What to do when finger size, designer taste and budget are at odds with each other?

[gwendolyn]

Long post ahead!

Ok, so I''ve done a little bit of ring shopping to get myself edjumacated for our engagement ring purchase, and it frustrates me because the smallest size I''ve been able to wear is an 8.5 (although in some places, a 9 fit, so I guess I''m more like an 8.75?), so none of the size 6 rings they have in the stores fit on my ring finger. One salesperson at a local(ish) jeweler in Maryland even remarked on how usually it''s the knuckle that determines the ring size, and how unfortunate it was for me that my fingers were so fat, and then she squished the bit where the ring would sit! Rude.

So I always tried them on my pinky finger, but I don''t think it gave me as good an idea. I dunno, maybe I''m just difficult?

So, I have big fingers. I also don''t think I''m going to have a big budget, and am afraid (although this is still unconfirmed) that I''m reasonably colour sensitive because the colourless stones, even just in pictures, jump out at me visually when I see them here on PS. I''m REALLY hoping this isn''t the case in person, because the best way to get the finger coverage I want is to have as big a stone as we can afford!

And originally my plan was going to be to get a basic setting for it, so almost all of the money could be put towards the stone. BUT! Then I saw the Mark Morrell Flame, and it is just perfection. I''m sure I''d be ok with another setting, but that one makes my heart stop and then beat fast and those tiny voices in my head yell out, "That''s it! That''s the one!!!!" I''ll bet you know what I mean.

And the kicker is that I don''t want to upgrade!! I know that would normally be the solution, to wait until there''s money for it and get THE ring, but part of what makes the engagement ring an engagement ring to me is that it will forever remind me of the moment he asked me to marry him. I get really sentimentally attached to things, and this would be the most sentimental thing, apart from my wedding band.

So, what to do? I''m so afraid we will only be able to afford a 0.7ct stone, and that it will look tiny on my giant fingers, and that it will not do the MWM setting justice.

 

[bem3231]

Have you seen this post in the helpful threads archive?

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/need-help-finding-the-chart-with-ring-sizes-and-percentage-of-finger-coverage.64644/

It''s a finger coverage chart that gives relative finger coverage percentages based on carat weight and finger size. I think that they use a 1 carat stone on a size 6 finger as a ''baseline'' for an ideal range of relative coverage.

I''m not sure what to suggest other than *maybe* getting an eternity band in lieu of a traditional solitaire, and then when you can afford something more maybe add a solitaire to your ''set'' of the eternity band and wedding ring?

 

[gwendolyn]

Thanks, bem. Aye, I have that chart saved on my computer with my ring pictures. I have thought about maybe going the non-solitaire route, but I don''t think it will have the same feeling if we get if after marriage, if that makes any sense? And I also can see us getting bogged down with practical expenses and not really making it a priority because I''d already have the ring given to me when we actually got engaged.

 

[bem3231]

Again, I''m not sure if I''m helping, but what are your feelings about a non-diamond engagement ring? You could get a killer sapphire (or other gem that you love) that would have significantly more finger coverage for you. Then, down the road if you still really want a diamond solitaire, you could wear the sapphire as a rhr. Did you follow cocosgirl''s thread on maxing out on a limited budget? There were some great ideas on that thread (with ove 100 posts, I believe).

 

[bee*]

I was going to suggest going the sapphire route too. Maybe get a white sapphire-there was a post on SMTR where someone bought a white sapphire and it was fab. I also have fat fingers (I''m a size so I can commiserate. I tried on my e-ring on my pinky finger also, but it doesn''t give you the best representation of what it will look like on your e-ring finger. I''d go with the setting that you like and get whatever diamond you can afford. I''m also not going to upgrade as I''m way too sentimental about my ring, however I know in the future that I will definitely buy a bigger diamond that I can wear as a RHR, which could also be an option for you.

 

[LostSapphire]

Date: 2/10/2008 11:13:44 AM
Author: bem3231
Again, I'm not sure if I'm helping, but what are your feelings about a non-diamond engagement ring? You could get a killer sapphire (or other gem that you love) that would have significantly more finger coverage for you. Then, down the road if you still really want a diamond solitaire, you could wear the sapphire as a rhr. Did you follow cocosgirl's thread on maxing out on a limited budget? There were some great ideas on that thread (with ove 100 posts, I believe).

