Post # 77
I had never heard of finger coverage and if I had said something like needing it to my then SO (now husband) he would have laughed. No – it wasn’t/isn’t important to me. I didn’t even want a ering let alone a diamond before we got engaged.
Post # 78
@DaniDev143: I never heard the term “finger coverage” until I came here and I find the entire concept kind of silly.
I admit – I get irritated by the “is my ring too big/small?” posts. Too big or small for what, exactly?
Post # 79
I have small hands so I did not want my ring to take over my finger at all. My Fiance knew I didn’t want something that engulfed my finger and I think he did well. 🙂
In fact when I went with a girlfriend to get sized for rings and see what I liked the sales person at International Diamond Center and Jarod thought I was crazy for saying I wanted less than a carrot and not too blinggy.
Post # 80
I didn’t know finger coverage was a term before joining the Bee, but I did definitely consider that when we were shopping for rings. Our choices came down to a 1 carat solitaire and a .5 carat center-stone with point diamonds in filligree settings around it, and because the diamonds were more spread out with the second pick and covered more of my finger, we went with that one.
Post # 82
Finger coverage was not really a deciding factor for my ring. I knew we wanted to stick around 2 carats because we did not want to compromise on quality of color, cut, and clarity.
Post # 83
@DaniDev143: I knew about finger coverage but it wasn’t a deciding factor for me. Fiance proposed with a 2 carat triple ex diamond but personally on my 5.5 finger it was way too big. I see bees with similar finger sizes and ring stats and their rings look great on their hands. Still, I felt it looked like a cocktail ring on my hand. According to the finger coverage charts 2 carats was in range, especially because I like my rings a little big (5.75 or 6) to accomodate swelling. I also didn’t want a diamond. For my new ring we’re switching to a 1 ct moissy. I think the .90 to 1.5 range gives me exactly what I want in terms of coverage.
In terms of quality vs quantity, I have some flexiblity with that. I would not get a much smaller stone than I wanted with perfect specs over a stone closer to the size I wanted with very good specs. But I would get a smaller stone with very good specs over a larger stone with horrible specs. If I were getting a diamond and was concerned with getting the best bang for my buck I would go to price scope and get them to help me find the perfect stone for my desires and budget.
Post # 83
I love this thread! Finger coverage was never something I really thought about, I have short fingers, so theyre easy to cover. Lol. I will say that I LOVE big rings, the more halos the better, but only if the center stone doesnt look swallowed by the halo. I also love the simple beauty of a solitaire. Its never really been about getting knuckle to knuckle covered in sparkle, but I wouldnt ever complain about that. I dont think big rings are showing off or flashy unless you are constantly shoving your finger in peoples faces. If you love bling, you love bling. Lol
Post # 84
The chart to me is more to get an idea of what size you like. If someone with a size 4 is rocking a one carat and you love how it looks, but you are a size 8, you can see about what size stone would look the same. If you have giant hands and like tiny stones or tiny hand and like giant stones that’s fine. There is no perfect ratio!
Post # 85
I didn’t know it was called finger coverage. I just knew that I hated the look of a tiny diamond ring. I’ve always been baffled by my friends choice to buy a tiny diamond ring instead of a nice sized gemstone ring. It’s never been about the budget being too small, but I detest small rings.
Post # 86
I’ve never heard of finger coverage till the bee. I have realized that I love the look of a big ring. So when picking my setting this was something I considered.