.60ct vs .70 - visible difference?

[honey22]

I am looking at ideal cut, AGS000, H&A stones. Would the diffference between 0.60ct and 0.70ct be visible. I don''t want to spend the extra $500-800 dollars if I am not going to see a difference, but of course I want to get the biggest stone in the price range!

 

[Ellen]

Yes. In stones under 1 ct., .10 is definitely noticable.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

yea, more or less so depending on exactly how deep it is and, from what I understand, how much light return you have along the edes of the girdle. but for sure it will make a difference. If that difference is worth the money to you, the only real way to find out is head out to a store and look at some similar differences in ideal cuts.

 

[Lynn B]

I agree... in general, and assuming equally well cut stones, I think there is a noticeable difference between those 2 sizes. If I could afford it, I would spend the extra money to get the larger diamond. But that''s just me!

 

[ponderer]

Definately.

I just looked at .4, .56, and .65. Huge difference to the naked eye when unmounted. Maybe not so much on a setting?

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/23/2007 8:10:14 PM
Author: Lynn B
I agree... in general, and assuming equally well cut stones, I think there is a noticeable difference between those 2 sizes. If I could afford it, I would spend the extra money to get the larger diamond. But that''s just me!

No kidding?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I happen to have a picture of a .74 and a .61 from when I was looking at diamonds for earrings:

 

[wolftress]

Yes, I do think there would be a visible difference. I can see a big difference between my .75 and my .90.

 

[honey22]

Thanks everyone! Especially diamondseeker2006 - the pic really helped - I didn''t realise there was such a difference, definately aiming at .70 then!!

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

you really ought to go look in person though before you make up your mind based on that huge picture

and remember the difference in .61-.74 is much more significant than .63-.70

 

[find45di2]

Go as large as you can WITHOUT sacrificing other things that make a diamond brilliant. If its only a few extra hundred dollars break the bank and do it, you''ll thank yourself later

 

[chrono]

As a general statement, 0.7 ct will look larger than 0.6 ct. However, the depth of the diamond also makes a difference. If the 0.6 ct has a depth of 60% and the 0.7 ct has a depth of 65%, then they could well be the same size! So to be 100% sure, make that decision based on the physical mm dimensions of the stones.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 9/23/2007 5:21:24 PM
Author:honey22
I am looking at ideal cut, AGS000, H&A stones. Would the diffference between 0.60ct and 0.70ct be visible. I don''t want to spend the extra $500-800 dollars if I am not going to see a difference, but of course I want to get the biggest stone in the price range!

With the calibre of diamonds you are considering, you should end up with a beautiful diamond, generally speaking with an AGS0 the .70 may look slightly larger than the .60 with direct comparision.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/23/2007 11:28:04 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards
you really ought to go look in person though before you make up your mind based on that huge picture

and remember the difference in .61-.74 is much more significant than .63-.70

Why should she go look? She just said wants the biggest stone she can get. At stones under a carat, there IS a visual difference with .10.

And where did you get .63? She posted .60.


Honey, just to clarify, I based my answer on the fact you were looking at AGS0 stones, therefore assuming the choices would not be overly deep. The gals make a point though, that a deep stone of the same size will show up smaller.

 

[chrono]

Yes, since you are looking at AGS0 stones, you WILL see a difference in size when going from 0.6ct to 0.7ct.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Date: 9/24/2007 8:15:48 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 9/23/2007 11:28:04 PM

Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

you really ought to go look in person though before you make up your mind based on that huge picture


and remember the difference in .61-.74 is much more significant than .63-.70

Why should she go look? She just said wants the biggest stone she can get. At stones under a carat, there IS a visual difference with .10.


And where did you get .63? She posted .60.



Honey, just to clarify, I based my answer on the fact you were looking at AGS0 stones, therefore assuming the choices would not be overly deep. The gals make a point though, that a deep stone of the same size will show up smaller.

I swear you almost sound mad at me...anyway, the price difference between .70 and .74 can be very significant. She has expressed concerns about her budget. However, the price difference between .60 and .63 is often negligible. She is unlikely to select a diamond at EXACTLY .60 as MANY of the options run from .61-.64. But she is not likely to select a diamond at EXACTLY .70X.

