shape
carat
color
clarity

Right size for the right girl?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

candide

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 29, 2003
Messages
53
Hi..... My soon to be is 5 foot 1 inch tall, and 100 pounds. I want to get her a "wow" ring. Not offensive, but wow.

Is there going to be a marked difference between 2.5 carat and 2.8 carat? Assume for the sake of arguement that both stones are cut fantastic, with a good combination of brilliance and fire. Would they both be wow?

She wants trills on the side and set in platinum. Probably 0.5 ct each of the two trills.

Thank you very much.

Jon
 
IMO both of those diamonds are huge and depending on what kind of circles you run in, possibly offensive? My soon to be is 5' 6", 130lbs and i bought her a 2.15. It is too big and looks ostentatious IMO. I am going with a 1.5. I can only imagine how HUGE a 2.5 or 2.8 would look on a petite girl like your soon to be.

Again, just my opinion and there are MANY MANY others who will differ and think i'm crazy. I just don't want people to think we're someone we're not. . . out to impress anyone - if that's not an issue, by all means enjoy a huge rock
9.gif
 
In that size range, a difference .30 cts is so minimal in the spread, you'd barely notice it.
 
Unless you're a Hollywood star, anything over 2 carats is going to be blindingly huge. I don't think you have to worry about either choice.
 
Yes both 2.5 and 2.8 are huge...esp for a small girl like that. She must have tiny fingers. If you don't want to be too ostentatious, stick with something like a 2c and up the color/clarity or something. With trills on the side the ring itself will be huge regardless...I'm not a fan of that many large rocks on such small fingers. That'd be like me trying on the 5c ring I did with my size 5.5/6 fingers. Too big and really overpowered my hand. For my particular hand size and finger size I think the most I could ever get away with and not be too over-the-top gaudy would be 3c.
2.gif
 
----------------
On 9/16/2003 2:16
6.gif
1 PM candide wrote:

Hi..... My soon to be is 5 foot 1 inch tall, and 100 pounds. I want to get her a 'wow' ring. Not offensive, but wow.

Is there going to be a marked difference between 2.5 carat and 2.8 carat? Assume for the sake of arguement that both stones are cut fantastic, with a good combination of brilliance and fire. Would they both be wow?

She wants trills on the side and set in platinum. Probably 0.5 ct each of the two trills.

Thank you very much.

Jon----------------


I think 2.5 or 2.8 carats might be a little unwieldy for someone 5'1" 100 lbs with delicate hands... It will definitely bring her alot of attention. So if you're after something a little more "subtle" I would go for something smaller. You might want to take her to a few stores just to try some stones on for size. Furthermore, if she plans on wearing the ring daily and she needs fine control of her hands (i.e. practicing dentistry, surgery, playing the piano, sewing etc...) the 2.5/2.8 carats might get in the way of things. On the other hand, if you're after the
"that's off the heezy for sheezy" effect go for the 2.8!!! Between the 2.5 and 2.8, there probably won't be a discernable difference in size.
appl.gif
 
This is all a matter of taste, so here a penny worth of my ring sizing mantra. My (personal, this is the key word here) rule of thunb in ring sizing is

1.gif
'WEAR RINGS AT MOST AS WIDE AS YOUR FINGER' = 10mm to 15mm length (across finger) for the ring's head. I guess that neither of your diamonds is that huge and there will be plenty of room for the extra mm's added by the tiny side stones. After all, the jeweler will place the trillions a bit tappered towards the center stone making the head of the ring smaller (up to 20%) than the added length of the three stones and giving the piece more depth.

Just one word more: extreme sizing deforms the setings and affects the alignment of the stones (usually resulting in gaps between stones for sizing down) and even in this forum I've recently seen a complaint about a three-stone mounting sized down to 4 and damaged in this way by a popular maker...
Big diamonds? Any time!
appl.gif
 
Well, I'm going to say it again. How long are her fingers?

It really depends. From just height & weight, she is slight. BUT...does she have the presence of ,say, a dancer? Also, how old are you? What does your circle of friends have?

Some people are small in stature, but larger than life. I guess only you will know if it's too big.

If she keeps a lower shyer profile, is young & the largest diamond in your circle of friends is 1c than I would rethink the size.

You will see the 2.8 as a larger stone; but, it's relative to it's size. The side stones may make the ring overpowering w/ a stone in this size.

Good luck.
 
What is her ring size? I think that matters more than her height and weight. A friend who is 5'0" and about 100 pounds wears a size 7 - go figure! I'm 5'5" and, well, a good bit more than 100 pounds, and I wear a 4.5. Ring size plus Fire & Ice's point about finger length will determine what looks "wow" and what looks cheesy.




Do remember that it may be difficult to fit in sidestones if her fingers are slim. I tried on a 3ct oval with trillions - altogether it was wider than my finger and looked ridiculous.




