Do princess diamonds look bigger than rounds?

[Ariana]

I''ve heard that rounds have a bigger diameter than princesses but the princess diamonds look bigger? Is this true??

 

[diamondringlover]

No, they dont, my princess is deep and it faces up like a 3/4 ct and it is actually a 1.01 ct, one day I hope to get a round diamond

 

[jstarfireb]

I think it depends on how you set them. The dimensions of a 1 ct princess are roughly comparable to a 3/4 ct round, and they are cut deeper than rounds. However, if you turn the princess 45 degrees so the points are N/S/E/W oriented and measure the "diameter" as the distance from corner to corner (diagonally), it will appear a lot larger. The other issue is that most princesses on the market are cut poorly and don''t reflect light from corner to corner, making them appear smaller than they are.

 

[John P]

Date: 7/23/2009 9:03:41 PM
Author: jstarfireb
I think it depends on how you set them. The dimensions of a 1 ct princess are roughly comparable to a 3/4 ct round, and they are cut deeper than rounds. However, if you turn the princess 45 degrees so the points are N/S/E/W oriented and measure the ''diameter'' as the distance from corner to corner (diagonally), it will appear a lot larger. The other issue is that most princesses on the market are cut poorly and don''t reflect light from corner to corner, making them appear smaller than they are.

Good post.

I''m also a fan of the starset orientation.

 

[anitabee]

remember, when comparing the area of a square to a round it''s like comparing apples to oranges. the diameter of a round compared to the same carat weight princess will always be bigger due to simple geometry. when comparing areas of both you ALWAYS need to keep in mind that a square has area (compared to a circle with same diameter) in its corners.

anyhoo, i have a .85 carat princess (5.17 x 5.42 mm) and after doing some area calculations, i discovered it''s of the same approximate area size of a .80 carat round, so yes generally speaking, the same carat weight round has more surface area than a princess but not to a wildly disproportionate level. now, how one''s eyes sizes up a square to a circle can totally be misleading. it really is hard to tell.

the area of a circle is pi*r squared (3.1412 times radius squared). this does NOT mean that a circle with the same dimensions as my 5.17 x 5.42 princess is the same (otherwise that would be the size of a, maybe, .60 carat round?... which it isn''t).

pheww. i''ve probably confused y''all!

 

[jstarfireb]

Thanks John! I have a ring with a princess-cut blue topaz set that way. It looks huge!

ETA: Anita, great point about the area. Bottom line: the issue is a bit more complex than simple diameter measurements would lead us to believe.

 

[iota]

Date: 7/23/2009 10:45:50 PM
Author: anitabee
remember, when comparing the area of a square to a round it''s like comparing apples to oranges. the diameter of a round compared to the same carat weight princess will always be bigger due to simple geometry. when comparing areas of both you ALWAYS need to keep in mind that a square has area (compared to a circle with same diameter) in its corners.

anyhoo, i have a .85 carat princess (5.17 x 5.42 mm) and after doing some area calculations, i discovered it''s of the same approximate area size of a .80 carat round, so yes generally speaking, the same carat weight round has more surface area than a princess but not to a wildly disproportionate level. now, how one''s eyes sizes up a square to a circle can totally be misleading. it really is hard to tell.

the area of a circle is pi*r squared (3.1412 times radius squared). this does NOT mean that a circle with the same dimensions as my 5.17 x 5.42 princess is the same (otherwise that would be the size of a, maybe, .60 carat round?... which it isn''t).

pheww. i''ve probably confused y''all!

Anitabee, I do the same thing.

For princess or squarish/rectangular diamonds, I multiply the length and width (L x W).

For a round diamond or oval diamond, I do this (Diameter/2 x Diameter/2 x 3.14) to give me the surface areas.

I find the LARGER the diamond, the greater the differences in visual surface area. Around a one carat or below, square and round cuts aren''t that different (with squarish diamonds looking slightly smaller). Once you hit around the 1.5 ct range and above, you really start to see a difference (again, with princess, squarish ones looking now quite a bit smaller).