Now I am saying this because she didn't list a budget but she said that she felt that .70 was her cap, which I was assuming was set by budget and is probably requiring the sacrifice of other things such as clarity/color to achieve. And we have no idea what 800 dollars might mean to the man who is buying this, it might be an additional month and a half of work, or god forbid he is at school it might mean SEVERAL months of work if he has alot of classwork this semester. We don't have too much info.

Thus, looking at the information provided: she is worried about budget, she set the cap at .70, she wants the largest high quality diamond she can afford without breaking some unknown bank account I advise her to at least take the time to LOOK. Not pressuring her to make a decision, just telling her to LOOK.

The visual difference between a 61.8% depth .70ct and a 60.4% depth 63ct diamond is not nearly as drastic as that photo is showing between .61ct and .74cts. And like I said, you can easily find .60-.64ct diamonds for the same price range, but finding .74cts may well jack the price up more than she is expecting or it might not, we don't have any color/clarity info, budget info and we are not talking about any particular stones. All just conjecture at this point, when we start talking specifics we may find it isn't too much more depending on her particular demands when she start making this happen.

Anyway, I did not say she SHOULD by the smaller diamond, but only that she should SEE themselves in person, not a difficult task really, and make an INFORMED decision. I don't see the problem with me suggesting she should take a couple of hours and inform herself?

not only on this by the way, but on color as well.

but anyway, larger is always great, but all I am suggesting is to get real world information, they look very different in person than in a computer generated photograph, or even a real photograph for that matter, and even more so when they are set. So just get some real information, its a great place to start, but its no compromise for intelligent real world observations.

 

[Ellen]

workinghard,

The only concern she expressed was not wanting to pay for something that might not be seen (size difference).

All she wanted to know was if there was a difference visually (looking at AGS0''s). Simple question, simple answer, yes.

She never said her "cap" was .70. She just asked the difference between .60 and .70. We don''t know what she''s really looking at, it could be .57-.67. It doesn''t matter. I think she''s smart enough to see the price differences as you go up. I think she''s smart enough to figure out that .63 will not show as much difference to .70. as .60 will. But that''s not what she asked. And she knows her budget. I gave her some credit.

And I also gave her "real world" info, I have seen two well cut diamonds together with FAR less difference in diameter, and I could tell.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/24/2007 10:27:06 AM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

I swear you almost sound mad at me...anyway, the price difference between .70 and .74 can be very significant. She has expressed concerns about her budget. However, the price difference between .60 and .63 is often negligible. She is unlikely to select a diamond at EXACTLY .60 as MANY of the options run from .61-.64. But she is not likely to select a diamond at EXACTLY .70X.

Now I am saying this because she didn't list a budget but she said that she felt that .70 was her cap, which I was assuming was set by budget and is probably requiring the sacrifice of other things such as clarity/color to achieve. And we have no idea what 800 dollars might mean to the man who is buying this, it might be an additional month and a half of work, or god forbid he is at school it might mean SEVERAL months of work if he has alot of classwork this semester. We don't have too much info.

Thus, looking at the information provided: she is worried about budget, she set the cap at .70, she wants the largest high quality diamond she can afford without breaking some unknown bank account I advise her to at least take the time to LOOK. Not pressuring her to make a decision, just telling her to LOOK.

The visual difference between a 61.8% depth .70ct and a 60.4% depth 63ct diamond is not nearly as drastic as that photo is showing between .61ct and .74cts. And like I said, you can easily find .60-.64ct diamonds for the same price range, but finding .74cts may well jack the price up more than she is expecting or it might not, we don't have any color/clarity info, budget info and we are not talking about any particular stones. All just conjecture at this point, when we start talking specifics we may find it isn't too much more depending on her particular demands when she start making this happen.

Anyway, I did not say she SHOULD by the smaller diamond, but only that she should SEE themselves in person, not a difficult task really, and make an INFORMED decision. I don't see the problem with me suggesting she should take a couple of hours and inform herself?

not only on this by the way, but on color as well.

but anyway, larger is always great, but all I am suggesting is to get real world information, they look very different in person than in a computer generated photograph, or even a real photograph for that matter, and even more so when they are set. So just get some real information, its a great place to start, but its no compromise for intelligent real world observations.

Here we go again......you continue to make rash generalizations that seem completely unsupported by DATA.

the price difference between .70 and .74 can be very significant. However, the price difference between .60 and .63 is often negligible.

Not so. The price breaks are typically .60-.69, and .70-.79. This means the price per carat for a .71 stone would be the same for a .74 stone, all other factors being equal.

What CAN make differences in those is source of vendor/dealer. If I price my goods at $3200/ct and you price yours at $3600/ct, then your .74 stone will be significantly higher than my .71 stone....but not becuase there's a variance in the rate per carat due to size.

She is unlikely to select a diamond at EXACTLY .60 as MANY of the options run from .61-.64. But she is not likely to select a diamond at EXACTLY .70X.

Again, you are making assertions with absolutely no supporting data. Going to just ONE source, I can find 169 diamonds weighing exactly .60, and I can find 460 diamonds weighing exactly .70.

This is what I meant, WHFSR, about you overstating things. I mentioned it once before, and this is another classic example of it. I know you mean well, but you're taking liberties with information with absolutely no basis to do so. You'd made several others in those comments as well.

Here's the bottom line: Her question didn't ask what you thought she was most likely to get. It actually asked "diff between .60 and .70". There will be little variance if the end situation turns out to be .62 vs. .71, or .60 vs. .72, or any other 'approximate 10-point shift" in that general range of size.

While the suggestion to see for herself is a good and valid one, that doesn't negate the fact that she asked OTHERS for their opinions, and the opinions they've offered are perfectly valid. She never said her intent was to use the information as a substitute for seeing herself, did she? Did I miss that?

The examples they've provided were qualified with "this isn't precisely .60 and .70, but here are two close stones and maybe you can make some initial determinations from there." That isn't representing "THIS is what the diff between 60 and 70 will absolutely look like."

You need to back off being so presumptive. Maybe that's why you're sensing a frustration, WHFSR. It helps to more closely read what's written.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/24/2007 11:23:44 AM
Author: aljdewey


You need to back off being so presumptive. Maybe that''s why you''re sensing a frustration, WHFSR. It helps to more closely read what''s written.

Yes.

Once again, Alj has put quite eloquently what I do not have the patience to type out.

I ditto her entire post.

 

[honey22]

HI guys, thanks for your input - looks like I have started a fire though! Budget is not set in stone (pardon the pun!), but 0.70 seems like the top of the price range I would feel comfortable spending, considering I will not budge on the ideal cut, D colour, VS range (yes, I am very picky, probably more for ''mind clean'' reasons though. I have my heart set on a D cause I guess I want to know I have the whitest diamond possible. I know that''s probably excessive but it will bug me if we could afford D and I settled for E or F. I don''t want to spend lots more if I could barely tell, but from what you experts are telling me, if all other specs are equal, I could easily tell the difference between say 0.60 and 0.70. Thanks everyone, this has been the best site ever, and when my future fiancee finally gets over the price of diamonds he will thank me for being so dilligent in helping him spend his money wisely !!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Honey, I''ll have to tell you, you will NOT see the difference between D and E, but you''ll see a difference in .10 in size. I''m with you on the VS, but I wanted more size than D color. It''ll be beautiful, though!

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Date: 9/24/2007 11:30:50 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 9/24/2007 11:23:44 AM

Author: aljdewey



You need to back off being so presumptive. Maybe that''s why you''re sensing a frustration, WHFSR. It helps to more closely read what''s written.

Yes.


Once again, Alj has put quite eloquently what I do not have the patience to type out.


I ditto her entire post.

I will agree I was a bit presumptuous. I felt that I had adequate evidence to feel that she had implied most of what I presumed, and I also felt that if I was wrong in my presumptions then it woudln''t cause any harm.

If i felt she was on a budget cap around .70ct for whatever reason that may be (perhaps her particular color/clarity standards as we saw in her next post) then she might could benefit from what I had to say, and if I was wrong and she was not constrained by a cap around .70 cts...well then, she would know that, so no harm done.

Thus, being that there was no real risk involved or possibility of causing any troubles for her, I don''t see any reason to get all riled up about it

BUT, you both seem to have overlooked my real message. Sure, I made a few presumptions that I should have held off on until she gave us more information, but my primary message throughout was:

GO TO A STORE.

