shape
carat
color
clarity

Would you rather? Size vs. Color

Size or color?


  • Total voters
    87

KalebK

Rough_Rock
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
25
I purchased one of these (I won't say which as to not skew the responses) and have recently seen the other become available. I'm having second thoughts about my decision.

Assuming both diamonds have:
-Perfect cut
-VS2 clarity
-Round modern brilliant
-Yellow gold solitaire setting with 6 tulip prongs (Brilliant Earth Caliana)
-Same price

a. 1.74 ct round in J color
b. 1.69 ct round in I color

Thank you!
 

JPie

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
3,895
For me, it would depend on whether I can see the difference in color & size.
 

bludiva

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 23, 2017
Messages
3,076
for me i'd go with the one that struck my eyes as more beautiful (and it's probably some complex combination of factors brings you to that conclusion - not just color but undertone, size of arrows, height of crown, etc.) iow, .i don't think 05 in size or 1 color grade would be enough on its own to tip me one way or another.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791
How are we defining "perfect" cut?

Even within ideal proportions you can swing a stone with a large table and shallow crown that will be larger for its size. Consequently compared against another ideal stone with small table and steep crown it may have a larger spread, even if the small table stone has a minimal amount of extra carat weight.

As all the proportions change, so does the depth. To obtain carat weight you have to consider part of that weight is lost/consumed in depth.

Effectively, carat weight is a horrible way to measure size. For instance I bought my wife a 0.867 stone that measures larger than most 0.90 stones. The stone is a BGD H&A AGS000.

I doubt 0.05 carats will affect spread enough to make a noticeable difference to the naked eye.

You might actually notice a color difference, although most people struggle to see variance in a single color grade. However, the lower you go down the color scale the more variance you can get. So if you are comparing a high I (almost H) to a low J (almost K) then it could be noticeable.

Or you could live with eagle eyes who can spot the variance in D&E colors. Women typically have better color acuity than men. Others may be blind as a bat.

This is where it pays to know the preferences of the receiver of the stone.
 

Pimberly

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
65
In the case, I’d go with the higher color since the size difference is so small.
 

OcnGypZ

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
387
Higher color in this case. However, my first requirement for comparing any stones is CUT.
 

headlight

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 2, 2003
Messages
3,288
I immediately voted for color over the minimal size (as everyone here knows I am very color sensitive and have become quite annoyingly so, I must admit!). However, if you think it will be more important to you to be able to say the ring is "one and three quarter carats" and know it basically is, then that may be more important to you. But, as has been pointed out here, the lower carat stone may actually face up larger (due to a variety of variables that can make it so). So, as was explained above, the smaller stone could look more like a 1.75-ct. and the larger one could face-up smaller. With all that said, I still say go I vs J as I think there is a difference. If you have photos we probably could give you even better input.
 

Swirl68

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 22, 2018
Messages
187
Are these GIA graded stones? If not, it might be worth going with the smaller I. You might see a noticeable difference in tint.
 

lovedogs

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
17,906
.05 won't be noticible. There's no way .05ct is .2 mm. I think we need exact numbers to make sure these are actually both equally well cut, etc.
 

KalebK

Rough_Rock
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
25
Thank you for your responses. I mentioned "perfect cut" in my original question because the cuts are both perfect to me and my eye, it's more a question of size vs color.

I know people on here can distinguish between a 35-40.7 crown/pavilion and a 34.5-40.8 crown/pavilion, but I cannot. The table size differences to me aren't a big deal. Really a question of color vs size and I value your input!

Both face up very white, and the side angle is /will be dominated by the yellow gold setting. BE1D1FB1_round_yellow_side.jpg

1.74 ct
J color
VS2
1.4 HCA
58.5 table
7.71x7.76x4.72
61.1 depth
35 crown
40.7 pavilion
no fluorescence

1.69 ct
I color
VS2
1.1 HCA
56 table
7.69x7.66x4.73
61.6 depth
34.5 crown
40.8 pavilion
no fluorescence
No fluorescence
 

tyty333

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
27,170
The size difference isn't great enough to be worth dropping a color grade (and I own a couple of Js).
 

lovedogs

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
17,906
The size difference isn't great enough to be worth dropping a color grade (and I own a couple of Js).
Exactly. It will be an invisible difference, so unless there's a huge price difference, I would get the I color.
 

Matthews1127

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 7, 2017
Messages
5,207
The size difference is less than 1.0mm. Therefore, I’d go with the one stone that attracted my eye most. I v J would have to be considerable to the naked eye for me to really choose. As long as the cut was excellent, and it performed to my liking, that’s what would matter most to me.
There just aren’t enough visible differences in size or color for them to be factors in my decision-making process.
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
33,852
I'll take the I color stone.
 

cflutist

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Messages
4,052
Thank you for your responses. I mentioned "perfect cut" in my original question because the cuts are both perfect to me and my eye, it's more a question of size vs color.

