We are saving up with a budget, I need advice!

[lopezsie]

Hi there everyone!

I have been looking on this site for some time now, and finally decided to join!
We have decided that we want to get married, but won''t be able to for a few years (I''m still in graduate school), but we are saving up for an engagement ring. Our budget is around $8500 (over time, the way we have worked it out we save monthly goals for almost a year).

I have seen many posts of women with TINY hands wearing 2-5 carat rocks! No offense, but my work is very hands-on. I work with children and some of them have disabilities, some are very small. That size would NOT be practical- nor would I want to feel that I am "showing off" by wearing such a ring in a "normal" city. Finally, we wouldn''t have the money for such a ring unless of course it were of lower quality and we saved up for another year!

I have a size 7.25 finger. The LOWEST I want is a 1 carat, but the highest would be 1.5 carat. From what I have been researching, we could get:

1.15-1.2 carat @ F VS1
1.2-1.25 carat @ G VS1 or VS2
1.3 carat @ H VS2
1.5-1.56 carat @ I SI1 or E,F SI2

ALL of these would have an "Ideal" cut. I know that the polish/symmetry/fluorescence were not given, but right now, I am just needing advice so I know where I am looking! I feel that a 1 carat may be too small for my finger, but I am not sure if I want to sacrifice to an SI2 (even with great color) just to get a larger size.

Any thoughts would be excellent, especially from those who have around size 7 fingers, or those who have been on a budget!!! Thanks!!!


Also, please keep in mind that because of the reasons listed above regarding my work with children, I will be getting a 6 prong platinum setting in yellow gold. It seems more secure.

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[stone-cold11]

Finger coverage chart.

If the SI are eye-clean, you will not see a difference between it and a IF, eye-clean is eye-clean.

 

[lopezsie]

I understand this chart, it''s convenient. I am just trying to decide what I consider "decent" coverage. I am thinking anything above 40%. Am I wrong?

 

[JulieN]

This rock width to finger width chart is only 1 dimensional... so 40% coverage vs 45% coverage doesn''t sound like a big difference, but it means a big difference in carat weight.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I think that H VS2 are wonderful specs, and 1.3 ct is a nice size budget wise. There is a HUGE price increase per ct weight at 1.5, so staying just under that is great.

 

[hlpkaixin3344]

 

[hlpkaixin3344]

You might find the chart in this link helpful for seeing relative sizes of stones. Maybe print it out at the correct scale and cut out the shapes and try them out on your hand to get a better idea of coverage:
http://www.gemnation.com/base?processor=getPage&pageName=carat

OR! Get out there and actually try on as many stones of different sizes/colors/clarity as possible. It''s the only way to know for sure what your preference for size or tolerance for any of the other qualities will be. The specs are just numbers and letters on paper until you go out and see the stones in real life.

I''m on a similar buget to yours, and at this price range, I realized much like you that one would always have to sacrifice something to gain another--there would be no "ideal" situation where I would be able to hit all of the specs I wanted. So it was helpful for me to see a lot of stones and learn which of the qualities were less important to me and easier to sacrifice. I found that I was really color-sensitive--G was the limit of my tolerance and even some of the lower/borderline Gs were too yellow for me--so color became a very high priority. But as you will find, others have a very different tolerance for color and some also prefer the warmer tones. I also learned that clarity was less important for me. Obviously no one wants a highly included stone, but within reason, I figured if I couldn''t see it with my naked eye, I didn''t want pay for more clarity than necessary. Thus VS2 was a very comfortable range for me, and even some of the more eye-clean SI1''s were ok. I also didn''t mind my stone having some degree of fluorescence--again if I can''t see it, it''s not a problem, plus it''s just a cool effect--with the added bonus that fluorescent stones are often sold at a reduced price compared to other stones w/ similar specs.

As for size, it really depends on you. Rounds face up the largest out of all the stones, so at least you''re lucky that''s the shape you want, since you seem concerned about coverage. "Unlucky" me has my heart set on an asscher which faces up probably among the smallest of all the shapes, which means I would really have to bump up in carat weight and do some sacrificing in other departments if I wanted to get a bit of coverage!

Good luck and have fun shopping around!

 

[HVVS]

Is $8500 the center diamond or the entire ring? Designer settings in platinum easily run $2000 - $3000 or more. If $8500 is the center stone, you probably won't find a 1.5ct that's H color and up in better than SI2. I looked for a 1.5-1.6 in that range and didn't ever find an eye clean one in superideal H&A for $8500 or less. You have to decide what color range you are comfortable with.

Nationally, I'd wager the new e-rings sold in a "normal city" are more like .25ct to .75ct, and 1ct is considered big.

This thread is 1.5ct on size 7 https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/our-e-ring-experience-with-bgd.132169/page-2

 

[hihowareyou]

Date: 12/17/2009 9:09:08 PM
Author: lopezsie
I understand this chart, it''s convenient. I am just trying to decide what I consider ''decent'' coverage. I am thinking anything above 40%. Am I wrong?

There is no wrong, that is the great thing about e-rings! If you are happy with 1ct and will be able to afford it then don''t feel like you have to go bigger or smaller based on other people''s preferences. Your own preferences are the most important.

Keep in mind with clarity grades an eye clean SI1 is visually indistinguishable to a VS2 except under magnification. Regardless of the size and colour that you pick unless you are set on having the highest clarity that you can afford (and many people are, again it is a personal preference) then I would seriously consider sticking to the lowest ''eye clean'' than you can find.

 

[tyty333]

I looked at that thread that HVVS suggested and based on that I would go 1.3 - 1.5. Get the best you can in that range.
Dont forget that DSS sets in after a while. I have 6.25 fingers and I think a 1.5 would look great. If you can you really need
to go try on some well cut stones in the 1.25 - 1.5 range and see what you like best.

Nothing wrong with an SI2 stone as long as it is eye-clean and structually sound (but may be hard to find). You need to
figure out if you are color sensitive (another reason to go try on well-cut stones). I would go large due to DSS and having
a larger finger size.

 

[AmberGretchen]

I''d go for I SI1 - that''s the sweet spot for an ideal stone, IMO, and should allow you to get decent finger coverage. Its a very subjective measure, but I find my 1.12 ct borderline too small on my size 5.25 finger (and I got it as a graduate student working in a lab, so I understand where you are coming from...)