(Closed) What do YOU consider too small? Talking about rings of course.. ;)

posted 10 years ago in Rings
Post # 3
1664 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: May 2011

I think it is all just personal preference. Smaller fingers tend to make stones look larger.  There was a finger coverage chart around here somewhere, which shows the ideal carat size for your ring size based on “finger coverage.”

Post # 4
674 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: October 2011

I’m a size 6. Having said that, my fingers are short so a big stone just makes them look even shorter. When I tried a 1ct I felt that it took up too much of my finger. Anything between .4 and .6 looks ok. Anything under .4 looks to small.

I also think that anything under .3 on anyone still looks small. Just personal preference.

Post # 5
329 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: March 2011

I’m from South Carolina. My ring is a size 5 and .5 carat. I think anything over 1 carat would look silly on me. But I think it has more to do with what kind of jewelery the person normally wears than the actual size of the ring. For me, I hardly wear any jewelry, so even my .5 solitare seemed like a lot of bling at first. But my friend (who has smaller fingers than me, but usually wears lots of jewelry/fancier clothes) has a HUGE ring, and it suits her just fine.

Post # 6
1249 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: October 2012

Hmm personally, I felt that anything over 2ct was a bit much. I’m a size 5.25, but i have pretty short fingers so it basically took up the whole bottom segment of my finger. I’m from NY, so I think we tend to err on the side of larger rings being more common, but for me i think 2ct might the upper limit.

Post # 7
5117 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: November 1999

I have small hands and fingers (but they’re proportionate, not skinny or long, just small in general) and I wear a 3.25 ring size. When I tried on rings, I found that a 1ct is about the biggest I would go, and the .7 I have looks pretty big but not huge on my hand (in my opinion).

I’m also in the midwest where .5 seems pretty common and 1ct is ‘pretty nice’ in general, so a 1ct on my tiny hands would seem extra big. 

Post # 8
6995 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: February 2011

i think mine fits me perfectly…size 3.75 and 1ct.

i think anything over 2 would start to look too much but hell i wouldnt turn it down 😉

Post # 9
6350 posts
Bee Keeper

My fingers are short. The area between my palm and first knuckle is tiny! I wear around a .6 (I think) and it looks perfect. I really wanted a halo square ring but it looked silly on me.

Post # 10
10283 posts
Sugar Beekeeper
  • Wedding: October 2011

I wear a size 9 and anything smaller than 1 ct. almost dissapeared on my hand.

Post # 11
175 posts
Blushing bee
  • Wedding: September 2009

I’m from Alabama. My ring size is a five and I unfortunately have short, kind of chubby fingers.

Anything between 0.50 and 1 ct in a solitaire setting looks just ducky on my finger.

I once tried on a 2 ct solitaire (for fun!) and it was waaaay too much bling for me. 

I briefly had an 0.25 ct solitaire. It was too small–it looked more like a chip. That same diamond is in my e-ring and looks much better in an elaborate setting, but sometimes I do wish it was a bit bigger. Embarassed



Post # 12
2191 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: November 2011

I have a size 8 finger and have a .5ct and it looks perfect.

I do think it’s preference and even ring design. Mine isn’t a solitare but is a halo so the center stone(s) are raised quite a bit and it’s just big enough for my taste.

My limit would be 1ct total weight and with my band I’m just under.

Post # 13
5653 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: February 2012

It’s all up to personal preference. I have a size 5.5 finger and my stone is a 1.5ct moissanite and I think it looks just perfect. Other people with the same finger size as me might think a stone this size looks “gaudy” on them. 

Post # 14
1488 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: March 2012

I wear a size 7.5 and I my center stone is about .5. When it was just a solitaire it looked way too small on my finger, but we got it reset into a halo with side stones and it doesn’t look as lost on my finger anymore. I definitely wouldn’t go any smaller than .5 carats, but probably wouldn’t go any bigger than 1.5 either as a center stone.
I live in TX, but I’m from FL

Post # 15
7298 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: September 2012

My friend’s fiance is 4’11 with tiny fingers. Her stone is a .6 and looks a lot bigger than that.

My fingers are long and I wear a 9.5 or 10 and I have a 1.25 ct and think it looks perfect for me.

Post # 16
1557 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: June 2011

For me, it wasn’t so much about my ring size (I’m about 5.25) but  more about the length between the base of my finger and my knuckle. 

I felt like a ring that was really wide would take over my finger, so I opted for a style that didn’t have terribly wide bands or a large center stone. 

Also, part of my choice of a center stone (mine is .64 ct) was the band I chose- it has 2 kite set accent stones next to the center stone on the band, and tiny pave stones set into the band. Had I gone much larger, my kite set stones would have look dwarfed. 

I personally think that my ring is perfect for my finger- it’s large enough that it doesn’t feel small, but small enough that it doesn’t feel like it eats my finger. 

Also, we’re from the midwest. 

The topic ‘What do YOU consider too small? Talking about rings of course.. ;)’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors