Whats the smallest in diamond size you could go?

[diamondseeker2006]

Oh, Kenny, now I really need to set a couple of those and wear them for you!

Okay, just answering this question on the surface without going into all the analysis, I started out with a 1.0 ct round at 6.5mm and wore that ring for 30 years. For that anniversary, I had to figure out what my max would be, and I ended up with 1.63 cts. at 7.6mm. Frankly, I think 1.3-1.49 would have been my ideal size, but I fell in love with the larger stone and my husband (and all of PS) wanted me to get it over the other 1.37 ct. stone we looked at at the same time.

So I think I can honestly say that I was completely happy with my 1 ct. diamond for a long time, so that is my smaller end of the spectrum as far as a solitaire e-ring goes. My current ring is my absolute max for a rb. No desire to upgrade in size at all.

I have a dear friend with a beautiful old set of thin platinum rings with less than a half carat rb diamond. I think her rings are so beautiful, so I certainly would technically be happy with any size if that is what I had been given.

 

[Guilty Pleasure]

I think for me, the size of the diamond would depend on the type of setting. In a new white gold/platinum simple setting, 1 carat would be the smallest I would want because that is appropriate in our social circle. In an antique or intricate setting or a family ring, smaller might be appropriate.

 

[Gothgrrl]

I just want to say that it's nice to finally see Kenny's collection at normal view. It's a rainbow of sparkles!

 

[Autumnovember]

Kenny, I think your wonderful shots of your stones deserve their own thread so we can all oogle some more!

Now, back to the original question.....

 

[Sam121]

And now, as to the bolded part - enthusiastic ditto. It's a bit disingenuous to claim you don't see the difference. The difference is privilege. Is it bad manners for someone to say the a large stone is ostentatious, gaudy, tacky? Oh, yes - but they're only insulting the wearer's taste. Insulting a small stone, though? It's assumed that that's not only insulting the person's taste, but their earning potential and possibly their social class. Yowza.

Think of it this way: in general, thinness is a point of envy in this culture, yes? So, for some reason, that envy justifies blunt discussion that, in my opinion, verges on being intrusive and insulting - my best friend is very slender, and many's the time some rude bint has marched up to her to inform her that she needs a burger. That's considered more acceptable than telling a larger person to put the burger down, because of the implicit social knowledge that, at the end of the day, we all know thinness is considered the status to aspire to: so too, the large diamond (or the ability to afford one).

Does it make it okay to be rude about it? No. But I think the difference between the two circumstances is pretty clear ....

Circe,

it's such a pleasure to read your post. You hit it on the nail on the head with what I feel with regards to the large/small bling issue.

I think the smallest size you could go depends in large part also to you and your partner's financial circumstances, taste, and the type of partner one has. My ex was a millionaire, but he is the least generous person ( I had to pay for more expensive dates because he thought it was a waste of money to spend it on fine dining), so with his budget for the ring there was no way I could get the smallest size I wanted (a 1 carat). My current SO likewise is financially well off and is thrifty, but he thinks the ring should be a splurge because I will wear it for the rest of my life, so what he got for me was well above what I wanted.

 

[Autumnovember]

Ok lets pause for a second.

My original question was about what size diamond you'd get if money was not a factor.

What I am not understanding STILL is why this question is mostly not being answered?

 

[slg47]

Ok lets pause for a second.

My original question was about what size diamond you'd get if money was not a factor.

What I am not understanding STILL is why this question is mostly not being answered?

because I would not get a smaller diamond if money was not a factor!

 

[Autumnovember]

Ok lets pause for a second.

My original question was about what size diamond you'd get if money was not a factor.

What I am not understanding STILL is why this question is mostly not being answered?

because I would not get a smaller diamond if money was not a factor!

THANK YOU for answering!!!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Ok lets pause for a second.

My original question was about what size diamond you'd get if money was not a factor.

What I am not understanding STILL is why this question is mostly not being answered?

a 2.75ct E VS1

 

[Autumnovember]

Ok lets pause for a second.

My original question was about what size diamond you'd get if money was not a factor.

What I am not understanding STILL is why this question is mostly not being answered?

a 2.75ct E VS1

Smallest you'd go DF, you know what I meant.

 

[jstarfireb]

Didn't read the rest of the thread, so I'm just going to answer the question. Assuming this is for an engagement ring, I wanted to have a stone that was at least 1ct, money not being a factor. So the answer would be 1ct for me.

If money were a factor, I'd probably say 0.25, and if we couldn't afford that, just get me a colored stone ring instead. I would view a colored stone engagement ring as a better way to spend the same amount of money. But I do have diamond earrings and non-engagement rings that are under 0.25 ct, which is why I'm specifically referring to engagement rings above.

