.126 to the eye

[kcwade33]

This may sound like a dumb question but how much difference to the naked eye is .126 of a carat. I''m comparing diamonds and don''t know if this is a significant size increase. I''m looking to spend around $6,000 for everything for a ring set in 6 prong platinum. Any suggestions? The increase is about $615 over my budget for the bigger diamond and they are both the same color and clarity.

I''ve driven myself nuts with this stuff and I couldn''t believe what a stand alone store offers. What a scam! The way they push colorless I2''s is unbelievable. Thank goodness for this site and the small amount that I have learned.

 

[Mara]

It depends on the *size* of the stones...aka a .126 mm diff could be big if it''s a .50c stone and a .65c stone or something like that. But will you see that same diff in a 2c to a 2.15c? Probably not since the overall mm is larger and your eye will pick up small changes less.

 

[valeria101]

posting in the same time with Mara ! the same thing

From 2 cts to 2.126 - no difference

From .1 to .226 allot

It is easier to talk about actual size (diameter or area) than weight...

 

[Mara]

oooh that''s funny Val!!!

 

[kcwade33]

Ok..Thanks for the info..These are both right over a 1ct a piece....

Smaller diamond.......6.65-6.66x4.02

Larger diamond........6.88-6.91x4.16

 

[blueroses]

Me three--the diff. in spread is far more significant (in comparing "size-wise") than the diff. in carat weight....do you have those specs?

 

[blueroses]

Well, other specs not withstanding, the "bigger" diamond really is the bigger diamond!!! Do you have any of the CUT information about these stones?

 

[Mara]

Hmm so one averages 6.65 and one is 6.90m.. That is a .25mm difference which is how you should look at it rather than carat weight.

To me in that size it will be definitely noticeable.

When we were looking, we saw a 7mm and a 7.15mm side by side and the 7.15mm looked bigger every time, even on the hand when the stones were not together.

IMO I would pay the $600 more to get the bigger stone ASSUMING all other things are the same, aka both are well-cut.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 6/8/2005 4:11:17 PM
Author: kcwade33
Ok..Thanks for the info..These are both right over a 1ct a piece....

Smaller diamond.......6.65-6.66x4.02

Larger diamond........6.88-6.91x4.16

6.9 versus 6.6mm

Oh well, side by side there will be some difference, but once set, I don''t think it would matter very much.

There have been two attempted upgrades for about this much (.2-.3mm diameter): Mara went through with it, someone else (can''t remember right now for anything !) considered the size difference too small to bother.

IMO, stay withing budget !

 

[hoorray]

Maybe size isn''t the best way to choose between these two. Post the specs (especially the cut info) and see if there is going to be a difference in performance.

BTW...I read somewhere early on here that a good rule of thumb is that .1mm or more will be visible to the eye. This is .25mm, so it will be visible. Now you have to decide how important that is to you.

 

[velouriaL]

Go with the one with the better cut, and go with the one that REALLY does it for you.

That being said, can $615 go in a more significant way toward the setting, w-band, wedding, or honeymoon?

That''s .3mm, but it''s also a plane ticket (or two!) or 10 people added to the guest list at $61.50 per plate...

 

[kcwade33]

Great views all around..Thank you very much..I will post the specs on both and see which one wins.

Hoping they don''t get snatched up like the others I''ve liked and posted here...

Smaller Diamond...

AGS
Shape: A Cut Above H&A
Carat: 1.061
Color: J
Clarity: VS2
Depth: 60.5
Table: 56
Crown Angle: 34.8
Crown %: 15.2
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion %: 43
Girdle: 0.9% to 1.4%
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 6.65-6.66X4.02

Larger diamond...

Report: AGS
Shape: A Cut Above H&A
Carat: 1.187
Color: J
Clarity: VS2
Depth: 60.4
Table: 56
Crown Angle: 34.8
Crown %: 15.2
Pavilion Angle: 40.7
Pavilion %: 42.9
Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 6.88-6.91X4.16

 

[MissAva]

I would say that they look nearly indentical, go for the smaller stone. Or if size is vital to you you could call and ask them about eye-clean SI1s. Just my .02

 

[hoorray]

They both are sure to be beautiful, so I think you have to make the tradeoff between slightly larger versus the $6xx. No one else can make that trade off for you.

 

[blueroses]

What about an eye-clean I SI1?

Just a thought....there ARE beautiful "J"s out there that sparkle like made and face up white, I just thought I''d throw that combo out there since you mentioned clarity...

 

[Mara]

both of those look fab...

This would be my choice if it was eye-clean...the IS sure looks nice:

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=GIA-14058584#

I have a 1.60 J SI2 that I adore, it''s a great way to get more size.

 

[kcwade33]

Mara, what are your thoughts on the IS''s above?

 

[carrot]

Size differences begin to become apparent when one stone is approximately 20% larger than the other. A size difference of 0.126 ct. will be obvious in half carat diamonds, but will drift from negligible to invisible as stones increase in size above one carat.

 

[Mara]

kc I think they both look fab!!

recently I upgraded my 1.29c 7.1mm stone to a 1.60c 7.6mm stone. The diff was only .31c and was .40mm but it was NOTICEABLY larger to everyone who saw it...I have pictures in Show me the Ring where I think Val compared the two. Definitely a difference. And it was less than 20%.

 

[Dancing Fire]

kc33
stone #1- i like the black "even size" watermelon seeds all along the arrow shafts but,looks like the new line ACA?.


stone #2-i like this original style ACA with white leakage along the edge of the stone but, seems like the" black seeds" are different size.

i know,picky,picky.

both are very nice stones.

 

[carrot]

SuperAdBlocker_DIV_Elements="7" SuperAdBlocker_OnMove_Hooked="0" SuperAdBlocker_OnMouseEnter_Hooked="0" SuperAdBlocker_DIV_FirstLook="0">Date: 6/8/2005 10:05:29 PM
Author: Mara
kc I think they both look fab!!

recently I upgraded my 1.29c 7.1mm stone to a 1.60c 7.6mm stone. The diff was only .31c and was .40mm but it was NOTICEABLY larger to everyone who saw it...I have pictures in Show me the Ring where I think Val compared the two. Definitely a difference. And it was less than 20%.

Mara, a 1.60 ct. stone is 24% larger than a 1.29 ct. stone. A difference of 20% is noticable, a difference greater than 20% is more noticable.

 

[kcwade33]

So there is nothing wrong with the white leakage on the outer edges because of the ACA style????

Only criteria: face up white, sparkle like a firecracker, decent size over a 1 ct.

 

[belle]

Date: 6/9/2005 9:18:16 AM
Author: kcwade33
So there is nothing wrong with the white leakage on the outer edges because of the ACA style????

hey kcwade,
did you read through this yet? it might help answer your question regarding aca cutting styles.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Top stone has 8* type painted upper girdles - some experts preffer that look.
Second has normal appearance.

Both are exceptional