Ring Size question

[losi999]

I just had the 1.5ct Regent from GOG appraised and am about to get it set in a Vatche X prong. My question is about the ring size. My girl and I went to a local jeweler a few weeks ago to get ring sized and they had two sizing bands. One was the thin band and the other the thick band sizer. In the thin band sizer she fit the 4.5 perfectly, but the 4.5 was to tight with the thick band sizer. If I was purchasing a "tiffany style" band I would for sure get the 4.5, but I assume I will need a bit larger size (maybe 4.75) for the thicker X prong style. What do you guys think, will the X prong warrant going to the 4.75 size??

Thanks for the help!

 

[valeria101]

The X prong doesn't look to thick - is it? Do you know ? The "thick band" sizer would work for, say, above 5mm band width...

 

[pqcollectibles]

The thin band sizers are for women and the thick ones are for men. A jeweler told me the ring sizes are the same, but ring size may vary according to the width of the band. I agree with Val. If the band/shank is 5-6mm wide or wider, then go a tad bigger. A ring with a shank of 2-3 mm should be very similar to the thin band sizer.

 

[oldminer]

To be correct, the thin sizers mimic the way thinner rings fit. The wide sizers mimic the way a wide ring will fit.

There are not at all related to the sex of the person being measured. A wide ring requires a somewhat larger ring size to be used to allow the ring to fit on the finger. A narrow ring will measure a slightly smaller finger size for the same finger.

A medium width ring requires a judgment call to be made by someone with experience so that the ring will be made in the correct size. A consumer should not do the guessing.
Put judgment of the correct size on the expert who is selling the item.

 

[valeria101]

Got it! - err... I hope

The Vatche X-prong for 1.5 carat diamonds has the band 3.5mm at it's widest (tappers down behind the finger, to 2.5 or so). None of these numbers justify the "wide band" measure. So 4.5 it is

 

[pqcollectibles]

----------------
On 5/13/2004 11:22:47 AM oldminer wrote:

To be correct, the thin sizers mimic the way thinner rings fit. The wide sizers mimic the way a wide ring will fit.

There are not at all related to the sex of the person being measured. A wide ring requires a somewhat larger ring size to be used to allow the ring to fit on the finger. A narrow ring will measure a slightly smaller finger size for the same finger.

A medium width ring requires a judgment call to be made by someone with experience so that the ring will be made in the correct size. A consumer should not do the guessing.
Put judgment of the correct size on the expert who is selling the item.
----------------

I overheard a jeweler once refer to the thin one as a "women's" sizer and the the wide one as a "men's" sizer. Probably because women tend to wear thinner bands and men tend to wear wider ones. I've used both sizers depending on the style of ring I am buying.

 

[Brian Knox]

Hi,

This is a situation where it is nice to have a expert jeweler actually looking at the fit, because every ring fits differently, even similar width rings may fit differently because of design elements, metals, etc.

Then , there are the considerations of bone structure which will affect the fit, and the very important skill of factoring in personal preferences.

That said, from what I read, go with 4.5 size

 

[losi999]

thanks for the opinions guys!! After reading your comments it looks like the 4.5 would be the best fit. I'll confirm with someone at Vatche as well before setting the stone.

Thanks Again

 

[limey]

Our jeweler, Alex Gulko, is amazing at his trade, inlcuding sizing rings. One day when I was working with him on the design a customer came in to pay for and pick up a custom ring. Then she suddenly exclaimed, "wait a second, we never sized the ring!" He just smiled and said, "I saw your hand, I think I got it right." Lo and behold, ring fit like a glove. My wife had a similar experience, never formally sized and ring fit first time.