What Carat Size Do you Consider To Be Big??

[bling*diva*]

~~IMO, 2-3 cts. is the perfect size (Cushion

) for me!! However, anything over 4 cts. will look fake on me... so there''s my vote!!!!

 

[canuk-gal]

Date: 8/5/2005 3:31:16 PM
Author: CdnBlingGal
Here in ''burbs of BC, Canada 1-2 Carat is HUGE. Most typical poeple here is under the 1 carat mark, the odd person has a bigger bling of 1ct or more. I have a .904ct H&A and people think it''s humungus.

HI:

I live in Calgary and people also think my 1.46 is large....us Canadians are humble folk.....hahahahaha

I tried on a 3.01 oval and a cushion of the same size and liked them very well, and a larger RB around 4 carats--and loved it. But it would definately be out of place here where women, despite having the resources, just don''t wear large ER rings.

cheers--Sharon

 

[blake]

My soon to be wife (getting married in less than 2 weeks in Hawaii) and I live in the Vancouver area, the most expensive housing market in Canada. I live in a large house by the lake and she in a penthouse apartment which we are keeping after we''re married. We plan on selling both in a few years and get a larger house on the waterfront in West Vancouver. So money is not a problem for us. When we were shopping for an ering, we looked at and tried on erings up to 3 ct at Tiffany''s and other high-end jewellers. At the end, we settled on a half carat in a Vatche Royal Empress pave wedding set where both the setting and the wedding band each cost more than the diamond. Diamonds don''t seem to be a big deal in Vancouver. Most people rather have a nicer home or a fancier car than big diamonds.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/6/2005 6:37:26 PM
Author: blake

Diamonds don''t seem to be a big deal in Vancouver. Most people rather have a nicer home or a fancier car than big diamonds.

Hahahhaaha - Mara could *never* move to Vancouver, then.........she who''d rather drive a 10-yr old car and have a huge rock. LMAO!

Love ya, gal!

But stay in Calif.

 

[Mara]

Date: 8/7/2005 9:42:41 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/6/2005 6:37:26 PM
Author: blake

Diamonds don''t seem to be a big deal in Vancouver. Most people rather have a nicer home or a fancier car than big diamonds.

Hahahhaaha - Mara could *never* move to Vancouver, then.........she who''d rather drive a 10-yr old car and have a huge rock. LMAO!

Love ya, gal!

But stay in Calif.

 

[Demelza]

Well, my husband and I are originally from CA and just moved to Vancouver. I guess I haven''t caught on that diamonds aren''t a big deal here since I''m working my way towards a 2.35ct round. Something tells me I''m never going to catch on.

 

[diamondfan]

I agree that a lot factors in...where you live (and grew up) what your hand size is, what your finger shape is, if you are tall...I am about 5 foot 5 1/2 and have a 6 fingerr. I grew up in an affluent area and saw the gamut, from chips to boulders and I mean 20-30 carats on my cousin''s first mother in law...(the bling queen, that was just one of her pieces). I got engaged with a 1.5 rb, but think really large rbs not as pretty. (I mean when they look like a headlight and spread over the tops of the finger). that is why I upgraded to an ec twice. This current one is less elongated but I love it anyway...I think it also has to do with your comfort zone. I am almost 40 but look a lot younger. there are days I am out with my kids, no make up, sweats on, pony tail...People think I am the nanny sometimes because I look young. I have worn lots of bling dressed casually, and no bling...just depends on my mood and where I am going that day. I have seen it all here where I live (near Philadelphia). Hopefully, accounting for shrinkage, we all willl have the things that will make us happy, if only temporarily...

 

[Laralooblue]

Interesting topic!

I find that anything over... maybe 2.5 carats is too big for casual wear, almost like wearing a cocktail dress to the supermarket. Maybe my thinking is dated but to me, the bigger rocks just fare better on the red carpet than at an afternoon bbq.

But hey, I wouldn''t turn one away if presented to me!

