(Closed) Finger Coverage – Whats it to you?

posted 6 years ago in Rings
Post # 3
1613 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: August 2014

@DaniDev143:  I wanted full knuckle to knuckle coverage…it was a requirement! Lol! If we were in a different position, I don’t know that I could bring myself to sacrifice the quality of my ring. It would be tempting, but I feel like a small diamond that’s perfect is better then a larger flawed one that could be feathered & break! I’d prolly just buy mortrying a over time & stack then!

Post # 4
298 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: September 2014 - White Point Garden, Charleston, SC

I really don’t care what some chart says I should have. I have a .40 round solitaire on a 4.5 finger. Looks just fine to me, but the charts always list it as too small. 

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

I had never heard of the concept of finger coverage before coming to the bee. I didn’t even have a carat size in mind when we went shopping. When I found the ring I like I didn’t even bother looking at the size because I didn’t care- I just knew I wanted that ring. So no, I guess finger coverage wasn’t important to me.

I don’t think wanting a large ring makes you superficial depending on your reason. If you want one because you like the way it looks than I absolutely don’t think that’s  superficial- we all have different tastes. I would find it a bit  superficial if you wanted a large ring to show off how much money you have or if you want it as a status symbol.

Post # 7
6354 posts
Bee Keeper

“the chart” is just what some random poster on pricescope put together, hardly gospel.

I guess I had it in an uncommon way. Fiance and I were not familiar with the actual sizes of various carat weights when we first started looking. He went in with an estimated carat weight, based I think on what a friend told him he got his wife… and I tried it on and it looked preposterous, like a child’s dress-up ring. That was definitely “too much” coverage.

There’s also a picture I saw on the bee of Kim K wearing a round diamond on her pinky, going a little askew, and it looked for all the world like a big ole white wart… seriously it looked so gross that I still remember that picture. That would be, IMO, another example of “over-coverage.”

Personally I like dainty diamonds on women, it highlights their feminine daintiness themselves. Mine’s more in the middle but I like the look of smaller rings as well (and my diamond earrings are small and perfect for me. They sparkle and flash like all get-out while still being dainty… kinda ethereal). Diamonds (good ones anyway) are so alive and flash around so much, it has to get pretty darn small (I’m talking melee small) for it not to have a lot of presence. I think there’s a higher risk in overdoing it than underdoing it.

Post # 8
8575 posts
Bumble Beekeeper
  • Wedding: October 2014

I wear a size 9, so having a super delicate, tiny ring would just look horrible on me, so yeah, it mattered somewhat. But it’s not like I have a huge rock or anything, my ring is a composite and it cost under $500.

Post # 9
266 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: September 2014

@DaniDev143:  Yep, coverage was a thing for me.  I wasn’t completely crazy about it, and still wanted a quality stone, but I said I’d take a lesser quality for bigger size because I wanted it to look “right” on my finger.  To me, that meant to take up half my finger.  I didn’t think I was asking for too much. Lol

Post # 10
7200 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: October 2015

@DaniDev143:  I have short size 8 fingers and didn’t want my fingers to look super wide compared to my stone. On the other hand, I didn’t want to have a huge “please come kill me and chop off my finger” looking stone either! My Fiance ended up choosing a 1.1 equivalent moissy in a large white gold (not blinged out) setting. Best of both worlds for me! 

Post # 11
185 posts
Blushing bee
  • Wedding: May 2014

i chose quality over quantity. At the end of the day in my opinion a big yellow ring is sort of a sore eye.

Post # 12
1425 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: August 2013 - Rosehill Community Center

I was more concerned about band.  My ring finger is like an 8.75, and while the stone I have is just over .5 cts, I wanted to make sure I got a band that wasn’t a dainty little single band that would make my hand look huge.  I ended up with one that has like, 4 small bands intertwined, so while the overall carats is pretty low still, it has a presence on my finger.

Post # 13
507 posts
Busy bee

I think it is a bit off…I have a size 6 finger and a 2.86 ct peach sapphire. Due to the cut, the ring sits high (not so high it snags but the weight is really in the height of the stone) and it looks like a carat or a carat and a half of some other cuts when you look down. Prettiest thing-but very much defies the ring chart.Looks closer to 40% finger coverage rather than 60%

Post # 14
1213 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: September 2014

@DaniDev143:  I knew from the beginning I didn’t want a diamond, so the stone size has never really been an issue because I know he can afford moissanite in the size I would like. When I originally wanted citrine it was even LESS of an issue because it’r rare to find a really small citrine in an engagement ring style setting.

If it was an issue though for whatever reason, I wouldn’t care what size. I’d still want to like the setting and have the cut I prefer. Honestly though, I’d wear anything this man bought for me because I love him, and he is amazing. Sure would I prefer to have something that is my taste, yes, and luckily for me he has asked my opinions. BUT if he had just gone out and bought me a tiny diamond I would have worn it with pride even if I hated it.

Last year for Christmas (2012) he got me a claddagh ring that was really big and I didn’t relaly love it at first. After a few weeks it grew on me, and now if anything happened to it I’d be devasated. I realized the love for it was because he picked it our for me because it means something.

Post # 15
879 posts
Busy bee

Finger coverage was important to me, I’ll come out and say it. I played water polo growing up so I have huge palms (about as big as my 6’5″ fiance and I’m 5’9″), and kinda thick long fingers. But like PP mentioned, it wasn’t the stone that mattered to me, it was the band. I got a split shank so it wouldn’t be this tiny 2mm band on my huge hand. Then I got a halo to increase coverage. The stone never came into discussion. 

Post # 16
1299 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: August 2015

I did not care at all.  I wanted a classic design that fit my taste/personality.  The rest was up to Fiance and his budget.  My finger is 5/5.5 and my diamond is around .75 (can’t remember exactly), but the most important thing is what it represents.

The topic ‘Finger Coverage – Whats it to you?’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors