Is there a visual difference between this 1.29 & a 1.48?

[genette]

The measurements for the 1.29 are: Width: 7.05mm Length: 7.09mm Depth: 4.28mm
The measuremetns for the 1.48 are: Width: 7.30mm Length: 7.33mm Depth: 4.53mm

 

[strmrdr]

Not enough info on the cut other than to comment on size.
Side by side its very visible by itself not as much so but likely visible.
If the smaller stone were the better cut it could very well look bigger than the other.

 

[pricescope]

Fashionsweetie. there is a slight difference. These images should be scaled to your dimentions in mm

7.05mm x 7.09mm vs 7.30mm x 7.33mm

vs

HTML code:
style="WIDTH: 7.05mm; HEIGHT: 7.09mm" src=http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/files/round_table58_resize01.gif align=absMiddle> vs src=http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/files/round_table58_resize01.gif align=absMiddle>

Original image:

 

[appletini]

You won''t see a difference. When I got my 1.32, I compared it next to a 1.6ct and could not see a difference at all.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Scroll down this page (page 2) of my thread and you''ll see a comparison of a 1.37 (7.2mm) and a 1.63 (7.6mm):

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/two-possibilities-photos-included.47644/page-2

 

[Mara]

I think you will see a visual difference between a 7.05mm and a 7.30mm stone in terms of diameter, assuming both their cuts are excellent with great light return. That''s .25mm which is a fair amount.

When we were comparing stones originally many moons ago we saw a 7mm stone against a 7.15mm stone and the size difference was apparent to both of us. BUT that was side by side comparison. That is not daily typical viewing since you don''t wear two stones side by side on a hand.

But if you are asking if a 7.30mm stone will look bigger in general than a 7.05mm stone, I think so but only if you are looking for it.