Talk:Ring size

This article was nominated for deletion on November 18, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Gemology and Jewelry: Jewelry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Jewelry subpage.

— JIP | Talk 18:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Korea Ring Size - does anybody know if it follows Japan ring size?[edit]

--PeterMarkSmith 05:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conversion chart doesn't look right to me[edit]

It was my belief that Swiss sizes are European sizes minus 40. For example a EU Size 54 is equivalent to CH size 14. EU sizes are based on the inner circumference. So EU size 54 has an inner circumference of 54mm. Therefore CH size 14 == 54mm. Looking at the conversion chart on this page, that isn't even close.

Comrade.bronski 14:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you're correct. The chart is mostly right as it is - I don't have time to clean it up.

Mgolden (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that the US/UK conversion is wrong in that UK size Z should be UK Z½ (which I don' think actually exists) is actually Z WeepingAngel63 (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are some issues with this chart. Size I 1/2 is missing so maybe that's why Z is wrong, maybe that has thrown the sizing out of order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.196.215 (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter Sizes (U.S.)[edit]

When I was last at my local jeweler, he refered to the U.S. size 5 3/4 as a 5 1/2 "true" or a 5 1/2 "real" (I can't remember which). It seemed like

5	"five"
5 1/4	"five true"
5 1/2	"five and one half"
5 3/4	"five and one half true"
6	"six"
6 1/4	"six true"
...	...

Can anyone verify if this is standard nomenclature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.21.92.99 (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

references conflict[edit]

The following reference http://www.24carat.co.uk/ringsizes.html contains some differences from the wikipedia article. (For example, the wikipedia article lists Japanese size 11 as a U.S. size 6, but said reference lists the two sizes seperately.) Can someone resolve these differences?

Also, the above reference should perhaps be added to the article's reference section. It contains (at the bottom of the page) some of the formaulae used in creating the chart. Also, the SI circumference has an extra decimal place listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.21.92.99 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is UK size I 1/2 ?[edit]

I suspect all the UK sizes up to size I are half a size out!

--82.47.202.112 (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try the ring sizer and chart at this reference https://ringsizer.co 2600:8802:531B:9500:189F:439C:410A:7EF6 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something Wrong here[edit]

This article says that in Germany rings are sizes according to internal DIAMETER (which may be true,I wouldn't know) which it says this is the "same as ISO". But then it says the ISO standard is to use the internal CIRCUMFERENCE. These can not both be right. Wreader (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tone not encyclopedic[edit]

This article is useful and interesting but much more of a 'how to' tone than is normal on Wikipedia or in any encyclopedia. (I'm sure there's a cute abbreviation for this). It seems like it belongs on "About.com" or something.

Also, it's very authoritative-sounding, but (1) no sources and (2) I'm not sure all the advice is strictly necessary.... I have bought rings using the paper strip method that the article decries, and have had no problem (and I have small knuckles).

Altogether needs a tone rewrite, is my conclusion.

Vcrs (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is more like a "guide to purchasing a ring" or something. 75.130.209.75 (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At over 40,000 page views per month, this article is a linkspam magnet. Sophisticated linkspammers contribute content to the articles they spam. I've deleted as much spam as I could, but some of the spam is in the footnotes. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Population stats[edit]

This article needs stats about what proportion of the population has each ring size (in a few different populations)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.115.7 (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would also differ dependinging on which finger.Sauer202 (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy?[edit]

I live in France and see rings selling at sizes 16-22 for men. This surely doesn't match what is stated for France. It may be that the rings are being sold in mm diameter or Japanese sizes. Wiredrabbit (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resizing[edit]

What about ring resizing? I don't see anything about that either here or at ring (jewellery) or wedding band (or in a keyword search, for that matter). In particular, how is a (finger) ring typically increased or decreased in size? - dcljr (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Reference Link[edit]

The on-line sizing chart that "works with any screen resolution" definitely does NOT work with the Retina Display. It's off by about 50% at my ring gauge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.191.31 (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ring equation incorrect?[edit]

The article currently says that the ring size forumula for US, Canada, Mexico is ring_diameter = 11.63 mm + 0.8128 mm × ring_size. However, I've seen many sites claim that a US size 0 is 11.53mm, not 11.63. I've seen other pages that list it as ring_diameter = 11.54 + 0.83 * ring size, which more closely agrees with the size 0 number. On the other hand, a linear regression of this chart results in 11.634 + .8136 x ring_size. It's all over the place, and the charts don't even match from store to store. Does anyone know the official determination of US/Canada ring sizes? What organization is responsible for standardizing this? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than contribute further to the original research of the article, I'll offer my comments here. ;-) First, you can find the new reference by Googling for "Circular of the Bureau of Standards Allen Patent 146974". Also a linear regression of the data at http://www.ringsizes.co/, yields diameter (in inches) = 0.455254 + 0.0324646 * size, which are some fairly inexplicable numbers given the likely original of the standard in fraction inches and diameter.

Hong Kong ring size[edit]

What are Hong Kong ring sizes? I've looked around online and different sites have different conversions, and it doesn't seem to be linear, making it very difficult to reliably convert to another system if all you have is the Hong Kong ring size number. If "Hong Kong" sizing is not standardised and thus cannot be listed in the table, can we add some text to the article describing this fact and why it is the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agxpower (talk • contribs) 02:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]