size opinion

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 3/3/2004 2:20:38 PM fire&ice wrote:





But that is what is *always* discussed. ALWAYS. And the topic header said 'size opinion' not how big is too big. ----------------

Pardon me for pointing this out, but most people don't answer the topic heading, they answer the question. Her question asked about "at what point do you consider a diamond too big".

As far as it being *always* discussed......if it bothers you, then do something about it. Start your own discussion about what others consider to be too small. There's no reason you can't get equal time here if you want to.

I'd gently point out that most people don't sit around contemplating inexpensive cars, inexpensive clothes, or inexpensive diamonds......that's just not human nature. Unfortunately, some of the outward signs of having money often carry connotations about what kind of people folks are. It's unfair, and it's a brash generalization, and in many cases it's totally inaccurate......but that's also human nature.

 

[fire&ice]

And, honestly, I'm only sensitive to the fact that it's always too big.

And to all of you - nanny nanny boo-boo, I have a big rock!

I had to end on that as see you all tomorrow!

BTW, in response to how big or how small. I think *no* diamond is too big or too small. I will take all the rejects from anyone who thinks their's is too small or too big for them. Send your rejects to F&I's in box. Thanking you in advance.

edited to add: Al, I can't believe you are actually taking me seriously.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 3/3/2004 2:26:23 PM fire&ice wrote:

Thing is I really don't make value judgements about cars. I couldn't really tell you what car is 100k except maybe a rolls, lamborgini, etc. And, I had a very good friend tell me our second home was too small for her tastes. Keep in mind, I'm very comfortable with what I have big & small, I answered back to her that her house was too big for me. She took offense. I responded, 'then why shouldn't I be offended by your comment of being too small?' She couldn't understand that concept.
----------------

That may be true, but you are not everyone else, and everyone else isn't you. That means they don't all think like you.

Just because you don't make value judgments about cars doesn't mean others don't. Just because you don't make value judgments about large diamonds doesn't mean others dont. Just because you don't make value judgments about houses--large or small--doesn't mean others don't.

Unfortunately, some people DO make judgments about those things. While I don't happen to be one of them, I am very aware that there are those who do.

Further, I'd say that most folks do make value judgments. How many times have we seen on this board "well, what are her friends wearing?" You yourself have asked that in the past. The reality is that people are conscious of what those around them think of what they have (positive or negative) and what message that might send.

If one buys too small, others may think BF is cheap or....how did you put it....ungenerous? If one buys too big, one may think that someone is trying to flaunt their good fortune.

Noting those behaviors doesn't mean that everyone who wears a large ring is a snob, and it doesn't mean everyone wearing a small ring has a stingy BF.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 3/3/2004 2:30:49 PM fire&ice wrote:





edited to add: Al, I can't believe you are actually taking me seriously.
----------------

Ah......nevermind then.

Something in your tone initially made me think otherwise. It's not the first time today I'm wrong. hehehehe

 

[Nicrez]

----------------
On 3/3/2004 2:06:14 PM MichelleCarmen wrote:





Because it's more fitting that we pick on those who 'have it all,' versus those who are theoretically too broke to purchase a larger stone. FWIW, I have a smaller diamond and although I'd love a larger diamond and money ISN'T truely the issue (so don't attack me, anyone, for my first sentence here as this MAY NOT BE YOUR reason) since my husband and I have other priorities like me not working a miserable cubicle job but instead raising ourkids, I wear my 1/2 carat AS IS and I'm happy with it!

I stand by my words, some look good in larger stones and some look downright silly! If you (as in any of the ladies here, none one specific person) don't have the confidence to wear a larger stone or you're wearing it for the wrong reasons, you're likely to fit in the later category

If anyone is truley offended by any of this discussion, they need to find a better outlet in life as this IS a diamond board. Superficial and FUN, but not to be taken TOO seriously

Michelle
----------------

Michelle, agreed! Some people DO look good in large stones, and we all have opinions, so I satnd by mine. ON ME, 2ct+ is too much at this age...We also have the "means" to get a bigger stone, but why? We want to buy a house, and pay less mortgage, we want to vacation at nicer places, we want to save for our future, and not do our best to impress the Joneses. For me, my ring is just right. And the lady I saw with a 5ct, 4cts sidestones at 5'1" 110lbs soaking was YUCK! Granted she's the wife of a big shot b-ball player, but that was (IMHO) totally unnecessary on her little frame! Maybe she thinks her 5ct is "tiny" among her friends...LOL

Ana, I totally understand the whole E. Europe thing. Having been to Bucharesti (yay!) I noticed that even the ladies I saw in the pricey shops (Christian Dior, Lacroix, etc) had pearls and other gemstones, but nary a diamond!