I know people on here can distinguish between a 35-40.7 crown/pavilion and a 34.5-40.8 crown/pavilion, but I cannot. The table size differences to me aren't a big deal. Really a question of color vs size and I value your input!

Both face up very white, and the side angle is /will be dominated by the yellow gold setting. BE1D1FB1_round_yellow_side.jpg

1.74 ct
J color
VS2
1.4 HCA
58.5 table
7.71x7.76x4.72
61.1 depth
35 crown
40.7 pavilion
no fluorescence

1.69 ct
I color
VS2
1.1 HCA
56 table
7.69x7.66x4.73
61.6 depth
34.5 crown
40.8 pavilion
no fluorescence
No fluorescence

Pretty setting. Any particular reason why you don't want to make the ring with a white metal head?
If not, you could go down to a K color and get a larger stone.
Of the two, I prefer the I color over the J though.
 

KalebK

Rough_Rock
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
25
Pretty setting. Any particular reason why you don't want to make the ring with a white metal head?
If not, you could go down to a K color and get a larger stone.
Of the two, I prefer the I color over the J though.
My girlfriend prefers yellow gold. I read that a K color would work and got a J to be safe, but then saw the I come available and had second thoughts.

I think in everyday life the difference between these two stones will be hard to notice without specifically looking for it, but I have learned to enjoy focussing on the details here!
 

KalebK

Rough_Rock
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
25
Pretty setting. Any particular reason why you don't want to make the ring with a white metal head?
If not, you could go down to a K color and get a larger stone.
Of the two, I prefer the I color over the J though.
Also, thank you! My favorite part of the setting is the face up view. BE1D1FB1_Caliana_Round_yellow_carat_75.jpg
 

WinkHPD

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 3, 2001
Messages
7,516
Not commenting on any of the responses, just observing that consumer and ‘trade’ can have different perceptions. In this case, the slightly smaller weight should not make the J the same price as the I. But lately, the trade is treating the 1.70-mark as a step up in size, leading to a premium-price for 1.70 up. This is not necessarily meaningful for the consumer. But the trade, as in the bigger cutting-houses treat sizes like that, and it reflects in consumer-pricing.

Wink
 

bludiva

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 23, 2017
Messages
3,076
Not commenting on any of the responses, just observing that consumer and ‘trade’ can have different perceptions. In this case, the slightly smaller weight should not make the J the same price as the I. But lately, the trade is treating the 1.70-mark as a step up in size, leading to a premium-price for 1.70 up. This is not necessarily meaningful for the consumer. But the trade, as in the bigger cutting-houses treat sizes like that, and it reflects in consumer-pricing.

Wink

That's so interesting. I thought the breakpoints were at the whole and half carat, now we need to look for just under the tenth too...! Is this new phenomenon at the 1.7 mark specifically (like everyone wants close to 2ct these days?) or also 2.7, 3.7, etc.?
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791
That's so interesting. I thought the breakpoints were at the whole and half carat, now we need to look for just under the tenth too...! Is this new phenomenon at the 1.7 mark specifically (like everyone wants close to 2ct these days?) or also 2.7, 3.7, etc.?

Honestly, I think @Wink simplified his response. He would be the expert being in the trade, but I foresee these "breakpoints" being more like a sliding scale.

For simplicity, let's pretend a 1.5 carat stone is $1,000 per carat, or $1,500 total. Bad example already, every one will want to buy one, lol. And it should really be known without saying it, but all percentages, breakpoints, etc are fictional and for talk points only. ;)2

Anyhow, at 1.5 carat, the price would be zero premium or $1,000/carat and $1,500 total. Now for 1.6 carat the price crawls up 3%, or $1,030/carat now making a 1.6 stone $1,648 resulting in a $48 premium.

At the 1.7 carat mark you begin to see a more significant price premium at 9%, so now $1,090/carat or $1,853 total. A net result of $153 premium for .20 carats over the 1.5 benchmark.

Lastly, let's assume there is a big price premium of 25% for 1.75-1.80 carats. This pushes pricing to $1,250/carat or $2,187.50 for a 1.75 stone, resulting in a $437.50 price premium for hitting a "magic weight".

I think @Wink and I are both saying the 1.74 should demand more per carat for identical properties, it's just a matter at what rate that particular vendor is taking their price premium for size increase and what actual % increase is involved.

Ignoring any preferences on cut quality -- spread difference is so minimal.

7.76 - 7.69 = 0.07mm
7.71 - 7.66 = 0.05mm

We're talking 1/512th of an inch! Short version is you aren't seeing a difference w/ the naked eye. Below is a ZOOMED in image of 0.05mm.

https://www.stefanelli.eng.br/en/virtual-vernier-caliper-simulator-05-millimeter/#swiffycontainer_2

Capture.PNG
 

Matthews1127

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 7, 2017
Messages
5,207
Honestly, I think @Wink simplified his response. He would be the expert being in the trade, but I foresee these "breakpoints" being more like a sliding scale.

