Is 2.7ct RB "big enough" for a solitare?

[zip99]

No, I think it's too small for a solitaire. You need at least 3.0 for a solitaire to look half way decent.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

I'm not sure if 2.7 is big enough (lol Personally, I would think for that large of that size is, it seems like a simple solitaire or a solitaire with a simple band which has small diamonds around the band would be perfect so the focus stays on the main attraction.

 

[calibali]

Calibali, do you find now, that you have had the ring for a while, that quality has become much less important than when you were buying, and that size overpowers the other c's?

First, let me state that the reason I initially commented was because all everyone was saying is that 2.7 is huge or possibly too big, but I can honestly say that it's neither of these things. I don't want you to start thinking that your stone is going to be massive and everyone is going to stare at it on end - because that is not going to be an issue. It's a nice size and all, but it's not what many on here are making it out to be (of course, this is all affected by your social circle, where you live, etc.).

Sorry for the mini-rant. Anyways, to answer your question, I would say that quality is still just as important now as it was when I purchased the stone. I still notice the nice, white color of the H and the Ideal cut looks amazing in every light. However, I have an SI1 and here I am glad that I didn't pay for a VS2 or above since neither I nor anyone else ever gets close enough to find the teeny specks that only appear in certain lighting and at very specific angles. I got lucky in regards to the type of inclusions (lots of small, white crystals scattered about), but it might not be worth the hassle to search for a similar one and still not get a noticeable or substantial size difference.

Personally, I would not sacrifice any of the c's I've chosen to get a larger stone, so if you are at a comfortable point in your budget I would just stick with what you found. My regret comes from not going larger when it was in the budget (without compromising other c's), but live and learn I suppose.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Calibali, do you find now, that you have had the ring for a while, that quality has become much less important than when you were buying, and that size overpowers the other c's?

First, let me state that the reason I initially commented was because all everyone was saying is that 2.7 is huge or possibly too big, but I can honestly say that it's neither of these things. I don't want you to start thinking that your stone is going to be massive and everyone is going to stare at it on end - because that is not going to be an issue. It's a nice size and all, but it's not what many on here are making it out to be (of course, this is all affected by your social circle, where you live, etc.)..

Yes, this is true. Also, this is a diamond forum so we're all much more opinionated about diamonds and tend to express that here. FWIW, I think a 2.7 will be fabulous...and to put in perspective, I'm not a fan of most fancy cut diamonds (which many on PS are), so I'd prefer a larger RB than a larger fancy cut (except one or two cuts - like cushions and older-cut stones). Luckily there are so many options to fit all our tastes.

 

[aquanaut]

Thanks for your opinions all.

I do realize perfectly well that 2.7ct isn't necessarily going to BLOW away everyone who looks at it.

I live in NYC and work in finance, so that ct weight is not considered at the top of the range based on what I see on a daily basis.

During my search I have tried to love several 3ct diamonds but they were Si1's and i could spot the inclusions very easily. I knew they would bother me. And the way I think about it, spending such "crazy" money on something that I consider "low quality" is counter intuitive. Perhaps, I hadn't looked at enough Si's to find one that would be clean enough for me.

However, if I can't afford a 3.5ct with the specs that I desire, than I think I should not live outside my means or create the illusion that I can afford this size by going down in quality. The same color and clarity in the 3+ct zone would shoot the price up by about 50%!! And based on mm dimension differences, it did not seem worth this huge price jump from 2.70 with approx 9.04mm x 9.07mm dimensions

This is only MY PERSONAL take on the matter so as always I don't mean to offend anyone with my approaches.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I agree with you 100%. I was not willing to go below H VS, either. That is my personal limit. My stone is 1.63 cts. (H VS1) and I could have gotten 2 cts. with the same money had I gone down a notch or two in color and clarity.

I think a 2.7 will be a beautiful and respectable size in NYC! And it is more than large enough for a solitaire. Any size diamond looks good in a solitaire for that matter!

 

[aquanaut]

I agree with you 100%. I was not willing to go below H VS, either. That is my personal limit. My stone is 1.63 cts. (H VS1) and I could have gotten 2 cts. with the same money had I gone down a notch or two in color and clarity.

I think a 2.7 will be a beautiful and respectable size in NYC! And it is more than large enough for a solitaire. Any size diamond looks good in a solitaire for that matter!

thanks diamondseeker2006!!! Believe it or not but your comments really do make me feel better during this super anxious time for me as I wait for LM to make the ring!!!

 

[that_someone_special]

You should probably just get a 27 carat instead.

 

[decodelighted]

While I don't agree that a solitaire is the IDEAL engagement ring to strive for .... it seems like you've selected a great stone that would look entirely handsome in a solitaire setting on the size 6 finger of your similarly-inclined intended.

Personally, I prefer antique style settings -- not because I hope they'll draw attention away from my more modestly sized 1.5 ct stone ... but because that style is my *preference*. Its what I think of when I think of "engagement ring" -- probably because I always admired my grandmother's genuine antique collection of rings. And because solitaires seem sooooooo plain to me. And scream "traditional" in a way that irks me for some reason.

One of the best features of a solitaire engagement ring is the versatility they have in finding wedding bands that flatter. She could take the "set" in different directions based on her other preferences ....antique ... more bling ... modern matte finish .... mix/matching metals ... lots of options.

 

[ked123]

Does she definitely want a solitaire? I have a 1.9 RB solitaire and can't wait for the day I can get it re-set. The setting is way too simple for me. I just don't appreciate the simple elegance of the setting, but I know that some women love this.

In terms of size, it's all relative to the size of her finger. I have size 7 fingers. Sometimes I'll see pics of women with rings that look pretty huge and later come to find out that they are actually smaller than what I have. They appear huge, though, since the wearer has size 4 or 5 fingers.

My ideal size for the center stone would be 2.5 carats. 3 carats is too large for my finger.

 

[aquanaut]

Does she definitely want a solitaire? I have a 1.9 RB solitaire and can't wait for the day I can get it re-set. The setting is way too simple for me. I just don't appreciate the simple elegance of the setting, but I know that some women love this.

In terms of size, it's all relative to the size of her finger. I have size 7 fingers. Sometimes I'll see pics of women with rings that look pretty huge and later come to find out that they are actually smaller than what I have. They appear huge, though, since the wearer has size 4 or 5 fingers.

My ideal size for the center stone would be 2.5 carats. 3 carats is too large for my finger.

I think she, herself, is not 100% sure what she wants exactly. I do know that what she wants most, is to be engaged lol!
Ring is secondary...

About half a year ago we casually went looking at various rings and we narrowed it down to solitaire and 3-stone with baguettes sides and what seemed to have concerned her most was the size of the center stone! She did love the solitaire and has mentioned since that she does like the style when she saw it on someone else. She liked the 3-stone as well but couldn't decide what she liked more and we joked around that I would make the final decision. However, the solitaire she tried on was 2.3cts.

I suppose that if with some time, she decides that she wants to jazz things up a bit, a wedding band can always take care of that or as a last resort a reset.

However, I really do think solitare fits our lifestyle. Regardless, she will definetly not hate it!!!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I know you don't need to hear from me multiple times, but I ALWAYS recommend a plain solitaire setting unless the girl has picked out a specific setting. It's far to risky to pick out anything else. Even after all these years, there is no possible way my husband could safely pick out jewelry for me! I can't imagine anyone not being thrilled with a 2.7 ct. ideal cut diamond in a Leon Mege setting! But as you said, the biggest thrill is finally getting engaged!!!