Hmmmm....Ana, it's up to you to bring diamonds to the Romanian mid to upperclass!!! I wouldn't want to go there and have to take off mine!

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 3/3/2004 2:33:20 PM aljdewey wrote:

----------------
On 3/3/2004 2:26:23 PM fire&ice wrote:

Noting those behaviors doesn't mean that everyone who wears a large ring is a snob, and it doesn't mean everyone wearing a small ring has a stingy BF.

----------------

You took my words out of context. I indeed think someone who spends 3k on themselves & 2k on a small ring for his fiance (who values & loves large diamonds) to be selfish. I have seen that marriage fail & I warned to person ahead of time what to expect. Oh no, he'll change.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 3/3/2004 2:37:37 PM fire&ice wrote:




You took my words out of context. I indeed think someone who spends 3k on themselves & 2k on a small ring for his fiance (who values & loves large diamonds) to be selfish. I have seen that marriage fail & I warned to person ahead of time what to expect. Oh no, he'll change.
----------------

No, I didn't take *your* words out of context, because I didn't say these were your words. The only statement by you that I referenced was in asking what ones's friends wear when considering an e-ring size. I never said any of the other comments were attributable to you.

My comments about assumptions made by ring sizes--either too small or too large--was referential to the assumptions sometimes made IN GENERAL by other people.....society in general (*not* specifically you, F&I).....about others' ring sizes.

 

[maria]

Well, I guess the main reason I'm asking is I just inherited a diamond ring. Haven't seen it yet, my mother has it and we live about 1000 miles away. Anyway, from her description it is a cluster diamond ring with 8 diamonds in it , the largest being "about 2 carats". We will know better when it's appraised. I have tried several sizes up to 2 carats, and yes believe it or not, with a ring size of 5.5, I feel 1.5 is about right for me. I simply don't like the look of anything bigger. It has nothing to do with what I can afford, or jealousy, or whatever. I told my mom I think maybe we should actually have the diamonds taken out of the ring, and maybe make a ring for each of my younger sisters too, or possibly earrings if there's enough. LIke I said I haven't seen it, and my mother has her own diamond ring, as I do, but she couldn't really care less to tell you the truth. so anyway, THAT's why I asked the ? I can't imagine myself wearing it, although maybe I'll change my mind.

 

[Bing Chow]

----------------
On 3/3/2004 9:29:02 AM fire&ice wrote:

----------------
On 3/3/2004 2:03:04 AM Bing Chow wrote:

personal opinion: too big is too eye-catching, as if the woman is saying 'hey, look at me!' Desperate for attention is tacky/hootchie. Subtlely has far more class. -------------

If you think subtlely has far more class, then re-read your response. I think your response is tacky/hootchie.

Edited to add: It's only too big if you're *not* the one wearing it. I have seen women wear 10c & carry it off beautifully.
----------------

F&I: I especially like the way you snip one sentence out of my entire post and call my response tacky.

Mara: Desperate for attention with an expensive car? It can be. However, there are a number of high-performance cars that cost a lot, but look almost like its entry level siblings... ie Audi S4 vs the much cheaper A4. People who like such cars (me) are likely to appreciate its performance rather than being "all show and no go."



Upon more reflection....

judgement of others' $$$ cars/jewellery is not always out of jealousy.
I could afford a lot of designer clothes, but some are downright nasty.

