short finger, how big a stone?

[icepunk]

my ring finger is about 2.5 inches long and 0.5 inches thick. with palm spread of 3.5-4 inches, i am one of those - unfortunately - stuby fingered gal.

i have been looking for a 3-ish ct cushion for an engagement ring upgrade which will be worn on the right hand (wedding ring designed to stand alone).

do you think i should look at a smaller stone....?

and would a thin simple band be better than a more elaborate (say, micropaved) setting/ring for this stone....?

thanks....

PS: sorry, i think this topic be posted in another thread? i am novice here, so sorry. i am not sure how to move this. feel free moderators....

 

[diamondseeker2006]

What is your ring size?

 

[Green with Envy]

I have short fingers- I have been told- and big stones look GREAT! I have noticed that round/square shapes seem to look better than oval or emerald cut for some reason. I think a 3 ct cushion can look smaller than a 3 ct Rb- go for a cushion that is not long, but more wide! 3 ct all the way!!

 

[icepunk]

errr... i think the size system differs all over the world and i am not sure what mine is. in NZ they go by letters. in singapore they go by numbers but completely different from the US number system. it is like clothing and shoe sizes.

about 0.65 inches in diameter? (1.6 cm)

does that help?

 

[icepunk]

GWE, thanks for the support!

i actually heard that short fingers should wear something more longish like oval set N/S? i personally prefer "fatter" cushions but because my fingers are so short and kinda chubby looking they told me i should look for "longer" cushions to elongate the look of the finger.

by the way, they told me that for financial/cost/price reasons, most cushion cutters prefer to cut something around and above 3 ct. know anything about that?

3 ct it is! it wont look too over the top....? i have this other theory where our stone should ideally not exceed the visual size of our nail....

my nail area is about 0.3 iches

 

[Green with Envy]

i was told the exact same thing about looking for a long stone. well, i went to try them on and over and over again the long stones, covering more of my finger length, made my fingers look shorter! Try the more square shapes, or turn the cushion east/west. I bet it will look better. I don't know anything about cushions- but you should go to goodoldgold.com and check out their videos about cushions. Very informative...

 

[ericad]

I have short fingers too and the most flattering to me is a cushion that is more square - rectangular shapes look awful on my hands. I also prefer the look of tapered shanks - either wider at the stone and tapering down, or reverse. Seems to add the illusion of contour to my barrel-like finger, since I have absolutely NO distinguishable knuckle or taper to speak of. My new diamond is a 2.06 carat OMC that measures approx 7.5mm x 8mm. The size is just right to me, but that would just depend on what your preference is.

Stacking thinner bands looks nice too. As for your nail theory, is that based on nail bed alone? If not, start growing out those nails and get a bigger rock!

 

[icepunk]

yes, my nail theory is based on nail bed alone

i guess our nail beds will always be in a reasonably good proportion to the fingers they are a part of

interesting how the square cushions look nicer on shorter fingers. that was totally unexpected. will continue to push forth.....

 

[icepunk]

ericad, how do you mean "tapered"? do you have a pic of the ring and stone you mentioned?

 

[Jenn5504]

As hard as I sit here and try, I can''t think of any good reason NOT to get a gorgeous 3ct stone!

 

[ericad]

I guess by tapered I mean not the same width of band all the way around the shank. Like a traditional solitaire (looks awful on me). Either the band should be wider at the base and taper near the stone or reverse (which I prefer on my hand), it''s the width of the stone on top then tapers to a thinner shank on the bottom.

Here''s an example of the ring I''m having made for my OMC - the width of the shank changes from the shoulders to the bottom. I guess that''s my point - if a woman is straight waisted then tailored shirts with an hourglass shape, narrowing at the waist and flaring on the bottom, will give the illusion of a waist. Same concept for the ring (I think I watch too much What Not To Wear!)

Hope this makes sense!

 

[icepunk]

hi ericad, thanks for that pic and explanation. this just encourages me to think about the split shank (or, others call it split crown to indicate that the split occurs closer to the stone and not all the way around) set for the stone i am hoping to get. i was not so sure about it at first.

do we think thinner bands are better for us?

jenn, i don''t know what i was thinking

but i do have to say that in new zealand, people do not wear big diamonds. the last time i look, 1 ct was considered huge. while in NY, my 1 ct engagement ring was "modest". and in singapore (i am there now) i think 2 ct is considered big. so i would be "comfortable" with 3 ct in singapore and NY. but in NZ, i may feel a bit self conscious.

anyhow. if any of you with similar dimension fingers have 3 ct on, i would not mind a pic