IMHO, 2.5 or 2.8 would make a fabulous solitaire even on a small finger, but that's just me.
love.gif
 
yes maybe no side stones for the small finger? that way the center stone captures all the attn...and it will capture!
 
Since I am 4'11", and since you did ask, I will comment.

My ring is .25/1.0/.25. The band is a total of around .60 ct. Together, the icey combination is just over 2 cts. That is waaaaay plenty for my small stature, my 4.5 ring size and my lifestyle. In fact, sometimes (but rarely has it been), it is a bit much.

If I had an option to sport a 2.5-2.8 size center stone (which I wouldn't
rolleyes.gif
), I would choose not to have side stones for reasons already stated, and just go with a nice band. JMHO.

F&I brought up some great points to consider re: age, lifestyle, circle of friends, etc.

I saw a woman, as petite as myself, wearing a 3.0 ct solitaire. While very pretty and sparkly, it did seem huge for her size, even if her lifestyle and pocketbook were a match.
2.gif
Oh, and she absolutely loved the attention it brought her.
tongue.gif
 
I agree about nixing the sidestones. It will probably be too much to fit on her finger. With a stone that size, a simple sollitaire is more than enough "bling bling". The comment about her circle of friends is also relevant. If they're all sporting 1 carats, and she's a bit more reserved, she "might" feel awkward so definitely get a sense of what sizes she will feel comfortable with.
 
Actually, it sounds like she wants the trilliants. So, those have got to stay. Then, the real question becomes, does she want an over 2.5 carat ring or was she expecting something a lot smaller? If her last name is Hilton or Getty or something like that and all her friends have 2-3 carat rings, then we can probably assume that she know what's she in for. If not, though, then it would be a good idea to do some detective work with her or her friends to make sure she wants a center stone of that size.
 
If I had a choice between two equally beautiful diamonds, but one was larger, I would take the larger one, all other things being equal.

I suspect that you would be hard pressed to find someone who was presented with the bigger ring and would refuse it or be dissappointed with it.

Just my opinion!
 
Thanks to everyone so much for the thoughtful replies.

She is no set on the idea of the trills, but I think she favors it. In her circle of friends, 2.0 seems to be the mean, but with a bell curve that has no left hand side (none less than 2, I mean).

She has what I would consider average length fingers for someone her size. She is 4 3/4 in ring size. Perhaps, if I haven't idulged everyone too much already, I will write tonight with the specs on both stones more specifically, to help decide.

Thanks
Jon
 
If 2 is the mean, I would definitely meet or beat the mean. The 2.5 or 2.8 sounds great!
 
In that case, you might as well go for the 2.8 to really wow her girlfriends. Just make sure that with the addition of the trilliants the ring doesn't span so far beyond the width of her finger that it becomes uncomfortable to wear.
 
If it's so, I'd go with a 2.80 stone. As for the setting, I think trillions would be beautiful, but they might outpower the center stone, which is already very large. I'd consider also baguette sides or something unusual like a 8-prongs mounting without side stones.
1.gif
 
My wife is 5'00" and weighs 95 lbs and her ring is 1.2 cts. in a tiffany setting. It is definitely big enough for her. I am not sure how young your fiance is/or looks, but if I saw a young petite woman wearing a very large ring my first impression might be "is it real?" Just my thougts.
 
----------------
On 9/18/2003 11:05:04 AM Giangi wrote:

If it's so, I'd go with a 2.80 stone. As for the setting, I think trillions would be beautiful, but they might outpower the center stone, which is already very large. I'd consider also baguette sides
1.gif
]----------------


Yeah, I went w/ side baguettes for the same reason. It tends to tone the center stone down a bit.
 
I think 2.5 would be plenty impressive, especially on a petite woman, and I' sure there is quite a cost difference between 2.5 and 2.8. Of course, I'd love to see the cut and color specs on the two stones. If she really wants side stones, I agree that tapered baguettes on the sides would be better than trilliants to keep the top of the ring from looking too wide across her finger. Have you considered side stones that are channel set into the ring? They will give added sparkle at the sides, but will be more streamlined. My favorite setting for a round center stone is the Vatche Royal Crown with channel set baguettes. I don't know how to attach a pic, but you can see it here:

http://www.whiteflash.com/wardrobe/details.asp?Page=2&PriceFrom=0&PriceTo=999999&ItemCode=DV-233&category_id=27&mail_submited=0&MailTo=&MailNote=&PrType=1&Type=Gold&act=additem&VID=&RingSize=&sitetype=wardrobe

Vatche also does their X-prong design with channel set baguette or round side stones.
 