I guess tacky is best reserved for the overall presentation, taking into account the clothes, hair, makeup, stature, occasion, personality, etc. Judging by size alone is unfair and inaccurate. If a sweet, genuine and understanding woman wears the 3c with Manolos and Robert Cavalli.....no problem. If a snotty bitch wears the same ring with pleather pants, and a cheap tank top, then it's tacky. We all know that not every women with a big stone is crying for attention. But I think we can all agree on the fact that flaunting is deplorable, and downright hootchie.

(God, I love that word. It's so "Springer.")

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
I guess tacky is best reserved for the overall presentation, taking into account the clothes, hair, makeup, stature, occasion, personality, etc. Judging by size alone is unfair and inaccurate. If a sweet, genuine and understanding woman wears the 3c with Manolos and Robert Cavalli.....no problem. If a snotty bitch wears the same ring with pleather pants, and a cheap tank top, then it's tacky. We all know that not every women with a big stone is crying for attention. But I think we can all agree on the fact that flaunting is deplorable, and downright hootchie.

(God, I love that word. It's so 'Springer.')

----------------

Then what does it have at all to do with diamond size. Absolutely nothing. Interesting that you would choose to call me snippy. I wasn't the one who used the words tacky or hoochie. I've yet to see a natural solitaire 3c diamond ring on someone who is wearing pleather pants & a tank top. Just doesn't happen in my social circle.

 

[Nicrez]

Bing Chow, I am not getting your "genuine" point. A 3Ct stone an a woman with expensive clothes is OK, but a 3ct on a woman with inexpensive clothes isn't? And I agree with F&I, someone with a 3ct ring most likely won't wear pleather and a tank top...




My observations of women with larger rings: Are either well off due to their fiancees' tastes, or they are into larger stones due to their careers or professions (or lack thereof). These women tend to be either in nicer neighborhoods, or in larger cities where such ring are more the norm. Many tend to be in their later stages in life and CAN afford more..and if they are young, bless them! It generally tends to be something that "fits" the woman, as she may have larger hands, or they are into quality and luxury. Recently a poster was looking for a 3ct ring for his lady, and both were older and well established.




Then again, I got my hair done yesterday, and my hairdresser in VERY drab clothing was wearing a 3ct princess with sidestones. I couldn't stop staring. Bless her. So was my hairdresser tacky/hootchie because she wasn't wearing EXPENSIVE clothes? She was "sweet, genuine AND understanding", but no Manolos and NO Cavallis. My cleaning lady has a 2ct round, and I don't and she also has a BIGGER Coach bag than me. What does that say? (other than I must pay her too much? KIDDING!) She (or her husband) just have different priorities financially...




Listen, enough to the "hootchi/tacky" talk. It's stupid. Just plain stupid, and to call anyone any of those things shows really really bad manners and taste. NO ONE IS TACKY with a big ring. It's their prerogative. NO ONE is tacky with a small ring, they are happy with it, and so am I!




By the way, a truely classy woman DOESN'T have to look around to everyone else and compare with an opinion, because she is secure enough in her own self to not even look around. Let it go.

 

[pqcollectibles]

----------------
On 3/3/2004 4:41:09 PM maria wrote:

Well, I guess the main reason I'm asking is I just inherited a diamond ring. Haven't seen it yet, my mother has it and we live about 1000 miles away. Anyway, from her description it is a cluster diamond ring with 8 diamonds in it , the largest being 'about 2 carats'. We will know better when it's appraised. I have tried several sizes up to 2 carats, and yes believe it or not, with a ring size of 5.5, I feel 1.5 is about right for me. I simply don't like the look of anything bigger. It has nothing to do with what I can afford, or jealousy, or whatever. I told my mom I think maybe we should actually have the diamonds taken out of the ring, and maybe make a ring for each of my younger sisters too, or possibly earrings if there's enough. LIke I said I haven't seen it, and my mother has her own diamond ring, as I do, but she couldn't really care less to tell you the truth. so anyway, THAT's why I asked the ? I can't imagine myself wearing it, although maybe I'll change my mind.

----------------

I wouldn't worry too much about it, Maria. Even if you are a bit uncomfortable or self concious at first, you'll get used to the ring. Any new ring feels odd when you first start wearing it. Especially if you wear it on a finger that isn't used to having a ring on it. After a while, you get used to it, the ring becomes part of you, and you don't even notice it any more.

