Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1.5 is better unless she has large hands. If it is too big relative to the size of her finger it will look tacky regardless of the quality.

+1. I’m tall and have long fingers. One carat looked ridiculous. I have a 3 carat ring and it looks proportionate and not tacky at all.

Thank you for my laugh of the day

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I’ve asked her best friend and she told me my girlfriend wants a round diamond. She wants something classic and that will not go out of style. I think I will do a 2 ct. with a solitaire band and then leave a pave setting for a wedding ring.

Sounds perfect. Congratulations.

OP here. I’ve asked her best friend and she told me my girlfriend wants a round diamond. She wants something classic and that will not go out of style. I think I will do a 2 ct. with a solitaire band and then leave a pave setting for a wedding ring.

Anonymous wrote:So hard to say. My engagement ring was just over 2. When I got it in my 20s, I wore it all the time. 25 yrs later it just sits in my jewelry box. I haven't worn it since the kids were born.

Sad he deserves better

THis what you need, my friend. Nobody cares about fluorescence, btw:

https://www.ritani.com/collections/round-cut-diamond/products/1-93-carat-round-diamond-d-1l2ku81lxr?variant=34570885300269

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I am looking on Blue Nile. I found a 1.5 ct. F, IF, and ideal cut. No fluorescence. I found a 2 ct. F, VV2, ideal cut. Faint fluorescence. Which one would be better?

The 2 without a doubt. F VVS2 Ideal is a high quality diamond.

There's no reason to do a VVS2 over a VS. Nobody in this lifetime will ever notice the difference even if they stick it right into their eyeball.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My petit friend was a bit embarrassed by the (large) size of her engagement ring. So she claims it’s hard to wear in her job as a doctor and just parked it in a safety deposit box and only wears her wedding band. This is a very personal decision so make sure you know what your partner prefers. I, personally, would never want anything larger than 1.5 carats, but many would love a 2 carat diamond.

NP. That is why you always shop for rings together. The surprise of a ring isn't worthwhile if the recipient really can't wear it or has to pretend to like it when she would have preferred something different (and more wearable). OP, if you want her to love the ring and wear it for life, involve her in choosing it.

X1,000 At least get the opinion of her best friend or sister. Lots of women out there wearing rings they really don’t like. You don’t want your future wife to be one of those.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think 2 is very generous. My DH got me a 1 and it is 20 years later and I think we will now update it to a 2 (maybe not a diamond but another gem). Why?

1 (or even smaller but 1 for him was important so he did it) looks great on young women. But I am old -- wrinkled, grey hair, flabby, you name it. Well, 1 looks puny and weird on me. So I now often don't wear it at all, because it looks out of place -- almost like a play ring -- when in professional settings. A 2 (or maybe a 3) would look more right -- even if it was not a diamond but was an emerald, ruby, or sapphire. I don't know how to explain it but I noticed it on other women too -- dainty looks better on younger women and something with substance looks better on older women.

With that said, I think a 2 will last forever and won't need the older woman update. On the other hand, I do not think a 2 (versus a 1 or 1.5) is necessary. But if you are spending the same amount of money either way, and they visibly look the same quality to the naked eye, 2 is best.

I agree with this. I have seen a few older women who wear their original wedding bands on their left hand and then some big sparkler- usually not a diamond, a kickass sapphire or something- that was their upgrade they wear on their right hand. I dig the look. I tend to think the left hand is like "this is when I got married" and the right is "and THIS is when I made partner!" but it could also be "and 20 years later, I wear this instead of the token diamond." If you're going with a diamond, I would definitely go with the 2 ct as I agree the smaller doesn't age as well.

I've noticed the right hand emerald is popular in some circles and it looks great on stylish older women--it is sophisticated but brings a lot of vibrancy because of that color. Remember how good the emerald looked on michelle yeoh in crazy rich asians?

SOOO good! I've seen more of the right hand sapphire, I think mostly because it is a harder and more durable stone, but I love the emeralds too!

That's true, though the affluent older ladies who wear these rings aren't really abusing their rings much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think 2 is very generous. My DH got me a 1 and it is 20 years later and I think we will now update it to a 2 (maybe not a diamond but another gem). Why?

1 (or even smaller but 1 for him was important so he did it) looks great on young women. But I am old -- wrinkled, grey hair, flabby, you name it. Well, 1 looks puny and weird on me. So I now often don't wear it at all, because it looks out of place -- almost like a play ring -- when in professional settings. A 2 (or maybe a 3) would look more right -- even if it was not a diamond but was an emerald, ruby, or sapphire. I don't know how to explain it but I noticed it on other women too -- dainty looks better on younger women and something with substance looks better on older women.

With that said, I think a 2 will last forever and won't need the older woman update. On the other hand, I do not think a 2 (versus a 1 or 1.5) is necessary. But if you are spending the same amount of money either way, and they visibly look the same quality to the naked eye, 2 is best.

I agree with this. I have seen a few older women who wear their original wedding bands on their left hand and then some big sparkler- usually not a diamond, a kickass sapphire or something- that was their upgrade they wear on their right hand. I dig the look. I tend to think the left hand is like "this is when I got married" and the right is "and THIS is when I made partner!" but it could also be "and 20 years later, I wear this instead of the token diamond." If you're going with a diamond, I would definitely go with the 2 ct as I agree the smaller doesn't age as well.

I've noticed the right hand emerald is popular in some circles and it looks great on stylish older women--it is sophisticated but brings a lot of vibrancy because of that color. Remember how good the emerald looked on michelle yeoh in crazy rich asians?

