posted 5 years ago in Rings
Post # 2
707 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: October 2016

View original reply
beefabulous:  a 2ct stone with a halo by no means will ever look “small”

Post # 3
1697 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: May 2016

I vote single, just because I personally do not like look of double halos. 

Post # 4
1610 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: October 2014 - Cape May

I would say single halo, but perhaps look for a halo with larger mele such as a Daussi inspired halo. This would allow for more finger presence without looking busy or competing with your center stone. Perhaps the halos you’ve tried were very dainty.

Post # 5
7425 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: February 2013

Single. Double halos usually look overkill to me.

Post # 6
193 posts
Blushing bee
  • Wedding: October 2004


Post # 7
1908 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: February 2015

Finger coverage can be overrated. I think a 1.60 ct diamond is substantial enough on its own, so a double halo would be overkill IMO. To me, the point of a halo is to accentuate the diamond while providing more sparkle, not to overpower it.

Post # 8
4053 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: November 2014

I have a hard time believing a 2ct halo looks tiny on anyone. 

Post # 9
1598 posts
Bumble bee

View original reply
beefabulous:  Single. A double would be too much. A 1.5-2ct is by no means small, even as a solitaire and on the bigger hand. I have a 1.5 Amora gem as a solitaire and have a 8.75 hand so I really can’t see a size 6 hand with a 2ct looking small. A double will look over the top and will take away from the main stone.

Post # 10
64 posts
Worker bee

My vote is definitely single. However, you should go with whatever makes you feel the best! If finger coverage is what you’re looking for then rock the double with pride. I do have a hard time believing that a 2ct would look tiny on anyone! But it is definitely all about perspective, maybe take some pictures with both on from a distance and see how it looks. Good luck! 

Post # 11
295 posts
Helper bee

I’d  veer away from anything halo. It is a very time specific look. Get something classic that doesn’t say, 2000-2016.

Post # 12
561 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: August 2016 - Temecula, California

What shape are you getting?  I have a 2ct oval in a single halo and I think it gives me lots of coverage for a 4.75 size. A double halo could look really nice too!

Post # 13
929 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: May 2017

Not a fan of halos..I feel they are trendy and time specific like another poster said unless it is super dainty letting the center stone shine. 1.6 alone on a 6 finger is not small in the slightest. If you want a halo, go for a single and veer on the daintier side vs chunky.  I can see a double being overkill. I recently tried on a double halo for kicks but the center stone was probably half a carat and holy moly I felt like I was wearing a bauble ring. 

Post # 14
1221 posts
Bumble bee

Hey – your finger, your ring – not anyone else’s! So if others don’t like halos or double halos don’t let them change your opinion. Go for what you like and what works for you. Definitely try on single and double halo styles and take photos! Then you can think about them and compare later without the store pressure. Also – what about an oval stone? (With or without halo) I find they tend to look bigger because they are longer on the finger. Also, don’t forget about bands too – they add finger coverage too.

  • This reply was modified 4 years, 9 months ago by Profile Photo lilredcat. Reason: Added something
Post # 15
587 posts
Busy bee

The topic ‘1.60CT DOUBLE HALO OR SINGLE HALO?’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors