Which will look smaller? 2ct round solitaire or 1.5 ct round with halo?

posted 3 years ago in Rings
Post # 3
Member
489 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: January 2015

@Ahowe07:  I think it depends on the setting, but my guess would be the halo would appear larger.  I think halos accentuate center stones better than solitaires (solitaires look like “all prongs” to me, even when the stone is large) but either way the ring will be decently sized.  It also depends on the size of the stones in the halo.  

Post # 4
Member
1992 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: March 2014

@Ahowe07:  What size ring do you wear? I have a 2.4 carat solitaire and I can share pics if our ring sizes are close. It might help you decide.

Post # 5
Member
679 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: October 2014

When I was looking at rings I found the halos, even with a smaller center stone, looked larger than solitaires.

Post # 7
Member
6812 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: June 2014

I think the halo will look bigger, but it will also look like a halo.

You should really account for shrinkage. I have a 2ct center stone and a 6.5 ring and I think it’s a great size. But, I also like larger stones in general.

Post # 8
Member
2738 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: August 2012

A 1.5 ct is around 7.4 mm side, while a 2 ct stone is around 8.2 mm. Depending on the size of the stones in the halo, your 1.5 ct halo might look bigger or not. Personnaly, I find a smaller stone set in a halo looks more elegant than the equivalent in a single stone, especially in the 2ct range. I like large finger covering but not with a single stone. An embellished stone is more beautiful for my taste. 

My floral double halo spans 10mm across and I loooove it!!! On the other hand, I have a cz for fun that is 3ct equivalent, and it spans 9mm across. I would never be comfortable wearing such a huge stone, yet it is smaller than my halo ring. 

Post # 9
Member
1864 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: March 2014

If you are getting a 2 ct. ring, I would def stick with that! Even a 1.5 solitare is nice on it’s own. I’m not a big fan of halos on large stones because they take away, I think, the beauty of the stone. 

Which will look bigger? Depending on the size of the halo.. 

Post # 10
Member
7262 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: February 2013

The halo will probably look more “extravagant” because the small stones will add more sparkle.

Post # 11
Hostess
2920 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: April 2014

I will vote for the halo.  I have a 1.5 round brillant center with cushion halo.  I think it looks great if I do say so myself 🙂

3.5 tcw with the halo

 

 

Post # 12
Member
1170 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: July 2002

I think both will look big, but the halo will look biggest from a distance.  

Post # 13
Member
3112 posts
Sugar bee

@Ahowe07:  A 1.5 with halo will look large.  Here’s a 1ct with halo on my size 6.5 finger.  This is a cheap RHR, but you get the idea.

ETA and to compare, here’s another cheap RHR, this time a 2ct solitaire.

Post # 14
Member
3617 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: February 2009

The halo will look larger.  Even if you used half pointer, they are .7mm each side, plus setting, so you 7.5mm 1.5ct will wnd up with 9mm total coverage, minimum.  The 2ct is 8mm-ish.  I would get the sol.  I think 2ct is a fab size.  My guess is you will get used to it in a week, lol.

Post # 15
Member
124 posts
Blushing bee

Between the two rings ceebree posted, I think the solitare looks more extravagant 

Leave a comment


Sent weekly. You may unsubscribe at any time.

Find Amazing Vendors