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

[aquanaut]

I am deciding how to set a 2.7ct diamond. Obviously, the question of "big enough" is extremely subjective and is largely dependent on a person's finances, social circle, cultre, sense of style etc...
By solitaire, I mean no other elements including no pave.

Additionally, I am asking this question under the premise that a solitaire is the the most desirable type of setting for a diamond AND that it is mainly lack of size that makes people add extra features such as pave, side stones and halos. If we could all have 10ct diamonds, I think there would be a lot more solitaires around. This is MY assumption only, and I hope that I do not offend anyone here. This assumption can be completely wrong but please understand that it is my personal opinion and taste and is not objective.

I would also like to point out again that I am completely aware that there are people who get solitaire rings in smaller carat weights and I do not mean to offend them and say that theirs are "too small." In fact, I admire people who focus less on size (but alas am not one of them!)

Having said all of this, if you were given a 2.7ct solitaire, would you think it's "enough" bling? Would you opt to have it changed to a different type setting?

I apologize in advance if you find my question too dependent on personal taste and "unanswerable"

Nonetheless, would love to hear some thoughts

 

[NOYFB]

Yes, I think 2.7 ct. RB is plenty big!

 

[jhoshopgirl]

I think it is personal preference as to what type of ring one gets. For instance, my friends all have 1.5 cts and they wanted a simple solitare because they like the style. And there are Celebrities have like 3+ct rocks and it is in halos ,side diamonds, etc, etc.

 

[mrswahs]

I certainly think it's more than "big enough!" But it's not just the size of the diamond that matters.

My mom has a .25ct solitaire and I think it's adorable! She's cute and tiny so I think it suits her (she fluctuates between 85 and 100 lbs during the year). The band is delicate and it really works on her tiny hands. My band is 2mm and my mom's is less than 1mm.

One of my best girl friends has a 1ct solitaire, but on her I think it looks small. The band is thick so it kind of dwarfs the diamond.

To me it's all about proportion! The proportion of the diamond to the band, and the ring to the lady

 

[diamondringlover]

I would LOVE to have a 2.7 RB to me that is quite large...almost a little too large for me, but I think I would handle it

 

[Haven]

As you said, this is such a subjective thing.

For me:
No, I would not think a 2.7 ct RB in a plain solitaire setting is enough bling for me. This is why: I'm not a big fan of RBs in general, but I especially dislike larger ones, so my "perfect size" RB would probably be about 1.5 to 1.75 ct.
On the other hand, I love cushions, and I think a 2.7 ct cushion in a plain solitaire setting would be just right.
To complicate matters, I don't like smaller pears or marquise stones, but I have seen some 3 ct + pears and marquise that really spoke to me.

SO . . .

It sounds like you're purchasing this stone for someone else, is that right? If so, and if you know she *wants* a plain solitaire setting, and you know she *wants* an RB, and you *know* she wants a lot of size, then a 2.7 ct RB set in a plain solitaire setting seems like the right ring for her!

As long as you are being true to *her* desires, you can't go wrong. It's a bad idea to get a D IF for a size girl, just as it's a bad idea to get a J SI1 for a color and clarity girl. (Cut is king around here, of course, and always matters. )

I've seen too many men choose the "perfect" ring according to their own standards, and end up with utterly disappointed fiancees who really wanted something different. As long as you purchase for HER, then it's the right choice.

 

[aquanaut]

As you said, this is such a subjective thing.

For me:
No, I would not think a 2.7 ct RB in a plain solitaire setting is enough bling for me. This is why: I'm not a big fan of RBs in general, but I especially dislike larger ones, so my "perfect size" RB would probably be about 1.5 to 1.75 ct.
On the other hand, I love cushions, and I think a 2.7 ct cushion in a plain solitaire setting would be just right.
To complicate matters, I don't like smaller pears or marquise stones, but I have seen some 3 ct + pears and marquise that really spoke to me.

SO . . .

It sounds like you're purchasing this stone for someone else, is that right? If so, and if you know she *wants* a plain solitaire setting, and you know she *wants* an RB, and you *know* she wants a lot of size, then a 2.7 ct RB set in a plain solitaire setting seems like the right ring for her!

As long as you are being true to *her* desires, you can't go wrong. It's a bad idea to get a D IF for a size girl, just as it's a bad idea to get a J SI1 for a color and clarity girl. (Cut is king around here, of course, and always matters. )

I've seen too many men choose the "perfect" ring according to their own standards, and end up with utterly disappointed fiancees who really wanted something different. As long as you purchase for HER, then it's the right choice.