SOOO good! I've seen more of the right hand sapphire, I think mostly because it is a harder and more durable stone, but I love the emeralds too!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think 2 is very generous. My DH got me a 1 and it is 20 years later and I think we will now update it to a 2 (maybe not a diamond but another gem). Why?

1 (or even smaller but 1 for him was important so he did it) looks great on young women. But I am old -- wrinkled, grey hair, flabby, you name it. Well, 1 looks puny and weird on me. So I now often don't wear it at all, because it looks out of place -- almost like a play ring -- when in professional settings. A 2 (or maybe a 3) would look more right -- even if it was not a diamond but was an emerald, ruby, or sapphire. I don't know how to explain it but I noticed it on other women too -- dainty looks better on younger women and something with substance looks better on older women.

With that said, I think a 2 will last forever and won't need the older woman update. On the other hand, I do not think a 2 (versus a 1 or 1.5) is necessary. But if you are spending the same amount of money either way, and they visibly look the same quality to the naked eye, 2 is best.

I agree with this. I have seen a few older women who wear their original wedding bands on their left hand and then some big sparkler- usually not a diamond, a kickass sapphire or something- that was their upgrade they wear on their right hand. I dig the look. I tend to think the left hand is like "this is when I got married" and the right is "and THIS is when I made partner!" but it could also be "and 20 years later, I wear this instead of the token diamond." If you're going with a diamond, I would definitely go with the 2 ct as I agree the smaller doesn't age as well.

I've noticed the right hand emerald is popular in some circles and it looks great on stylish older women--it is sophisticated but brings a lot of vibrancy because of that color. Remember how good the emerald looked on michelle yeoh in crazy rich asians?

Anonymous wrote:I think 2 is very generous. My DH got me a 1 and it is 20 years later and I think we will now update it to a 2 (maybe not a diamond but another gem). Why?

1 (or even smaller but 1 for him was important so he did it) looks great on young women. But I am old -- wrinkled, grey hair, flabby, you name it. Well, 1 looks puny and weird on me. So I now often don't wear it at all, because it looks out of place -- almost like a play ring -- when in professional settings. A 2 (or maybe a 3) would look more right -- even if it was not a diamond but was an emerald, ruby, or sapphire. I don't know how to explain it but I noticed it on other women too -- dainty looks better on younger women and something with substance looks better on older women.

With that said, I think a 2 will last forever and won't need the older woman update. On the other hand, I do not think a 2 (versus a 1 or 1.5) is necessary. But if you are spending the same amount of money either way, and they visibly look the same quality to the naked eye, 2 is best.

I agree with this. I have seen a few older women who wear their original wedding bands on their left hand and then some big sparkler- usually not a diamond, a kickass sapphire or something- that was their upgrade they wear on their right hand. I dig the look. I tend to think the left hand is like "this is when I got married" and the right is "and THIS is when I made partner!" but it could also be "and 20 years later, I wear this instead of the token diamond." If you're going with a diamond, I would definitely go with the 2 ct as I agree the smaller doesn't age as well.

I think 2 is very generous. My DH got me a 1 and it is 20 years later and I think we will now update it to a 2 (maybe not a diamond but another gem). Why?

1 (or even smaller but 1 for him was important so he did it) looks great on young women. But I am old -- wrinkled, grey hair, flabby, you name it. Well, 1 looks puny and weird on me. So I now often don't wear it at all, because it looks out of place -- almost like a play ring -- when in professional settings. A 2 (or maybe a 3) would look more right -- even if it was not a diamond but was an emerald, ruby, or sapphire. I don't know how to explain it but I noticed it on other women too -- dainty looks better on younger women and something with substance looks better on older women.

With that said, I think a 2 will last forever and won't need the older woman update. On the other hand, I do not think a 2 (versus a 1 or 1.5) is necessary. But if you are spending the same amount of money either way, and they visibly look the same quality to the naked eye, 2 is best.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I just say I'm super jealous of OP's gf? I didn't even get a ring. Blows my mind there are men who actually put thought and research into picking one out.

Ummm I'm pretty sure 99% or men put thought and research into this. Why did you say yes if you think your husband doesn't put in effort?

I was young and dumb. Wanted to be the low-maintenance 'cool girl' because I thought I'd land a better guy that way.

Are you still married?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My petit friend was a bit embarrassed by the (large) size of her engagement ring. So she claims it’s hard to wear in her job as a doctor and just parked it in a safety deposit box and only wears her wedding band. This is a very personal decision so make sure you know what your partner prefers. I, personally, would never want anything larger than 1.5 carats, but many would love a 2 carat diamond.

NP. That is why you always shop for rings together. The surprise of a ring isn't worthwhile if the recipient really can't wear it or has to pretend to like it when she would have preferred something different (and more wearable). OP, if you want her to love the ring and wear it for life, involve her in choosing it.

THIS! What if she's like me and wouldn't even want a diamond solitaire? Do you know she's not a ruby/sapphire/emerald etc. woman?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it depends on her personality. Is she showy, loves designer clothes, likes to show off status? Go with the bigger ring. Is she more modest, frugal, and doesn't buy lavish things for herself? Then I'd go with the smaller stone.

I have a 1.5 carat ring, which I love... but as a lady who likes flashy things, I wouldn't have minded a bigger ring at all. I have friends who are more modest and would be horrified by ostentatious bling. If you're really not sure, then 1.5 is a good size because it's large but not one would ever think it's flashy. 2 carats crosses the line and will garner attention - women will always either be noticing and commenting on how beautiful her ring is, or raising their eyebrows because they think it's tacky and nouveau riche.

Well said

Can upgrade on an anniversary or last child.