As for the largest, I can't honestly see myself wearing anything above the 1.5-2ct range. I would wear it occasionally if given to me (for example as an heirloom), but I wouldn't buy one over that size for myself. I think 1-1.5ct is my sweet spot for a diamond engagement ring.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Ok lets pause for a second.

My original question was about what size diamond you'd get if money was not a factor.

What I am not understanding STILL is why this question is mostly not being answered?

a 2.75ct E VS1

Smallest you'd go DF, you know what I meant.

AN
1.25ct for my little sinfully pinky...

 

[Autumnovember]

Ok lets pause for a second.

My original question was about what size diamond you'd get if money was not a factor.

What I am not understanding STILL is why this question is mostly not being answered?

a 2.75ct E VS1

Smallest you'd go DF, you know what I meant.

AN
1.25ct for my little sinfully pinky...

Haven't used her in a while

 

[Krae11]

I think 1ct is the smallest I'd WANT to go. If money stood in the way, that would of course be a different situation. I don't have an e-ring yet (hopefully not much longer) and I'll be thrilled with whatever my man chooses (he knows my taste), but I'd be lying if I said I didn't hope my center stone was larger than 1ct. I think 2ct is a nice size on my finger, but I sure as heck wouldn't refuse something larger (as long as it was still high quality)!

 

[Autumnovember]

Thank you all for the honest opinions! I appreciate it.

 

[Guilty Pleasure]

Ok lets pause for a second.

My original question was about what size diamond you'd get if money was not a factor.

What I am not understanding STILL is why this question is mostly not being answered?

Because money cannot be taken out of the equation without completely altering the basis of diamond engagement rings. If you mean that money is unlimited, money is still a factor in the sense that other people will judge you based on the value of the diamond. If you mean that diamonds are hypothetically inexpensive, then they wouldn't be used in engagement rings.

 

[Trekkie]

Smallest? .50. My engagement ring is a .51 G VS2 H&A. We could easily have gone for a lower spec stone and maxed out on size but everything about this stone is perfect for me. In fact, a few weeks after I received my ring I had the opportunity to trade up to .91. I turned it down.

The smallest diamond I own is an unset, asymmetric .19 OEC and I love it to bits.

Right now, for where we are in life, in terms of status and location, .51 is perfect for us. It's the largest in my circle of friends and I have yet to see anything of comparable size or quality in our small South African town. However, it is not so large that it is considered gaudy or ostentatious. Partly because it's set in a simple solitaire setting. If you want to attract attention here in small town South Africa you need multiple low carat yellow gold bands reaching all the way to your knuckle.

AutumNovember, I completely get what you are saying about how rude it is for people to give unsolicited negative criticism about your ring. It's damn rude!

But hey, if you want to avoid it you know I'll gladly take that beauty off your hands!

 

[TravelingGal]

I thought about this question and had answers. Maybe .5, etc etc.

Then I remembered my mom's ering, which I had not thought about in a long time. It was a small chip. I can't say how big, but maybe .15? But it was a beautiful chip in a very cool setting...the first diamond I ever wore when she let me wear it. It sparkled a lot to me.

I lost that ring.

If someone told me I would be able to get it back if I gave up my own e-ring (1.03), I'd consider it, and wear the chip with great happiness (of course, I wouldn't want to give up my e-ring, but you get the point). That ring was the beginning of my parent's life together - all the joys and so many sorrows - so many they couldn't have fathomed when they made a commitment with that ring. Their chapters of husband and wife are over now.

My point is, when it is something of great emotional worth, diamond size would not matter. Would I want my own ering to be very very small? Honestly no. But the question wasn't the smallest size of diamond for e-ring, but what is the smallest size I'd go. I'd wear diamond fairy dust if there was heart in it.

 

[Jennifer W]

I have an 8 point stone in my wedding band, and I often wear that on its own. Don't get me wrong, I like my bigger bling, but I'm comfortable with a tiny (beautifully cut, white, clean) diamond too. Depends on what I'm wearing / where I'm going / what mood I'm in.

 

[AmeliaG]

I think it depends on whether or not its an engagement ring. The 16 pointer Tiffany Bezet ring I mentioned earlier is beautiful so if someone gave it to me, I wouldn't turn it down but I would feel funny wearing it as an engagement ring. People might make opinions about my husband's financial situation or willingness to spend money that would not be true. If he could only afford a very small stone (<30pter), I'd steer him to a colored gemstone I love just as my sister did.

Some women don't like wearing large diamonds in their ER because they don't want to advertise their husband's income on their finger but very small diamonds are the other side of the same coin. I know my sister I mentioned above was very sensitive about advertising their relative poverty to family, friends, and associates by wearing a really small diamond on her large hands. Of course everbody knew their situation and loved them both anyway but she didn't want to make the fact so obvious on a daily basis so she opted for another gemstone.