It doesn''t matter how many hours you sit in front of a computer trying to figure this stuff out, you will NOT be able to tell what the differences between ct weight mean by just reading about it and looking at blown up 2d images. The same thing goes for color and clarity--the pictures simply WILL NOT tell the real story. Try as hard as I did if you like, but its not happening.

I began by saying "yes, I agree, there is notable difference". Why do you think I worked my %%% off to get my fiance a .61ct instead of a .50?

But forget about what WE think, and what WE see, and what these HUMONGOUS pictures show online. GO LOOK AT SOME REAL DIAMONDS that take up 1/3 the width of your finger instead of being 2 times the size of your fist. THEN make a decision.

________________________________

and for the record, the thread that I was initially responding to was:

"Why should she go look? She just said wants the biggest stone she can get. At stones under a carat, there IS a visual difference with .10"

the key line that stood out to me was: why should she go look?

all of what I said above, and even more so if she is sitting on budget constraints with bills to pay and a marriage to save for.

 

[honey22]

hi diamondseeker2006 - I know that I won''t be able to tell AT ALL between D and E but I will know in my mind and I am just kinda neurotic and it will bother me, I am ashamed to say! I will look at it and convince myself I should have gone D cause it would be whiter! I know I am mad. That said, I wouldn''t go VVS cause you couldn''t see the difference - go figure! So, all in all, I will aim for the biggest mm in D VS range (AGS000 of course!), and actually I don''t think I would want to go bigger cause even a 1ct to me is starting to look too big (I can hear gasps of horror from PSers! hehehehe!). Although I should mention that I am developing PS-itis - a disorder which is directly related to the time spend browsing on this website and results in looking for much larger diamonds than originally looking for! Thanks everyone!

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

To alj:


and to Ald:

I appreciate your feedback about my statements regarding data. I have looked at alot of these ct weight stones and the impression I had gotten from my searching was that in general (of course there are exceptions) as you increase from .60-.69 the per point price increase is less substantial than the per point price increase from .70-.79.

Right or wrong that was the impression that I got from hours of searching


So I took a moment to hunt down some stones. first I looked PS, they don't have enough options listed. then I headed to blue nile who was bound to have some examples:


"Here we go again......you continue to make rash generalizations that seem completely unsupported by DATA.

ME==the price difference between .70 and .74 can be very significant. However, the price difference between .60 and .63 is often negligible.

Not so. The price breaks are typically .60-.69, and .70-.79. This means the price per carat for a .71 stone would be the same for a .74 stone, all other factors being equal."



I can't very well look at all of the diamonds out there. but here are some examples of what I meant:



All of the following are AGS0 DQD G SI1, in order from .60,.62,.70,.72:

1673

1726

A difference of 53 dollars. or an increase of about 3%

2553

2,795

A difference of 242 dollars. or an increase of about 9.5%

Here is the first example I looked for. They are also the CHEAPEST options in there respective categories. I organized by cut/color/clarity/ct weight, searched by price and picked the cheapest DQD AGS0 available. The only difference in the four C's is .02cts and the monetary value rate of change in the .70ct range is nearly 5times greater than the same rate of change in the 60point range. 5 times greater is pretty significant.


One more example, the cheapest available H VS2 AGS0 DQD in order .60ct,.62ct,.70ct,.72ct:

1682

1735

a difference of 52 dollars an increase of about 3%
I understand this one has a DQD as well: 2,649

2,758

a difference of 109 dollars. or an increase of about 4%

Not as significant this time, but still 2 times more difference in the monetary value rate of change and consistently higher % rate of change.

Thus, my conclusion was not just some random abitrary statement totally unfounded on facts. It wasn't based on a scientific analysis of reliable data either. It was based on my observations as a consumer. There are some examples that violate this principle, but from what I have seen it generally holds true that 70pointers increase in value more rapidly than 60pointers, and it makes logical sense as you approach and surpass the magic .75ct weight.



"ME==She is unlikely to select a diamond at EXACTLY .60 as MANY of the options run from .61-.64. But she is not likely to select a diamond at EXACTLY .70X.

Again, you are making assertions with absolutely no supporting data. Going to just ONE source, I can find 169 diamonds weighing exactly .60, and I can find 460 diamonds weighing exactly .70."

