2.567 vs 2.91ct Ring, Opinions?

[nk416-diamond]

Hey all...

Quick quesiton for those with experience. Would the difference between at 2.567ct and 2.91ct round brilliant stone be very noticeable?

I am looking at two stones to be set in a tiffany knife edge. The 2.567 is H color, the 2.91ct is I color. Both are AGS 0 Ideal Cut with visible hearts and arrows.

The 2.9ct diamond is quite a bit more money. I'm wondering if day to day the large stone will be really that much more noticeable, or if the 2.567 will also look very "large" and have the "wow" factor (and will also save me a bundle).

Many thanks!

 

[athenaworth]

What's your finger size? I have a 2.5 and it is very substantial. I think that another almost half carat is pretty significant, but for the amount of money, MY money is on the 2.5

 

[nk416-diamond]

Ring size is 5.25

 

[yssie]

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/mm-to-carat-stone-conversion-chart.17578/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/mm-to-carat-stone-conversion-chart.17578/[/URL]

That will be a visible & significant spread difference IMO - but as athena says, whether or not it's worth it is up to you. I will say that if you set it in white metal you will most likely notice the tint in an I of that size from the pavilion, if that influences your decision one way or the other.

 

[Asscherhalo_lover]

I would rather have the 2.5 and spend the money difference on a fine setting. I also don't think I would be comfortable with a 3ct round stone, a little to big for me. It just comes down to your personal preference though.

Just try to share pics when you make your choice!

 

[slg47]

to me, the 2.5 would definitely have the WOW factor. perhaps you can go to a B&M store and try on 2.5 and 3 ct rings to see what size you prefer?

 

[blueiris]

I had a 2.90 round and then changed it to a 2.50 round, and yes, there was a difference (less than half a millimeter, though). I could see the difference and so could my husband but neither of us was bothered by it. I don't have photos of the 2.50 on my finger yet so I can't show you the difference in photos but maybe tomorrow the weather will cooperate and I can try to take photos of it on my hand.

I changed the stone to get higher color & clarity so obviously that mattered more to me than the size. Personally, I'd rather have an H 2.5 than an I 2.9. A 2.50 stone does still have the "wow!" factor, IMO! I love mine, and it's plenty big. For reference, my finger is a little under size 6 (maybe 5.75).

 

[LGK]

IMO, once a stone is past the 2 carat mark it's harder to see a size increase because the stone is already so large. And it's harder for others to judge the size of larger stones when they're worn, too. I mean, I think yes, the size change is eye-visible. Just not nearly as much as .40 carats would be in a 1ct vs a 1.4ct for example.

Unless the 2.9 really speaks to you I would get the 2.5.

However, an upgrade policy would be nice, and if there isn't one maybe that would sway me to get the 2.9 ct from the get-go. But a 2.5 carat stone is plenty huge!

 

[calibali]

I'll be the dissenting voice here and say that personally, I would go with the 2.9ct. I have a 2.66ct H and it is plenty white for me, but I've had a few regrets about not going bigger. I don't know if you intend to ever upgrade, so that might influence you, but I know that I plan on keeping my stone forever and I feel I made the wrong choice by not going for 3ct+.

I think you just have to decide whether the higher color or the larger size will make you happier over the long term. Also, as Yssie pointed out, if the tint is visible in the I, you have to be willing to embrace it. Good luck with your choice and please post what you decide!