Does size matter more to women?

[Stomp]

It seems to me that more of the men I talk to say go for quality over size, but more of the women seem to have a thing for size...

My original thread is here.

As you can see, I''m leaning to a slightly cleaner diamond (except for the S1, but as long as it''s eye-clean I don''t care) over a larger stone with a lower color but more size. It seems the feedback I''m getting from my male friends is that yup, that''s a good strategy, but some of the females are thinking I should compromise on color (and cut to a certain extent) and go bigger.

Recognizing everyone''s opinion is different, give yours!

 

[eyesoftexas]

Just my 2 cents but here in the USA size matters. I originally bought a 1.42 ct ring and then upgraded to a 3 ct ring. Now granted the 1.42 ct is a huge ring but now with the 3ct she is in heaven. It also depends on personalities of the female as well. My wife and her friends are all into the bling bling thing with "name brands" being important. Other could give a crap about names.

 

[eyesoftexas]

one more thing regarding size. I did notice how one of our friends got a 2.5 ct princess cut ring that had little sparkle and probably not very well cut in my opinion. Yet the ladies always are saying how beautiful her ring is and that thing is huge. Meanwhile they hardly noticed one of my wife's rings that is ideal cut at 1ct and sparkles like crazy. They have said it is nice but definetly not in the same talk category as the larger ring. Go for size.

 

[moremoremore]

I would have said don't skimp on color...but I saw that you were thinking of a D....so the answer is a BIG YES.....go bigger and go to an F. A well cut F will look no different than an E....I think it's a no brainer...for me, at least.

 

[researcher]

I can't answer your poll because I would sacrifice color and clarity, but never cut for size. My B/F and I decided on a 3.22 ct princess, "I" "SI1" with an excellent cut which seemed to mask the color and clarity. I would NEVER choose a stone that was not 100% eye clean or a stone that did not face up extremely white, but with the right cut and having some standards you don't have to worry about those things

 

[Mara]

Oh my gosh yes...but then again if I have a limited budget I probably would never spring for a D. Nor a VS. I have a beautiful white H SI1 and I adore it. I get tons of compliments on it and it looks pretty darn amazing. When set there is no tinge of any color unless you place it in yellow lighting against a white paper. How many times in life does that happen?




Then again, for $8200, it sounds like a 1.27 D VS is actually a great deal. Maybe too great? What is the CUT like? I would definitely not sacrifice cut for size unless it was a miniscule cut sacrifice (e.g. from an absolutely ideal stone with all the trimmings to an almost ideal stone with still excellent light return and great specs). So I'd sacrifice CLARITY first, then color, then size, then cut. Depending on the day, size and cut may be interchangeable.

But clarity is something people don't see if you choose well, while color may be. So clarity always first.

My two cents!

 

[diamonddoll]

I've seen enough diamonds in person to know I can sacrifice color but not cut. But of course I still want the biggest dang rock I can find. (Which is why I have been seraching in person and lurking on this forum for months getting ready to buy online.)

 

[Stomp]

----------------
Then again, for $8200, it sounds like a 1.27 D VS is actually a great deal. Maybe too great? What is the CUT like? >----------------

Mara,
My first post was pretty off. The stone was actually a S1 and the cost was $8,700 - not quite a screaming deal.

The cut, however, is pretty good. On the cut adviser it scored and Ex/Ex/Ex/VG, score of 1. Details are:

GIA
Shape: Round Ideal Cut
Carat: 1.27
Color: D
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 61.3
Table: 58
Crown Angle: 34.0
Crown %: 12.5 (sounded like a guesstimate)
Pavilion Angle: 40.75
Pavilion %: 43.0
Girdle: Thin to Medium & Faceted
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Culet: None
Fluorescence: Faint
Measurements: 6.97 x 7.00 x 4.28

We REALLY liked how it looked, but then again we only looked at about 4 stones that day.

