Post # 1
It’s crunch time, I NEED to place our order for our wedding bands this week. We’re going with these rings, but without the small diamond and in white gold:
The pattern was developed by a master goldsmith in the 1840’s and it symbolizes the province I’m from in Sweden – both FI and I love them, so this is what we’ll get. However, there are two options, either we get bands that are 0.7 mm thick or ones that are 1.5 mm thick (they are both the same height, 5.5 mm). I’m paying for our flight tickets to Sweden as well this week, and all of a sudden the 0.7 mm option sounds very tempting. However, FI really don’t like the idea – he think it’s too thin and that it will get damaged easily. I just don’t have any idea if this is the case, so I hope you bees can help me!
Is it too thin, or would it be ok?
EDIT: Sorry, it looks like I didn’t get the ring terminology right and that it has confused some of you. I’ve updated the image to try to make it clear what measurement I’m talking about!
Post # 3
That’s pretty thin! Mine’s 2.5mm. I probably wouldn’t go under 1.5 but I’ve never seen one that thin so it’s hard to really say.
Post # 4
- Wedding: October 2011 - Bed & Breakfast
I would go for the 1.5mm band. A 0.7 band would be so thin that you probably wouldn’t even be able to decipher the design because it would all blend together.
For reference, each of these are just under 2mm
Post # 5
I find this post confusing because I assume with the pattern of those rings you mean the width will be 5.5mm and the height will be 0.7mm, not the other way around. I can’t see any jeweller fitting that pattern onto a ring 0.7m thin :p Either way I think 0.7mm is too low / too narrow.
Post # 6
Thanks for trying to help me! I never wear rings except from my ering, so I’m kind of lost!
Just so that we talk about the same measurement – it’s not the width of the band when you look at it from above that I’m talking about, but the width of it as you look at is from the side. Like this:
I gather it’s thin, I’m just worried it will be too thin so that it will bend.
Post # 7
Ah! Are you talking about the DEPTH!? i.e. how much ring there is side-to-side, sticking into your other fingers?
The 5.5mm being how wide the ring is? Because I voted based on a width of .7mm which is tiny tiny tiny, I’m sorry to have skewed your votes.
A typical ‘light’ depth is around 1.3mm. I think the best solution would be for yours to be the .7mm, and your FI’s to be the 1.5, I can’t imagine many men wanting a ring so thin as .7mm.
If you are worried about it bending out of shape, get the larger as it is still relatively ‘light’ depth.
Post # 8
@Audrey2: Well, English is my second language and my ring terminology is pretty much non existing in both languages – so, I’ve added a new image to try to make it clear what I mean! 🙂
And thanks for letting me know that you don’t think it will work, as you might imagine – I wouldn’t want to end up buying rings that are damaged beyond repair in just a few years from now.
Post # 9
@clairebear000:Yes, it’s the “how much ring there is side-to-side, sticking into your other fingers” measurement I’m concerned about! So that’s depth, I have to remember that – English is my second language, so I don’t always get specifics like this right – sorry if I confused you!
I think I would be most worried about the bending aspect for FI’s sake, he’s kind of accident prone and I can definitely see his hand getting squeezed at some point – and there we have it, an oval ring. Do you have any experience of rings that are as thin as 0.7? It does sound like you know the terminology of these things, so I really hope you can help me bring some clarity to this!
Post # 10
I’m not too sure about it really, I’m not exactly an expert! If your jeweller makes them in .7mm, do they offer a warranty? I feel like they wouldn’t sell them unless it ‘worked’!
I’ve personally not seen a ring depth of less than 1mm. I think you need to ask some questions and see if you can find any reviews. And I think for your FI you should get the 1.5mm.
Post # 11
@clairebear000: We’ve been discussing it through the morning and we’ll get the 1.5 mm option for him. He just don’t feel comfortable with the idea of a thinner band and I can understand that. Thinner bands feels more dainty and feminine.
The main problem with all of this is that I’m in Canada at the moment, so I can’t see the rings for myself and even if we get a warranty it will be a hassle to get there for repairs. Actually, that might have settled the issue – if I get the thinner bands and it needs custom repairs I’ll could have to wait up until a year to get it fixed. Ok, thanks for bringing up that point – we’ll do the 1.5 mm depth!
Post # 12
At the jewellers we’re probably going to end up using:
Light is 1.3 mm
Medium is 1.7 mm
Heavy is 2.1 mm
I would get the 1.5 mm as even then it is still quite thin so won’t appear too bulky.
Post # 13
I think it should be fine, but may depend on how hard you and your FI are on your jewelry.
Post # 14
I would choose the 1.5mm thickness, for sure.
Post # 15
English is my first language and I had no idea what that was called. I was trying to describe the exact measurement to several Etsy sellers because I wanted a 1.0mm deep ring for him, and no one understood what I was saying (even with long descriptions and pictures!) except for the guy we ended up purchasing from. We ended up just calling it a 1.0mm thinwall ring (it’s titanium).
But yes, go with the 1.5. <1mm is verrrrry thin, and will bend very easily in white gold.
Post # 16
I think for something like a wedding ring you should go thickerIto know the additional expense isn’t fun but having something bulit to last is important.