Does size matter more to women?

[Mara]

1.27 on a 4.5 size finger will look very nice and big! I think you've got a good combo here, get a lower setting so it doesn't snag on things as much and she will be in heaven with her new ring!

 

[Nicrez]

I agree that a 1.25ct on a 4.5 finger will look great. Nothing small about that!




Every woman has a threshold for everything. Clothes, people, diamonds. I don't think it's insulting to push that threshold, but some people don't prize size over quality, or quality over size. Seems the trick is to find the happy medium.




I once saw a VERY warm yellow stone that was heavily included and HUGE, and the woman was trading it DOWN for a better stone...Hmmm...go figure! Find her priority, and make the decision you feel is right. I think she will be more impressed with the commitment than the .25cts more, or the 2 or 3 colors higher...




Heck, I'm impressed you took so much time to consider her thoughts and wants. Show her this post, you'll definately be the good guy!

Good luck!!!

 

[Stomp]

Thank you all for the feedback - I'll be sure to post pics once it's done...regardless of what I end up choosing (though still leaning w/ this one)....perhaps some puppy syndrome going, but I'll see.

Thanks again.

 

[Julian]

I think diamonds are beautiful no matter what the size!!! I love the daintier ones with lots of fire (GORGEOUS!) as well as the big ones with their magnificent light shows(WOW!).

Reading a lot of these posts I've noticed that some people assume that if a diamond is bigger one has sacrified cut/quality. Why the sizeism, lovely people?

I know some have bypassed quality for size -- but that's pretty rare, especially on an enthusiast board like this, where we're pretty discriminating.
To look down on a stone and assume it's (what one clever poster wrote "frozen spit" -- ha ha) is not really nice...or accurate in many cases.

Many of the 3+ carat rings PS'ers own are just as sparkly and well-cut, clear & colorless as the daintier stones.

 

[jadegreene]

Well I'm a woman and I guess I would compromise some things for size because that's what other women look at...so its the best way to show it off. I love my ring but ideally I do wish it was a) a better cut an d c) twice as big. I think I would have compromised colour - but I'm not sorry it's a VS2.

I didn't know much when we were choosing it and there is not as much choice at B&M stores in Australia.

Not that .52 is small...and I have very small hands...but it would have been ideal to have a really big stone. However I would never like a really bad big stone that was like a chunk of glass.

 

[slw925]

My husband just chose for my upgraded diamond, a 1.18 D VS1. After wearing it a few times I've decided that I'd be more satisfied with something larger and that I don't need to have the D color. I don't have the dimenions off hand, but the diamond is cut so that it looks more like 1.24cts. Before I knew that, I was thinking the 1.30 range would probably look larger and do the trick, but once I checked out a 1.30 I did not see any visual difference from my 1.18 DVS1. So, I'm pursuing something bigger, I'll need to go to a 1.5ct, but I want to go for cut as the #1 priority. Then I will probably go down to a G color, since the majority of what I've discovered from pricescope is that people really like their nicely cut G color diamonds because they do look white,sometimes better loking than a poorly cut colorless diamond. Next I'm I'd like to go for a VS2 clarity, or SI1 w/ no visible inclusions at all. I have good close up vision, so if I can see something, it's not going to fly with me. Just so you have an idea, we were able to get the 1.18 DVS1 for $8500, which was a great deal. From the time that he held it for us until it was purchased, the value has gone up to around $11000. Not sure if I should exchange now or later. But it would be with the same jeweler. Overall, it's not necessary to go by weight when considedering size, pay attention to the dimensions.