What diamond cut gets the greatest size/spread for its weight?

[michela002]

Out of the following cuts (those being the only ones I really like) which will give you the biggest looking diamond for the carat weight?

1. Round Brilliant
2. Square cushion H&A
3. Jubilee
4. Emerald cut
5. Asscher cut

I know asschers look kind of small for their size. Any others I should stear clear of? Any others I should consider? (Excluding pear and marquise - I am not a fan of either.)

 

[chrono]

1. I believe the round brilliant will be the largest.
2. Most square cushion H&As are pretty deep at 70% so it''ll face up smaller but the sparkle will be comparable to the RB.
3. The Jubilee will be smaller than the RB but probably larger than the SC H&A since most Jubilee are about 65% to 68% range. However, I have seen some that are almost 70% in depth.
4. ECs don''t sparkle like the RB, Jubes and CS but do face up pretty large although still smaller than a RB (I think. I''m not 100% sure). You can find many pretty ones with depths of 60% up to 65%)
5. Asschers will be the smallest looking diamond of the entire group since it must be deep (70%) in order to get that Asscher look.

 

[diagem]

Depends what you mean big!!!

Diameter big means Round (allthough if you measure square cuts from corner to corner you would probably get a longer spread)

Some consider bigger to be higher (for ex. asscher''s, their crowns stick out from the jewelry so you can see the actuall faceting of the diamond),in my opinion that is bigger...

Dont forget rounds are usually flat diamonds that face up big, but no height whatsoever!!!

 

[valeria101]

Well, geometry aside the price per carat is different for these shapes - so even if some cut doesn''t have the largest face up appearance, you may be able to get a havier stone for the same cost and compensate.

On the list, the branded cushion is probably the most expensive per carat, the EC the lest... so it may be that the largest diamond you could get for the money would be an emerald cut after all.

For "size" I considered surface saying this.

I could not agree more with DiaGem that flat faced stone miss something. A more intricate setting (that doesn''t show the pavilion at all) looks empty from the side with one of those.

However, the 15%-ish crown height of ideal rounds doesn''t sound that flat at all (there are flatt-er rounds, sure that). "Guess that cushion comes about the same. Considering "Asscher" a generic square EC, those could have a reasonably high crown... It''s just the old cuts that have crowns way higher than this, if you care for one.


Just my 0.2, of course

Aside the super standardized rounds, all other shapes come with a serious range of size/weight so it is far more practical to marrow down choices before drawing the line.

 

[JCJD]

I want to say that ovals have a larger spread than a same ct weight round, but I don''t know if that''s true or not. Any experts want to help me out on this??

FYI: My 0.375 ct pear has been guessed (by ladies with RB''s) to be anywhere from 0.5-2cts!! And my stepmom''s 1ct marquise is massive! I know you don''t like the look of those two cuts, but thought I''d give you some food for thought.....

 

[phoenixgirl]

Not that this is a bonafied scientific experiment or anything, but I checked GOG for all the shapes you mentioned. I found an example of each stone in 1.20-1.22ct. Here are the measurements (depth included too in case anyone is interested):

1.22 round brilliant 6.95 x 6.92 x 4.23

1.22 square cushion 5.99 x 5.97 x 4.33

1.20 jubilee 6.05 x 6.00 x 4.26

1.20 emerald 6.99 x 4.97 x 3.72 (will vary greatly based on length/width ratio and depth)

1.22 asscher 5.93 x 5.87 x 3.98

Interesting . . . the round brilliant is significantly wider. The 1.20ish squares have a diameter smaller than a well cut one carat round. The emerald could look bigger depending on its length, width, and depth. Of course, how we determine what really looks bigger when the shapes are different, I don''t know, but it''s interesting.