 

[Stomp]

I just did a bit of a search, and it doesn't look like I'll get that much bigger if I want to keep an EX -> VG cut. I may be able to get another .25 - .30ct and stay in the same ballpark, but that's dropping down to an "I" color.

 

[pqcollectibles]

7mm is a fairly substantial diameter diamond. Especially for a "starter" stone. Unless you move in circles where you FI will be around a lot of 2+ carat Rocks, this will be a very nice size diamond. If you can get a lifetime upgrade offer from the Vendor that will give you full credit for this purchase towards a new diamond (without spending 2X or 3X your original price) that would be great. Then you can upgrade to bigger and better down the road.

Just as a side note,........ Well cut white goods like that D, in that size, are in extremely short supply. If you really want this diamond, don't wait too long to make your decision. Diamonds like that one move fast.

 

[Stomp]

Thanks PQ - I put some $$ down to hold it so I think it should be safe until I make my final decision on Saturday

EDIT - They do have the upgrade policy, so I should be covered there too.

 

[chialea]

I'm going to speak out in defense of all the beautiful smaller stones out there. They're sparkly and shiny, and generally more practical for everyday wear.

I do have to admit, though, that after hanging around here for a while I start thinking "those asscher cuts are absolutely wonderful... maybe I should get a right hand ring... besides my... other (heirloom) right hand ring". It's definitely catching!

 

[Shay37]

Stomp, I'm with Researcher. I could not vote either, because I would give up both color and size to keep a really awesome ideal cut.

Shay

edited because my fingers were moving faster than my brain. LOL

 

[squirerad]

In our American Anglo-Saxon culture, size matters the most. When you hear celebrity engagements on TV, it's always "JLo (or insert any celeb name) got a 3 carat.. bah bah bah" and some times "she got a flawless emerald (or insert any shape)."

Never have I ever heard "she got an ideal cut." By choosing cut, we know consciously that we are getting the better sparkles, but subconsciously we would prefer a bigger size because culture has 'nurtured' us to value size more.

 

[valeria101]

C'mon... size is what shows the most from across the street (no loupe, Iscope... etc.) and it is the women who shows that off. If the neighbour has a 5ct CZ and the nerve to flount it and you care... than you need to match the size. It takes a bit of nerve to defend your taste against all odds, and it ain't the buyer of diamonds that has to do that job, but the wearer

Wait until everyone will talk cut not carats, and the tables will turn.

Maybe we should persuade our guys to wear more jewelry for practice

 

[Mara]

well as you noted, if you can't get a significant amount of extra size by dropping color down...it may not be worth it to sacrifice that D color if you feel strongly about it. If you need to drop to an I to get a 1.55 or similar, what do you think she may be thinking? size or color? a well-cut I will face up very white, but it isn't the same as a D. if you think the size jump isn't significant enough to really matter to her...then stick with the D SI as that is a nice combo...I like the drop in clarity with a nice color with an equally nice size! I have an excellently cut 1.29c stone on a size 6 finger and people think it's a 1.5c or similar.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 6/10/2004 2:16:49 AM Mara wrote:




[...] well as you noted, if you can't get a significant amount of extra size by dropping color down...it may not be worth it to sacrifice that D color

----------------

You bet Mara! And the steep increase of prices per carat with weight make sure one makes up his mind once and for all about size first

How do you justify dobling the cost for the next just visibly different size afterwards?

It takes some experience and the right conditions to tell the difference between D and F or VSs and SI1, but between a 7mm and 8mm diameter circle is easy

I bet cut is the next most showy thing, at least up to a point.

 

[icelady]

I would not sacrifice cut for size, I would sacrifice color to a certain degree for size.

I think you already have the better size in the stone you have been posting about! Because it is a great cut it will look larger than the average cut 1.27. As Mara said, people think her 1.29 is a carat and a half. With the cut and D color, it must be a beauty!