Gwendolyn:

I concur with Bem3231: here's where I was at 21 years ago:

There was not a lot of $$ but I knew that whatever ring we chose for my engagement ring would be IT. No upgrades, renovations or changes....my then-fiance said I'd better "get it right, because that would be it"....

So we chose a 2ct sapphire surrounded by diamonds (similar to my avatar but darker). It gave me a huge presence on my finger. No one ever made a comment that I didn't have a diamond engagement ring, they were always commenting on the size!!

So then what did this yutz do? I went and LOST IT. DH bought me a stunning 3-stone ring this fall, 2ct centre stone with 1/2 ct each sides...it is unbelievable, HUGE and gorgeous.

But you know what? I STILL would rather have my original e-ring! (Not that I'd really want to give up the door knob on my left hand but I'd happily move it over to the RH should the sapphire ever magically appear). So I get it when you say that you think you'd be emotionally attached to your original e-ring, whatever it turns out to be.

So fast forward to this week: I have started making polite inquiries at Whiteflash and with Jeff White to source a new sapphire! The ring will be very similar to the first one, perhaps a lighter, more vibrant stone and better diamonds.....yippeeeee

So I hope you will give some consideration to a non-diamond stone. There are sometimes comments here on PS like "get a gemstone now as a place holder and then upgrade later". I think that is unfortunate: if you can find something you really LOVE now, it will be with you forever. Having lost my original e-ring, I can confirm that there are those of us who are emotionally attached to their e-rings!

Best of luck with your search: I hope you figure out a way to get real finger coverage and bling that you can both afford, and that you feel will be with you forever.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

If you could consider a halo setting, you would gain so much more finger coverage! I do think a .7 solitaire is going to be really small on a size 9 finger, but a halo could add enough size to make it look like 1.5-2 cts.!

 

[gwendolyn]

Thanks, ladies. Bee-star, I saw the thread with the white sapphire and thought it looked absolutely gorgeous too and considered going for one, but (and this will possibly sound dumb if said anywhere other than PS) I''ve been shopping for my engagement ring essentially since I was 16, when I first fell in love with diamonds. I love other stones, sapphires both blue and white included, but diamonds were what got me into jewelry, and my engagement ring is THE diamond ring that I''ve been window-shopping for half my life (well, just about). I think it would feel like a let-down of sorts to go with another stone because I''ve had my heart set on a diamond solitaire for so long. I''ve tried to get over that feeling because I know other stones are more economical, but it just doesn''t feel right.

I think I''d rather have a smaller diamond than a bigger something else--I''m just afraid a smaller stone is going to look stupid on my fingers.

Plus side is that, if we live in the UK, rocks are on average a lot smaller here than in the US, so maybe I wouldn''t notice it too much if we stay here in England.

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 2/10/2008 12:14:25 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
If you could consider a halo setting, you would gain so much more finger coverage! I do think a .7 solitaire is going to be really small on a size 9 finger, but a halo could add enough size to make it look like 1.5-2 cts.!

Yeah, I know. Halos aren''t really my style, though, except for the really tiny, shared-prong halos, which I don''t think will do much for size anyway because they''re so small. And the MWM Flame is the setting that calls out to me, y''know? I''ve been looking for yeeeeeeeeeeears, and have seen probably at least a thousand different settings just here on PS, and that''s THE one.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I forgot about the typical e-ring being smaller in England. That is certainly a help! The two things I would try to do is to find a stone with a depth in the 60% range whereas ideal is usually 60-62.3. That way you may get more spread. I''d also try to go into the .80''s if you can to stretch the size a little. I can also tell you that you probably could not tell the difference between an F or G hearts and arrows stone, so I would really encourage you to at least go to G color to give you a little more size.

 

[Rhea]

I agree with taking your time and really seriously shopping and thinking about what you want. I have a 7.25 size finger and a .45 stone. It helps that I have side stones and makes the ring have more finger coverage, but there have been plenty of time I''ve wished I could have something larger.

