Whats the smallest in diamond size you could go?

[Haven]

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...

Good point! My grandmother always told me she was going to give me one of her rings as my engagement ring and I was *so* looking forward to it. By the time we were ready to get engaged she was ill and that was the last thing on anyone's mind, so DH bought me a new ring, instead. I would have loved to have her ring as an engagement ring, and in fact I wear it now as a RHR. It has a small natural pearl in the center, and two small OMCs on either side, they're probably under 20 pts each.

 

[suchende]

I guess the smallest I would go is my dream size? It seems like my answer to smallest with the caveat "if money were no object" would be the same as the biggest. Hmm, unless shape were a variable? I would wear a much bigger asscher than pear...

 

[Autumnovember]

I haven't read responses just yet and I will when I'm done eating...but I just wanted to say:

Hypothetically it would be this kind of situation:

-FI asks what is the smallest in diamond size you'd be comfortable wearing
-Money is unlimited
-It IS for an engagement ring
-It would be a round brilliant

Yes, I think that most of us agree that if it was something passed down to us that has sentimental value, of course it doesn't matter what size. Again, I think most of us agree that if "X" is the only carat we could afford than of course, we would wear whatever "X" is. That isn't the question though. I'll have to disagree in terms of not being able to take money out of the equation because you can...since its a hypothetical question.

 

[Autumnovember]

When DH and I first started ring shopping, the smallest size I liked on my hand was around 0.8 ct.

THAT is the kind of response I'm looking for.

 

[TravelingGal]

I haven't read responses just yet and I will when I'm done eating...but I just wanted to say:

Hypothetically it would be this kind of situation:

-FI asks what is the smallest in diamond size you'd be comfortable wearing
-Money is unlimited
-It IS for an engagement ring
-It would be a round brilliant

Yes, I think that most of us agree that if it was something passed down to us that has sentimental value, of course it doesn't matter what size. Again, I think most of us agree that if "X" is the only carat we could afford than of course, we would wear whatever "X" is. That isn't the question though. I'll have to disagree in terms of not being able to take money out of the equation because you can...since its a hypothetical question.

No, I think money IS part of the equation in this case. Because if money was UNLIMITED and my FI was asking me what the SMALLEST size I'd be comfy wearing...well, I'd kind of wonder about him because at the courtship stage in the game, I'd want him to still try to be impressing me! I mean, shouldn't the question if money is unlimited be: what's the BIGGEST rock you are comfy wearing?

Such a question (what's the smallest) would seem only to be posed if money WERE an issue. Or maybe if the man were fundamentally opposed to large diamonds (in which case we'd have a problem!)

 

[Autumnovember]

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.

Obviously it goes both ways, thats exactly what I was pointing out. *MY* point is that people with larger stones hear a lot more flack about large stones than people with small ones.

What was the point of the thread that asked what the largest size diamond they would comfortable wearing?

Same thing, reverse question.

 

[Autumnovember]

I haven't read responses just yet and I will when I'm done eating...but I just wanted to say:

Hypothetically it would be this kind of situation:

-FI asks what is the smallest in diamond size you'd be comfortable wearing
-Money is unlimited
-It IS for an engagement ring
-It would be a round brilliant

Yes, I think that most of us agree that if it was something passed down to us that has sentimental value, of course it doesn't matter what size. Again, I think most of us agree that if "X" is the only carat we could afford than of course, we would wear whatever "X" is. That isn't the question though. I'll have to disagree in terms of not being able to take money out of the equation because you can...since its a hypothetical question.

No, I think money IS part of the equation in this case. Because if money was UNLIMITED and my FI was asking me what the SMALLEST size I'd be comfy wearing...well, I'd kind of wonder about him because at the courtship stage in the game, I'd want him to still try to be impressing me! I mean, shouldn't the question if money is unlimited be: what's the BIGGEST rock you are comfy wearing?