For simplicity, let's pretend a 1.5 carat stone is $1,000 per carat, or $1,500 total. Bad example already, every one will want to buy one, lol. And it should really be known without saying it, but all percentages, breakpoints, etc are fictional and for talk points only. ;)2

Anyhow, at 1.5 carat, the price would be zero premium or $1,000/carat and $1,500 total. Now for 1.6 carat the price crawls up 3%, or $1,030/carat now making a 1.6 stone $1,648 resulting in a $48 premium.

At the 1.7 carat mark you begin to see a more significant price premium at 9%, so now $1,090/carat or $1,853 total. A net result of $153 premium for .20 carats over the 1.5 benchmark.

Lastly, let's assume there is a big price premium of 25% for 1.75-1.80 carats. This pushes pricing to $1,250/carat or $2,187.50 for a 1.75 stone, resulting in a $437.50 price premium for hitting a "magic weight".

I think @Wink and I are both saying the 1.74 should demand more per carat for identical properties, it's just a matter at what rate that particular vendor is taking their price premium for size increase and what actual % increase is involved.

Ignoring any preferences on cut quality -- spread difference is so minimal.

7.76 - 7.69 = 0.07mm
7.71 - 7.66 = 0.05mm

We're talking 1/512th of an inch! Short version is you aren't seeing a difference w/ the naked eye. Below is a ZOOMED in image of 0.05mm.

https://www.stefanelli.eng.br/en/virtual-vernier-caliper-simulator-05-millimeter/#swiffycontainer_2

Capture.PNG

Exactly. Which is why I would let me eyes decide, based solely on performance, in this case.
 

WinkHPD

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
May 3, 2001
Messages
7,516
Honestly, I think @Wink simplified his response. He would be the expert being in the trade, but I foresee these "breakpoints" being more like a sliding scale.

For simplicity, let's pretend a 1.5 carat stone is $1,000 per carat, or $1,500 total. Bad example already, every one will want to buy one, lol. And it should really be known without saying it, but all percentages, breakpoints, etc are fictional and for talk points only. ;)2

Anyhow, at 1.5 carat, the price would be zero premium or $1,000/carat and $1,500 total. Now for 1.6 carat the price crawls up 3%, or $1,030/carat now making a 1.6 stone $1,648 resulting in a $48 premium.

At the 1.7 carat mark you begin to see a more significant price premium at 9%, so now $1,090/carat or $1,853 total. A net result of $153 premium for .20 carats over the 1.5 benchmark.

Lastly, let's assume there is a big price premium of 25% for 1.75-1.80 carats. This pushes pricing to $1,250/carat or $2,187.50 for a 1.75 stone, resulting in a $437.50 price premium for hitting a "magic weight".

I think @Wink and I are both saying the 1.74 should demand more per carat for identical properties, it's just a matter at what rate that particular vendor is taking their price premium for size increase and what actual % increase is involved.

Ignoring any preferences on cut quality -- spread difference is so minimal.

7.76 - 7.69 = 0.07mm
7.71 - 7.66 = 0.05mm

We're talking 1/512th of an inch! Short version is you aren't seeing a difference w/ the naked eye. Below is a ZOOMED in image of 0.05mm.

https://www.stefanelli.eng.br/en/virtual-vernier-caliper-simulator-05-millimeter/#swiffycontainer_2

Capture.PNG

Dear Sledge,

I am going to respectfully disagree with you on some details.

Diamond traders do not think in sliding scales.

Heck, diamond traders do not even think in dollars. They think in percentages compared to a number dictated by Rapaport for that size category, color and clarity. In working with these size categories, they work with intermediate brackets like the one for 1.70 cts.

The result is painfully clear. Try to find diamonds between 1.50 and 1.69 with a decent combination of angles which will lead to a low HCA. They can be found, but not in large numbers. In comparison, try to see how many "just 1.70s" there are with GIA Excellent cut grades, most of which have relatively high HCA grades to go with the GIA Ex grades. Strangely enough, far more than you would see if cutters cared about cutting for beauty instead of maximizing profits.

If you have excess time on your hands, you can do the same exercise with the 1.20 ct size category and the 2.50 ct category. :wall:

Wink
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
53,899
I would look at both stones independently of their certs and see which one (if either) made my heart go pitter patter. Which one is more beautiful in your eyes? That's how I would make this decision.
 

Diamond_Hawk

Brilliant_Rock
Trade
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
1,229
How are we defining "perfect" cut?

Even within ideal proportions you can swing a stone with a large table and shallow crown that will be larger for its size. Consequently compared against another ideal stone with small table and steep crown it may have a larger spread, even if the small table stone has a minimal amount of extra carat weight.

As all the proportions change, so does the depth. To obtain carat weight you have to consider part of that weight is lost/consumed in depth.

^^This.

The cut parameters tell you far less than reflector images and the in-life viewing where the nuances of personality in the diamond are visible.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top