This is exactly what I meant. Do you realize that you found nearly 3 times as many .70cts as you did .60 cts? why do you think that is? there are alot more options available in the .70ct range, especially amongst ideal diamonds.

As my own examples, I will now go to Blue Nile and do a search:

Of all .70 ct options:

they have 1,174

limit that to Ideal cuts:

they have 474

limit that to G+ SI1+ with ideal polish and symmetry:

202
__________

Now lets look at .60

total results:

270

Ideal cuts:

177

G+ SI+ ideal polish and symmetry:

78

That would be 78 VS 202. Thats alot more options in the 70pointers and therefore it is much more likely to meet her particular color/clarity/depth percentage/table size/ca/pa/lgf/stars/budget demands etc.

Thus, combine the general trends of 60pointers to increase less in value per point than 70pointers do with significantly more options in the 70point range than in the 60 point range, and then throw budget constraints on top of that it seems to me it would be much more likely that if she aims for .70cts she would be more likely to get exactly .70cts, and if she aimed for .60 cts she would probably end up with something over .60 cts, thus my statements and the comparison between .63 and .70. Anyway, that was pretty fun, but I am tired now and none of this is really important. Once we start talking about particular diamond all of this goes out the window like some gum on a long trip.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Honey:

well shoot, I can understand the desire to get a D, though I would recommend the DE range rather than constricting it to just D. and personally I like the look of the F/G range more myself. On spending alot of time looking at my fiance's E compared to her previous H that I sent back, I really felt that the E was TOO white. It just disappeared from the side view, Whereas the H looked pretty white but you could always see the outline of the facets--it never just disappeared from the side But, H was too tainted for my eye, so I would prefer an F or G myself. but then again, I have several times looked at her E and wondered..."is it a little yellow?" and taken it to various lighting and backgrounds to ease my mind (before I gave it to her) so I can imagine that in truth, if I were a woman getting an Ering, I might want D myself. I am glad I don't have to decide about Erings for a while...

but, lets get a budget and start talking mm size instead of theoretical gibberish. I haven't been making any friends as things are I am afraid...

 

[Beacon]

Another consideration is how you will set the stone. If you are doing a solitaire you will certainly see that .10 pt difference. If you are doing something that has a lot of other stones, like a halo or lots of pave or three stone then the difference will be harder to see I think.

Color, D is nice but E is just as nice and you will not see a difference. I have one of each and they basically look the same to me and I look pretty closely!! But if you like the *idea* of having a D color stone, go for it. I do really like mine, but would not hesitate to go to E or F if I liked the other characteristics of the stone.

 

[Fly Girl]

Date: 9/24/2007 8:14:19 PM
Author: Beacon
Color, D is nice but E is just as nice and you will not see a difference. I have one of each and they basically look the same to me and I look pretty closely!! But if you like the *idea* of having a D color stone, go for it. I do really like mine, but would not hesitate to go to E or F if I liked the other characteristics of the stone.

I ended up getting an F rather than a D after reading that all it takes to change a D to an F is one big ole thumbprint on the table. I don''t know if it is true (this was pre-PS, you know, so no experts to ask). I imagine that straight out of the ultrasonic, it looks like a D, but by the end of the day it will be somewhat less. Of course, it helped that then I could afford the F in the size I wanted.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 9/24/2007 7:47:10 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards
To alj:


and to Ald:

I appreciate your feedback about my statements regarding data. I have looked at alot of these ct weight stones and the impression I had gotten from my searching was that in general (of course there are exceptions) as you increase from .60-.69 the per point price increase is less substantial than the per point price increase from .70-.79.

Right or wrong that was the impression that I got from hours of searching


So I took a moment to hunt down some stones. first I looked PS, they don''t have enough options listed. then I headed to blue nile who was bound to have some examples:


''Here we go again......you continue to make rash generalizations that seem completely unsupported by DATA.

ME==the price difference between .70 and .74 can be very significant. However, the price difference between .60 and .63 is often negligible.

Not so. The price breaks are typically .60-.69, and .70-.79. This means the price per carat for a .71 stone would be the same for a .74 stone, all other factors being equal.''