 

[HollyGo-Lightly]

Wouldn't this also depend on a lady's finger size and the size of the stone? To me, a 1.25 is a GREAT stone! (right now we are sacrificing cut, color and clarity for a larger stone) If I had your budget I would get the better cut, but then again a 1.25 is large to me...So, for other people it may not be.

Does she has petite fingers, or larger ones? What do her friends and relatives wear? Is she active and like to do things with her hands? Is she in a job field that could harm or lose the ring? Could that money be used somewhere else first?

To me, it's a great financial sacrifice for many men to put aside that money for a ring...So, hopefully your woman knows that and appreciates what you give her, no matter the size, color, clarity, etc. But it seems that in a Pam Anderson boobs, J-Lo butt, Angelina Jolie lips, Amelda Marcos shoe world, MORE is King, and BIGGER is always better...

 

[cushionsearcher]

I really think it depends. Did size matter to me? Up to a point. I didn't want a stone that was .5 carats, but anything between .9 and 1.2 sounded great to me. I knew I didn't want a D IF .5 carat stone as it couldn't give me the look I wanted on my finger as a finished product. We wound up going with a .91 G VS2 and I think it's perfect for me. I cannot see myself ever wanting anything bigger and I prefer having the G VS2 as opposed to an H SI1 that's 1.15 carats.

I imagine that most girls have their ideal size in their head already. You should try to find out from a friend what she thinks is the ideal size for her. If she's happy with a 1 ct stone, she'd be thrilled with the 1.25 c stone that you're considering. If on the other hand she thinks she needs a 1.5c stone, well then I'd sacrifice on clarity and color and try to find the larger stone (or more importantly a stone with a larger diameter - no one can tell the weight of a stone by looking at it, they can only tell how 'big' it is).

 

[verticalhorizon]

I didn't vote in the poll either, b/c I would sacrifice clarity and color, in that order-and to a degree) for size, but not cut.

I had a limited budget and calculated that I wouldn't have gotten too much more by topping my budget so I bought quality. My GF doesn't wear jewelry and kinda klutzy too, so her ring sits low on the finger and I think will look great.


I think the issue of size is really strong in the US though. It's weighs heavily on all of us.

 

[Stomp]

Holly,

She's a pharmacist (in a hospital) w/ a size 4.25 finger. As such, she's relatively active (a lot of in and outs w/ pockets for pens, charts, patients, etc.). She also likes going to the gym.

 

[HollyGo-Lightly]

Well with a 4.5 finger I think anything over 1ct will look more than substantial! She's a lucky gal to have a 1.25 OR a 1.5, but I say find out what "size" she feels comfortable with, because when asked a girl may say a smaller size than she may say to a friend.

As a active person, I would say that a 1.25ct in a good quality would be my bet. Only because I think the rarity of a diamond is what makes them so attractive to me, when in a decent size for the finger. So, at her small finger size, and a 1.25, in a F or even a D (VS1 or 2), that thing will sparkle like MAD in a good cut, and NO ONE will say, "man don't you wish that were bigger?"

 

[hoorray]

I would not pay the premium for a D color because it is about rarity, not a visual difference. But, I would not go all the way to an I color -- I like the whiter colors, so would target E- G if you want to keep the quality up. (There is something to be said for emotional quality, I just think "D" is way overkill). I would not sacrafice cut. All that said, 1ct is a great size for how you describe her size and lifestyle. I would think anything in the 1 - 1.25 range would be great, and lasting (not suffer shrinkage immediately). So, go with the D because everything else looks good too, or see if you can find a comparable F or G that is slightly larger or slightly cheaper and save some $$.

 

[moremoremore]

right on lop....I don't think someone who is looking at a D will be happy with an I....they might not even be happy with a G....F is still totally colorless....I can understand emotional quality issues too ...I'm having them right now...I'm returning an F Si1 I have due to clarity issues, I really am hooked. I've always targeted G color...but my brain loves knowing it's an F...

 

[bling]

oops! i voted yes, but didnt read the question carefully enough..so i change my answer to no..i would sacrifice on color and clariy to a point, but not on cut! sorry..

