Perfect carat/diameter for round brilliant?

[London]

Hello all!

I've been discussing a possible upgrade with my jeweler. My current ering is a RB 2.3 excellent cut, vs2, H. It is set between two ashers (.5 ea) and on an eternity diamond band. Anyway I have always felt that there is way to much going on on this ring and have longed for something much more simple. Luckily my jeweler will do a trade in so I can get something else. I am thinking I would like to do a plain solitaire 8 delicate prong RB. I would also like to go significantly bigger on the center stone. I am thinking btw 3.5 - 4.0 however my jeweler feels that anything bigger than a 3.0 on a RB is unattractive. Of course she will get me what I want and was just stating her opinion through experience but I wanted to ask if there is any validity in what she thinks. Would a RB larger than 3.0 somehow lose some of its beauty? I have seen a 5.0 solitaire RB and I did think something looked un-pretty about sort of reminded me of a dull quarter (maybe the quality wasnt good). Anyway I know this is sort of a personal preference thing but what are your thoughts?

tia!
ana

 

[waterlilly]

what size are your fingers? That will make a little bit of difference...

this thread
might have some pics that will help

 

[London]

oh yeah I''m a size 5

 

[waterlilly]

there is also a "finger coverage" chart somewhere that gives you an idea of how big different sizes look on different finger sizes...let me see if I can find it...it might even be mentioned in the thread I linked above...

 

[stone-cold11]

There you go. For round. But you can deduce the coverage for other cut by a comparison of the dimension of the stone.

 

[yssie]

Entirely up to you!


I do think that there''s a limit on size for RBs, that at some point they do start to look gaudy, but that size limit is very different for every person

That 3+ thread has some serious eyecandy

 

[LGK]

3.5ct is the biggest I believe I can wear at a size 4.75/5ish. My Old European Cut e-ring is that size- just a smidge under 10mm. I seriously couldn''t wear a larger round stone, it would look silly. The 3.5ct is so big it''s never "shrunk" to my eyes- it looked huge when I first tried it on, and a year or so later it still looks enormous to me. Any bigger and I think it would look kind of ridiculous on my short finger! (Fancy cuts on the other hand... those I think look fabulous in even larger ct weights). It''s just something about the round shape that really looks too much in huge sizes, yanno? To my eye, the 3 1/2 ct size isn''t too much, but I do have a fairly, um, unsubtle sense of style anyway, so... YMMV.

And yeah- sidestones are really hard to pull off with larger stones. The setting my OEC came with had sidestones AND a triple halo, and it was... way too much. I reset it in a much simpler setting and that''s perfect.

So to answer your question, I''d go with the 3.5ct but try on larger and smaller sizes if possible. When you get much over 3-something cts it''s hard to notice a ct weight jump, so a 4 ct actually might look pretty darn similar to a 3.5, in real life.

I''ll see if I can dig up a few hand shots for you. My hands are really small, with short fingers and yet pudgy too just for fun, and I wear my rings loose, since I get the dreaded Finger Muffintop if they''re tight, so 5 is a bit loose on me.

 

[LGK]

OK, here''s my OEC in the original setting it came in, which I wasn''t a fan of.

 

[LGK]

This is a crappy and small shot of the same stone, reset.

 

[London]

Thanks Waterlilly!

Thanks for the chart stone cold - very helpful!

Thanks yssie - I will have to check that thread out!

LGK - Your ring is beautiful ... and you''re right 3.5 RB does look pretty big! Thats funny you talk about the "shrunk" to your eyes thing. I feel like my 2.3 RB has "shrunken" to my eye''s! I am trying to prevent that from happening with my next ring And yes I think that is the exact point my jeweler is getting at - fancy cuts can definitely handle the larger weight where as RB kind of just looks like a big circle if it gets too big (all opinions of course). With that said, since the stone will be the only attention part of the entire ring I want to make sure it makes a solid statement on its own. Also, really good point about 3.5 not looking too much different than a 4.0 in real life. I will need to try on some different sizes but prob will stick with 3.5 that way I will save a few $$''s too.

Any other thoughts or opinions greatly appreciated!

 

[Dancing Fire]

3.34ct (9.70mm) on a 4.75 size ring.

 

[London]

^^ great visual thank you... that''s a very nice size diamond and a beautiful stone.

It makes me think of another question... I dont like diamonds set too high. Do lower set diamonds tend to look smaller?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 1/29/2010 8:49:48 PM
Author: London
^^ great visual thank you... that''s a very nice size diamond and a beautiful stone.

It makes me think of another question... I dont like diamonds set too high. Do lower set diamonds tend to look smaller?

IMO...yes!!

 

[bebe]

Date: 1/29/2010 9:01:09 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 1/29/2010 8:49:48 PM
Author: London
^^ great visual thank you... that''s a very nice size diamond and a beautiful stone.

It makes me think of another question... I dont like diamonds set too high. Do lower set diamonds tend to look smaller?

IMO...yes!!

yes, yes, a hundred times yes !
------->

 

[London]

^^ thought so. thanks dancing fire & bebe