 

[Lorelei]

Most of the diamonds you see in average England are half a carat or less. It is rare to see a full carat and my 2 carat pear is considered a monster. I live in a country area so can''t say what would be popular in cities. I think 2 carats is big and 3 just perfect! I agree that for a RB 3 - 4 carats is as large as I would ever go. I was drooling over a picture of the 29 and a half carat EC that Liz Taylor received from Mike Todd and don''t think you can go too big in EC''s and some other fancies

I agree with Mara - I would rather have an older car and a big rock anyday! There would be no contest

 

[sjz]

I was thinking along the same lines as some of the rest of you. RB''s look nice, even when they are relatively small. Some of the really huge ones kind of look like doorknobs, but that''s JMO. If I were to have a stone in a fancy shape, I probably would want a bigger stone, since I think many of the fancy shapes (especially the square or rectangular shapes) don''t seem to look as good when they are too small. I was looking through my jewelery box the other day, and it struck me that most of my colored gemstone rings are not round, but pear or oval or some other shape, and they are much larger in size than most of my diamonds. And I think it would look odd if they were small, kind of like a child''s ring or something.

 

[platinumrock]

I''m a huge fan of large rocks. I can also get away with larger diamonds (2+ carats) because I have long, tapered fingers. But when they start to look fake on my hands, that''s when I draw the line. That''s how I know it''s too big. Unless I look more expensive than the boulder, I prefer to keep the size realistic and tasteful.

But with the shrinkage syndrome, you just never know what''s big enough! While you think your rock is shrinking, others think it''s a boulder. It helps to take it off for a few days. When you put it back on, it looks bigger.

 

[allycat0303]

Another Canadian girl. Here in Quebec, I''d say that the most common size I''ve seen is 0.25. I''ve seen a few 0.5-0.75 and this one time, a more mature woman had a beautiful diamond which I thought was HUGE biggest thing I''ve ever seen. However, that was BEFORE I discovered pricescope. I think it was 2 carats.

Big for me is 2.5 carat RB, and too big is over 3 carats for an RB. I think Pricescope has induced diamond shrinkage in me. I used to think 1 carat was HUGE. However, when I got my 1.3 RB loose stone, it looked kind of small

. I''m hoping the setting is going to help it a bit.

 

[Mara]

In last week's US Weekly it said something like the average engagement ring in the US was 1.4 carats! I was like..WHAT! and then it said ($4700) or something like that. I was like..WHERE are you people getting a 1.4c ring for $4700. That must be a K I1 from Zales!

ETA: Oh here it is straight from the mag:

''The average size of the engagement ring (1.4c, $4976) has increased over the last few years'...Weddingchannel.com editor-in-chief Rosanna McCollough tells US.'

 

[sjz]

Date: 8/14/2005 5:47:56 PM
Author: Mara
In last week's US Weekly it said something like the average engagement ring in the US was 1.4 carats! I was like..WHAT! and then it said ($4700) or something like that. I was like..WHERE are you people getting a 1.4c ring for $4700. That must be a K I1 from Zales!

ETA: Oh here it is straight from the mag:

'The average size of the engagement ring (1.4c, $4976) has increased over the last few years'...Weddingchannel.com editor-in-chief Rosanna McCollough tells US.'

See, but that doesn't take into account those of us who were engaged 10, 15, or 20+ years ago. I got engaged the first time over 20 years ago, and back then .5 carat was considered pretty darned huge. That was the days of those dreaded yellow gold cluster rings. I knew girls who got those for engagement rings, too. Even 16 years ago, when I got engaged for the second time, .5 carat was still considered pretty big, and I got a .75 carat ring, so mine was bigger than a lot of people I knew. I didn't get the urge to have any thing different for an ering until about one year ago, before I found PS. Even then, I wasn't thinking bigger diamond so much as I was thinking different setting for my same puny diamond.