The Flame is gorgeous. Would you get it with or without the diamonds in the setting? If you had it with the diamonds in the setting, I agree with some of the others that a gemstone would look great if you find one that you like. Ts there anyway that you could see the what it''d look like with a diamond of the size that you''re looking at?

Also, remember that PS is not the real world. In the real world a .70 near colourless, well cut diamond in an amazing setting is rare and truly stunning no matter your finger size. It''s easily something that you would be proud of not only when you get engaged but also as you celebrate your 38th wedding anniversary.

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 2/10/2008 12:30:41 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I forgot about the typical e-ring being smaller in England. That is certainly a help! The two things I would try to do is to find a stone with a depth in the 60% range whereas ideal is usually 60-62.3. That way you may get more spread. I''d also try to go into the .80''s if you can to stretch the size a little. I can also tell you that you probably could not tell the difference between an F or G hearts and arrows stone, so I would really encourage you to at least go to G color to give you a little more size.

I still have to go and check out some ideal cuts in person to see exactly how colour sensitive I am--I''m really really reeeeeally hoping not very, because we might be able to swing a carat and a quarter, possibly.

When I asked GOG for a price quote on the Flame, I asked for prices for 0.75, 1.00 and 1.25, because we''re all over the map on possible sizes. There''s only $100 difference in price between the 0.75 and the 1.25 ($1900 and $2000 respectively), so if we do decide to go with it, it''ll be all down to what we can spend on the stone itself.

So, it''d be grand if y''all would cross your fingers and toes for me to be colourblind when it comes to diamonds.

 

[LegacyGirl]

I think a .70 will look beautiful in the MM setting. I can''t wait to see what you come up with!

 

[Rhea]

I started typing and walked away mid-reply (cake is out of the oven!) and missed that you lived in England. I do as well and on the tube everyday to London I rarely see a stone larger than 1/2 carat and very very rarely see a well cut stone. Oh, if you pick Flame as your setting it''ll be much prettier than anything I''ve scoped on the tube/train!

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 2/10/2008 12:36:57 PM
Author: Addy
I agree with taking your time and really seriously shopping and thinking about what you want. I have a 7.25 size finger and a .45 stone. It helps that I have side stones and makes the ring have more finger coverage, but there have been plenty of time I''ve wished I could have something larger.


The Flame is gorgeous. Would you get it with or without the diamonds in the setting? If you had it with the diamonds in the setting, I agree with some of the others that a gemstone would look great if you find one that you like. Ts there anyway that you could see the what it''d look like with a diamond of the size that you''re looking at?


Also, remember that PS is not the real world. In the real world a .70 near colourless, well cut diamond in an amazing setting is rare and truly stunning no matter your finger size. It''s easily something that you would be proud of not only when you get engaged but also as you celebrate your 38th wedding anniversary.

Thank you, Addy, that''s very sweet of you to say.

This is true that I have to remember that PS standards are slightly different than those in the real world! I can''t imagining ever finding fault with whatever diamond we end up getting, because I''m definitely doing my homework beforehand--I''m just worried about finding fault with the size of my fingers and wishing they would just shrink a bit. (Does anyone do lipo for fingers?

No, wait, don''t answer that...

)

I do want to get the Flame with the little diamonds in the head. I absolutely LOVE ring profiles, and that is just one of the most elegantly beautiful profiles I''ve ever seen. *wistful sigh*

 

[LegacyGirl]

Date: 2/10/2008 12:49:20 PM
Author: gwendolyn

Date: 2/10/2008 12:36:57 PM
Author: Addy
I agree with taking your time and really seriously shopping and thinking about what you want. I have a 7.25 size finger and a .45 stone. It helps that I have side stones and makes the ring have more finger coverage, but there have been plenty of time I''ve wished I could have something larger.


The Flame is gorgeous. Would you get it with or without the diamonds in the setting? If you had it with the diamonds in the setting, I agree with some of the others that a gemstone would look great if you find one that you like. Ts there anyway that you could see the what it''d look like with a diamond of the size that you''re looking at?