Such a question (what's the smallest) would seem only to be posed if money WERE an issue. Or maybe if the man were fundamentally opposed to large diamonds (in which case we'd have a problem!)

I get what you're saying, completely. I agree, too. Maybe instead of money being unlimited it could be "you have X amount to spend"....making it maybe more realistic?

Either way, I wanted to hear what the smallest size diamond you would wear if you had the choice.

It's hard to phrase the question the right way...and maybe answer too, without sounding like a brat.

In my answer I said, 1.50. Why? Because I really don't like the way anything smaller looks on my fat little fingers.

Now, if FI proposed with a .25...would I wear it? Yeah, of course.

 

[TravelingGal]

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.

Obviously it goes both ways, thats exactly what I was pointing out. *MY* point is that people with larger stones hear a lot more flack about large stones than people with small ones.

What was the point of the thread that asked what the largest size diamond they would comfortable wearing?

Same thing, reverse question.

I didn't read that thread, nor do I know what happened to you on that thread, but you seem to be taking it a little personally? I see points to both questions (both yours and that other thread). I couldn't wear a large diamond every day comfortably. It doesn't fit my lifestyle. So it's interesting to see what someone could wear daily because of what she does. You, as a student, could wear a 2+ carat rock everyday. Me, as a mom, have a hard time even wearing a 1c because when I'm around the kid, I still can scratch her up with it. I could certainly ROCK a huge stone and be happy with it, but I couldn't wear it in my daily life. It would just look and feel stupid to me.

 

[Autumnovember]

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.

Obviously it goes both ways, thats exactly what I was pointing out. *MY* point is that people with larger stones hear a lot more flack about large stones than people with small ones.

What was the point of the thread that asked what the largest size diamond they would comfortable wearing?

Same thing, reverse question.

I didn't read that thread, nor do I know what happened to you on that thread, but you seem to be taking it a little personally? I see points to both questions (both yours and that other thread). I couldn't wear a large diamond every day comfortably. It doesn't fit my lifestyle. So it's interesting to see what someone could wear daily because of what she does. You, as a student, could wear a 2+ carat rock everyday. Me, as a mom, have a hard time even wearing a 1c because when I'm around the kid, I still can scratch her up with it. I could certainly ROCK a huge stone and be happy with it, but I couldn't wear it in my daily life. It would just look and feel stupid to me.

No. lol. it was a long time ago. Could care less. I was just interested in hearing the thoughts of everyone else and the other thread that was posted/my own experience prompted me to start the thread. Plain and simple.

 

[Circe]

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.

Obviously it goes both ways, thats exactly what I was pointing out. *MY* point is that people with larger stones hear a lot more flack about large stones than people with small ones.

What was the point of the thread that asked what the largest size diamond they would comfortable wearing?

Same thing, reverse question.

I ... think the point of the "largest" thread is that it's wish fulfillment: most people can't afford their fantasy dream size. Heck, even the people who rock huge rocks want bigger ones! Whereas the little ones are more affordable, so people could afford them if they wanted to. It becomes a question of simple aesthetic and minimalist taste, because, dude, you cannot divorce diamonds from money. Money is what they mean to the general population.

Also ... c'mon, now. People with larger stones do not hear more flack. Ask any girl who's posted about showing off her e-ring to be met with some brat comment like, "Oh, I want one just like that! But bigger." Or, "Honey, you can always upgrade." Both of those are direct quotes from LIW threads I've seen ....

 

[AmeliaG]

But with an E-Ring even if you can take money out of the equation, you can't take away the judgments people will make of you and your fiance based on the size of the diamond you choose. If you really want a small stone and your fiance is doing well financially, people are just as likely to assume he's cheap, he doesn't care about you, etc. and that's a lot of hefty judgments on him just because you preferred a smaller stone. I think that most people make unfavorable judgments on guys for smaller diamonds and on girls for larger diamonds.

