How big is it and is bigger better?

[Anonymous]

because they are popular and pretty. I think diamonds are a con - not really that precious and they are expensive more because of monopoly and marketing. but I really don't care to hear silly stories about slavery. yeah, I'm sure the economies of those countries would be a lot better off if western countries stopped buying diamonds ...

personally I like truly precious stones like rubies and emeralds, which is why my wife's ring (1.5 I think) is surrounded by emeralds.

[Anonymous]

Those of you with the big rocks -- do you wear them all the time? If you're in shorts and sneakers to help out at the school fair, are you wearing your engagement ring?

I had a couple of friends in grad school who dressed as schlumpily as the rest of us -- jeans and sneakers/Birkies -- but had big old diamond rings. It always seemed uncongruous to me (but I'm fashion-impaired).

[Anonymous]

Anonymity allows me to brag:

My wife's ring is just over 3 carats. Her ring size is a 4.5, so she has pretty small hands, but it is gorgeous and she wears it every day and gets complimented on all the time. The key to a beautiful ring with a large stone is that you have to take the size of the stone and the size of the woman's hand into consideration when you choose a setting. The traditional solitaire setting (yes, platinum is trendy lately) puts the stone on a shelf to emphasize it and make it appear bigger. For a 1 carat diamond that's fine, but a 2+ carat diamond doesn't need the extra emphasis, and in a traditional setting would look very big and get caught on things.

So if you're going to go large, you have to take some time to find the right setting to go with the ring. I had a custom setting made that I rejected because it buried the diamond too much, and ultimately chose a designer setting that complimented the stone perfectly. Later I saw this same setting on the cover of a bride's magazine.

So no, 4 carats is not too big to have a beautiful ring if you take the time to get a setting that compliments the ring and the wearer's hand. And if you can afford to pay for 4 carats, you can also afford not to skimp on the setting.

[Anonymous]

A few more thoughts:

* There are plenty of people out there with small diamonds that was what their husband could afford at the time they were engaged. They can be beautiful and have obvious sentimental beauty, but let's not pretend that they are all beautiful as "diamond rings."

* "Flawless" diamonds and diamonds with perfect color really aren't worth the money. After you take delivery of the ring nobody will ever look at your diamond through a loop again, so anything you paid not to have flaws that are viewable only through a loop is wasted. And once you put a diamond in a ring you will never again be able to see the difference between D and F color, because it was only because the sales person put the D next to the F in bright light with no other color around them that you could see it in the first place. Meanwhile a D colored diamond costs about 150% of the same size/quality F colored diamond. If you go to G color you would pay 200% to get a D colored diamond.

The key is to find a beautiful diamond, not one that meets some abstract notions of perfection, which may make you feel good inside but don't make the stone any prettier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those of you with the big rocks -- do you wear them all the time? If you're in shorts and sneakers to help out at the school fair, are you wearing your engagement ring?

I had a couple of friends in grad school who dressed as schlumpily as the rest of us -- jeans and sneakers/Birkies -- but had big old diamond rings. It always seemed uncongruous to me (but I'm fashion-impaired).

Mine is 2.7 carats and yes I wear it all the time (and I dress prettly schlumpily most of the time when I'm not working). There's no way I'm going to mess around with putting it on and taking it off to match my outfit--that's a sure way to lose it. Also I live in the city and I'm not comfortable just leaving it in my house. I don't think of it as a fashion accessory, it's really more like a part of me. I know some people think it gets in the way but I haven't really had that experience. Maybe it would be different if I had 4+ carats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anonymity allows me to brag:

My wife's ring is just over 3 carats. Her ring size is a 4.5, so she has pretty small hands, but it is gorgeous and she wears it every day and gets complimented on all the time. The key to a beautiful ring with a large stone is that you have to take the size of the stone and the size of the woman's hand into consideration when you choose a setting. The traditional solitaire setting (yes, platinum is trendy lately) puts the stone on a shelf to emphasize it and make it appear bigger. For a 1 carat diamond that's fine, but a 2+ carat diamond doesn't need the extra emphasis, and in a traditional setting would look very big and get caught on things.

So if you're going to go large, you have to take some time to find the right setting to go with the ring. I had a custom setting made that I rejected because it buried the diamond too much, and ultimately chose a designer setting that complimented the stone perfectly. Later I saw this same setting on the cover of a bride's magazine.

So no, 4 carats is not too big to have a beautiful ring if you take the time to get a setting that compliments the ring and the wearer's hand. And if you can afford to pay for 4 carats, you can also afford not to skimp on the setting.

