Post # 1
I’m interested to hear different opinions about finger coverage. For those of you who picked out your rings, was finger coverage a factor in your decision? I have a size 7 finger and finger coverage is very important to me. This is why I chose a ring with a halo, and I love it!
Post # 2
- Wedding: November 2019 - City, State
I had never even heard the term “finger coverage” until I came to wedding bee, after I was engaged. Size had very little to do with the ring I chose, and I couldnt care less how my ring size compared to my finger size, I just cared that the ring itself suited my hand.
Post # 3
Not important at all. My focus was finding a ring that suited my hand, not finding a ring that covered as much of my finger as possible.
I don’t understand that logic, even in the slightest.
Post # 4
I don’t think I was looking for “finger coverage” specifically. But I was looking for a ring that looked proportional to my hand. If that makes sense.
Post # 5
As a woman who has rather large fingers, finger coverage for me was important, I have long fingers. Having said that I wasnt responsible for picking out my E-Ring, My Fiance did and he got me a delicate 2mm band with a 1 carat solitaire which I love. My finger did suck up the band, but I remidied it by doing stackable bands and now I have enough coverage and the stackables support my 1 carat cushion cut nicely.
Size 9.5 finger
Post # 6
- Wedding: May 2015 - Walnut Hill Bed & Breakfast
I wanted something that looked dainty but still substantial. My mom always had a spec of a diamond and I stressed about it being too small or too big… i wanted it to be ‘just right’. So i guess my answer is…. yes? I ended up with a 0.5ct which is around 30% coverage. I would have prefered something closer to the .75ct but when it came down to it, it would have been twice the cost and that just didn’t seem ‘worth it’ to us. Maybe someday I’ll get an upgrade.
Post # 7
I, too, was looking for a ring that looked more proportional than anything else… and in the style that I wanted.
Post # 9
Ls413: Not at all important to me. I never notice it on myself or other people
Post # 10
I care, but then again I don’t. I didn’t want something big and clunky, so I opted for a 3-stone ring. It makes the ring look more substantial, rather than just one dot in the middle of my finger (size 6.5) because my center stone isn’t huge (5.2mm).
I think this is part of the reason why halos are so popular, they give you more bang for your buck in terms of how much ‘coverage’ you get.
Post # 11
I guess it is important to me, I like to have around 50% finger coverage for a solitaire. My halo gave me about 70% coverage which i feel is too much for me. My finger is a size 3.5. It’s all about what your comfortable wearing!
Post # 12
not important at all. band width was my biggest concern – thicker bands make my already meaty fingers look super sausagey, so I knew I wanted a dainty ring. In regards to stone size, I felt like 1ct+ diamonds were too “much” for me (since I rarely wear jewelry, and all the jewlery I own is rather delicate). I got a halo because I love the art deco look of them. I’d never heard of “finger coverage” before weddingbee, and I think it’s kind of silly.
Post # 13
I didn’t pick my own ring (it’s an heirloom) but I had no idea “finger coverage” was a thing until joining the Bee. Honestly, I never notice other people’s coverage, and I don’t care about it in the slightest.
Post # 14
My ring will be based on budget and style, finger coverage will not be a factor. I had never heard that term prior to this website.
Post # 15
I was not aware of the term “finger coverage” until weddingbee. So when we were looking it was just for what was best suited to us. Turns out that a .85 with a halo was perfect. And an added bonus is since I have small hands it just happens to look ginormous =)