I think to get a real opinion on the preferred size of the diamond by itself, you'd have to ask 'What's the smallest diamond you would wear on your right hand with the assumption the ring has no symbolic or sentimental value whatsoever?' But even then, some people may not be willing to buy a diamond if it has no symbolic value whatsoever so you still wouldn't get a real opinion.

As a fun ring with no symbolic value whatsoever, I would love this ring:

http://www.tiffany.com/Shopping/Item.aspx?fromGrid=1&sku=GRP03757&mcat=148210&cid=287466&search_params=s+5-p+6-c+287466-r+101323351-x+-n+6-ri+-ni+0-t+-k+

 

[Circe]

I think that most people make unfavorable judgments on guys for smaller diamonds and on girls for larger diamonds.

Dingdingdingdingding! A keen observation.

 

[Izzy03]

Autumn~ The smallest I would want to go (given your criteria) would be just under one carat, lets say about 0.96 carats, because it would still LOOK like one carat, but not have the "one carat premium $$". My ideal size that I would have chosen myself probably would have been 1.4 - 1.8 carats. My ring size is just under a 5, and I'm only 5'2", 110 pounds, so rings tend to look large in my frame.

That's NOT to say I don't love the 2.42 carats my husband got me, I absolutely do!!! But it is NOT comfortable for daily wear, I never wear it to the hospital, and I hate the way other people seem to judge me for it.

 

[Autumnovember]

I think that most people make unfavorable judgments on guys for smaller diamonds and on girls for larger diamonds.

Dingdingdingdingding! A keen observation.

Very verrrrrry good observation. I really never thought of it that way, thank you!

 

[lbbaber]

Obviously it goes both ways, thats exactly what I was pointing out. *MY* point is that people with larger stones hear a lot more flack about large stones than people with small ones. What was the point of the thread that asked what the largest size diamond they would comfortable wearing?

Same thing, reverse question.

Hmmmm, people with larger stones hear ALOT more flack? Really? I cant speak from experience bc my 1.61ct is neither large nor small but that statement almost seems comical to me. We are on a forum that uses "DSS" and "upgrade" as often as we use the words "blingy". Come on now!

When and if my stone ever grows to be a honker, I will gladly take those jabs

 

[Autumnovember]

I think to get a real opinion on the preferred size of the diamond by itself, you'd have to ask 'What's the smallest diamond you would wear on your right hand with the assumption the ring has no symbolic or sentimental value whatsoever?' But even then, some people may not be willing to buy a diamond if it has no symbolic value whatsoever so you still wouldn't get a real opinion.

As a fun ring with no symbolic value whatsoever, I would love this ring:

http://www.tiffany.com/Shopping/Item.aspx?fromGrid=1&sku=GRP03757&mcat=148210&cid=287466&search_params=s+5-p+6-c+287466-r+101323351-x+-n+6-ri+-ni+0-t+-k+

That makes a lot of sense.

AWESOME ring!!!!!

Simple but very sweet.

 

[Autumnovember]

Obviously it goes both ways, thats exactly what I was pointing out. *MY* point is that people with larger stones hear a lot more flack about large stones than people with small ones. What was the point of the thread that asked what the largest size diamond they would comfortable wearing?

Same thing, reverse question.

Hmmmm, people with larger stones hear ALOT more flack? Really? I cant speak from experience bc my 1.61ct is neither large nor small but that statement almost seems comical to me. We are on a forum that uses "DSS" and "upgrade" as often as we use the words "blingy". Come on now!

When and if my stone ever grows to be a honker, I will gladly take those jabs

Yep, and I'll stand by that. It's a lot easier to bash a large stone than it is a small stone. Search earlier threads...its an obvious observation. So if it sounds 'comical' to you, so be it. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[Autumnovember]

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.

Obviously it goes both ways, thats exactly what I was pointing out. *MY* point is that people with larger stones hear a lot more flack about large stones than people with small ones.

What was the point of the thread that asked what the largest size diamond they would comfortable wearing?

Same thing, reverse question.