There are still a lot of us dinosaurs around who are pretty happy with our less-than-average-sized diamonds. And there are some who've caught the "bug" and want to keep up with current trends and go bigger and blingier. Nuthin wrong with either one.

 

[Mara]

Date: 8/14/2005 11:06:57 PM
Author: sjz

Date: 8/14/2005 5:47:56 PM
Author: Mara
In last week''s US Weekly it said something like the average engagement ring in the US was 1.4 carats! I was like..WHAT! and then it said ($4700) or something like that. I was like..WHERE are you people getting a 1.4c ring for $4700. That must be a K I1 from Zales!

ETA: Oh here it is straight from the mag:

''The average size of the engagement ring (1.4c, $4976) has increased over the last few years''...Weddingchannel.com editor-in-chief Rosanna McCollough tells US.''

See, but that doesn''t take into account those of us who were engaged 10, 15, or 20+ years ago. I got engaged the first time over 20 years ago, and back then .5 carat was considered pretty darned huge. That was the days of those dreaded yellow gold cluster rings. I knew girls who got those for engagement rings, too. Even 16 years ago, when I got engaged for the second time, .5 carat was still considered pretty big, and I got a .75 carat ring, so mine was bigger than a lot of people I knew. I didn''t get the urge to have any thing different for an ering until about one year ago, before I found PS. Even then, I wasn''t thinking bigger diamond so much as I was thinking different setting for my same puny diamond.

There are still a lot of us dinosaurs around who are pretty happy with our less-than-average-sized diamonds. And there are some who''ve caught the ''bug'' and want to keep up with current trends and go bigger and blingier. Nuthin wrong with either one.

I just find it hard to believe that the AVERAGE diamond size is now 1.4c, and I guess that is for new engagements? Wasn''t there some article from a few years ago that listed it at something like .38c? How did it suddenly rise to 1.4?

 

[Dancing Fire]

i don''t believe the avg is 1.4ct in the U.S. i believe that could be the avg size for Ca,FL and NY.

 

[sjz]

Date: 8/15/2005 12:55:47 AM
Author: Mara

Date: 8/14/2005 11:06:57 PM
Author: sjz

Date: 8/14/2005 5:47:56 PM
Author: Mara
In last week''s US Weekly it said something like the average engagement ring in the US was 1.4 carats! I was like..WHAT! and then it said ($4700) or something like that. I was like..WHERE are you people getting a 1.4c ring for $4700. That must be a K I1 from Zales!

ETA: Oh here it is straight from the mag:

''The average size of the engagement ring (1.4c, $4976) has increased over the last few years''...Weddingchannel.com editor-in-chief Rosanna McCollough tells US.''

See, but that doesn''t take into account those of us who were engaged 10, 15, or 20+ years ago. I got engaged the first time over 20 years ago, and back then .5 carat was considered pretty darned huge. That was the days of those dreaded yellow gold cluster rings. I knew girls who got those for engagement rings, too. Even 16 years ago, when I got engaged for the second time, .5 carat was still considered pretty big, and I got a .75 carat ring, so mine was bigger than a lot of people I knew. I didn''t get the urge to have any thing different for an ering until about one year ago, before I found PS. Even then, I wasn''t thinking bigger diamond so much as I was thinking different setting for my same puny diamond.

There are still a lot of us dinosaurs around who are pretty happy with our less-than-average-sized diamonds. And there are some who''ve caught the ''bug'' and want to keep up with current trends and go bigger and blingier. Nuthin wrong with either one.

I just find it hard to believe that the AVERAGE diamond size is now 1.4c, and I guess that is for new engagements? Wasn''t there some article from a few years ago that listed it at something like .38c? How did it suddenly rise to 1.4?

That''s the point, I DON''T think 1.4c represents the average. It has to be either for a certain demographic or for people recently engaged, as in maybe over the last 5 years or something. Or maybe it was taking upgrades into consideration.

 

[laney]

I agree on new engagements. I was just in a room last weekend with 8 newly engaged girls. And also 4 already married women (yes, it was a bridal shower). Most were 1ct or smaller. That was No. Virginia.