 

[Hest88]

The answer, as all of the gals are saying, is not a simple yes or no. We're willing to sacrifice things that *can't* be seen but we're not willing to sacrifice anything that will compromise beauty. That means we want a great cut, that means we'll go lower in color but not so low that the color will be readily seen, that means we'll go lower in clarity but not so you can see inclusions without a loupe. And that means we want a stone large enough so we can appreciate all that beauty.

 

[chris-uk04]

I think you are a bit confused of the opinion of women regarding size. It's not that they want to sacrifice color or clarity for size, it's they both size AND quality. They want a large stone with high color and clarity without comprehend how much it all costs (save the lovely lasses on this website).

At first, they will look at the size, but over the course of the weeks that they stare at the ring, they will look for color and look for inclusions. If you get a L, I-1, that is much bigger, they will be initially impressed, but then eventually be disappointed once they see start to see the color or the inclusions. Consequently, if you get a E-VVS1, she'll lament that it's too small and doesn't care about such extreme amounts of quality.

You can sacrifice a decent amount of color and clarity for size. It depends on the ring. If you were talking about a .75 pt stone, you can sacrifice up to J-SI2 (GIA). The larger the ring, the more noticable color & inclusions are at the same rating. Since you are above 1 carat, I would throw the money "spent" on the D to get a slightly bigger G or H.

The "largest size without visible color or inclusions" was my theory and I'll have to see how it works! I got (but not yet given!) a 1.15 G SI1. I can't see any inclusions with the naked eye (and they're rather small with the loop) and even in good lighting against a white piece of paper (in the setting) I cannot see any color.

Why spend money on what you cannot see!?

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 6/9/2004 11:14:02 PM squirerad wrote:



Never have I ever heard 'she got an ideal cut.' ----------------

That's only because most people don't even know what it is!

However, if you put a well-cut but slightly smaller diamond next to a less well-cut but slightly larger diamond, I believe most people would pick the *sparklier* or better-cut diamond. "Big" should mean diameter, not weight. A 1.5 diamond with a 7mm diameter won't look bigger than a 1.25 diamond with a 7mm diameter, but the 1.25 will blaze like no tomorrow. The 1.5 won't.

Well-cut diamonds present bigger to the eye. Everyone who has asked about the size of my stone has said "Oh, that got to be at least 1.5 ct, right?".....nope. A full 1/4 ct. less. But it looks larger than life.

I think the key here is this: It's all relative. When making sacrifices on color/clarity, etc. it's important to know how far off the "dream" one has to move. If one's budget allowed a 1 ct stone and they wanted a 1.25, they might be able to wiggle a bit on color/clarity to get a bit more weight. If that same person desired a 1.5, they'd have to give up a lot more to get to the "dream". Maybe sacrifice a bit on cut AND color/clarity. Maybe that person would settle on a nicely cut 1.25 instead. Hard to say.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 6/10/2004 11:10:34 AM moremoremore wrote:

right on lop....I don't think someone who is looking at a D will be happy with an I....they might not even be happy with a G....F is still totally colorless....----------------

Well, I think it more depends on WHY someone wants the D in the first place, doesn't it?

Some people don't KNOW that an H faces up really white. Some people have seen crappy mall-cut H stones (which aren't REALLY H stones) and they think that's what ALL H stones look like. Some people want a D because they want the status of owning a D stone. And some people want a D because the extent of their diamond knowledge is what little someone else (equally uninformed) told them.....D/E/F.

People in the first two groups may very readily change their minds.....and we've seen that happen over and over here.

People in the "color-sensitive" group like Canadiangrl or people who want the status of owning a D stone....I agree they would be less likely to want an I stone in place of a D.

You noted "F is still colorless". This is a MENTAL thing....it's not what the eye sees, it's what you know on paper. People who buy diamonds with their *eyes* are receptive to a wider range of possibilities than those who buy the paper.