I''m really partial to the ultra-thin bands that really showcase the diamond shape. What''s the thinnest you would go without compromising the durability of the band (for normal wear)? 2mm? 3mm? Thanks!
So far, my experience has been 2mm, although you may be able to find a vendor to do a little bit less, say, 1.7 mm. I haven''t seen anything below that.
It think a lot depends on the setting style. Maybe you could go thinner for just a plain wedding band, but for eternity-style definitely not; hmm, *maybe* on solitaires?
I like the ultra-thin look, too, but starting to wonder if the rings would only be "wearable" as a set; I mean, they might look too insignificant? unsubstantial? to hold on their own.
ive also heard 2mm is the thinnest for durability, but I believe some girls here have thinner bands than that and they do just fine. personally how thin I would go, 3 or 4 mm! I love thick and substantial rings.
I am partial to thin bands as well. The thinner, the better, for me.
I would have loved to go with a 2 mm, but I ended up doing 2.3 mm since I chose a three stone. If I had gone with a solitaire I def would have gone with 2 mm, perhaps slightly thinner! Going thinner makes the diamond/s really stand out.
I think the thinnest I''ve ever heard of is ~1.7mm or so. But if it was me, I''d probably go up to around 2 just to make myself feel better about the strength and durability of the ring.
When my ring was being designed, I wanted a thin, delicate look, and my band ended up at around 2.1 or 2.2 mm...I think it looks nice and dainty, yet still feels substantial enough to stand the test of time.
About 2mm, but remember that the height can add to durability as well. Mine is 2mm and slightly thinner in some areas (due to the design), but it's also 2mm *in height* as well all the way around so though it looks delicate from the top, you can tell it's pretty durable from the side.
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.