 

[amytude]

I tried on tons of different shapes when I was searching for a diamond. To me, the rb by far looked the biggest. I was satisfied with a 1.3ct rb, whereas a 1.5 EC or radiant didn''t even look as large as the 1.3 rb. I''m actually going to be purchasing an EC, but b/c I like the shape. You can''t go wrong with a rb, for sure! It will also be easiest to find. I''m having a rather difficult time finding a well-cut emerald (though I think I finally might have found one) in my price range. Good luck whatever you decide!

 

[michela002]

Thanks everyone!

By "big" I meant face up which will appear to have the greatest surface area ... i.e. "look" bigger when viewed from the top, on your finger.

I love emerald cuts, but it started to seem like the emerald cut would need to be a lot bigger to give a similar appearance to a smaller RB. And I have just taken my head out of the clouds and realized hmmm the budget might only allow a .7-1.0 (but probably closer to .7) carat stone, so a shape that looks bigger for its size is probably the way to go (i.e. no asscher.)

I know pears and marquise can look very big for their size, but they are SO not me, I''d rather have no ring at all than a pear or marquise. Personal preference, no offence to those that have them!! They just don''t appeal to me. Pity, too! That would be a great way to save money!!

And the thinner the band, the bigger the stone would look, right? I''m tossing up either the Ritani Endless Love one (with the pave band and basket, four prongs - but more money spent on setting means less for stone) or a Tiffany-style six-prong - but I would want either with quite a thin band.

 

[cflutist]

Perhaps this will help. This is a photograph of a clear plastic template that was given to me during GIA Diamond Grading Class for use in estimating diamond size from the face up (if 60% depth).

The template itself is to scale e.g. 1ct RB is 6.5 mm, however, the photograph is NOT to scale since I had to Photoshop it so it would be below 100K. What you can see are the relative sizes of say all 1 ct stones for the different shapes.

 

[michela002]

Oh, thanks cflutist! That chart is awesome! Thank you!!!

 

[amytude]

What a great chart, cflutist! Indecisive--you should be able to get a lovely stone within your budget. I can sometimes feel the need to go over my budget, too, while visiting this web site. It''s hard when you see posts like "What kind of ring can I get with $50,000?". I want to say, "what kind of house can you get with $50,000?" (OK, so maybe I''m exaggerating here). LOL..anyway, you could probably go with SI1 and it really depends on your tastes as far as color goes. I swear I could tell an H from a G, so I think I''m going with a G. You might be able to go even higher in the color range.

 

[valeria101]

Thanks Cflutist!

There''s a catch to the chart: it assumes 60% depth and thin/med girdle... those are more or less probable for the different shapes

but fine for anything, really, square EC included (whether you call that "asscher or not).

 

[valeria101]

Date: 2/1/2005 8:14:7 PM
Author: amytude

... It''s hard when you see posts like ''What kind of ring can I get with $50,000?''. I want to say, ''what kind of house can you get with $50,000?''

In Bucharest ? ... a rather nice place.

 

[michela002]

Date: 2/1/2005 8:14

7 PM
Author: amytude
What a great chart, cflutist! Indecisive--you should be able to get a lovely stone within your budget. I can sometimes feel the need to go over my budget, too, while visiting this web site. It''s hard when you see posts like ''What kind of ring can I get with $50,000?''. I want to say, ''what kind of house can you get with $50,000?'' (OK, so maybe I''m exaggerating here). LOL..anyway, you could probably go with SI1 and it really depends on your tastes as far as color goes. I swear I could tell an H from a G, so I think I''m going with a G. You might be able to go even higher in the color range.

Thanks so much for their help everyone, I really appreciate it!

While its been very informative I think sometimes surfing pricescope has set my sights a little too high lol!

I think I''m joining the RB bandwagon ...

 

[amytude]

Well, OK, you can''t usu. get a house for $50K, but hey, what a GREAT down payment!

I could never have imagined visiting this site when I first got married--DH spent $2K on the ring & setting and he had to get his father to co-sign for him! I can empathsize with those coming here on a more modest budget and see people complaining about their $10K ring. Whew!! OK, off my bandwagon for now and back to reality as a SAHM.