Enjoy it and wear it in good health!!

 

[monty2004]

Does anyone have an opinion re the "tacky size limit" when it comes to diamond size for a pendant? I realize this is all VERY subjective but, that said,can you go larger for a pendant that would presumably be worn only occasionally?

 

[Bing Chow]

Nicrez,

you're right...this is getting stupid. These are stereotypes. I was trying to paint a picture...and you are dissecting every line and taking them as gospel. I was trying to make a point about personality. A "genuine" person isn't going to come off as being better than everybody else. A "not so nice" person might wear the big ring thinking her shit doesn't stink. I don't like status seekers that's all, especially if they don't have the fortune. Fact is, that they exist. And they're cheesy.

And don't get all PC saying stereotyping is bad/poor taste. Mullets are bad...wearing white socks with dress shoes is bad.

"By the way, a truely classy woman DOESN'T have to look around to everyone else and compare with an opinion, because she is secure enough in her own self to not even look around."

Agreed.

 

[jcard71]

Wow this is getting good... RELAX " VELMA DINKLEY"




You're stressing yourself out...

 

[Bing Chow]

Fire & Ice:

I did mention that judging by size alone is unfair. I admit that.


There are people in this world who are preoccupied with how others perceived their social rankings and it is sad. I've seen farmers/fishermen in crowded/polluted streets of Hong Kong sporting massive Rolexes (maybe fake), but can't wear a pair of shoes without holes in it. I know people who are too cheap to dry their clothes but drives BMWs. People value things differently and you guys are right...it is their prerogative. This post for me has moved from carat size to me sharing my opinion of superficial, status seekers. They're all show...little substance.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 3/4/2004 12:32:06 PM Bing Chow wrote:



I was trying to make a point about personality. A 'genuine' person isn't going to come off as being better than everybody else. A 'not so nice' person might wear the big ring thinking her sh*t doesn't stink.

----

Whew! I'm glad to know I don't need to install that bathroom fan. Now, I can upgrade my big ring.

I think you need to tone down your generalizations. "Tacky" people exist in all walks of life. Believe it or not, some tacky people even wear no diamonds. Imagine that. I don't think what one has can possibly define "tacky". In all my years, I have learned that a book can seldom be judged by it's cover.

To Maria: The ring may be overwhelming; but, perhaps the componets of the ring apart from one another may not be. As a note though, don't go breaking it apart w/o researching the age, designer, etc. If it's a no name reset from the 1980's, then it might behoove you to share the componets. If not, then have it evaluated before you destroy it. It may be worth doing away with it; but, could have more value as a whole. 2 carats is not too big as one gets used to size very quickly. If you are uncomfortable wearing as a ring, make a pendant. If you are uncomfortable with it in any setting, put it aside for a daughter/son. As I said, if the piece as is isn't worth much, then I think it would be nice to share the parts w/ many.

When you receive it, post a pic. We'd love to see it.

 

[Hest88]

Hm. I'm picturing a cluster ring, with the largest stone at 2 carats, and I'm not liking what I see. I picture some gaudy, 80s piece with stones sprouting out from everywhere. However, I've also seen rings with stones arranged like a flower that were also called cluster rings, and those are tasteful.

 

[fire&ice]

That's what I am picturing BUT - if by any chance it may be an Edwardian and/or Deco piece - I'm throwing out the warning. Those pieces did have some larger center stones w/ many surrounding stones as well. And, the workmanship incredible.

 

[maria]

Yes, Hest that's what I'm saying. However, broken down it sounds like it might be better. I'm not sure I will have the heart to do that though. It's an antique, from my great aunt, who did have exquisite taste but was maybe a little flashier than what I like to be. Anyway, we should have it appraised as a whole first, right?
Bing Chow, you're in Hong Kong? Ok now I know what you're saying. I absolutely love Hong Kong, having been there several times, but many people there do seem to be very interested in flaunting their wealth (or at least do their very best to look like the part). I understand what you're saying. But, wow, you can get some of the best counterfeit rolexes, coach bags, prada, whatever there, if you're into it.