HOWEVER, if you start looking at the LONGER shapes (ovals, radiants, emeralds) in the larger sizes. They can be smaller depending on their depth, but they can just as easily match or even BEAT rounds in terms of visual surface area.

Something to think about.... And I know, I know, I''ve put too much time into this. haha.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/23/2009 10:04:57 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 7/23/2009 9:03:41 PM
Author: jstarfireb
I think it depends on how you set them. The dimensions of a 1 ct princess are roughly comparable to a 3/4 ct round, and they are cut deeper than rounds. However, if you turn the princess 45 degrees so the points are N/S/E/W oriented and measure the ''diameter'' as the distance from corner to corner (diagonally), it will appear a lot larger. The other issue is that most princesses on the market are cut poorly and don''t reflect light from corner to corner, making them appear smaller than they are.

Good post.

I''m also a fan of the starset orientation.

Thritto, and add me to the starset lovers list.

 

[Ellen]

There are a couple comparison shots in here that you might find helpful.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/aca-princess-in-a-legato-solitaire.75195/

 

[Ariana]

Thanks for all your posts!
Ellen that was really helpful. I def want to put the stone in a cushion shaped halo. I''m also looking at cushions but the thought of rounds having more spread and more brilliance is leaning me towards them. I''m just scared that you can tell that it''s a round in a cushion (gaps/spaces).

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/24/2009 10:41:47 AM
Author: Ariana

Thanks for all your posts!
Ellen that was really helpful. I def want to put the stone in a cushion shaped halo. I''m also looking at cushions but the thought of rounds having more spread and more brilliance is leaning me towards them. I''m just scared that you can tell that it''s a round in a cushion (gaps/spaces).

Ok, I may be asking a silly question here, but why not put the round (if that''s what you end up with) in a round halo setting? Are you striving for/wanting a total cushion look?

An FYI, Goodoldgold has come out with a new cut cushion that faces up fairly well to a round, and the optics are truly phenominal for a cushion. The first video on this page has a comparison of the two. Take a look and see what you think.

http://vimeo.com/channels/thediamondschannel#5512032

 

[risingsun]

Another option is to take a look at the Tacori halos. They have several that are cushion shaped on the outside and round on the interior to fit a round diamond. I will look for a link for you. This is one of several Tacori halos that will fit a RB without any gaps.

http://www.tacori.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=SRCH&Product_Code=2620RDLGP&Category_Code=&Store_Code=TACORI&Search=2620&offset=0&filter_cat=&PowerSearch_Begin_Only=&sort=&range_low=&range_high=%20&srch_code=1

 

[FB.]

I agree with anitabee.

A well-cut 1ct round is about 6.5mm.

A well-cut 1ct Princess is about 5.5mm.

The visible part of a 1ct round is about 33 square millimetres.

The visible part of a 1ct Princess is about 30 square millimetres.

On balance, the total "sparkling area" is fairly similar, with a slight advantage to the round, but more than compensated by the cheaper price of the Princess.

 

[Ariana]

Ellen- yes I''m trying to achieve the total cushion look. I love Mrssalvo''s engagement ring by Daniel K. Leon Mege gave me a good price quote for a replica.

 

[iota]

What size are you looking for? Because roughly speaking...

2 ct Round is 8.2 mm
2 ct Princess is 6.85 mm


Round - 52.7 sq. mm
Princess - 46.9 sq. mm

A difference of 5.8 square mm's. But of course, you have to consider the price difference between the two too.

 

[Ariana]

Yes I''m looking for a 2 carat diamond: cushion??
With a halo : )

 

[swingirl]

I have in my possession a .50ct princess and a .50ct round. I just posted in another thread my impressions on seeing these side by side. The round looks larger. Visually it fills the space. Princess stones have their points and all but if you are talking about the visual bang for your buck, a princess is going to look smaller. The way it's set can change that but I am comparing stones with out halos.

Cushion is a nice way to go; not round, not square.