Face Up Size Per Carat w/ Asscher, others ...

[NManegold]

I have read some that asscher stones look small per carat, are there other cuts that look larger per carat? If so, which, and is this a large enough difference?

 

[VuittonGal]

Welcome to Pricescope! As you can see, I also am a "Rough Rock" but I can offer you a few opinions based on some of the advice I''ve learned from some "Ideal Rocks"!

Aschers tend to look small for their carat weight. Therefore, if you''re going for the look of a large diamond and are on a budget, an ascher is probably not your best bet. Though they are quite beautiful stones!

I believe round brilliants get the most carat-size bang for the buck. However, I also believe that marquise (sp?) and ovals tend to look larger than their carat size.

Just my two cents! Good luck in the hunt!

 

[mrssalvo]

amazon.com has a pretty cool chart that you can print out and it will show you all the diamond shapes and the general size for their weights.

size chart

 

[kace]

mrssalvo, thanks for posting such a great resource. Wow, I didn''t know this type of info was out there.

 

[blueroses]

Yep...some fancies can look quite large for their carat weight....think ones that have an elongated look, marquise, pear, EC of a certain ratio..... A great example is JCJD's yummy pear e-ring. It's like 3/8 of a carat, I think, but it's a beautiful sparkly cut (with a surprise RB melee diamond underneath the pear) and people have often mistaken her diamond for at LEAST a carat...someone even guessed 2ct!!

See? Looks a LOT bigger than you'd think for 3/8ct....YUM!!

(ETA: MrsS, that chart is wonderful!! I've been trying to figure out what carat weight an EC my mom has is--it's 6mmx5mm--and now from that chart I can *guess* it's probably around .75ct!! Cool!!)

 

[MaryAlaina]

A general rule that I''ve heard is that if you take a round as "average" for a carat weight, square cuts like princess and asschers will look smaller, and cuts like ovals, pears and marquises will look larger. Actual sizes will depend on the depth and proportions of the stones.

 

[diagem]

Square shapes are not the smalest diameter IF YOU CONSIDER THEIR CORNER TO CORNER LENGHT!!!!

But the largest spread are probably flat beautifull Novelty shapes, and there are quite a few out there...

 

[valeria101]

Look, there is something funny about this ''round versus square'' size debate

... you''ve got the guys who compare the ''diameters'' of the two shapes (of course, a square does not have a diameter, but that doesn''t quite matter) and those who measure the squares tip to tip. Fortunately there is only one way to measure a circle - otherwise there would be even more versions of doing this!

It just so happens that the square with the same area as a circle is a bit less wide than the diameter of the circle and the corners stick out

But then, the ''intricate'' formula is not so appealing.

Really !

I wuldn''t be writing this if the darn comparison by surface area would not show the two shapes intuitively equal in size as well. There must be some examples in older threads. The question keeps turning up.


... this about squares. I know some asschers are closer to ''octagon'' because of deep cut corners.

If you do want to cut those corners allot, than the same argument gets applied to an octagon insted of square. BTW, measuring that accross the corners doesn''t make much of a difference.
In person, these objects are 3D anyway so a few more details count, but that would make things sound worse still.

 

[DiamanteBlu]

Not to be a pain, but, I have some issues with the amazon chart [unrelated to the Asscher question].

This is the biggest:
Note that the weight for a 10x12 oval is estimated to be 5 carats. This is approximately correct and consistent with other figures I have seen. However, the 10x12 emerald cut and 10x12 radiant cuts are also quoted as 5 carats. This is does not make sense. Observe that if you take the oval face up and the rectangular cuts face up [all three depth tolerances are within the same range], the oval would sit entirely within the rectangles. So there would be extra stone sticking out on the sides for the rectangular cuts. Hence, the rectangular cuts of the same dimensions would be expected to weigh more than the oval. This conclusion is consistent both with my own experience [my 9.9x11.8x6.5 EC weighs 6.39 carats] and with the calculator, below. The issue is carried through all the weights for these shapes.

The 5 carat weight for a 11x11 trillion is also suspect. I believe it is overstated. Ditto for the heart of the same dimensions [albeit to a lesser degree]. [I am too lazy to do the volume calculations for well cut stones of these shapes at the moment - I''m still sick].

I have not checked the Asscher dimensions. They appear to be OK though.

Just my .02 [I hope my explanation was sufficiently transparent to be understandable!]

Blu

Also, here is a diamond weight calculator you can check for consistency or just to estimate weight as it was intended:
http://dendritics.com/scales/carat-weight.asp

To get depth ranges for the various shapes [if you don''t have them] go to http://www.gemappraisers.com/ and click on "old DIY cut grading" link on the left. Type in the shape and it will give you acceptable ranges for the various measurements for the qulaity cut you are interested in.

Hope this helps.