Thanks a lot for your advice Haven.

Yes, I am getting this for my gf. I have made sure to get a flavor of her preferences. We have together determined that a RB is what she likes the most. She is a "size" girl and shares my love of solitaire settings but often says that ia solitaire must be "big" in order to have the "proper" look.

In case anyone wonders the reasons for mine and my gf's love of solitares is that it is classic and will never be outdated, elegant and simple, focuses on the diamond, makes it pop and lastly is a more casual look that is easily paired with other jewelry. For example, she often wears cocktail rings and has a watch with a diamond bezel. I believe it would be "too much bling" if she were to have a halo e-ring combined with all of her other jewelry pieces. Lastly a solitaire can look great with jeans and sneakers as well as more dressy/business attire.

The diamond I got is a GIA triple Ex HCA score of 1.8, 2.70 H VS2 (extremely clean, more like a Vs1). I thought this is a nice balance between size and quality. I will post specs in a seperate thread once everything is complete.

My decision about solitaire is pretty much made up, and I am confident that she will love it. I just wanted to get some opinions and of course do constantly fear "is it enough bling, and should I add something!?" However, I highly doubt I will change my mind.

 

[LGK]

I think it's a matter of visual balance and proportion really- if a center stone is large (IMO, that would be like 2 ct and on up) some settings just look out of proportion- very ornate settings are more visually balanced with "smaller" stones. For example: I have an antique 3.55 ct Old European Cut diamond- and I chose not to put it in a setting that I just *loved*- a very ornate Van Craeynest filigree setting. All the really ornate settings by that company tend to be shown in their catalogue with 1 carat and under sizes for a reason; the larger stones would throw the proportions of the settings off and simply look unbalanced. And it just becomes a whole lot of stuff going on with a big stone and an ornate setting. (I did choose a non solitaire setting eventually, but with a lot less going on.)

So it sounds like she's on the same page- and from what you describe of her opinions, a 2.7 ct is plenty large to make a statement on it's own. And she can always get some fancier wedding bands to stack with it later if she wants to switch it up sometimes.

 

[Haven]

She wants a big, solitaire RB and that's what you got for her--sounds like a winner to me!

I bet she's going to love it, and you're right--a classic solitaire will look beautiful with the other jewelry she already wears.

Best wishes to you on your upcoming engagement and marriage!

 

[JulieN]

It's really up to the wearer's preferences, but for me, a 2.7 RB is TOO BIG to be a solitiare, that is, it is just too boring, and I prefer a 2.7 solitaire to be a fancy cut.

 

[jaysonsmom]

As you said, this is such a subjective thing.

For me:
No, I would not think a 2.7 ct RB in a plain solitaire setting is enough bling for me. This is why: I'm not a big fan of RBs in general, but I especially dislike larger ones, so my "perfect size" RB would probably be about 1.5 to 1.75 ct.
On the other hand, I love cushions, and I think a 2.7 ct cushion in a plain solitaire setting would be just right.
To complicate matters, I don't like smaller pears or marquise stones, but I have seen some 3 ct + pears and marquise that really spoke to me.

SO . . .

It sounds like you're purchasing this stone for someone else, is that right? If so, and if you know she *wants* a plain solitaire setting, and you know she *wants* an RB, and you *know* she wants a lot of size, then a 2.7 ct RB set in a plain solitaire setting seems like the right ring for her!

As long as you are being true to *her* desires, you can't go wrong. It's a bad idea to get a D IF for a size girl, just as it's a bad idea to get a J SI1 for a color and clarity girl. (Cut is king around here, of course, and always matters. )

I've seen too many men choose the "perfect" ring according to their own standards, and end up with utterly disappointed fiancees who really wanted something different. As long as you purchase for HER, then it's the right choice.

Thanks a lot for your advice Haven.

Yes, I am getting this for my gf. I have made sure to get a flavor of her preferences. We have together determined that a RB is what she likes the most. She is a "size" girl and shares my love of solitaire settings but often says that ia solitaire must be "big" in order to have the "proper" look.

In case anyone wonders the reasons for mine and my gf's love of solitares is that it is classic and will never be outdated, elegant and simple, focuses on the diamond, makes it pop and lastly is a more casual look that is easily paired with other jewelry. For example, she often wears cocktail rings and has a watch with a diamond bezel. I believe it would be "too much bling" if she were to have a halo e-ring combined with all of her other jewelry pieces. Lastly a solitaire can look great with jeans and sneakers as well as more dressy/business attire.

