I have posted several posts regarding super thin pave wedding bands and i am not willing to risk a 1.4mm band, but should a 1.8mm band (not ering) be relatively safe and durable for daily wear from a reputable place like leon?
But two things are certain.
Thicker is more safe.
Thinner is less safe.
Besides the ring itself people vary . . . as does the beating they subject their rings to.
The same ring will last a lifetime on one woman's finger that will be quickly destroyed on the finger of another.
If you are the royalty and all you do is sit on a throne and speak and never have to so much as squeeze a doorknob you can get away with a very thin ring that's encrusted with diamonds on four sides of the band.
Just because a vendor, any vendor, makes something does not mean it's "safe", whatever safe means.
Why do they do it then?
Money.
If they refuse to make what's in style their competitors will.
It's not their fault that women are demanding rings that are too thin.
Abby, it depends on your wearing style. For me, I am gentle on my rings, so I would be fine with it. I have a friend who has a ~2mm gold ring that is completely out-of-round and bent because she wears it all the time... fortunately it's plain metal so it can be reshaped easily.
If you already have the 2mm band, would the 1.8mm really be enough of a difference for you to care about? For me it would not be - I can barely tell the difference in width between my wedding band and e-ring, and it's a whole millimeter (3 vs 4). I think if you want a visual difference you should go with the 1.5, but only if you are just wearing it occasionally when you go out or have people over.
kenny|1332275203|3153004 said:
If you are the Queen of England and all you do is sit on a throne and speak you can get away with a very thin ring, encrusted with diamonds on four sides of the band.