I don't think that a 2.5 or 2.8 carat stone would be too big at all. I think that it would look perfect. I am 5 feet / 102lbs and my ring size is a 4. I wear a 3 carat rbc and a 2.65 carat eternity band and a thin platinum band all on one finger. My other option was to get two .50 on the side but opted on the eternity band instead...I'm glad that I did, this compbination works well for me.

Good luck deciding and let us know what you decide.
 
When we were researching I tried on a Tiffany 1 ct (I'm 5'1'' and not that slim either though I have small hands) and it was ghastly despite being a beautiful ring on the tray. I can't imagine that 2ct is the mean, surely it must be the average, and jacked up by the hideous hollywood set?

I ended up feeling comfortable with the size between .43 and .66. Finally we settled on a .5 which in Australia at least we believe is slightly bigger than the mean (hence even more incredulity).

As for a wow ring, I can tell you that despite a less than perfect cut (as discovered through this site) it is more than a wow ring amongst my friends and colleagues in a national law firm. Even the senior associate with a whopping great Tiffany (which personally I think looks awful as she is smaller than I am) was impressed with the sparkle.

In fact the whole reaction from my friends made me worry at first that mine was too big after all, but since then I've settled down with it.

Just my opinion, I know it is possible for the right ring to defy the rules anyway (if there are any) and presence counts for sure but I think they are all whopping great stones you're talking about.

Regards,
wavey.gif
 
I'm 4'10" and wear a 2ct solitaire ering (plus a wedding band and an eternity ring). I don't feel it's too big and I wear my rings all day every day.

I also wear a 3ct sim from time to time and that feels fine too.

Go with the size with which she feels comfortable. She'll be wearing it after all.
 
hi,

i know this thread is from a while ago...maybe useless to add..but it defintiely depends on the circles you are travelling in. there is no question that here in nyc, i see petite women with enormous rocks on their fingers- and expensive handbags and shoes to match. it may look very out of place in a certain "community"...but in others- it will look quite small if it is anything less than 2 carats. as long as you can afford it- make her happy with larger ring. if all her friends are wearing larger rings- it's obviously "the trend"- and she won't feel UN-compfortable in any way....and it will not look ostentatious or out of place. personally, i think it will look stunning!
 
As said by everyone here it really depends on what she and you want to do.

I doubt there is much of a difference between a 2.5 and 2.8 visually once you add in the large sidestones on small finger. I don't know the actual MM but is everything gonna fit on the top anyway? Pick whichever you feel comfortable with and ask the advice of the jeweler, either, with the large sidestones may cause a problem for a small ring size I dunno.

As far as what circles people travel in, it may say what they'd feel comfortable with, ie: it sounds like niether would be to large or small. However, the comments that if the mean is 2cts that you should do at least larger than that is disturbing. I can see it was asked here, because he came in here asking about two large diamonds and to see if he should go smaller. But to those who are lurking and not posting it may read wrong.

People should get what they feel comfortable buying financially. Buying what everyone else is buying can really put people in over their head. Having said that most people who do that sort of thing, spend money they don't have on things they can't afford (weddings, rings, cars) will do it anyway. Sorry for the sermon, just been around my coworkers lately who are doing just that, spending money they don't quite have on weddings and such, b/c its the norm. They feel they "deserve" this and that, and that they "should" get $XXX per couple attending the wedding. Sorry, needed to vent.

Chris
 
Whoa!! 2 cts! I don't see that much around So. Calif! My question to everyone is: aren't you just a bit afraid to be seen sporting such a huge rock? I live in a safe neighborhood but would't want to be followed out to my car after a trip to South Coast Plaza. . .
 
Since this is such a personal decision I''ll throw in my 0.02cents since I share those state
emsmile.gif
I''ve tried on everything from a 3 carat Asscher with baguette sides to a 0.75 Tiffany style solitaire. I''ve found that what looks best on my 3.75 finger is a round stone, low-set. I loved a Ritani solitaire (it did not have the pave'' setting around the center stone) and because the band of the ring and the matching wedding band were so skinny (2mm) it made the 2 carat center stone look HUGE! But because the setting was lower, it wasn''t over the top. Another way to change the looks is the prongs: a 1.25 carat six prong Tiffany solitaire looked great as well, but it was set a little higher and the six prongs gave it the illusion of being a larger stone. Skinny bands also add to the stone...

I am loving the Halfbezel solitaire from Whiteflash right now because of its low setting, but I''m opting for a smaller stone. But to add to the bling factor I''d thinking of getting two little bezel-set scattered diamond bands to wear with it. Another way to change things up!

Good luck!
 
Would I, with knobbly knees, wear a mini skirt just because my friends do? Erm, no. She''s petite; buy her a ring that will compliment her frame.
 
This post is VERY old.

You can see the end result here. . .https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/one-more-set-of-pics-of-my-ring.11394/
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top