The diamond I got is a GIA triple Ex HCA 1.8 H VS2 (extremely clean, more like a Vs1). I thought this is a nice balance between size and quality. I will post specs in a seperate thread once everything is complete.

My decision about solitaire is pretty much made up, and I am confident that she will love it. I just wanted to get some opinions and of course do constantly fear "is it enough bling, and should I add something!?" However, I highly doubt I will change my mind.

I'm confused. Did you get a 1.8 ct, or a 2.7 ct? I have a 1.81 ct solitaire, and I get compliments on it all the time. Most people state that it's stunning and classic, and the size is perfect on my hand (I secretly want them to say it's HUGE). When I wear it with my diamond band I feel that it's a great size, but when I wear it with my plain band, I can't help feel that it could be a tad bigger, in the 2.5-3 ct range.

 

[Haven]

I noticed that difference, too, Jaysonsmom, but thought it was a typo. There's a big difference between a 1.8 and a 2.7!

 

[aquanaut]

As you said, this is such a subjective thing.

For me:
No, I would not think a 2.7 ct RB in a plain solitaire setting is enough bling for me. This is why: I'm not a big fan of RBs in general, but I especially dislike larger ones, so my "perfect size" RB would probably be about 1.5 to 1.75 ct.
On the other hand, I love cushions, and I think a 2.7 ct cushion in a plain solitaire setting would be just right.
To complicate matters, I don't like smaller pears or marquise stones, but I have seen some 3 ct + pears and marquise that really spoke to me.

SO . . .

It sounds like you're purchasing this stone for someone else, is that right? If so, and if you know she *wants* a plain solitaire setting, and you know she *wants* an RB, and you *know* she wants a lot of size, then a 2.7 ct RB set in a plain solitaire setting seems like the right ring for her!

As long as you are being true to *her* desires, you can't go wrong. It's a bad idea to get a D IF for a size girl, just as it's a bad idea to get a J SI1 for a color and clarity girl. (Cut is king around here, of course, and always matters. )

I've seen too many men choose the "perfect" ring according to their own standards, and end up with utterly disappointed fiancees who really wanted something different. As long as you purchase for HER, then it's the right choice.

Thanks a lot for your advice Haven.

Yes, I am getting this for my gf. I have made sure to get a flavor of her preferences. We have together determined that a RB is what she likes the most. She is a "size" girl and shares my love of solitaire settings but often says that ia solitaire must be "big" in order to have the "proper" look.

In case anyone wonders the reasons for mine and my gf's love of solitares is that it is classic and will never be outdated, elegant and simple, focuses on the diamond, makes it pop and lastly is a more casual look that is easily paired with other jewelry. For example, she often wears cocktail rings and has a watch with a diamond bezel. I believe it would be "too much bling" if she were to have a halo e-ring combined with all of her other jewelry pieces. Lastly a solitaire can look great with jeans and sneakers as well as more dressy/business attire.

The diamond I got is a GIA triple Ex HCA 1.8 H VS2 (extremely clean, more like a Vs1). I thought this is a nice balance between size and quality. I will post specs in a seperate thread once everything is complete.

My decision about solitaire is pretty much made up, and I am confident that she will love it. I just wanted to get some opinions and of course do constantly fear "is it enough bling, and should I add something!?" However, I highly doubt I will change my mind.

I'm confused. Did you get a 1.8 ct, or a 2.7 ct? I have a 1.81 ct solitaire, and I get compliments on it all the time. Most people state that it's stunning and classic, and the size is perfect on my hand (I secretly want them to say it's HUGE). When I wear it with my diamond band I feel that it's a great size, but when I wear it with my plain band, I can't help feel that it could be a tad bigger, in the 2.5-3 ct range.

apologies for the confusion. I meant to say scores a 1.8 on the HCA.
It is 2.7 cts at 9.04mm x 9.07mm

Btw, the setting will be made by LM with double claw prongs

 

[Haven]

Oh, a Leon solitaire with double claw prongs is going to be gorgeous with a big RB center. She'll love it.

 

[slg47]

Oh, a Leon solitaire with double claw prongs is going to be gorgeous with a big RB center. She'll love it.

this exactly. if she wants a big solitaire then I think you did a great job!!!

but I don't think people get halos/3-stone rings because their center stone is not 'large' enough to be a solitaire-some people just like the look!

 

[Dancing Fire]

As you said, this is such a subjective thing.