Also, remember that PS is not the real world. In the real world a .70 near colourless, well cut diamond in an amazing setting is rare and truly stunning no matter your finger size. It''s easily something that you would be proud of not only when you get engaged but also as you celebrate your 38th wedding anniversary.

Thank you, Addy, that''s very sweet of you to say.

This is true that I have to remember that PS standards are slightly different than those in the real world! I can''t imagining ever finding fault with whatever diamond we end up getting, because I''m definitely doing my homework beforehand--I''m just worried about finding fault with the size of my fingers and wishing they would just shrink a bit. (Does anyone do lipo for fingers?

No, wait, don''t answer that...

)

I do want to get the Flame with the little diamonds in the head. I absolutely LOVE ring profiles, and that is just one of the most elegantly beautiful profiles I''ve ever seen. *wistful sigh*

Gwen do you happen to know how much that setting is? I really liked it but after reading his webpage I was discouraged from contacting him figuring it would take forever to get it.

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 2/10/2008 12:51:18 PM
Author: LegacyGirl
Gwen do you happen to know how much that setting is? I really liked it but after reading his webpage I was discouraged from contacting him figuring it would take forever to get it.

I do, for 3 sizes of stones. I sent GOG an email and they gave me the current price quotes.

Flame w/diamonds in the head

0.75 ct -- $1900
1.00 ct -- $1950
1.25 ct -- $2000

For my ring size (8.75), there's an additional charge of $100 as well. And if you're curious, he uses 90.2% platinum mixed with 9.8% iridium.

If those stone sizes don't help you, you can look the setting up on GOG and request a price quote from them.

 

[LegacyGirl]

Date: 2/10/2008 12:56:51 PM
Author: gwendolyn

Date: 2/10/2008 12:51:18 PM
Author: LegacyGirl
Gwen do you happen to know how much that setting is? I really liked it but after reading his webpage I was discouraged from contacting him figuring it would take forever to get it.

I do, for 3 sizes of stones. I sent GOG an email and they gave me the current price quotes.

Flame w/diamonds in the head

0.75 ct -- $1900
1.00 ct -- $1950
1.25 ct -- $2000

For my ring size (8.75), there''s an additional charge of $100 as well. And if you''re curious, he uses 90.2% platinum mixed with 9.8% iridium.

If those stone sizes don''t help you, you can look the setting up on GOG and request a price quote from them.

Thanks so much!!

Man your ring is going to be so pretty!! I''m excited for you

 

[risingsun]

Gwendolyn~I have a 1.234 ct ACA G VS2 from WF. I cannot see any color in at all. You could look at an eye clean SI1, as well. I think you can have the ring of your dreams, if you go with an ideal cut stone. Do you have a budget you''re trying to work with? The setting sounds reasonable for a beautiful MM ring.

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 2/10/2008 12:46:53 PM
Author: Addy
I started typing and walked away mid-reply (cake is out of the oven!) and missed that you lived in England. I do as well and on the tube everyday to London I rarely see a stone larger than 1/2 carat and very very rarely see a well cut stone. Oh, if you pick Flame as your setting it''ll be much prettier than anything I''ve scoped on the tube/train!

Thank you, Addy. We aren''t totally sure where we''re going to live yet. My boyfriend is from northern England (Yorkshire), born and bred, but I''m from the US. Just here for grad school, but we have to pick a country to live in eventually, and I''m not sure how well I''ll deal with living away from my family and friends permanently (now it''s still temporary, so it''s not as hard).

And I know I shouldn''t let what everyone else has determine what I want for myself. It should have nothing to do with anything...but it does. One carat is the lower side of average at home, but here in the UK it would be seen as quite big! I''m not really a size girl--my dream stone isn''t 10 carats or 5 carats or even 2 carats. I just want a rock that looks like it''s in proportion to my finger.

I''ve actually measure out the diameters of the different sizes and drawn little paper diamonds so I can have some idea of how they might look on my hand. How dorky is that?!

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 2/10/2008 12:44:53 PM
Author: LegacyGirl
I think a .70 will look beautiful in the MM setting. I can''t wait to see what you come up with!

Thanks, LegacyGirl! I''m excited to see what I can come up with too.

