Post # 1
Hi Ladies! My SO and I are looking at rings, but I can’t decide if the band should be 1.8 or 2 mm micro pave. I’d like the ring to look delicate but well balanced. Would a 1.8 mm band make a 2 carat diamond seem top heavy? I would love to see photos of your rings. Thanks!!
Post # 2
I do not have a ring like this, but I’d strongly recommend the 2mm band. With a stone that large, it won’t be TOO much of a visual different either way (2mm won’t look thick my any means), but the 2mm will be a lot sturdier and hold up to daily wear better 🙂
Post # 3
- Wedding: July 2017 - The Lodge at Little Seneca Creek
I always see people recommending going no less than 2mm because the band might start warping if it’s thinner than that. For reference, I have a 1ct center stone with a 2mm micropave band. I think the contrast is perfect, and my ring looks delicate. If you go with 2ct, you might even want to consider going with a thicker band.
Post # 4
Classic and timeless. Love it.
Post # 5
I have a 1.8 mm band. I love it for my small hands.
Post # 6
I wouldn’t go below 2mm. Actually, I think some jewelers won’t go below that anyway, especially for a bigger stone like a 2ct. You may even want to consider a bit bigger, like a 2.2mm.
Post # 7
I don’t have the ring you’re describing but I have a two Ct equivalent stone on a 2mm band. I think it was a good choice. I really like thin bands and I definitely wanted a delicate look, and I feel like I got that. When the ring was being made I asked for them to make the band as thin as possible for the stone size, and 2mm is what they ended up making it.
Post # 9
Such beauties! Thank you all <3.
Post # 10
You don’t mention the kind of pave, but u-cut, v-cut and french pave all remove A LOT of metal. Bead set pave should be no skinnier than 2.0 mm. The other types (and their kin) need to be 2.2 mm or more is better. This is especially true given the trend for rings to also be thinner (thickness off the finger).