I can''t very well look at all of the diamonds out there. but here are some examples of what I meant:



All of the following are AGS0 DQD G SI1, in order from .60,.62,.70,.72:

1673

1726

A difference of 53 dollars. or an increase of about 3%

2553

2,795

A difference of 242 dollars. or an increase of about 9.5%

Here is the first example I looked for. They are also the CHEAPEST options in there respective categories. I organized by cut/color/clarity/ct weight, searched by price and picked the cheapest DQD AGS0 available. The only difference in the four C''s is .02cts and the monetary value rate of change in the .70ct range is nearly 5times greater than the same rate of change in the 60point range. 5 times greater is pretty significant.


One more example, the cheapest available H VS2 AGS0 DQD in order .60ct,.62ct,.70ct,.72ct:

1682

1735

a difference of 52 dollars an increase of about 3%
I understand this one has a DQD as well: 2,649

2,758

a difference of 109 dollars. or an increase of about 4%

Not as significant this time, but still 2 times more difference in the monetary value rate of change and consistently higher % rate of change.

Thus, my conclusion was not just some random abitrary statement totally unfounded on facts. It wasn''t based on a scientific analysis of reliable data either. It was based on my observations as a consumer. There are some examples that violate this principle, but from what I have seen it generally holds true that 70pointers increase in value more rapidly than 60pointers, and it makes logical sense as you approach and surpass the magic .75ct weight.



''ME==She is unlikely to select a diamond at EXACTLY .60 as MANY of the options run from .61-.64. But she is not likely to select a diamond at EXACTLY .70X.

Again, you are making assertions with absolutely no supporting data. Going to just ONE source, I can find 169 diamonds weighing exactly .60, and I can find 460 diamonds weighing exactly .70.''

This is exactly what I meant. Do you realize that you found nearly 3 times as many .70cts as you did .60 cts? why do you think that is? there are alot more options available in the .70ct range, especially amongst ideal diamonds.

As my own examples, I will now go to Blue Nile and do a search:

Of all .70 ct options:

they have 1,174

limit that to Ideal cuts:

they have 474

limit that to G+ SI1+ with ideal polish and symmetry:

202
__________

Now lets look at .60

total results:

270

Ideal cuts:

177

G+ SI+ ideal polish and symmetry:

78

That would be 78 VS 202. Thats alot more options in the 70pointers and therefore it is much more likely to meet her particular color/clarity/depth percentage/table size/ca/pa/lgf/stars/budget demands etc.

Thus, combine the general trends of 60pointers to increase less in value per point than 70pointers do with significantly more options in the 70point range than in the 60 point range, and then throw budget constraints on top of that it seems to me it would be much more likely that if she aims for .70cts she would be more likely to get exactly .70cts, and if she aimed for .60 cts she would probably end up with something over .60 cts, thus my statements and the comparison between .63 and .70. Anyway, that was pretty fun, but I am tired now and none of this is really important. Once we start talking about particular diamond all of this goes out the window like some gum on a long trip.

Seriously. . . am I missing something here? What is the point to all this?

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Honey22 - if you're looking for the best you can get and are willing to pay extra for a D color, high clarity diamond, then I would shell out the bucks and get the largest stone you can afford! I agree with you that 1 ct is a bit much, but personally, I love diamonds in the .70 range. But, then again, it depends upon finger size

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 9/24/2007 6:48:17 PM
Author: honey22
hi diamondseeker2006 - I know that I won''t be able to tell AT ALL between D and E but I will know in my mind and I am just kinda neurotic and it will bother me, I am ashamed to say! I will look at it and convince myself I should have gone D cause it would be whiter! I know I am mad. That said, I wouldn''t go VVS cause you couldn''t see the difference - go figure! So, all in all, I will aim for the biggest mm in D VS range (AGS000 of course!), and actually I don''t think I would want to go bigger cause even a 1ct to me is starting to look too big (I can hear gasps of horror from PSers! hehehehe!). Although I should mention that I am developing PS-itis - a disorder which is directly related to the time spend browsing on this website and results in looking for much larger diamonds than originally looking for! Thanks everyone!

Honey, I understand mind-clean, believe me! I wanted VS1 for my ring diamond and I didn''t compromise! So if you want D VS, I totally understand. I would encourage you to go as big as you can, though, because you are correct that PS-itis causes diamonds to shrink, really! Although, I highly recommend going with a vendor who allows upgrades, just in case!