The diamond I got is a GIA triple Ex HCA score of 1.8, 2.70 H VS2 (extremely clean, more like a Vs1). I thought this is a nice balance between size and quality. I will post specs in a seperate thread once everything is complete.

My decision about solitaire is pretty much made up, and I am confident that she will love it. I just wanted to get some opinions and of course do constantly fear "is it enough bling, and should I add something!?" However, I highly doubt I will change my mind.

that would look so nice on my finger...

 

[yennyfire]

What is her ring size? I think that a 2.7 on a size 5-6 would look very large, but on a size 9, it might look about "average". Either way, a lovely LM setting will set it off perfectly!

 

[jaysonsmom]

2.7ct RB would look stunning as a solitaire!

 

[atroop711]

I would LOVE a 2.7ct diamond

 

[luv2sparkle]

It will be beautiful and perfect! I am so glad you got your girl what her heart desires! Please come back with the hand shots!
I would love a 2.7, 3.5 or 4.00. I think I would need some pave, but I am sure your girl will love her awesome ring!

 

[aquanaut]

What is her ring size? I think that a 2.7 on a size 5-6 would look very large, but on a size 9, it might look about "average". Either way, a lovely LM setting will set it off perfectly!

She is a size 6.

While I realize that adding pave or sidetone will definitely contribute to the "initial wow factor" i think with time she will realize that I got her exactly what she always wanted. I think guys are always tempted to make the ER more than less but personally I believe that less is more.

 

[Circe]

... I am asking this question under the premise that a solitaire is the the most desirable type of setting for a diamond AND that it is mainly lack of size that makes people add extra features such as pave, side stones and halos. If we could all have 10ct diamonds, I think there would be a lot more solitaires around. This is MY assumption only, and I hope that I do not offend anyone here. This assumption can be completely wrong but please understand that it is my personal opinion and taste and is not objective.

While I've gotta say that I disagree with the above (and I'll happily take advantage of the opportunity to rabbit on about my beliefs in a sec), to answer your question off the bat: 2.7 is definitely big enough for a solitaire! Even if you're friends with the Rockefellers, on a size 6 finger, that covers, what, well over 75% of the top of the finger, I believe. It's proportionate, dress-up or dress-down appropriate, classic and elegant.

That said ... while I'm not a halo girl myself, I see jewelry as being kind of a holistic thing. For me, it's not about just the ring, or just the rock: both have to be equally appealing to really set me on fire. So, while I might love a gorgeous stone in a timeless solitaire ... I'd love it in a vintage-y setting with some kind of detailing more. Not necessarily to add carat weight: at the end of the day, more diamonds doesn't necessarily mean better. But in terms of aesthetics? Engraving, filigree, fluidity, negative space, and a whole bunch of other things play into the full effect.

If you guys are both minimalists, it sounds like you have a great plan - I just had to play devil's advocate and challenge the basic premise.

 

[aquanaut]

... I am asking this question under the premise that a solitaire is the the most desirable type of setting for a diamond AND that it is mainly lack of size that makes people add extra features such as pave, side stones and halos. If we could all have 10ct diamonds, I think there would be a lot more solitaires around. This is MY assumption only, and I hope that I do not offend anyone here. This assumption can be completely wrong but please understand that it is my personal opinion and taste and is not objective.

While I've gotta say that I disagree with the above (and I'll happily take advantage of the opportunity to rabbit on about my beliefs in a sec), to answer your question off the bat: 2.7 is definitely big enough for a solitaire! Even if you're friends with the Rockefellers, on a size 6 finger, that covers, what, well over 75% of the top of the finger, I believe. It's proportionate, dress-up or dress-down appropriate, classic and elegant.

That said ... while I'm not a halo girl myself, I see jewelry as being kind of a holistic thing. For me, it's not about just the ring, or just the rock: both have to be equally appealing to really set me on fire. So, while I might love a gorgeous stone in a timeless solitaire ... I'd love it in a vintage-y setting with some kind of detailing more. Not necessarily to add carat weight: at the end of the day, more diamonds doesn't necessarily mean better. But in terms of aesthetics? Engraving, filigree, fluidity, negative space, and a whole bunch of other things play into the full effect.

If you guys are both minimalists, it sounds like you have a great plan - I just had to play devil's advocate and challenge the basic premise.

Thanks for your comments Circe.

In fact, I would love to hear your contrasting opinion. Although, let's keep in mind that arguing about tastes is a pretty useless exercise because everyone is right in the end.

I would like to point out one thing, however. My basic premise applies primarily to engagement rings and not to ALL jewelry. For example, my gf and I recently visited the Cooper Hewitt museum in NYC to look at the Van Cleef & Arpels collection. I can definitely appreciate that type of jewelry and wish I could afford it! In addition, we went into Barneys to look at some of the funky jewelry on their first floor and were in love with some of the unconventional, vintige-y pieces that don't look NEARLY as much as they cost.

Having said all of this, for some reason I believe that engagements rings are best when left plain. Especially that with ER',s size of the diamond is emphasized more than in any other jewelry piece.

Lastly, yes, I do tend to favor minimalism in general so this is probably the underlying source of my preferences!

I cannot agree more with this answer from LM's website:

I love the look of one of your classic designs. What can I do to make it unique?

Firstly, a hand-made, custom designed ring is unique in itself. If you really want your ring to be special there are numerous ways to go about it without creating a wacky design. For engagement rings we recommend a classic sophisticated design. Here’s why:

a. The ring will be worn for decades to be passed on to your children and children’s children. Their tastes will be different than yours. Your own taste in 10 years will be different from what it is now. Stay classic.

b. Classic designs are evolutionary. They were not created; they evolved over hundreds of years, shedding unnecessary parts like dinosaurs shedding their ugly scales to turn into beautiful birds. The result is pure elegance wrapped in an almost invisible cloak of platinum. Taking away any part of the design would compromise the structure. Adding an element would compromise the style and would corrupt the flow of lines and curves. What would it look like? Imagine Britney Spears doing a Beatles song.

c. Creating a beautiful yet simple design is the Holy Grail of the jewelry trade. It’s next to impossible. Most “unique” designs are simply ugly cousins of their classic counterparts.

d. An engagement ring is nothing more than a pretty holder to keep a stone strapped to your finger. The stone is the main attraction. The ring is not. The ultimate ring would be completely invisible and one day it will be possible. Until then you need us to mount the stone in a way that showcases your stone and hides the mounting.
To make your engagement ring unique and special:

Engrave a personal message or set one or few tiny “secret” stones inside the ring. They could be diamonds or birthstones of your loved one. Nobody will be able to tell but you!

 

[rosetta]

yes, it's plenty big.

i'm in the camp who doesn't like the look of big RB solitaires, so i put sidestones either side of my centre stone. yes, it looks blingier, but the intention was not to beef up the centre stone, but to change the overall look.

now a cushion solitaire, THAT i can get behind!

i think you got exactly what she's looking for, based on your descriptions.

don't worry, and congratulations!

 

[zoebartlett]

Yes, a 2.7 ct. solitaire would be PLENTY big for me. Actually, it would be wayyyyy too big.

I love solitaires, but for me, I prefer three stone rings. I love how side stones look flanked next to a center stone.

ETA: I didn't mean to sound rude in my reply. I was just answering your initial question. I'm sure your girlfriend will love the solitaire, and I'm sure LM will do a fantastic job.

 

[calibali]

I have a 2.66ct RB in a LM solitaire (size 5.5) and while it's big to most, I think it could be bigger. I've had it for 6 months and it honestly looks average to me now. Wish I had picked something larger, but that's just me..

 

[yssie]

I imagine the vast majority of people who go in for a given style do it because they prefer that style over any others, not because they feel that their most-desired style is out-of-reach because their stone isn't large enough...


A 2.7 solitaire w/ double prongs sounds fabulous

 

[aquanaut]

I have a 2.66ct RB in a LM solitaire (size 5.5) and while it's big to most, I think it could be bigger. I've had it for 6 months and it honestly looks average to me now. Wish I had picked something larger, but that's just me..

Thanks for your input, calibali! Love your ring btw!

Of course I realize that in most instances there is no such a thing as too big, and would have loved to get 3.5ct or so, however, I was not willing to compromise further in quality nor extend the budget.

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?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I feel exactly the way you do, a solitaire is elegant, classic, timeless, versatile, and beautiful. Naturally I say that because it is my personal choice as well! I do like a small diamond wedding band to add a little sparkle, though! I love my 2mm Tiffany Legacy band with my Leon solitaire! It is understated but elegant as well.

 

[iugurl]

Yes it is big enough! WOW. If it isn't big enough what is!?

LOL, in my world 2.7 is HUGE. I very, very rarely see anyone with a 2 ct or bigger. I would love to have your diamond. It sounds beautiful.