How Much of a size difference will show?

[sslkrissi]

Hello,
Many of you have helped me and discussed the pros and cons about this stone: http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-821291.htm. There were so many great and mixed opinions and advice as to this stone, so I decided to keep my options open. I have just found two stones, one WF and one GOG, which look promising.

This is the WF: http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-1732642.htm
This is the GOG: http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_33ct_g_vs2_h&a1.htm

ANy advice as to these two compared to the original one we were discussing in an earlier post?

Also, how noticable will the size difference be between a 1.56 and a 1.33 be? I really wanted to have a 1.5 carat stone, but if the difference isn't that noticable, or the appearance of one of these smaller stones is much better, I would be willing to sacrifice on size.

The 1.33 from WF scores a .6 on the HCA, getting all excellents. It is also a VS1 compared to the SI2 of the first WF stone. The GOG stone scores a 1.9 on the hca and receives one excellent and three very goods.

Both of them are within the TIC range, so both are ideal, BUT are on opposite ends of the ideal range. What differences will this make on the stones performance or appearance?

Thanks a bunch!!!

 

[Patty]

I just wanted to point out that the link that you posted for the GOG stone is actually the 1.33 WF stone again.

As for size, I think that I would notice a definite difference between a 1.33 and a 1.56.

 

[sslkrissi]

Oops.... Thanks for pointing that out.

This is the link to the one from GOG: http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_33ct_g_vs2_h&a1.htm

 

[dmc]

The rule I''ve read is 20 percent: To make a noticeable difference, the bigger stone generally needs to be 20 percent larger in carat weight. So in your case, a stone that is .26 carats larger, or 1.59 carats, will be noticeable larger. I''m guessing your 1.56 stone is close enought to 20 percent to look bigger.

 

[sslkrissi]

Wow. Thats interesting. I didn''t know that. Thanks for the tip!

 

[Mara]

I think it depends on your eyes. Both my husband and I were able to pick out the size difference with a .15mm difference so a 1.23 and a 1.35 or similar...but that was side by side. I am a size person though so that meant something to me.

I had a 1.29c and a 1.60c and there is a DEFINITE size difference...I posted about my upgrade in ''A 1.60 J SI2 Finds a Home''...you should be able to search and find it and also in there are comparison pictures to my 1.29c. Hope that helps!!

 

[Hest88]

As Mara said, it will depend on your eyes, but I think that at that size difference it should be noticable.

 

[Rod]

The stone I selected for my new ring was 1.12 carats and I was able to see a size difference between a 1.04 and the 1.12 carat. However, both stones were cut similarly, which has a lot to do with it. If you research this forum, you''ll find several threads on how certain cuts have the ability to make a stone look larger than it''s carat weight might suggest.

 

[decodelighted]

To judge visual difference ya really have to stop thinking carat weight and start thinking dimensions MM wise. Do you have the dimensions of each of the stones you're considering?

ETA:

Whiteflash's 1.33 = 7.18-7.20 X 4.33
Whiteflash's 1.56 = 7.46-7.51 X 4.60
GOG's 1.33 = 7.09 mm (from the Sarin, GIA report not online)

From this info, I'd say you'd see a significant difference between the Whiteflash 1.33 & the 1.56 ... and the GOG 1.33 seems SMALLER than the Whiteflash 1.33. Goes to show similar carat weights can have dramatically different diameters & visual appearances.

 

[sslkrissi]

Thank you all for your help! From what I am reading, it seems as though I will most likely be able to see a difference. I will take a look at some in person and see how sensitive I am to it. But, I am thinking that the 1.3 from WF probably has a much better cut, according to the hca, so it may look just as big. As I mentioned earlier, the 1.3 from WF scored an excellent in all 4 categories: brilliance, fire, scintilation and spread (I think those are the 4), so it should be a really sparkly and beautiful stone. I must say, though, that I too am I size person, so the difference might not be worth it to me. A bunch of people seemed not to like the 1.56 WF stone b/c of the combinations of the angles (deep and steep was the conclusion I think) and it is an SI2, so it would truly need to be eye-clean in order to be suitable to me. That is why I have started to look at these other two stones (the two 1.3''s that I posted).