Post # 1
I have fallen in love with the look (and price) of a 1.7 mm 1/2 pave band, but I am worried it will be too thin. I have very slender fingers (between a 5.5 and 5.75 size), so I’m not necessarily worried it will “look bad”, but I am nervous about how it will wear. The stones I’m looking at are around 1.7 carats and I’d also hate for it to be top heavy- if that is possible?
There is another setting that I love as well with a 2.3 mm band, but my dilemma is, one, that I am worried about it looking a little thick on me (but the sparkle is far greater!) and two, the price difference it’s right under $1000 more than the 1.7 mm and I just can’t justify the additional cost.
Please show me how your 1.7 mm or 2.3 ish settings look on your 5.5-5.75 finger! Note the stone size as well! Additionally, I’d love some insight on your experience with a thin band.
Post # 2
- Wedding: November 2019 - City, State
My ring is a 1.9mm band, and I have a size 5 finger. I love my band, I think it’s still thin without being “frail” if that makes sense. My stone is 1.4 carats. Not as large as 1.7, but I don’t get the feeling that mine is top-heavy at all. Sometimes it moves when my fingers are cold, but it’s not annoying. Hope that helps?
Post # 3
I have a much smaller finger (size 3) with a 1.7 mm band and 1.8 carat diamond. It will definitely be top heavy. There is no way to avoid that. Ive found that sizing beads helped with the spinning as does adding in the wedding bands but yeah, for the first year that I wore the engagement ring alone it spun constantly. I’ve never had issues with my band but i definitely recommend looking at something more secure than pave. Mine is shared prong but still really sparkly and doesn’t show much metal so it’s the best of both worlds.
Post # 4
I have about a 1.7mm pave band with a 1.7 carat diamond on a size 5 finger. It is definitely top heavy, but now wearing it with my band seems to help. I also think I could go down about a quarter of a size but then it would be hard to get on and off! And I do take it off to shower and workout because it seems pretty delicate!
Post # 5
- Wedding: October 2019 - City, State
I have a 2.1mm band on size 5.5 (probably finger 5.25 but I don’t like tight rings) with a 1.7ct diamond. It looks more delicate in person and I like the band to stone size ratio.
Post # 6
I kept telling my boyfriend (now fiance) that I wanted the band as thin as possible. Our jeweler told him that around 1.6-1.7 was the thinnest he could go. At the time I thought that I wanted it even thinner but now that I actually have it on my finger it is way dantier/thinner than I thought it would be and I am kind of nervous that I will damage it. For reference I am a size 4 finger with a 1.6mm band and a 1.51 carat diamond. However it does fit like a glove so I haven’t had any problems with spinning so far!
Post # 7
My e-ring is a plain 1.8mm band (with a softened knife edge, so it appears thinner) and my diamond is 1.85 ct on a size 5.5 finger. My ring doesn’t feel or appear “top heavy” IMO and doesn’t spin very much at all (despite being sized slightly larger to accomodate my knuckle), but I had my diamond is set low, so that clould help.
The band I am wearing in this pic (I have a few I switch between or stack) is either 1.7 or 1.8mm with pave diamonds, which I understand is about as thin as most jewelers like to go with pave since the structure of the ring can be compromised. Keep in mind that at 1.7-1.8mm, the pave diamonds are very small and don’t really “do” a whole lot except under the right lighting. So if you are concerned about durability or want more showy pave, you may want to go wider.
Post # 8
Y’all, I am dying over these rings!!! They are all so gorgeous, ugh! Thanks so much for sharing!
hickoryhills : That definitely makes sense, yes! I am in love with the contrast of the plain band and gorgeous stone!
littleanchor : That is great to know! I love the look of pave, but can’t help but be slightly weary. I definitely need to really think about some other settings, but there’s always something missing (ie it’s pave, but thin or its thick, but not 6 prong like I prefer) I know I could do something custom, but I just don’t really care to put in the effort for whatever reason. I bet your ring looks so lovely at that size on your slim finger!
sollyb : My dream ring is very similar to yours! Good to know the band helps! I think I am going to have the same problem with sizing as I am slightly between a 5.75 and 5.5, but we’ll see! With such a thin band, do you find that you notice the pave sparkling or?
wedding2020 : Hoping I don’t have a huge issue with spinng, but as I said above, I am in between sizes. I’ve seen a lot of settings around 1.4 mm and I just can’t imagine having my band that thin! Would love to see your ring!
vestedbee : I love that soft knife edge, wow! That is a great point with the size of the pave diamonds- making me think a bit.
Post # 9
eminthedistrict : I totally agree- the band to diamond ratio is perfect. I love that you can see the pave diamonds a bit better than a slightly thinner band. Stunning ring!
Post # 10
So you have to consider – 1.7mm is thin, but 1.7 pave means that there is metal cut out of that 1.7 mm. That makes it even weaker. If you’re going to baby your ring then maybe look at it. But if you’re rough or want to wear it 24/7 maybe go a little wider.
Post # 11
My engagement ring band is 2.1mm and my ring size is 5.5. Center stone is 1.3 j color diamond, si2, xxx and the setting is a 1ct halo and pave
Post # 12
jb1992 : I’m real lazy and my rings are upstairs currently so here is an older picture of just the engaement ring. Honestly, if you looked at it, you’d never know its not pave but its much more secure. It is the best of both worlds in my opinion
Post # 13
heres a picture of of my ring! 🙂
Post # 14
Me personally I would never go smaller than 2mm for a ring for durability.
Post # 15
Mine is 1.8mm with a 1.5 ct stone and I absolutely love the daintiness of it. The smallest my jeweler would make it was around 1.6mm for durability purposes