I ... think the point of the "largest" thread is that it's wish fulfillment: most people can't afford their fantasy dream size. Heck, even the people who rock huge rocks want bigger ones! Whereas the little ones are more affordable, so people could afford them if they wanted to. It becomes a question of simple aesthetic and minimalist taste, because, dude, you cannot divorce diamonds from money. Money is what they mean to the general population.

Also ... c'mon, now. People with larger stones do not hear more flack. Ask any girl who's posted about showing off her e-ring to be met with some brat comment like, "Oh, I want one just like that! But bigger." Or, "Honey, you can always upgrade." Both of those are direct quotes from LIW threads I've seen ....

Thats exactly it, what we post here is different than real life. PS is a fantasy land. For the most part, we know the "rules" of what our comments will and will not consist of on SMTB

 

[TravelingGal]

Obviously it goes both ways, thats exactly what I was pointing out. *MY* point is that people with larger stones hear a lot more flack about large stones than people with small ones. What was the point of the thread that asked what the largest size diamond they would comfortable wearing?

Same thing, reverse question.

Hmmmm, people with larger stones hear ALOT more flack? Really? I cant speak from experience bc my 1.61ct is neither large nor small but that statement almost seems comical to me. We are on a forum that uses "DSS" and "upgrade" as often as we use the words "blingy". Come on now!

When and if my stone ever grows to be a honker, I will gladly take those jabs

Yep, and I'll stand by that. It's a lot easier to bash a large stone than it is a small stone. Search earlier threads...its an obvious observation. So if it sounds 'comical' to you, so be it. We'll agree to disagree.

AN, a larger stone may inspire more outright, forthwith opinions, but smaller stones get WAY more flack. Often in a more subversive way. In fact, in the post just above the one you made here, you describe a smaller stone ring as "sweet." Which implies "awwww, isn't that just darling, cute, kiddie like."

A woman who is wearing that ring my not think it's "sweet", but elegant, classy, etc.

 

[Amys Bling]

also- on the issue of the "smallest" you would go with- I think it also depends on what you prioritize in a stone. I said earlier in a post that a 2ct wasn't in our budget... well, not exactly true. I have a 1.55 D SI2 with excellent cut. My FI told me after the fact that he was torn between my stone and a 1.94 J SI2 with a "very good cut", but he just felt that the icy whiteness and sparkle of the 1.55 was so much better and it was therefore a prettier stone. So I think it is also relative to what you value. I am happy with my stone- it is shockingly white and sparkly- yes I would love a 1.94 ct BUT as FI learned- a 1.94 D with excellent cut wasn't in the current budget- a J SI2 very good cut was so that was the decision.

So I think when you start talking other C's, that wil determine the "smallest" stone for people depending on the other preferences.

make sense? lol

 

[somethingshiny]

Okay, I think I understand the question with circumstances better now.

My preferred size would be around 1.5-2cts. I probably wouldn't feel comfortable wearing anything larger than that.

I'd prefer not to go under .5 ct.

My current ring is .77, my initial ering was .10 and my first upgrade was .25. Obviously I loved them all for what they symbolized and they were pretty. But, I wouldn't walk into a store and ask to see anything under a half carat.

The above is only for solitaires. My fav ring is an art deco 10 stone, .75 cttw.

I think it's an odd question because it kind of indicates that you wouldn't wear a .25 ct diamond if that's what you were proposed to with, ya know?

 

[Autumnovember]

Okay, I think I understand the question with circumstances better now.

My preferred size would be around 1.5-2cts. I probably wouldn't feel comfortable wearing anything larger than that.

I'd prefer not to go under .5 ct.

My current ring is .77, my initial ering was .10 and my first upgrade was .25. Obviously I loved them all for what they symbolized and they were pretty. But, I wouldn't walk into a store and ask to see anything under a half carat.

The above is only for solitaires. My fav ring is an art deco 10 stone, .75 cttw.

I think it's an odd question because it kind of indicates that you wouldn't wear a .25 ct diamond if that's what you were proposed to with, ya know?

Oh no, I think we all agree that we would wear *anything* we were proposed with. So its more so, if it was up to *you*...you know?

 

[Autumnovember]

Obviously it goes both ways, thats exactly what I was pointing out. *MY* point is that people with larger stones hear a lot more flack about large stones than people with small ones. What was the point of the thread that asked what the largest size diamond they would comfortable wearing?

Same thing, reverse question.

Hmmmm, people with larger stones hear ALOT more flack? Really? I cant speak from experience bc my 1.61ct is neither large nor small but that statement almost seems comical to me. We are on a forum that uses "DSS" and "upgrade" as often as we use the words "blingy". Come on now!

When and if my stone ever grows to be a honker, I will gladly take those jabs

Yep, and I'll stand by that. It's a lot easier to bash a large stone than it is a small stone. Search earlier threads...its an obvious observation. So if it sounds 'comical' to you, so be it. We'll agree to disagree.

AN, a larger stone may inspire more outright, forthwith opinions, but smaller stones get WAY more flack. Often in a more subversive way. In fact, in the post just above the one you made here, you describe a smaller stone ring as "sweet." Which implies "awwww, isn't that just darling, cute, kiddie like."

A woman who is wearing that ring my not think it's "sweet", but elegant, classy, etc.

Good point, definitely. Although that's not how I meant it, I can see a lot of people making comments like that and it being taken that way, for sure.

 

[Autumnovember]

also- on the issue of the "smallest" you would go with- I think it also depends on what you prioritize in a stone. I said earlier in a post that a 2ct wasn't in our budget... well, not exactly true. I have a 1.55 D SI2 with excellent cut. My FI told me after the fact that he was torn between my stone and a 1.94 J SI2 with a "very good cut", but he just felt that the icy whiteness and sparkle of the 1.55 was so much better and it was therefore a prettier stone. So I think it is also relative to what you value. I am happy with my stone- it is shockingly white and sparkly- yes I would love a 1.94 ct BUT as FI learned- a 1.94 D with excellent cut wasn't in the current budget- a J SI2 very good cut was so that was the decision.

So I think when you start talking other C's, that wil determine the "smallest" stone for people depending on the other preferences.

make sense? lol

Make's lots of sense

 

[AmeliaG]

I think to get a real opinion on the preferred size of the diamond by itself, you'd have to ask 'What's the smallest diamond you would wear on your right hand with the assumption the ring has no symbolic or sentimental value whatsoever?' But even then, some people may not be willing to buy a diamond if it has no symbolic value whatsoever so you still wouldn't get a real opinion.

As a fun ring with no symbolic value whatsoever, I would love this ring:

http://www.tiffany.com/Shopping/Item.aspx?fromGrid=1&sku=GRP03757&mcat=148210&cid=287466&search_params=s+5-p+6-c+287466-r+101323351-x+-n+6-ri+-ni+0-t+-k+

That makes a lot of sense.

AWESOME ring!!!!!

Simple but very sweet.

Thanks Autumnovember. I'm getting up the nerve to buy it for myself with my Christmas bonus (if Tiffany's still carries it then) The bonus isn't much but I usually fritter it away anyway and a ring like this is a nicer way to spend it than I usually do. The price is more than I would usually spend for a fun ring - that's the hesitation. But the fun rings I have are set with stones of about this size so the size isn't the factor and the little diamond is very beautiful.

 

[rosetta]

Larger stone flack largely consists of jealous comments. It's easy to turn that back on the commentator and make them look idiotic and envious.

Smaller stone flack pretty much insults the fiances earning capacity. Terms like sweet, dainty, easy to maintain, doesnt get caught on clothes etc are bandied about. Most are thinly veiled insults. Not saying that's what you mean autumn! Just saying that I've heard plenty of girls making b*tchy comments about other girls' rings. I think these comments are more hurtful, in my opinion. Others may disagree.

