Down to 2 stones... please help

Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.


Oct 7, 2002
Forgive me for posting this on both DT and here, but I think some people only check one or the other:

Okay, after a month of research, addiction to this forum, and constantly checking pricescope, here's my situation.

I reserved a fabulous (though I've never seen it) 1.57 G VS2 ideal cut, hearts and arrows (not branded, but very crisp):

1.57 G VS2
Depth: 60.7
Table: 55.6
Crown: 34.0
Pavil: 40.8
Culet: .7
Girdle: thin to medium
Fluor: None
Scores .7 on HCA (all excellent but spread, which is VG)

I was very happy with this stone and intended to buy. I paid to reserve it with a reputable online dealer from pricescope (one I have had a great experience with -- more on that later). The price was $11,600.

I recently got a little panicky about this ring being too big (I posted about this here). Notwithstanding some people saying it was not too big, I have heard conflicting things (some info that it might be too big). My girlfriend is 5'3 and has a 4.5 ring size (very thin). I was planning on a six-prong solitaire. I can't emphasize how tiny her fingers are -- they're pencils. She's also not flashy at all, but she is 26 years old and very profitably employed as a professional. We live in a major metropolitan area (apparently this is very relevant).

Still worried about whether the first ring was too big, I very recently reserved a smaller ring with a different (also reputable -- have had a good experience) vendor. That ring is:

1.42 F VS1 (H&A -- same as the ring above -- not branded or perfect, but very good and crisp)
Depth: 61.6
Table: 56.4
Crown: 34.8
Pavil: 40.6
Fluor: None

This ring also scores .7 on HCA, with all excellent plus one VG (spread).

The price is $10,900.

Now my dilemma:

Which ring? Does the 1.57 seem too big? Which is a better value? Should I play it safe with the 1.42?

Any thoughts?


Nov 26, 2001
1.42, 1.57, not much difference, they're both pretty much 1.5cts. So I wouldn't be concerned about size for that reason. I am about the same height, and also petite. I have a 1.44 which is plenty big (I think anything larger would be over doing it), so again, I say you're fine with either in that 1.5 range.

As far as price & which is the best deal, one of the pros would have to help you out there. :))


Oct 15, 2002
My experience was somewhat similar. I bought a 1.39 for my fiancee - well under 1.5 right? It turns out her ring size was a 4(snug) pretty surprising considering she is 5'7". I feel like the ring is friggin' door knob on her. Honestly, had I known it would look that big I would have bought something smaller and saved some money or just upped the quality.

I understand your concerns because she too is a professional, and leans towards the simple and elegant side. I think the ring looks a little flashy. It is big, it sparkles a lot - it really grabs the eye. Kinda funny buyer's remorse because, gee-whiz, that's what I wanted!

Anyway, she got used to it pretty quickly - like instantly. I guess her happiness is more important than a ring that is arguably "too big."

I'm not advising you either way - just relating my experience. btw, she's getting a hell of a lot of compliments so I did something right.

Richard Sherwood

Sep 25, 2002
Anyway, she got used to it pretty quickly - like instantly.


That's usually the case.

There's no such thing as a diamond too big. Here. Try this experiment. Instead of a 1.40+ or 1.50+, buy her a 2 carater.

Then wait and see if she complains it's too big...

Rich, GG
Sarasota Gemological Laboratory


Oct 27, 2002

That was quite a true statement.

From the male persepective I look at a large 1.5Ct stone and think how huge that would be on such a petite woman. Then I realize that it's a woman we are talking about and the stone could be so big that she drags the arm behind her when she walks and yet still wants to upgrade someday. :cheeky:

If the size difference between the two stones was dramatic I would say that if it really bothered you to go with the smaller stone but in this case go with the one that best fits your price range and that makes you happiest. More importantly the one that will make her the happiest.


Oct 8, 2002
Of course there is such thing as a diamond too big! Maybe we should all wear egg-size diamond ring for the next few days and see how we feel. Rich, care to be the first?? :))

I believe a diamond ring is like everything else, moderation/visual balance is what keeps it harmonious and pleasing looking both to the wearer and viewers alike.

If you are fortunate enough to wear a 5 cts and above, make sure use your extra cash to hire a body guard or two......:sun:


Oct 26, 2002
I really don't think 1.42 is much smaller than 1.57. If you feel it is too big, then go to a 1.25, 1.10, or 1.0. But do I think it is too big? No. Not at all. My friend just showed me the 2.81 carat stone he was giving his girlfriend. That looked big, but not too big -- although I would rather have your 1.57 since it is of higher quality and similar retail value.


Jul 22, 2002
There isn't much difference in size between the two stones. Go w/ your gut.

The size IS NOT too big and quite frankly, given your age, a professional, metropolitan area - it IS an appropriate size.
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
    Queen Elizabeth II - Favorite Jewelry
    Queen Elizabeth II - Favorite Jewelry - 09/21
    Jade Trau For Brilliant Earth Collection
    Jade Trau For Brilliant Earth Collection - 09/18
    Can My Jewelry Be An Heirloom?
    Can My Jewelry Be An Heirloom? - 09/16