 

[kelpie]

I like my diamonds to between .30 and 8 cts. Anything above 8 starts to looks unwieldily.

 

[rosetta]

I like my diamonds to between .30 and 8 cts. Anything above 8 starts to looks unwieldily.

Why id be glad to take that 9 carater off your hands ma'am....

No don't thank me, Im jus' doin' my job...

 

[Amys Bling]

AN.... Taking money out of the equation totally, I wouldn't want smaller than I have now. It's what I'm used to and I would miss the size. So 1.55

 

[Circe]

Thanks, Sam121! I feel flattered.

Ok lets pause for a second.

My original question was about what size diamond you'd get if money was not a factor.

What I am not understanding STILL is why this question is mostly not being answered?

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because it's an impossible hypothetical, because it runs counter to most of the unspoken assumptions of our culture. If money wasn't an option, many people would get larger diamonds, because in our culture, those are what's coveted ... and if you specify smallest as you did in the header, well, it almost becomes an oxymoron. Practically speaking, the smallest diamond people would get is the diamond they did get, if you see what I mean. (I am sure this board has one or two billionaires who could easily say, "Nah, it's just that more than a handful is wasted/I had to save something for the tax shelter," but they're the exception rather than the rule, just like the high society Bostonians.)

Because money cannot be taken out of the equation without completely altering the basis of diamond engagement rings. If you mean that money is unlimited, money is still a factor in the sense that other people will judge you based on the value of the diamond. If you mean that diamonds are hypothetically inexpensive, then they wouldn't be used in engagement rings.

And here, I think GP says it perfectly and succinctly.

I read and reread your post about how you felt when those (rude!) women commented on your ring ... and I thought about how I'd felt when the same thing happened to me ... and then, as it happened, I scrolled over the other threads and found myself thinking about the CZ thread in relation to this one. I think the reason so many people feel ooky about wearing CZs themselves is that they feel like they're claiming something they're not, like wearing fakes makes them fake. And I think part of the reason why people get so Gladys Kravitz over other people's big diamonds is that they work like the flip side of the coin: they make them feel like the wearer is claiming something they're not entitled to - money, status, success, "I'm better than you are." I think it's no coincidence these comments most often come from friends and family and peers - people who think they're completely equal in each and every way until some problematic signifier like a big diamond pops up.

They're still rude, but this becomes a fascinating sociological issue!

 

[Jennifer W]

I like my diamonds to between .30 and 8 cts. Anything above 8 starts to looks unwieldily.

Why id be glad to take that 9 carater off your hands ma'am....

No don't thank me, Im jus' doin' my job...

LOL!

 

[Natylad]

The smallest i'd go for a ring if money wasn't an issue is 0.50 ct but the setting of the diamond would play a big role on my decision, because for diamonds of that size i prefer more elaborate settings.

 

[lbbaber]

I'm confused about the question "If money was not a factor"? Who is going to say, well I can have WHATEVER I want bc "money is not a factor" so I'll take a 20 pointer? (Kennys stones are an obvious exception---BEAUTIES THEY ARE!!!)

I am really not understanding the point of the thread. Do people w/bigger diamonds ever have to hear some rude people say tacky things about it??? YES. But people with smaller stones hear rude things too. It goes both ways. There will always be people out there looking to insult you on all aspects of your life. If I had a huge honker and someone told me it was "too big" or "tacky" I would smile bc I KNOW that I AM HAPPY and that I COULD HAVE chosen smaller stone. Those that are insulted bc of their tiny diamonds do not usually have the luxury of saying "well I could have chosen bigger". Those insults would sting more IMO.

 

[lbbaber]

Ok lets pause for a second.

My original question was about what size diamond you'd get if money was not a factor.

What I am not understanding STILL is why this question is mostly not being answered?

Because money cannot be taken out of the equation without completely altering the basis of diamond engagement rings. If you mean that money is unlimited, money is still a factor in the sense that other people will judge you based on the value of the diamond. If you mean that diamonds are hypothetically inexpensive, then they wouldn't be used in engagement rings.

AHHH YES!!!! Thank you Guilty Pleasure. You answered it better than me. This is what I was trying to say

 

[stephbolt]

When DH and I first started ring shopping, the smallest size I liked on my hand was around 0.8 ct. But that was knowing that something that size was well within his budget. I ended up with a 1.23 ct. RB.

That being said, my cousin's wife wears an approx. 0.25 ct RB that I would have been just as thrilled with. It is the diamond my grandfather gave to my grandmother back in 1944. If I had ended up with that stone, I would likely still ogle my PS and real life friend's larger stones though...

 

[somethingshiny]

My original ER was .10 ct. I said yes, so I guess that's as small as I'd go. lol