 

[lbbaber]

Obviously it goes both ways, thats exactly what I was pointing out. *MY* point is that people with larger stones hear a lot more flack about large stones than people with small ones. What was the point of the thread that asked what the largest size diamond they would comfortable wearing?

Same thing, reverse question.

Hmmmm, people with larger stones hear ALOT more flack? Really? I cant speak from experience bc my 1.61ct is neither large nor small but that statement almost seems comical to me. We are on a forum that uses "DSS" and "upgrade" as often as we use the words "blingy". Come on now!

When and if my stone ever grows to be a honker, I will gladly take those jabs

Yep, and I'll stand by that. It's a lot easier to bash a large stone than it is a small stone. Search earlier threads...its an obvious observation. So if it sounds 'comical' to you, so be it. We'll agree to disagree.

We live in a society that views diamonds as a status symbol....2 months salary and get the biggest your money can buy. How often have I read in these threads that non-PSers have the tendency to choose size over quality? Men stress and worry constantly over in RT that their diamond will not be big enough...How many "finger coverage" threads have we started? People with halos, like myself, get told frequently we did it to make our stone seem bigger (is that a jab? )....Vendors are viewed as "better" bc of their UPGRADE policies.... And I am supposed to believe that people with *big* diamonds get more flack? Atleast those with larger stones have the luxury of CHOOSING to wear a honker. Couples with smaller budgets are not so lucky (but dont worry, you can always upgrade )

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree on this one!

 

[LadyBlue]

I see it this way. For example. I wants a 5 carats round, a lot of people think is too big for a round, but I love it my hand, so I don't care what other people think, because the stone speaks to me.

Now let's say I have .30 round. I feel is too small but it is what my DH could afford. Then everybody thinks and says, that is such a small stone. They would not like it or wear it. This would make me feel sad, because this is not my dream stone, this stone does not speak to me, this is only what I could afford.

Just for reference I will wear any size, if that is what I could afford. My dream size is 3, but I as you said, if my DH had proposed with a .25 I would wear it. That is why I don’t think there is not such a thing as too small, because no matter the size of the stone I would had said yes.

 

[Autumnovember]

Obviously it goes both ways, thats exactly what I was pointing out. *MY* point is that people with larger stones hear a lot more flack about large stones than people with small ones. What was the point of the thread that asked what the largest size diamond they would comfortable wearing?

Same thing, reverse question.

Hmmmm, people with larger stones hear ALOT more flack? Really? I cant speak from experience bc my 1.61ct is neither large nor small but that statement almost seems comical to me. We are on a forum that uses "DSS" and "upgrade" as often as we use the words "blingy". Come on now!

When and if my stone ever grows to be a honker, I will gladly take those jabs

Yep, and I'll stand by that. It's a lot easier to bash a large stone than it is a small stone. Search earlier threads...its an obvious observation. So if it sounds 'comical' to you, so be it. We'll agree to disagree.

We live in a society that views diamonds as a status symbol....2 months salary and get the biggest your money can buy. How often have I read in these threads that non-PSers have the tendency to choose size over quality? Men stress and worry constantly over in RT that their diamond will not be big enough...How many "finger coverage" threads have we started? People with halos, like myself, get told frequently we did it to make our stone seem bigger (is that a jab? )....Vendors are viewed as "better" bc of their UPGRADE policies.... And I am supposed to believe that people with *big* diamonds get more flack? Atleast those with larger stones have the luxury of CHOOSING to wear a honker. Couples with smaller budgets are not so lucky (but dont worry, you can always upgrade )

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree on this one!

Everything you said is absolutely true. No denying that. Maybe I'm having tunnel vision.

 

[Haven]

RE: Larger stones getting more flack

I wore a 2 ct cushion for over three years, and now I wear a 2.3 ct antique cushion that looks significantly larger than my last stone. In all that time I don't think I *ever* received a negative comment about the size of the stone IRL.