 

[Rhea]

Date: 2/10/2008 1:02:35 PM
Author: gwendolyn

I started typing and walked away mid-reply (cake is out of the oven!) and missed that you lived in England. I do as well and on the tube everyday to London I rarely see a stone larger than 1/2 carat and very very rarely see a


I''ve actually measure out the diameters of the different sizes and drawn little paper diamonds so I can have some idea of how they might look on my hand. How dorky is that?!

I''m afraid that''s not dorky enough! To truly get the prize I recommend that you tape the paper cut out to your ring finger, drop your hands to your side, and see what it would look like in the mirror. Hey, you have to know what will look good on you, right?!

I can''t wait to see what you come up with, I''m sure whatever it is, it''ll be beautiful as most PS rings are - we''re not picky here, we just know what we want.

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 2/10/2008 1:02:31 PM
Author: risingsun
Gwendolyn~I have a 1.234 ct ACA G VS2 from WF. I cannot see any color in at all. You could look at an eye clean SI1, as well. I think you can have the ring of your dreams, if you go with an ideal cut stone. Do you have a budget you''re trying to work with? The setting sounds reasonable for a beautiful MM ring.

I''m really not sure what the budget will be. When J and I first started talking about engagement rings (he totally didn''t get how much they cost and thought we could pick one up some odd weekend for a hundred quid or something, haha), I told him that a few thousand pounds would probably be about the desired budget. I could probably be ok if we had £3000/$6000, but with the MWM setting taking up a third of that, I''d like to be able to extend the budget to £4000/$8000 or maybe a bit more.

We talked just this weekend about how some people get a less expensive ring at the start with the intent to upgrade it later when there''s more money--we''d talked before about how some people like to regularly get upgrades, and J said he''d get kind of offended if I was always trading my ring in (which is fine with me, because I''m really sentimental anyway). But the weird thing is that he sounded kind of disappointed when I said that the cheaper-ring-now idea wouldn''t work for us because we don''t want to do an upgrade because of the sentimentality of the original engagement ring. So maybe he is changing his mind about upgrades? Or (probably more likely) getting frustrated that this diamond stuff is so complicated.

 

[LegacyGirl]

Date: 2/10/2008 1:18:15 PM
Author: Addy

Date: 2/10/2008 1:02:35 PM
Author: gwendolyn

I started typing and walked away mid-reply (cake is out of the oven!) and missed that you lived in England. I do as well and on the tube everyday to London I rarely see a stone larger than 1/2 carat and very very rarely see a


I''ve actually measure out the diameters of the different sizes and drawn little paper diamonds so I can have some idea of how they might look on my hand. How dorky is that?!

I''m afraid that''s not dorky enough! To truly get the prize I recommend that you tape the paper cut out to your ring finger, drop your hands to your side, and see what it would look like in the mirror. Hey, you have to know what will look good on you, right?!

I can''t wait to see what you come up with, I''m sure whatever it is, it''ll be beautiful as most PS rings are - we''re not picky here, we just know what we want.

awhahaha I love this idea!

 

[risingsun]

I think you should be able to find an ideal cut diamond, in the 1ct size, that would fit in with an $8000 budget for both stone and setting. It would probably be in the G SI1 range. To go bigger, the specs or the budget would need to change. Have you been doing a diamond search on PS to see what is available? Would your FF and you be OK with you contributing to the ring budget? The ladies here on PS have mad skillz for helping people find beautiful diamonds. Just say the word and you will have all kinds of help

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 2/10/2008 1:30:57 PM
Author: risingsun
I think you should be able to find an ideal cut diamond, in the 1ct size, that would fit in with an $8000 budget for both stone and setting. It would probably be in the G SI1 range. To go bigger, the specs or the budget would need to change. Have you been doing a diamond search on PS to see what is available? Would your FF and you be OK with you contributing to the ring budget? The ladies here on PS have mad skillz for helping people find beautiful diamonds. Just say the word and you will have all kinds of help

Oh, I DEFINITELY plan on running it by my crew here, no worries about that!! No chance I''d pull the trigger on a stone without getting the nod from the veteran PSers!

