-ring size.----------------

Everyone googles the same place to get that stat. We had a whole thread on this issue a couple of years ago.

I think the correct stat nationwide was 1/3 c.

 

[fire&ice]

I can't find it; but, a couple of days ago someone posted an exposee from JV that revealed (what I found to be) startling misrep. of carat weight.

 

[cflutist]

----------------
On 10/9/2004 11:29:59 AM fire&ice wrote:

I can't find it; but, a couple of days ago someone posted an exposee from JV that revealed (what I found to be) startling misrep. of carat weight. ----------------

Here is the article from National Jeweler.

 

[noobie]

Can't get the link to work

Nevermind, works now

 

[acaweb]

----------------
does everyone in the USA own a diamond of more than 1 ct?

Hi Camellia...
I have been constantly lurking on PS and this is my 1st post. I live in Carlsbad, CA and yes many of the women I know have 1ct + diamonds (especially in La Costa/Rancho Sante Fe/Olivenhain). But I personally am partial to a smaller stone.

My boyfriend and I have been lurking on here gleaming as much info as we can from everyone with regard to the engagement ring he is purportedly getting me. We went to a local store here in San Diego and tried on rings. After trying on the big 'bling' vs the demure smaller settings, I personally prefer a quality stone under 1ct.

Simply because many gals have large 1ct+ rings, doesn't mean they are all quality. After doing the research, my boyfriend and I figured we could get larger carat diamond of lesser quality for our budget, but our personal opinion is that quality is more important than size. I believe he is looking at a .70-.80 stone for my ring and I am absolutely fine with that.

What matters the most is the heartfelt and sincere intent, love and commitment behind the ring, not the size.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Momoftwo]

It's also a function of what decade you got your ring. I became engaged to my husband in 1980. My original stone is like .45 ct. That was the largest stone of all of my friends at the time. I still have it set in a 3 stone with two other stones I owned from earrings. My family members dont' have anything any larger either. My upgrade is 1.05. I have a friend who has upgraded to about 2 ct, but we're talking 20+ years of marriage. I think it's a function of retailing (2 months salary, etc.) and expectations of others that makes guys buy larger rings and girls expect them. It's also where you live. I know girls who work in DC on Capitol Hill that expect 2+ ct rings. I also know a couple of younger girls in college (20-21yrs old) that are happy with their 1/3 to 1/2 ct stones because it's not about the ring, but the commitment. My mom never had a diamond til she was married over 20 years, and my parents are still married after 40+ years. I know someone married since the 40's who has like 1/5 ct stone and that was big at the time. It's a function of being able to afford it now. The East Coast and West Coast have higher incomes than parts of the midwest and the stones that are worn show that for the most part. I think if you check out the different threads on this site, you'll find the owners of the larger stones are mostly from CA and NY/NJ. I work in Northern VA and most people I know have less than 1 ct, even those that married later and can afford more. For them, it's about wasting money. They have it, but they spend it on homes and cars and their children instead. I think PS is unique in the people who post. Unlike PS, not everyone is obsessed with all the stats of a stone. I buy what looks good to the eye. I've yet to meet anyone who even knows this site exists. Most people I know buy from brick and mortar stores or through "someone they know". I think the Australian people just tend to be more practical. Diamonds are not practical, they're a luxury.

 

[Camellia]

Hi
You mentioned geography as a factor for size of diamond. Do you think cost of real estate in those areas plays a part too? Australians tend to be obsessed with owning a home, so people are very keen to save for a deposit on a house as soon as possible and to get themselves 'established'. I would guess that a lot of people upgrading their diamonds in Australia would be in an older age group - ie they are earning a good income, they have their home, if they have children they've finished educating them, or maybe they don't have children at all, so now they can afford some luxuries for themselves. I know that's my attitude - we've got the house we want, we don't plan on moving until we're too old to look after ourselves, we've renovated, we've no children, we just have to maintain the house and cars and hope that we have good health. It's only been this year that we've been able to buy ourselves some luxuries (we're late 30s). Do you think that people living in expensive cities like New York put their money into purchases other than real estate? If that's the case I can understand people having more disposable income to spend on diamonds etc. What about cars? Would many people living in the CBD own a car? That's another expense that diverts money - most people in Australia own a car - it's something you do as soon as you've got your licence (usually a bomby old car). I'm just thinking that real estate and cars are competing priorities over jewellery and maybe if you live where you don't need a car or home ownership is not common, you're going to spend your money somewhere else.

 

[innerkitten]

I live in San Francisco California where real estate prices are pretty high. Francisco is a liberal city where anything goes, so there isn't too much of a standard here as far as stone size goes. I have a .65 OEC center stone. I've always hung out with sort of an artsy bohemian crowd, but have friends from all walks of life. Most of my friends have stones that are about .50 to 1 carat.A lot of us don't want to be too flashy since we take public transportation etc( parking here is a nightmare). Two of my friends have opals which is kind of different, and another one has a sapphire.

 

[innerkitten]

OOps I meant San Francisco not Francisco.

 

[Momoftwo]

I think geography does play a large part in it. I do know in NY city, a lot of people rent and I think they spend their money on other things. Also, a lot of people in NY city don't own a car because they don't drive much and it's too expensive to garage, and the subway is so extensive. So, they have cash to spend in other ways.

It's also a function of lifestyle. Some people think they have to have the big stone right off because it's a status thing. Everyone spends their money differently.

Also, remember on PS you have a lot of "diamond" educated people who purchase based on value from grading and appearance. I know that usually someone will walk into a jewelry store and pick a ring out by size, price and how it looks to their eye and they dont' necessarily care about it's grading report. It's intended to be kept forever so it really doesn't matter if it is an investment stone or not.