But I live in the suburbs in NY - and they are a bit larger here. Say, at least 1 ct - or 1.35. I have 3 friends looking for stones - and they all hope to reach the 1ct mark.

So NY - I feel is at least 1 ct. In MD, it''s probably .75 to 1ct. But they are metropolitan areas.

Now, friends who have been married for a while are 2-3-4 cts. But it seems that only happens up here in NY. In MD my friends never spoke of upgrading. In NY - that''s the norm I guess.

I guess 4 months was enough marriage for me to get an upgrade! lol! I must be a GREAT wife... or it was the shopping cart ...

 

[DiaDiva]

Before I got my pear, I used to think 3 ct was my limit but now I''m thinking maybe 4 to 4.5 cts. However, I don''t think I''m likely to get one any bigger since we lead a fairly modest lifestyle (other than my jewellery addiction). Hey I don''t even own a car. My first and last car was bought when I was in university. I simply can''t justify paying at least S$60,000 (US$35,000) for Japanese sedan which I''d have to scrap after 10 years (the law in Singapore unless you pay to keep it). Think how many diamonds I could get for that!

In addition, my current ering at 3.22 ct is a pretty uncommon sight in Singapore. Most rings appear to be under a carat. So while it''s a safe country (I wear it everywhere even on the subway) and I don''t need to push my luck, a girl can dream, right?

 

[laney]

DiaDiva.

What is the law about cars? You legally have to get rid of your car in 10 years? Is that because it''s an import?

Tell me more! I''m very curious...

 

[Tacori E-ring]

A diamond can be too big??? What???

I honestly don''t know what I would consider too big. Maybe if you couldn''t close your fingers. I don''t think I have tried on anything bigger than a 2 ct (on my 4.5 ring size) and I think if I was forced I could go bigger. My e-ring is 1.72 EC and it is bigger than average in the south for the newly engaged. Most engaged girls I know are .50-.75 but there are the exceptions. The largest besides mine is 1.5 (I think) but I do see a lot of larger diamonds as upgrades. I know a lady for got a 7 ctw ring after 25 years. I think the center stone is 4 cts.

 

[tawn]

I read that article in US magazine too, and just about spit my Starbucks out! 1.4 for $4700...I want to know where they''re shopping and if they don''t tell me, I just may have to cancel my subscription!!

 

[DiaDiva]

Date: 8/18/2005 11:38:20 AM
Author: laney
DiaDiva.

What is the law about cars? You legally have to get rid of your car in 10 years? Is that because it''s an import?

Tell me more! I''m very curious...

Hi Laney,
Just got back from vacation and saw your question. We have a bizarre and expensive system for car ownership.

Yes, we HAVE TO get rid of our cars once they hit 10 years unless we choose to renew your COE (Certificate of Entitlement). To own a new car in the first place, every car-owner MUST buy a COE which is currently around S$16,000+ or approx. US$11,000.

Owners of existing vehicles can renew their COEs by paying the Prevailing Quota Premium (PQP), which is a moving average of the quota premium of the respective vehicle categories over the last 3 months.

Have I totally confused you?

P.S. When I say that if a BMW 3 series costs US$50,000 and that is considered "cheap", I''m not being facetious. The 3 series here starts at around S$150,000+ or approx US$90,000 because of the COE (explained below) and high import taxes. Now you see why I own jewellery and not a car

!

 

[ecf8503]

'The average size of the engagement ring (1.4c, $4976) has increased over the last few years'...Weddingchannel.com editor-in-chief Rosanna McCollough tells US.'

Maybe they mean total carat weight of the ring(s) - here is a lovely model from a well known chain store (their description): 18K GIA Color I - J, GIA Clarity I1 - I2, Center Stone T.W.(CT. 3/4), Diamond Total Weight(CT. T.W. 1-1/2)

"Was $5,730 - now only $3,999.99!!!"