I''ve been using the search here, and looking online (mostly at WF ACAs but also at GOG and JA), using the HCA, getting stats from the lovely Lorelei for a really tightly cut ideal stone, and spending HOURS (see, I am totally a dork) looking at the different possibilities. I know the size that''s possible if I stay out of the colourless range and go to an I or a J, and I''ve been looking at everything from IF to SI1 (want it to be eyeclean, so I left the SI2s out), so I''ve been checking up on what''s out there and what we might get.

And I will DEFINITELY be contributing money to the ring. We''ll be living together, paying bills together, and it''s all ''our money'' essentially anyway, so that''s not an issue. I will also be making more money than him and I think we''d both rather get engaged sooner rather than later, so it only makes sense for us to both put money towards it. He doesn''t have any issue with that, which suits me fine.

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 2/10/2008 1:24:04 PM
Author: LegacyGirl

Date: 2/10/2008 1:18:15 PM

Author: Addy

Date: 2/10/2008 1:02:35 PM

Author: gwendolyn


I started typing and walked away mid-reply (cake is out of the oven!) and missed that you lived in England. I do as well and on the tube everyday to London I rarely see a stone larger than 1/2 carat and very very rarely see a



I''ve actually measure out the diameters of the different sizes and drawn little paper diamonds so I can have some idea of how they might look on my hand. How dorky is that?!

I''m afraid that''s not dorky enough! To truly get the prize I recommend that you tape the paper cut out to your ring finger, drop your hands to your side, and see what it would look like in the mirror. Hey, you have to know what will look good on you, right?!

I can''t wait to see what you come up with, I''m sure whatever it is, it''ll be beautiful as most PS rings are - we''re not picky here, we just know what we want.

awhahaha I love this idea!

If/when I do, I''ll be sure to take photos.

 

[ByGoneEraBride]

Date: 2/10/2008 12:36:57 PM
Author: Addy

Also, remember that PS is not the real world. In the real world a .70 near colourless, well cut diamond in an amazing setting is rare and truly stunning no matter your finger size. It''s easily something that you would be proud of not only when you get engaged but also as you celebrate your 38th wedding anniversary.

You know, that made me laugh! ...the real world comment. We can get caught up here, because people here know whats what...can find great bargains, and in general, I''ve noticed (could be wrong), have a much larger budget for the stone alone.


Anyways, just remember, if you are sentimental, you won''t even notice if it looks ''stupid'' on your finger (which, that doesn''t make a whole lot of sense to me, diamonds NEVER look stupid). I''m 6'' tall, which makes a lot of things look really tiny on me. I have long lanky fingers ...which, is the same effect as chubby fingers - makes things look smaller, because my fingers are so darn long. They are normal size, not super thin. So a diamond is dwarfed on me. Its ok though, I love my diamond.

Long story short - my .52 karat looks pretty good to me, because we went for max sparkle. It also, I think, depends on the cut you choose. You get more for your money with some stones. One stone at a .7 can be a totally differents size and sparkle than another...and one .7 sparkly may be perfect for you.

I can''t agree enough with the search...and search...and search. You will find it.

But I can say, I was all into diamonds too, really...until I had my first blue topaz in the most amazing caribbean blue. When I realized I could get 5 carats for less than 500.00...I wish we had gone that route before he spent his hard earned cash on my diamond sparkly. Colored stones just have something that diamonds do not, and vice versa! I got just as many compliments on my blue sparkly as I did on my diamond sparkly.

 

[coatimundi_org]

Hi Gwendolyn,
Have you considered the half bezel/bezel route--with a thicker shank? I've seen some half bezel settings with just under a carat rounds that have a larger and denser effect. How color sensitive are you? A well cut round(as I'm sure you know)faces up very white. Have you considered H or I color with SI1-2 clarity?

Do you prefer thin shanks? or would you go thicker?

I think the 4mm bezels/half bezels are both elegant and wearable.
Coati

eta: I just re-read and see that you are going to gauge your color sensitivity, well, I'll definitely have my fingers crossed for you there! Koati

 

[coatimundi_org]

Here''s an inexpensive half bezel from exceldiamonds.com