Less Than 2mm Band for Engagement Ring – Too Thin and Fragile?

posted 6 years ago in Rings
Post # 3
Member
62 posts
Worker bee
  • Wedding: August 2012

Absolutely not! I have a 1.3mm pave setting band all around and its wonderful!. Since this one is a solid band, it’ll hold really well!

Post # 4
Member
7312 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: October 2011 - Bed & Breakfast

Nah, unless you get it in silver, which wears away very quickly. But in a metal like platinum or something, there’s no need to worry.

Post # 5
Member
2164 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: September 2014

My band is a 2mm, and I feel like it’s VERY VERY thin and dainty. It’s platinum, so I know it’s strong, but I tried on smaller bands and thought they looked so thin that they looked very cheap….I wouldn’t go under 2mm. The size of your fingers will probably make a difference, I was sized for 6..75-7, so mine are a little stubbier, but my girlfriends tried my ring on, with size 4.5 fingers, and it still looked very thin. Best to try it on and see. For reference, here’s my 2 mm band 

Post # 6
Member
5011 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: April 2012

My e-ring is less than 1.5mm (down to around 1mm near the gallery) and it’s 65 years old with absolutely no damage to the shank. I really wouldn’t worry.

Post # 7
Member
62 posts
Worker bee
  • Wedding: August 2012

I do agree that the mm depends on your hands, but I DISAGREE with anything less than 2mm is cheap.

Here’s a picture of my “cheap” 1.3mm engagment ring

 

Post # 8
Member
1529 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: December 2013

i dont know how thin mine is bt its pretty thin and i love it.

Post # 9
Member
5011 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: April 2012

I think it flatters a stone more when you have a slim band, again just a personal opinion.

Post # 10
Member
2164 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: September 2014

Didn’t say anything less than 2mm IS cheap, said I thought it LOOKED cheap to me, but that it also depends on the size of your fingers. The difference in mm of the band has minimal price differences, so going with a 1.8 or something doesn’t mean you have a cheap ring, just that the band can look flimsy. Yikes.

Post # 11
Member
57 posts
Worker bee
  • Wedding: June 2012

@PuppyLove7:  My band is super thin, but I love it. I have really skinny fingers so anything larger just looked gaudy. I say go for it if you like the ring!!

Post # 12
Member
3720 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: July 2013

I have a 1.5 mm on size 5 finger. I don’t think it looks too frail. I’ve gotten tons of complements from strangers that it looks feminine and it really allows the diamond to pop. It has never been too thin for my ring to spin or for me to worry.

  

Post # 13
Member
5011 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: April 2012

@WhatMaeBee: Every antique ring I’ve seen has a slim band and they’re usually a much lighter weight than modern ones. I wouldn’t say they looked cheap.

Post # 14
Member
2164 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: September 2014

I love thin bands, always have, and always wanted one. I was beyond shocked and didn’t believe the jeweler when I saw that the one I wanted was 2mm…I think my 2mm is very thin, I guess that’s why I can’t even imagine going thinner. I totally agree thin bands with just a solitaire showcase the diamond like crazy! 

Post # 15
Member
2207 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: June 2014

@SpecialSundae:  i adore your ring!

@Nextvie:  so gorgeous!!

@PuppyLove7:  i love the setting you’re thinking about. i personally love thin, dainty bands! the ring we ordered (i don’t get to wear it yet…) is 1.8mm!

Post # 16
Member
4887 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: May 2012

@SpecialSundae:  I dont know that I’ve ever seen your ring but it seriously just gave me a she-boner.  That thing is gorgeous!!

Leave a comment


Find Amazing Vendors