Props to you. I believe wholeheartedly in same-sex marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:* "Flawless" diamonds and diamonds with perfect color really aren't worth the money. After you take delivery of the ring nobody will ever look at your diamond through a loop again, so anything you paid not to have flaws that are viewable only through a loop is wasted. And once you put a diamond in a ring you will never again be able to see the difference between D and F color, because it was only because the sales person put the D next to the F in bright light with no other color around them that you could see it in the first place. Meanwhile a D colored diamond costs about 150% of the same size/quality F colored diamond. If you go to G color you would pay 200% to get a D colored diamond.

The key is to find a beautiful diamond, not one that meets some abstract notions of perfection, which may make you feel good inside but don't make the stone any prettier.

I agree with this. Not sure why folks would pay so much more for an IF, VVS or really anything above a VS2 when the flaws aren't visible to the naked eye anyway. To me the most important thing is a really great cut, since this is what makes diamonds truly sparkle.

[Anonymous]

I don't even know where my ring is anymore but 12 years into this marriage I still love the man that gave it to me. The ring is just stuff. Nice to have if it gives you pleasure, but if it is just an empty symbol, who cares if it is the Hope Diamond?

[Anonymous]

Mine is 1.32 carats and my finger is a size 6. It's big enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would be worried about a guy who spent that much $$$ on an engagement ring. Just as I would never have dated a guy who spent too much money on a car. Just my priorities.

I don't think spending $10K on a ring if a guy makes $200K is too much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be worried about a guy who spent that much $$$ on an engagement ring. Just as I would never have dated a guy who spent too much money on a car. Just my priorities.

I don't think spending $10K on a ring if a guy makes $200K is too much.

I'm pretty sure you can't buy a 4 carat diamond for 10K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anonymity allows me to brag:

My wife's ring is just over 3 carats. Her ring size is a 4.5, so she has pretty small hands, but it is gorgeous and she wears it every day and gets complimented on all the time. The key to a beautiful ring with a large stone is that you have to take the size of the stone and the size of the woman's hand into consideration when you choose a setting. The traditional solitaire setting (yes, platinum is trendy lately) puts the stone on a shelf to emphasize it and make it appear bigger. For a 1 carat diamond that's fine, but a 2+ carat diamond doesn't need the extra emphasis, and in a traditional setting would look very big and get caught on things.

So if you're going to go large, you have to take some time to find the right setting to go with the ring. I had a custom setting made that I rejected because it buried the diamond too much, and ultimately chose a designer setting that complimented the stone perfectly. Later I saw this same setting on the cover of a bride's magazine.

So no, 4 carats is not too big to have a beautiful ring if you take the time to get a setting that compliments the ring and the wearer's hand. And if you can afford to pay for 4 carats, you can also afford not to skimp on the setting.

This guy is right on. Set well, a 3ct stone is not gaudy or ostentatious. Also agree with the next poster - no point in paying for a D, IF ring - a F VVSI1 or 2 is still great quality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't even know where my ring is anymore but 12 years into this marriage I still love the man that gave it to me. The ring is just stuff. Nice to have if it gives you pleasure, but if it is just an empty symbol, who cares if it is the Hope Diamond?

I like this post, the only non-materialistic one. Some of the other posters sound like they married a ring, not a man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't even know where my ring is anymore but 12 years into this marriage I still love the man that gave it to me. The ring is just stuff. Nice to have if it gives you pleasure, but if it is just an empty symbol, who cares if it is the Hope Diamond?

I like this post, the only non-materialistic one. Some of the other posters sound like they married a ring, not a man.

The post was about rings, not marriages. Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those of you with the big rocks -- do you wear them all the time? If you're in shorts and sneakers to help out at the school fair, are you wearing your engagement ring?

I had a couple of friends in grad school who dressed as schlumpily as the rest of us -- jeans and sneakers/Birkies -- but had big old diamond rings. It always seemed uncongruous to me (but I'm fashion-impaired).

Not sure I qualify as part of the big rocks crowd, but here is my take: I have a one carat center stone engagement ring, with baguettes on the side, along with a matching wedding band and anniversary band that I wear on my left hand. On my right hand, I have a 2 carat center stone, .75 carat side stones ring (the much-maligned "push present," but I didn't know it was called that then since I didn't get on DCUM until much later). I wear them everywhere and for everything, except painting. I don't try to match them with my outfit. I just never take them off. It's sort of like a PP said about color, flawlessness, etc. They are just my rings. I don't even think about it. They are also the only really nice jewelry I have. The next nicest things I have are the teeny diamond earrings my parents gave me when I graduated from high school. After looking at starter earrings for my ten year old, I realized I could just give them to her because they were the same size. That's what she is getting for her next birthday, along with her ears pierced. Maybe for our 50th anniversary I can get DH to get me some diamond earrings.