 

[maria]

Fire & Ice, I'm assuming not just any appraiser would recognize whether or not it was one of those (Edwardian, Art deco)? My Mom said it's at least 60 years old but in pretty good shape. she said she thinks it spent most of the time in a safe deposit box. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 3/4/2004 3:43:14 PM maria wrote:

Fire & Ice, I'm assuming not just any appraiser would recognize whether or not it was one of those (Edwardian, Art deco)? My Mom said it's at least 60 years old but in pretty good shape. she said she thinks it spent most of the time in a safe deposit box. Thanks for the heads up.----------------

Really, why don't you post a picture. If it's at least 60 years old, it is not a tacky cluster ring from the 1980's and could have some value in the whole. You're right. Some of those pieces are even flashy for me; but, oh..the workmanship put into some of those. And, the undeniable beauty w/ the setting being the canvas.

And, as far as any appraiser, well no, that would not be the case. Any *good* appraiser versed in vintage pieces, perhaps. But, I would not assume that.

 

[maria]

Like I said, my Mom has the ring right now, and they're in St Louis, we're in DC. Maybe I could get her to take a picture. Anyway, I'm sort of going to let her decide what to do. I feel like a pig getting the whole thing (if we do decide to split it up) and I have 2 younger sisters. But I pretty much know if it stays the way it is I would never wear it.

 

[maria]

by the way, fire & ice, how big IS your rock?

 

[Hest88]

If it's at least 60 years old it might be lovely. And even if it's not lovely to our tastes, it might be distinctive enough to be too valuable to break up. Can't wait to see that pict!

 

[maria]

F&I, OK, your's is a 3 ct! I'm sure it is beautiful on you! And anyway, maybe soon I'll be getting used to a larger size too.

 

[pqcollectibles]

----------------
On 3/4/2004 4:11:33 PM Hest88 wrote:

If it's at least 60 years old it might be lovely. And even if it's not lovely to our tastes, it might be distinctive enough to be too valuable to break up. Can't wait to see that pict!----------------

Eewwwww, Hest!! Good point!! I had thought that Maria intended to remove the center diamond and remount it seperately.

Maria,..... You might want to get that ring appraised before you do anything. You could have an "Antiques Roadshow" story in the making!!

 

[Bing Chow]

Maria:

I was born in HK. I've been Canadian for 20 years. Been back once. Love to go again.

 

[sumi]

----------------
On 3/4/2004 10:44:37 AM fire&ice wrote:

----------------

I've yet to see a natural solitaire 3c diamond ring on someone who is wearing pleather pants & a tank top.
----------------

I am sorry to say that I have seen that.

Pleather.........

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 3/3/2004 1:47:59 PM fire&ice wrote:




I just simply do not understand why the size issue is always an issue of what's too big. ALWAYS.
----------------

Actually, I think the discussion tends to focus on what's too small MUCH more often.

Whenever folks are asking about/considering diamonds, it seems the push from many is to go BIGGER BIGGER BIGGER. It doesn't seem to matter what size someone is considering.....whatever size it is, it isn't *enough*.

I understand that you get worked up about this because you own a large stone. But let's be realistic....it's not just "big" diamonds this happens with. It also happens to those who want D color or IF clarity, too. If you feel outraged about the assumptions that people make unfairly about large stones, where is that outrage when people make unfair assumptions about those who come here wanting a D/IF stone?

Hodne came here some time ago and said "I know the value/economy in buying lesser color/clarity, and I know the eye can't see the difference, but it matters to me what it says on paper, and I want a D/IF." People jumped all over that guy (and Ed) and made tons of assumptions about how frivolous he was with his money, how wasteful he was, how his desire for perfection in a diamond correlated to what he must want in his mate....if she was so perfect, why did he wait 6 years to propose....it was RELENTLESS.

People felt perfectly at liberty to sit in judgment on his character just because he wanted a D/IF stone. Where was your outrage about incorrect assumptions? I don't see anyone asking why people ALWAYS pick on D color or why people ALWAYS pick on IF clarity. How come?

----------------