shape
carat
color
clarity

Visual Difference between a 1.5 and 1.8 stone?

nelly81

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
40
Hi there,

Just wondering if there is a visual size difference (once set) between a 1.5 stone (measuring 7.4m) versus a 1.8 stone (measuring approx 7.8/7.9)?

The difference in size seems so slight that I cant even imagine it being visible to justify the $$$ increase?

Any thoughts or photos on the size differnece?

Thanks! :razz:
 
D

Deactivated member 42515

Guest
I would like to know also :)
 

0-0-0

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
1,257
I have no pics comparing the two, but yes IMO it's definitely noticeable. In my experience I see a memorable difference in size as long as there's at least a 0.3mm increase in diameter for stones up to 2ct.
 

0-0-0

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
1,257
Here's a video from GOG comparing 1.50ct vs 1.70ct vs 2.00ct: http://vimeo.com/26931860

The size difference between 1.5ct and 1.8ct is more like the size difference between the 1.70ct and 2.00ct in the video.
 

nelly81

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
40
Thanks,......based on the video - there doesnt seem to be much of a difference between 1.5 and 1.7?

or is it just my eyes?? :wink2:
 

hearts-arrows_girl

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,118
nelly81|1330422460|3136239 said:
Thanks,......based on the video - there doesnt seem to be much of a difference between 1.5 and 1.7?

or is it just my eyes?? :wink2:
I saw a difference. And you would be going up to a 1.80 not a 1.70 right? So there would definitely be a difference.
 

Christina...

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,028
I agree. If the two stones you are considering are cut similarly, then you should be able to see the size difference. I have seen a well cut 1ct beside a not well cut 1.5 and couldn't see a huge difference because of the poor cut quality. So, if all things are equal you should be able to clearly see a size difference.

EDIT: Although you should be able to see the difference in size, it still may not be enough for you justify spending the additional $. I found that a 1.5 gives ME enough finger coverage, and that the cost of getting into a 1.75 vs the minimal size differance wouldn't be enough for ME to make the additional investment.
 

nelly81

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
40
Thanks everyone!!

Depending the price difference vs the visual difference, I was comparing a 1.5 v a 1.7 AND a 1.5 v 1.8.

I know the minimum spread (or face up appearance) of a 1.5 stone should be 7.4mm.

What the minimum measurements for a 1.7 and a 1.8 stone?

Christina - your cut comments are so interesting! I had never thought of that. Yes - I would be comparing stones of equal cuts - AGS000 or GIA triple ex!

Thanks!
 

Amys Bling

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
11,025
I think you have I way out the cost difference. That would be my deciding factor
 

0-0-0

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
1,257
For AGS 0/GIA Ex, if you look through PS search, 1.7ct is generally around 7.7mm and 1.8ct is typically around 7.8mm.
 

ChrisES

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
220
I read somewhere that .1 mm is the smallest distance that the human eye can readily distinguish, assuming normal vision and viewing.

But since you probably aren't wearing two similar stones of such size right next to each other, I wouldn't worry about a difference as small as .1.

But you're talking about .4 to .5, which is definitely noticeable.
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
58,547
I have had a 7.6mm and a 7.45mm diamond and I could absolutely see the difference. No question that a 1.8 would be noticeably larger than a 1.5. A 1.8 is a good range for someone who really wants 2 cts but whose budget needs to say under 2 cts for the specs they want.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top